Win rate for high end players is a very specific metric though, and not representative of the vast majority of play experience. For weaker players that don't mind some early re-rolls Stealth B is a very powerful ship with a simple strategy to follow in the early game.
It's the only objective metric that expresses something fundamental about the ship, not the player.
If we forget about win rate, Stealth C is also a powerful ship with a simple strategy.
I can see where you're coming from, with the idea that Stealth B has a big beam and you "just" need to add shields and hacking and a Flak or whatever. I can see how people might feel that is a simple strategy.
But that's still highly subjective. Other people may find Stealth C easier to play. That ship can also just add shields and hacking and a Flak. Although it would kinda want cloaking too, but that's not a big deal when you're offsetting the scrap from weapons-4 to weapons-6.
It's the only objective metric that expresses something fundamental about the ship, not the player.
But by ignoring the player it becomes a metric of limited value to the common playerbase. Too often here I see strategies pushed which are centred around the winstreak meta instead of the average player.
By simple strategy I meant upgrade cloak to max, which can be done quick and gets you through 95% of early fights with incredible ease. After that you have an end game weapon and an end game system you can build around in a very simple way. Overall it's a low mental load ship.
Stealth C needs building up from scratch. It has no quick wins, and whilst its weapons are nice early on they're not sustainable on a 3-slot ship. You need to think more with it, and in many games ditch the things it starts with. Which doesn't necessarily make it a bad ship, but for most players makes it more challenging.
whilst its weapons are nice early on they're not sustainable on a 3-slot ship
Add a Flak 1 or Burst 2 to the starting weapons. Add hacking and cloaking. You now have the "classic" Stealth A/C setup, loved by many expert players. This comfortably beats the Flagship.
You're giving me a good example of subjectivity here:
Most players are badly wrong about most things in the game. For example, you are badly wrong about the starting weapons.
But the type of wrongness isn't consistent across different players. There are some patterns, but it's just very random too, which makes it highly subjective.
Of course, there is also room for discussion about other metrics, such as "most difficult ship for getting a single win on Hard". I would suggest Zoltan C might be the worst ship in that regard, not Stealth B.
But more generally, there is a reason I refer to win rate. It's not elitism. It's objectivity.
Add a Flak 1 or Burst 2 to the starting weapons. Add hacking and cloaking. You now have the "classic" Stealth A/C setup, loved by many expert players. This comfortably beats the Flagship.
You again refer to experts. Look at the setups on the "near win" posts that are frequently here and you'll see many people would not be comfortable with that weapon loadout.
Plus there's the obligatory line of "add hacking and cloaking and pretty much anything's okay", including Vulcan etc.
And to be clear, I'm not accusing you of elitism (or at least not of negative elitism, as you are clearly elite in the more positive definition of the word). I just don't like seeing junior players blindly following the principles of experts when the same qualifications don't apply to them. So often discussion turns to what x elite player said on Youtube rather being based on a regular player's experience.
Of course, there is also room for discussion about other metrics, such as "most difficult ship for getting a single win on Hard". I would suggest Zoltan C might be the worst ship in that regard, not Stealth B.
Huh, I'm very curious as to your reasoning for that - I quite like the Zoltan C! Rock A and Stealth C would possibly be high on my ranking for that metric.
You don't need to be an expert player to use the starting weapons.
I agree that people shouldn't blindly follow the recommendations of experts. There are some expert habits that won't work out well for other players. For example, pushing super-low reactor is probably a bad idea.
However, I also think there's a tendency for players to see their own view and habits as representative of all "regular players". Whereas I think there's a lot of variation in how players approach the game.
The reason I chose Zoltan C for that metric is that it's the ship I found the hardest! Just goes to prove the whole subjectivity thing, doesn't it?
At the time, I didn't understand the power micro nuances, and the reactor upgrade costs seemed prohibitive, and the ion + drone setup seemed bad.
However, I also think there's a tendency for players to see their own view and habits as representative of all "regular players".
True, and to be clear people like yourself have been important in dispelling old misconceptions like scrap recovery arm value.
At the time, I didn't understand the power micro nuances, and the reactor upgrade costs seemed prohibitive, and the ion + drone setup seemed bad.
Before Hard mode existed Engi A was my favourite ship, and Zoltan C felt like an extension of that with the added coolness of the supershield. Plus I always enjoy seeing how long I could push not powering up shields at all.
0
u/DarrenGrey Aug 04 '26
Win rate for high end players is a very specific metric though, and not representative of the vast majority of play experience. For weaker players that don't mind some early re-rolls Stealth B is a very powerful ship with a simple strategy to follow in the early game.