Just buff the strike fighter.

[dancezwithnubz]

Here's things we can't do:

 

1- Nerf scouts such that they can't kill turrets. Turrets are not a "job".

2- Take away weapons from anyone, or nerf them into uselessness. Yes, burst laser cannon is OP. It probably needs some nerfs. But we all bought it, right? Can't delete spent req or make it dead.

3- Pretend that strikes will "grow into" their role.

 

1: agreed.

3: agreed.

 

2: why not? refunding requisition spent wouldn't be hard, surely?

[Verain]

2: why not? refunding requisition spent wouldn't be hard, surely?

 

Not unless the refund was to fleet req. But even then, screw that noise. If you bought BLC, it's a reasonable assumption (not right in every case) that you like the shotgun playstyle. It should not be removed.

[Armonddd]

Not unless the refund was to fleet req. But even then, screw that noise. If you bought BLC, it's a reasonable assumption (not right in every case) that you like the shotgun playstyle. It should not be removed.

 

Absolutely this.

 

No reason whatsoever to refund any spent requisition, even this early in the game's life.

[dancezwithnubz]

Absolutely this.

 

No reason whatsoever to refund any spent requisition, even this early in the game's life.

 

if you're going to make balance changes that involve major changes to components, makes sense to do it sooner rather than later?

 

I think GSF has a HUGE amount of potential, I really do.

[Tenacity]

I still say:

 

1. Make distortion field's activated effect reduce the user's accuracy by the same amount as the evasion increase. This would make it purely a defensive ability instead of a god-mode switch you can turn on and blast everyone to bits through.

 

2. Give the starguard/rycer/enforcer/gladiator the option to equip burst laser cannons, and maybe even light laser cannons as well. Having two primary weapons is great, but having versatility there is essential. Quads are almost never used over heavies because they effectively fill the same role while the heavies are just simply better. Rapids just arent effective enough at close range, the burst and light lasers would be a better option there.

 

3. Directional shields need a complete rework, as-is they're useless compared to any other shield type. The reactive plating shield type is also less effective for strikes than quick-charge shields.

I'd say make directional shields have more base shield power, and they should -automatically- transfer your shield strength to weakened shield arcs, rather than having to manually switch between front/rear shields. If you're getting shot from behind, it puts more power to rear arcs, and vice versa.

For the reactive plating, I'd say it needs to offer a much greater increase in damage reduction, and needs more passive reduction too.

[Verain]

I still say:

 

1. Make distortion field's activated effect reduce the user's accuracy by the same amount as the evasion increase. This would make it purely a defensive ability instead of a god-mode switch you can turn on and blast everyone to bits through.

 

Disagree. Nothing about the shield implies that you can't shoot during it, and that seems silly anyway. The few powerful components I don't want to see nerfed to bits, as you would have- I want to see them tweaked and the weaker components upgraded. Would you like every shield to be like feedback shield, or every shield to be like distortion? Distortion adds a lot to gameplay. I think a longer cooldown on it would be adequate, but I also think that evasion in general is a bit undercosted. If the cost was changed- you got 6% from hull instead of 10%, and say you got 12% from distortion field instead of 15%- and if the cooldown was increased- then very minor fixes to the others would be required.

 

2. Give the starguard/rycer/enforcer/gladiator the option to equip burst laser cannons, and maybe even light laser cannons as well.

 

With the caveat that BLC needs a small nerf, I agree. The thing is, if you make a ship that is all about its guns, and its whole power is to switch guns, you shouldn't deny them the good and interesting guns. Burst Laser has downsides- it likely needs less damage, but whatever- and being able to swap from Burst Laser to say, Heavy Laser, would be a well received change. If they put all the power on BLC and then hand it to scouts... whyyyyy?

 

Having two primary weapons is great, but having versatility there is essential. Quads are almost never used over heavies because they effectively fill the same role while the heavies are just simply better. Rapids just arent effective enough at close range, the burst and light lasers would be a better option there.

 

I disagree with your base assumption here. Quads and heavies aren't really the same thing, esp at close range. Rapid Fire is probably a bit too weak. I think if you add burst and light and any other gun, that would be ideal for the ship that should have options in this spot- but you would also want to fix burst laser cannon's overly rewarding numbers.

 

3. Directional shields need a complete rework, as-is they're useless compared to any other shield type. The reactive plating shield type is also less effective for strikes than quick-charge shields.

 

Your first statement is wrong. They aren't useless. But they are weaker than they should be. Simply put, these shields should be stronger. Not just 10% stronger either! And their shield button needs to be immune to the disable effect of that emp thing as well. I would also like to see the delay shrunk on use- neutral to front is quite painful, and running around with default front is also ugh. These shields would also be nice on gunships, especially the crappy gunship (Demolisher/Strongarm/Comet Breaker/Dustmaker).

 

The automatic idea is pretty rough, and will make people very angry. I'd prefer to just make the manual switching better- it should reward good play, not mostly be noskill but then a turret hits you from behind and your hull eats a BLC crit from the front and you die.

 

For the reactive plating, I'd say it needs to offer a much greater increase in damage reduction, and needs more passive reduction too.

 

No. Absolutely not.

 

You can get over 95% while active, and you can get it to be active almost all the time- you only need to duck and hide like 7 seconds out of every 30, and you have plenty of warning. The active needs to be DRASTICALLY NERFED. This move needs to be redesigned. If they leave it as it is, they'll need to leave the 100% armor pen things in the game- slug railgun, heavy, burst. If these things lost their 100% armor pen, these dumb ships would be invincible juggernauts.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I still say:

 

1. Make distortion field's activated effect reduce the user's accuracy by the same amount as the evasion increase. This would make it purely a defensive ability instead of a god-mode switch you can turn on and blast everyone to bits through.

 

This I think is a good idea, it boggles the mind why scouts should be better at a turning dogfight, hit and run, and jousting (even when it's against ships that, in theory, have stronger defenses).

 

2. Give the starguard/rycer/enforcer/gladiator the option to equip burst laser cannons, and maybe even light laser cannons as well. Having two primary weapons is great, but having versatility there is essential. Quads are almost never used over heavies because they effectively fill the same role while the heavies are just simply better. Rapids just arent effective enough at close range, the burst and light lasers would be a better option there.

 

I'm all for that. Since they have two options for midrange combat (quads and heavies) they should get two options for close range.

 

3. Directional shields need a complete rework, as-is they're useless compared to any other shield type. The reactive plating shield type is also less effective for strikes than quick-charge shields.

I'd say make directional shields have more base shield power, and they should -automatically- transfer your shield strength to weakened shield arcs, rather than having to manually switch between front/rear shields. If you're getting shot from behind, it puts more power to rear arcs, and vice versa.

For the reactive plating, I'd say it needs to offer a much greater increase in damage reduction, and needs more passive reduction too.

 

Directional really needs to have the mechanic that switches power between arcs smoothed out, ideally give each power toggle a dedicated button rather than having to cycle through settings. I don't think having it automatically transfer shield power would be a good idea, if you're getting hit from multiple directions it could leave you vulnerable as it tries to rapidly transfer power between both arcs (which could be a very bad thing if one arc is being hit by a weapon like ions as automatically transferring could cause you to loose all your shielding).

 

The main fault of charged plating is having too much bleedthrough, it doesn't need more damage reduction. Whether the current nerf to shield penetration and buff to charged plating's bleedthrough is enough we have yet to see. Whether it has too good of an active ability I think will have to be seen based on how the incoming buffs/nerfs affect the component's overall usefulness.

 

That being said both strikers should get access to the armor component and reactor component so they can equally benefit from all the shield types they have access to.

[Kaivers]

FACT:

 

1. Passive Accuracy is not constant (range dependant)
    
   
2. Ion Cannon is the only weapon available to Type 1 Strikers that has the option to increase passive accuracy (Tier 1 Upgrade) and this accuracy is still skill dependant (range) meaning it is not constant.
    
   
3. Accuracy benefits from improvements to tracking, rate of fire and range are all skill dependant i.e. requires active involvement from player.
   

 

 

Questions:

1. The counter to Passive Accuracy is Passive Evasion (and vice versa) right?
    
   
2. The counter to improved tracking, rate of fire and range (Active Accuracy) are improved speed, acceleration and maneuverability (Active Evasion) right?
   

 

FACT:

1. Passive Evasion is constant
   
2. Scout Evasion Base Stat: +10% Passive evasion
   
3. Distortion Shield provides Scouts +15% Passive Evasion
   
4. Light weight armor provides Scouts +10% Passive Evasion
   
5. Response Tuning Companion provides +6% Passive Evasion
   

 

EDIT: With an Evasion stacking build Scouts get 41% Passive Evasion.

 

Question:

Since it can be concluded that "Passive" Accuracy is not constant (it actually requires active involvement from the player for these accuracy benefits to take effect) what is the counter to a Scouts constant 41% Passive Evasion?

Edited January 29, 2014 by Kaivers

[jcurri]

I seem to do fine in my Pike.

 

I don't play for huge numbers, I play for objectives - and my job in Domination is to soak up damage with my insane shield regen while taking shots at people attacking my teammates so that they can cap the satellite. Alternatively, I deny cap to the enemy team because it can take forever to take me down.

 

We really need to be waiting for other game modes in which the strike fighter might shine before we buff/nerf things - early access still!

 

With all due respect my burst lasers with bypass and weapon overcharge will 2 shot your ship with "insane shield regen". A fully upgraded flash fire is better than a pike in every way shape and form. The ONLY way a striker will have the upper hand on a tier 2 scout is if they are able to sit at range and lob Prots at them without them knowing where it's coming from, but even then with fully upgraded retros, that's usually a non-issue.

[Helig]

I would LOVE to have burst lasers on my starguard/enforcer.

Switching Ion/Burst /shudder. That'll be the new blaster overcharge.

[Ramalina]

2. Give the starguard/rycer/enforcer/gladiator the option to equip burst laser cannons, and maybe even light laser cannons as well. Having two primary weapons is great, but having versatility there is essential. Quads are almost never used over heavies because they effectively fill the same role while the heavies are just simply better. Rapids just arent effective enough at close range, the burst and light lasers would be a better option there.

 

3. Directional shields need a complete rework, as-is they're useless compared to any other shield type.

 

Burst cannons would be a nice option.

 

I think you underestimate quads though. At ranges of 4500 m or less quads become competitive with or superior to heavies due to their much higher rate of fire. It's a matter of how many shots you can get off at a target that's moving rapidly across your field of fire in a turning battle. I run a heavies + quads set-up and switching at the right range is very useful.

 

If you're ancient enough to have learned good shield management habits from the X-Wing series the only thing directional shields needs is three separate hotkeys for the Front, Split, and Rear settings. The problem is with being forced to lower shields in the arc you want to defend while cycling the settings. Solve that, and they work as intended, and potentially are the best shields available, provided you are practiced at operating them.

[Itkovian]

If you're ancient enough to have learned good shield management habits from the X-Wing series the only thing directional shields needs is three separate hotkeys for the Front, Split, and Rear settings. The problem is with being forced to lower shields in the arc you want to defend while cycling the settings. Solve that, and they work as intended, and potentially are the best shields available, provided you are practiced at operating them.

 

Better yet, just removed the GCD on the shield control. No need for additional commands then. Just like it was in X-wing: you can rebalance shields by triple tapping the shield button.

[Zharik]

With all due respect my burst lasers with bypass and weapon overcharge will 2 shot your ship with "insane shield regen". A fully upgraded flash fire is better than a pike in every way shape and form. The ONLY way a striker will have the upper hand on a tier 2 scout is if they are able to sit at range and lob Prots at them without them knowing where it's coming from, but even then with fully upgraded retros, that's usually a non-issue.

 

With all due respect... regen is only an issue if you survive the initial burst, obviously. Could we not assume that part has happened if we're talking about shield regen?

 

Oh yeah and get off your flashfire/sting high horse or feed the complainers that they need nerfed... This is a post about how to balance Strike Fighters, to which Pikes belong.

[HoloGrinder]

Because having increased power drain means so much when you can instagib people with linked quads and heaavies.

 

you'd still have to aim. I fly a sting and I think a good SF pilot could kill me quick with them linked but the average one would be all gassed out of power and flying slow and clumsy after missing me a lot and ultimately dead a few shots later. It would be something unique for SF's they don't have that right now. They are big, slow targets that do not out gun me in a jousting match especially if I pop my evasion, oc, and bypass not that I allow them to joust me often. Maybe if they stood a chance against gunships it would be a nerf the scout matter but they fail there too so they need this.

[Kaivers]

In all honesty, anything ION should do high shield damage minimal hull damage (depending on bleedthrough upgrades) and have no effect on systems.

 

EMP weapons should be the only thing that can have an effect on systems, doing average damage to shields, the lowest damage to hull and requiring bleedthrough upgrades to have a greater effect on systems.

 

This just makes sense to me and I think its why the DEVS are introducing EMP.

 

Edit: If I were them I would implement this to take the ION system failure effect away from type 1 gunships while letting them keep everything else they currently have at their disposal (barrel roll etc) including the love taps (scaled damage but no need for minimal charge). Then I would give the type 2 Gunship EMP missiles to make them more useful. If this is done I bet you will begin to see more people using Plasma Railguns.

 

Ion and Plasma/Thermite weapons should be polar opposites. They pretty much are when it comes to missiles but aren't when it comes to railguns. (Edit: Just realized that I am wrong about this because ION Missiles also short systems and they really shouldn't...as opposites both weapons should do DOT...Plasma already does to hull so Ion should have a DOT to shields)

 

EDIT 2: Slug should also have a shorter firing range. They are described as being "metal projectiles" which would lead one to believe that they are heavier than ion particles and plasma bolts.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Kaivers

[Altheran]

Edit: If I were them I would implement this to take the ION system failure effect away from type 1 gunships while letting them keep everything else they currently have at their disposal (barrel roll etc) including the love taps (scaled damage but no need for minimal charge). Then I would give the type 2 Gunship EMP missiles to make them more useful. If this is done I bet you will begin to see more people using Plasma Railguns.

 

Ion and Plasma/Thermite weapons should be polar opposites. They pretty much are when it comes to missiles but aren't when it comes to railguns.

 

EDIT 2: Slug should also have a shorter firing range. They are described as being "metal projectiles" which would lead one to believe that they are heavier than ion particles and plasma bolts.

In my opinion, I agree that Plasma rail should be the polar opposite of Ion Rail. But I also think the only thing Slug rail needs is to be tuned down to the level of concussive Missile in terms of damage.

And lastly I'd add that ion rail should not have AoE effect... Ion Missile, yes, but rail, no.

 

The reasoning is that Ion Rail should have its use of his own, and should not need all these energy crippling effect to be interesting. And that should be done by only allowing it to be real effective against shields.

It's not by doing 1800 damage instead of Slug's 1600 that Ion is interesting.

As an example, Ion cannons of the Strike Fighter deal around 50% damage to shields than any other of his cannons. Ion Rail only deals around 10% than Slug. It's a non-sense.

So what do we do ? Increase Ion shield damage ? No they can already melt nearly any shields in one shot, increasing the damage further doesn't make sense.

 

If we make a polar oppsite of it, then It will work between these two. We give that role to Plasma Rail.

 

Then what what to do with Slug ? If we look at its by-pass capacity, armor ignoring, we can see that Rail is quite a stand alone rail... is doesn't need much to be extremely effective. But we can also see that its capacities are much similar to Concussive missile... their activation are different, but they have both pros and cons... but the slug damage is much higher. This comparison and the fact that Slug should less interesting when hitting shields, tend to make me believe that the base damage of Concussive missile and slug rail should be similar. (I know it's a 33% damage nerf, but can you say you actually need any other secondary weapon when use slug ? When a weapon makes the use of any of the other components worthless, you can safely say that one is OP in regard to the others)

 

Now about the Ion rail's AoE... a Sniping attack that explodes ? Seriously ?

On the other hand Ion missile, like any good missile explodes on hit... but is unable to feat any AoE.

Again : "Seriously ?"

 

Side Note : I think we should find a more proper thread to speak about Rails.

 

---

 

Now about "Ions" in general, I agree that they should find some interesting ways to make them useful at what they're designed to : "make shields inefficient". Any effect on systems and enginge or weapons is a bit misplaced in my opinion.

 

I can imagine :

- Ion cannons : may instill a bleed through debuff to help people hitting the other side of shields, and counter high-regenerative shields.

- Ion Missile : may get the AoE effect with other QoL like shorter locking time, or increased range.

- Ion Rail : may be able to hit both sides of shields at the same time

Edited January 28, 2014 by Altheran

[Kaivers]

In my opinion, I agree that Plasma rail should be the polar opposite of Ion Rail. But I also think the only thing Slug rail needs is to be tuned down to the level of concussive Missile in terms of damage.

And lastly I'd add that ion rail should not have AoE effect... Ion Missile, yes, but rail, no.

 

Now about the Ion rail's AoE... a Sniping attack that explodes ? Seriously ?

On the other hand Ion missile, like any good missile explodes on hit... but is unable to feat any AoE.

Again : "Seriously ?"

 

Side Note : I think we should find a more proper thread to speak about Rails.

 

---

 

Now about "Ions" in general, I agree that they should find some interesting ways to make them useful at what they're designed to : "make shields inefficient". Any effect on systems and enginge or weapons is a bit misplaced in my opinion.

 

I can imagine :

- Ion cannons : may instill a bleed through debuff to help people hitting the other side of shields, and counter high-regenerative shields.

- Ion Missile : may get the AoE effect with other QoL like shorter locking time, or increased range.

- Ion Rail : may be able to hit both sides of shields at the same time

 

Most of these things are interrelated (Strikes have ION weapons) but I agree on taking this to another thread (I posted on PTS also) so this will be my last post about it on this thread because Strikes still need to be buffed .

 

To make Plasma more appealing I think the max range on Slug should be less than 15k. Otherwise players will still prefer to use Slug over Plasma in every situation. Slug at less than 15k means you have a weapon that on average does more damage to both shields and hull but requires more risk to use.

 

Ion missiles should definitely have AOE but ONLY to the shields of nearby ships. Ion rails shouldn't. I really don't understand why they gave Plasma weapons a DOT effect to both shields AND hull. The kinetic damage from the projectile/missile should do some damage to the shield but the DOT effect should only apply to the hull, similar to armor penetrating projectiles/missiles irl. Many times its best to just keep things simple.

[Ramalina]

In all honesty, anything ION should do high shield damage minimal hull damage (depending on bleedthrough upgrades) and have no effect on systems.

 

EMP weapons should be the only thing that can have an effect on systems, doing average damage to shields, the lowest damage to hull and requiring bleedthrough upgrades to have a greater effect on systems.

 

This just makes sense to me and I think its why the DEVS are introducing EMP.

 

Edit: If I were them I would implement this to take the ION system failure effect away from type 1 gunships while letting them keep everything else they currently have at their disposal (barrel roll etc) including the love taps (scaled damage but no need for minimal charge). Then I would give the type 2 Gunship EMP missiles to make them more useful. If this is done I bet you will begin to see more people using Plasma Railguns.

 

Ion and Plasma/Thermite weapons should be polar opposites. They pretty much are when it comes to missiles but aren't when it comes to railguns. (Edit: Just realized that I am wrong about this because ION Missiles also short systems and they really shouldn't...as opposites both weapons should do DOT...Plasma already does to hull so Ion should have a DOT to shields)

 

EDIT 2: Slug should also have a shorter firing range. They are described as being "metal projectiles" which would lead one to believe that they are heavier than ion particles and plasma bolts.

 

Ion weapons are problematic because they were included for lore reasons, but the gameplay that utilizes the traditional SW ion weaponry was not included.

 

Ion cannons are supposed to be slightly better at taking down shields than laser cannons, though due to range problems they're almost never used that way. Their primary function though, is to allow you to capture enemy ships and/or the personnel on the ships in a relatively undamaged state. So how many gameplay objectives are there in GSF that require disabling an enemy ship so that it can be captured? That's right. ZERO!

 

The ion cannon on the gunships is more powerful than it should be for a single shot for its size class, and it shouldn't have an AOE. Other than that though, as an ion weapon it's less effective than it should be at disabling things. Once shields are down 2-3 shots with an ion weapon that size should leave a starfighter completely non-functional until it's retrieved by another ship and the ground crew has had a day or so to work on it in the hangar.

 

In a vacuum there's no upper limit on the range of a railgun. The projectile just keeps on going until it hits something.

Strictly speaking, unless they fire metal canisters that release a plasma or ion payload on impact, the ion and plasma 'railguns' would not be railguns at all.

 

But this is sort of the problem with some of the weapons and components. Things were included for lore and Sci-fi ambiance without practical consideration of how that would work out in gameplay. You get faced with the choices of things that are true to theory or lore, but produce poor gameplay balance; or you balance game mechanics and get a lot of grumbling because [insert weapon or component here] does not even remotely resemble what you would expect based on lore and/or physics.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

EDIT: With an Evasion stacking build Scouts get 45% Passive Evasion on the low end. On the high end they get 56% Passive Evasion (please correct me if I'm wrong).

 

I believe scouts max out at 41% passive evasion.

 

Base evasion 10%

Distortion field 15%

Light armor 10%

Companion 6%

 

You also forgot that there is a companion with a 6% buff to passive accuracy but that can hardly be considered an "accuracy build" since it isn't even a 1:2 accuracy:evasion ratio and even so doesn't change the fact that you're right that accuracy isn't constant after factoring in range, tracking penalties etc.

 

Realistically for strikers there is no "accuracy build" since buffs to accuracy are entirely dependent on crew (IMO crew should not be essential or the only way to create a counter build; it would be crazy if the only way to create a counter build to damage reduction was with crew for example).

 

But anyway except for those number differences I think you're entirely correct in your assessment.

[Kaivers]

Ion weapons are problematic because they were included for lore reasons, but the gameplay that utilizes the traditional SW ion weaponry was not included.

 

Ion cannons are supposed to be slightly better at taking down shields than laser cannons, though due to range problems they're almost never used that way. Their primary function though, is to allow you to capture enemy ships and/or the personnel on the ships in a relatively undamaged state. So how many gameplay objectives are there in GSF that require disabling an enemy ship so that it can be captured? That's right. ZERO!

 

Once shields are down 2-3 shots with an ion weapon that size should leave a starfighter completely non-functional until it's retrieved by another ship and the ground crew has had a day or so to work on it in the hangar.

 

But this is sort of the problem with some of the weapons and components. Things were included for lore and Sci-fi ambiance without practical consideration of how that would work out in gameplay. You get faced with the choices of things that are true to theory or lore, but produce poor gameplay balance; or you balance game mechanics and get a lot of grumbling because [insert weapon or component here] does not even remotely resemble what you would expect based on lore and/or physics.

 

Very interesting, thanks.

 

Maybe they could make the argument that the technology to converge Ion and EMP hadn't been developed yet?

[Kain_Turinbar]

I believe scouts max out at 41% passive evasion.

 

Base evasion 10%

Distortion field 15%

Light armor 10%

Companion 6%

 

You also forgot that there is a companion with a 6% buff to passive accuracy but that can hardly be considered an "accuracy build" since it isn't even a 1:2 accuracy:evasion ratio and even so doesn't change the fact that you're right that accuracy isn't constant after factoring in range, tracking penalties etc.

 

Realistically for strikers there is no "accuracy build" since buffs to accuracy are entirely dependent on crew (IMO crew should not be essential or the only way to create a counter build; it would be crazy if the only way to create a counter build to damage reduction was with crew for example).

 

But anyway except for those number differences I think you're entirely correct in your assessment.

 

I'm going to look into this later. I thought the crew buffs didn't appear on the launch screen so I've been assuming that I got 41 baseline +6 from Nadia Grell.

 

I have both a maxed scout and a maxed fighter (Pike) and I really don't have problems vs either scouts or gunships (besides the love tap issue, god that can be annoying) in my Pike. However, I can tell when I'm up against the scouts that stacked evasion (which ones don't?) and went with the 2nd lock break on the final tier of distortion field. Those usually end up in stalemates.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Kain_Turinbar

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I'm going to look into this later. I thought the crew buffs didn't appear on the launch screen so I've been assuming that I got 41 baseline +6 from Nadia Grell.

 

I have both a maxed scout and a maxed fighter (Pike) and I really don't have problems vs either scouts or gunships (besides the love tap issue, god that can be annoying) in my Pike. However, I can tell when I'm up against the scouts that stacked evasion (which ones don't?) and went with the 2nd lock break on the final tier of distortion field. Those usually end up in stalemates.

 

I was going off of Dulfy's build calc so it's possible you're right and something was screwy with the build calc.

 

I think that evasion has less of an impact on Type 2 strikers since it only impacts 1/3 of their equipped weapons (likewise missile breaking abilities have less of an impact on Type 1 strikers since it only impacts 1/3 of their weapons).

Edited January 28, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Armonddd]

I'm going to look into this later. I thought the crew buffs didn't appear on the launch screen so I've been assuming that I got 41 baseline +6 from Nadia Grell.

 

They do. The tooltips are fairly dynamic, though they seem to have trouble with distortion field's -30% shield power pool.

[steyates]

You get 41% evasion without Nadia Grell. At least my Flashfire does.

[Delta_V]

You get 41% evasion without Nadia Grell. At least my Flashfire does.

 

And which Defensive Crewmember are you using? The only Republic ones who don't have the +6% evasion are Doc, M1-4X, and Guss Tuno.

 

edit: whoops, meant Defensive, not Tactical

Edited January 28, 2014 by Delta_V