Just buff the strike fighter.

[Itkovian]

There's only one thing you can do to line shots more accurately, and that is pressing fire when your targeting reticle is over the target's lead indicator. And it works just as well for evasive targets as it does for non-evasive ones. Same with concussion missiles, except they actually work better against evasive targets.

 

You can't do anything when your shot misses because of enemy evasion but to fire again, which is the same thing you would do if your target required another shot because of it's toughness.

 

I understand you would rather fire 10 times and hit 10 times to kill than fire 10 times and hit 6 times to kill, but if the result of both 10 shots fired is the same(dead enemy) then it's just personal preference.

 

But it's not, because GSF is not a static firing range where a target will stay put for 10 shots, and between the times an enemy is hit he has opportunities to heal himself (especially for shields).

 

In effect, there are times where missing a shot will completely reset the counter, as it where, as this enables the target to evade and fly away, as well as get its shields regenerated. Given this, the ability to completely avoid an attack, in practice, is significantly more effective than the ability to resist more damage.

 

And regardless, to simply look at the numbers and assume that 10% more evasion means 10% more effective hull/shields is inaccurate.

 

This is similar to why having front-loaded burst damage (from burst lasers) is more useful than rapid fire lasers. Even if the accuracy/range/DPS numbers were identical, the fighter that loads all its damage in a single burst is far more effective in practice than one that spreads it over an entire second (because the target may only be valid for a fraction of that second).

[Sharee]

But it's not, because GSF is not a static firing range where a target will stay put for 10 shots, and between the times an enemy is hit he has opportunities to heal himself (especially for shields).

 

Yes, GSF is not a static firing range. But killing a scout also does not require 6 hits and 4 misses.

 

I kill a scout in 2 shots if his evasion does not kick in. What opportunity to heal himself did he have? What opportunity to heal myself will i have when i get oneshot by a gunship 2 seconds later?

 

Yes, evasion is awesome *if* you get lucky. And crap when you don't. Somehow every critic of evasion keeps forgetting the second part.

[Ramalina]

Bottom line: Scouts have a 1k shield arc that can be one-shotted by pretty much every weapon ingame. Seriously, people Dfield has a ton of issues, namely inability to recharge the shield arc in a timely manner, and on top of that not having much of a shield arc to begin with, hence I don't use dfield.

 

Stop pretending that passive evasion is a godmode. RNG defenses are well RNG. Too many people jump on evasion as a scapegoat for so many things.

 

You're correct that people to tend to conflate and confuse the active ability of distortion field with other sources of evasion. The one-shotting of scout shields by "pretty much every" weapon in GSF is a wild exaggeration though.

 

A 1k shield arc can be one shotted by a few weapons in game, even at optimal range. Railguns, heavier missiles, burst cannon, and maybe heavy lasers (though I'd have to check a tooltip for the lasers). Possibly some of the mines and/or drones in the near future.

 

There is a huge difference between a weapon that does 1k or more dps and a weapon that does 1k or more damage per shot (well per hit would be even more accurate). The difference being if your shot opportunity lasts less than a second the dps from shots that missed really don't count for much. That's why all other things being equal a weapon with bursty (high damage per shot) dps is going to be much more likely to produce kills than a less bursty weapon.

 

Getting back to the thread topic, one of the areas that really plagues Strike fighters is the difficulty that they have in landing burst damage on the same magnitude as a heavy scout or gunship. Their bursty weapons are basically proton torpedos and concussion missiles, and it's very difficult to land them on competent pilots with upgraded defensive cooldowns compared to hitting the same opponent with railguns or burst lasers. Of course that doesn't mean you have to do any specific adjustment, but the difference in ability to land burst damage in a window of time should probably be normalized across ship types at least a little more than it currently is.

 

This really shows up in results based on who you're flying against. If the other side is mostly new players with few upgrades I can top a scoreboard in either of my strike fighters because they do have excellent sustained dps and that sort of battle offers opportunities for sustained dps. In battles against skilled opponents with ships that have mastered defensive cooldowns I'm not going to be likely to be more than halfway to two thirds up the board even in ideal conditions. The difference is that a good opponent won't allow you an opportunity to land missiles or sustained blaster fire. The offensive advantage that gunships and heavy scouts have right now is the ability to land lethal amounts of damage in short windows of time. It helps that they also have an easier task of staying on target for long enough to get several windows of opportunity in a row.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Ramalina

[Armonddd]

Evasion does not negate pilot skill. Killing an enemy with 500 HP and 50% evasion requires just as much piloting skill as killing an enemy with 1000 HP and no evasion. On average, the same amount of accurate shots are needed.

 

Yes, evasion is awesome *if* you get lucky. And crap when you don't. Somehow every critic of evasion keeps forgetting the second part.

 

The first craft is inherently superior to the first. There's so much more you can do with a lucky string of evasion than with more hull/shields, and the downsides of bad rolls are not as big as you think they are.

 

Let's say you're hitting for 200 damage a pop. The first craft in your example takes three hits to kill. The second takes five. By your averages logic, it's six shots to kill the first ship and five to kill the second. That's already a problem, even if it's not realistic.

 

Ignoring that and going into reality mode, the evasion ship is significantly tougher to kill because every time he evades a shot (because the dice rolled his way, not because he's a skilled pilot), he gets a chance to regen shields, regain weapon and engine power, and stall for cooldowns.

 

I've followed people around satellites with burst cannons on plenty of occasions. It's not uncommon for me to pump burst cannons into his arse at point blank range for 800ish damage (more with the good T5 upgrade, obviously) and then miss the next shot or two, giving him time to get his shields up to full. This means his shields went back to full entirely because of the game. It's not skill at all on his part - if he were skilled, he wouldn't have followed a very predictable flight path that let me get off five, six, seven point blank shots in a row.

 

At this point the game is not skill-dependant. It's literally a crapshoot whether your perfectly aimed shot does anything or not. Add in lag issues and we have the makings of a problem.

 

I would rather all passive evasion were removed from the game and replaced with increased hull and shield. Buff active evasion (engine abilities and distortion field's active component) to 500% chance to evade the attack, because that means you're rewarded for using them correctly (and you don't get silliness like me popping off a target in the middle of a retro as he's finishing a lock). This way, when I lose, it's because I played badly, and when I win, it's because I played well, and something entirely out of my control doesn't prevent or encourage either result.

 

RNG isn't fun in a game that's supposed to be based on player skill. RNG is fun in a tabletop game, where a well timed nat 20 or a nat 1 can change the course of the campaign (as long as your DM doesn't screw you too badly for a nat 1). RNG is fun in a TBS where Nolan or Ike critting rewards you with a fancy animation and a bad-a pose. RNG isn't fun when I have to restart the map because I got screwed on a 70% hit chance, or when my fire mage is bottom of the charts because Blizzard decided I wasn't critting today, or when I take the time and effort to line up a shot and get zero reward for it.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Armonddd

[Ramalina]

Yes, GSF is not a static firing range. But killing a scout also does not require 6 hits and 4 misses.

 

I kill a scout in 2 shots if his evasion does not kick in. What opportunity to heal himself did he have? What opportunity to heal myself will i have when i get oneshot by a gunship 2 seconds later?

 

Yes, evasion is awesome *if* you get lucky. And crap when you don't. Somehow every critic of evasion keeps forgetting the second part.

 

The current environment where the favored weapons are high burst damage with various piercing effects contributes to evasion being a bit better than equivalent effective health from shields. If you're getting oneshot by a railgun or two-shot by burst lasers, it's unlikely that you were at full shields and full hull before getting hit. In that situation the burst damage is always going to remove your remaining effective health from shields, but only sometimes remove effective health from evasion. In general having a chance of dying immediately is better than having a certainty of dying immediately.

 

It's the same argument about avoidance vs mitigation for progression tanking in MMORPG PvE group content. Healers hate spike damage and grumpy healers are good at lobbying tanks to take mitigation. However, for overall

success in the long run avoidance usually wins out.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Ramalina

[Sharee]

The first craft is inherently superior to the first. There's so much more you can do with a lucky string of evasion than with more hull/shields, and the downsides of bad rolls are not as big as you think they are.

 

Let's say you're hitting for 200 damage a pop. The first craft in your example takes three hits to kill. The second takes five. By your averages logic, it's six shots to kill the first ship and five to kill the second. That's already a problem, even if it's not realistic.

 

That's only because you chose a favorable damage number. Choose 100 damage per shot or 500 damage per shot and it looks different. Besides, that example was just meant to show that piloting skill needed isnt any different evasion or not. Those craft do not exist in the game, and i do not just mean the exact numbers, but also the ratio (in other words, the evasive crafts in real game do not have the same effective hitpoints as the tough crafts)

 

Ignoring that and going into reality mode, the evasion ship is significantly tougher to kill because every time he evades a shot (because the dice rolled his way, not because he's a skilled pilot), he gets a chance to regen shields, regain weapon and engine power, and stall for cooldowns.

 

In other words, evasive craft is significantly tougher to kill when it gets lucky. That goes without saying, doesn't it.

 

I've followed people around satellites with burst cannons on plenty of occasions. It's not uncommon for me to pump burst cannons into his arse at point blank range for 800ish damage (more with the good T5 upgrade, obviously) and then miss the next shot or two, giving him time to get his shields up to full. This means his shields went back to full entirely because of the game. It's not skill at all on his part - if he were skilled, he wouldn't have followed a very predictable flight path that let me get off five, six, seven point blank shots in a row.

 

Thats true. But then, its even more 'not uncommon' to kill him in two shots. Because any given shot is more likely to hit than not, especially at close ranges where enemy evasion is decreased by 15% from the native burst cannon accuracy. So you are effectively only facing 20% evasion.

 

RNG isn't fun in a game that's supposed to be based on player skill.

 

GSF is not a simulator. It's a part of an MMO. It is partly based on skill, partly on RNG. And fun is subjective. Even tho i am not using distortion shield personally, i like the unpredictability evasion brings.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Sharee

[Zharik]

Bottom line: Scouts have a 1k shield arc that can be one-shotted by pretty much every weapon ingame. Seriously, people Dfield has a ton of issues, namely inability to recharge the shield arc in a timely manner, and on top of that not having much of a shield arc to begin with, hence I don't use dfield.

 

Stop pretending that passive evasion is a godmode. RNG defenses are well RNG. Too many people jump on evasion as a scapegoat for so many things.

 

Yeah, cause all the people that jump on evasion as a bad game mechanic are rocking about a 59% accuracy in EVERY match they play in I am sure...

[Armonddd]

In other words, evasive craft is significantly tougher to kill when it gets lucky. That goes without saying, doesn't it.

 

Yes, that's exactly the problem.

 

Thats true. But then, its even more 'not uncommon' to kill him in two shots. Because any given shot is more likely to hit than not, especially at close ranges where enemy evasion is decreased by 15% from the native burst cannon accuracy. So you are effectively only facing 20% evasion.

 

Two shotting scouts is rare. Three shotting them is much more common (due to finicky range and evasive maneuvers). This may sound like nitpicking, but it's not -- the difference means more opportunities for RNG to kick in and rob the pilot of their kill. That's not fun gameplay.

 

GSF is not a simulator. It's a part of an MMO. It is partly based on skill, partly on RNG.

 

That's not justification for shoddy design. The entire rest of GSF is completely separate from the rest of the game (except credits and exp, both of which are jokes compared to actually playing the ground game where those are used), why should the mechanics not also be separate?

 

And fun is subjective.

 

Take a psychology class sometime. The human brain is programmed to respond to certain stimuli in certain ways. This isn't some niche case scenario, and it's not being targeted at an audience of people with mental disorders. There are rules to how we function, and they do apply here.

[Zharik]

I can line up shots more accurately.

 

How?!? And then if you have an actual answer for this, I have to ask:

Why the hell are you not doing this all the time?!?

[Sharee]

Yes, that's exactly the problem.

 

You call it problem, i call it tradeoff. You get lucky, you do better than a tough craft without evasion. You get unlucky, you do worse.

 

That's not justification for shoddy design. The entire rest of GSF is completely separate from the rest of the game (except credits and exp, both of which are jokes compared to actually playing the ground game where those are used), why should the mechanics not also be separate?

 

Because it is played by the same players? The MMO crowd?

 

Take a psychology class sometime. The human brain is programmed to respond to certain stimuli in certain ways. This isn't some niche case scenario, and it's not being targeted at an audience of people with mental disorders. There are rules to how we function, and they do apply here.

 

Did you just state that fun is only subjective to people with mental disorders?

[Armonddd]

How?!? And then if you have an actual answer for this, I have to ask:

Why the hell are you not doing this all the time?!?

 

With zero feedback from evades, I have no idea whether I'm doing things properly when I miss. I was actually in a giant vent conversation a while ago about this: apparently gunships are supposed to aim slightly above the center of the dot, or sometimes they pull to the left, or... There's just a thousand psychological problems that come from not having feedback from a miss, as opposed to knowing that you hit for piddly damage compared to their hull/shields.

 

You call it problem, i call it tradeoff. You get lucky, you do better than a tough craft without evasion. You get unlucky, you do worse.

 

"It is crucial that all punishment in a game is for things that the player is able to understand and prevent. When punishment feels random and unstoppable, it makes the player feel a complete lack of control, which is a very bad feeling, and the player will quickly label the game 'unfair'. Once this happens, a player is seldom willing to engage the game further." --Jesse Schell, The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses

 

Missing is my punishment for what would otherwise be a perfect shot.

 

Because it is played by the same players? The MMO crowd?

 

Again, how does this justify poor design?

 

Did you just state that fun is only subjective to people with mental disorders?

 

Yep! Well, in a sense. People whose brains work differently from "the norm" (and we won't try to define that, because that's touchy territory) respond to stimuli differently. They find things fun that I would not, and vice versa. It extends to a lot of things, actually. Source: I've lived with some of them.

[Zharik]

With zero feedback from evades, I have no idea whether I'm doing things properly when I miss. I was actually in a giant vent conversation a while ago about this: apparently gunships are supposed to aim slightly above the center of the dot, or sometimes they pull to the left, or... There's just a thousand psychological problems that come from not having feedback from a miss, as opposed to knowing that you hit for piddly damage compared to their hull/shields.

 

 

 

"It is crucial that all punishment in a game is for things that the player is able to understand and prevent. When punishment feels random and unstoppable, it makes the player feel a complete lack of control, which is a very bad feeling, and the player will quickly label the game 'unfair'. Once this happens, a player is seldom willing to engage the game further." --Jesse Schell, The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses

 

Missing is my punishment for what would otherwise be a perfect shot.

 

 

 

Again, how does this justify poor design?

 

 

 

Yep! Well, in a sense. People whose brains work differently from "the norm" (and we won't try to define that, because that's touchy territory) respond to stimuli differently. They find things fun that I would not, and vice versa. It extends to a lot of things, actually. Source: I've lived with some of them.

 

I'm so sorry that you have been traumatized by this horrible, horrible system.

/sarcasm off

[Armonddd]

I'm so sorry that you have been traumatized by this horrible, horrible system.

/sarcasm off

 

I'm so sorry you felt the need to quote a large post without reading all of it.

[Ramalina]

Evasion does not negate pilot skill. Killing an enemy with 500 HP and 50% evasion requires just as much piloting skill as killing an enemy with 1000 HP and no evasion. On average, the same amount of accurate shots are needed.

 

It's been a while since I've reviewed probability and muttering swear words under my breath has not helped me find my introductory statistics textbook, but unless you can show your math I'm going to say that the probability that the portion I underlined is factually incorrect approaches 100%. Thinking that probability theory acts in the same way as basic multiplication is a very reliable way to flunk quizzes and tests on probability. If I can find my bloody textbook, I might have a correct calculation up in a few days after I've found and re-read the relevant chapters.

 

If you want a realistic model, it gets even more complicated. In theory eventually it will take someone at least 14 million shots to do 500 damage to an opponent with 50% evasion. In practice, there is a limit to the number of shots that can be fired during a GSF match, so in some cases the practical effect is that the ship with evasion is completely invincible to blaster and railgun fire for the whole match. Getting a really good predictive model of damage in GSF is not a trivial task.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Ramalina

[Armonddd]

It's been a while since I've reviewed probability and muttering swear words under my breath has not helped me find my introductory statistics textbook

 

did you check your sock drawer

 

that's where mine is, because it's as useful as socks

[Sharee]

Again, how does this justify poor design?

 

You asked why the mechanics shouldn't be completely separate, not how this justifies poor design. The answer to the first is "because it is played by the same players as the MMO". The answer to the second is "It isn't poor design"

[Ramalina]

did you check your sock drawer

 

that's where mine is, because it's as useful as socks

 

As a mathy and sciency person who has worked in backcountry wilderness areas I tend to agree. Both are tremendously useful items that you really don't want to be without.

 

Which is why it's so annoying when they suddenly disappear on you.

 

At least I can be pretty sure that bears didn't eat the book.

[Sharee]

In practice, there is a limit to the number of shots that can be fired during a GSF match, so in some cases the practical effect is that the ship with evasion is completely invincible to blaster and railgun fire for the whole match.

 

Sure. And in some cases, the ship with evasion doesn't evade a single shot for the whole match.

 

And don't overanalyze that simplified example. It only served the purpose of demonstrating that the piloting skill needed to successfully fight an evasive ship isn't any different from the piloting skill needed to fight a tough ship without evasion, not to calculate probabilities to seven decimal places.

[Armonddd]

As a mathy and sciency person who has worked in backcountry wilderness areas I tend to agree. Both are tremendously useful items that you really don't want to be without.

 

I like you. Most people would have taken that the other way.

 

Sure. And in some cases, the ship with evasion doesn't evade a single shot for the whole match.

 

And don't overanalyze that simplified example. It only served the purpose of demonstrating that the piloting skill needed to successfully fight an evasive ship isn't any different from the piloting skill needed to fight a tough ship without evasion, not to calculate probabilities to seven decimal places.

 

Here's the problem: you don't need to calculate probabilities to seven decimal places to show that you're wrong -- calculating them at all will prove it.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Armonddd

[Ramalina]

Sure. And in some cases, the ship with evasion doesn't evade a single shot for the whole match.

 

And don't overanalyze that simplified example. It only served the purpose of demonstrating that the piloting skill needed to successfully fight an evasive ship isn't any different from the piloting skill needed to fight a tough ship without evasion, not to calculate probabilities to seven decimal places.

 

The problem with your mathematical example is that it contains no math. As a result it does not provide any support to the point you are trying to make to any readers with enough education to recognize the lack of math.

 

You've already repeatedly conceded that evasion and shield are qualitatively different in how they work in gameplay.

 

If you want to make the argument that they are despite this, quantitatively the same as far as fairness in the game theory sense goes, you really need to back that up with examples that at the very least obey the rules of the relevant fields of mathematics. Otherwise it's just made up ********.

 

In principle there's no problem with the assertion, that in terms of gameplay, evasion and shields can be fair options in terms of quality of defensive mechanisms. As some level of evasion it will be statistically worse than a given value of shields. At some level it will be equivalent. At some level it will be better.

 

If you're making points about specific levels of balance though, or arguing about what level of evasion is equivalent to what level of shields, you do need to do the math if you want a sound argument.

 

If one gets into subjective quality of play regarding the degree of randomness in game mechanics. Well, that produces the circular arguing squad seen in this thread.

 

I'd say evasion as a mechanic is ok, though by it's nature it is going to be a giant pain in the rear to balance correctly. Partly because of it's variability and the secondary effects of variability, partly because it protects against more than just raw damage.

 

Distortion field is really an immunity mechanic more than an evasion mechanic, and I'm not sure it was a really good idea. In the same way that a Sage's bubble of invicibility would be broken if you could move and cast while it was up.

 

Anyhow, we're all off topic yet again.

 

Obviously the way to buff strike fighters is to let people use their character's abilities while flying.

Insta-gib hits of over 5k damage for everyone! (at least for level 55 chars).

With max ranges of 30-40 meters, what pilot skill there will be!

Oh, and self healing will be absurdly overpowered. No one will ever die. We'll all become immortals!

 

What's not to like about that?

[Sharee]

Here's the problem: you don't need to calculate probabilities to seven decimal places to show that you're wrong -- calculating them at all will prove it.

 

So go ahead then. Prove that i am wrong, and that more piloting skill is needed to kill a fragile evasive ship than a tough non-evasive ship provided they both have the same effective hitpoints. Have fun calculating. I'm going to take a nap in meantime.

[Sharee]

If you're making points about specific levels of balance though, or arguing about what level of evasion is equivalent to what level of shields, you do need to do the math if you want a sound argument.

 

Do i now?

 

Just to remind you, i am not the one here who demands changes to gameplay mechanics on the grounds that they are 'poor design'. I am quite content with the way they work now. Burden of proof (and the burden of doing the relevant math) is on those who claim there is some sort of inbalance that needs fixing.

 

So go ahead, have fun. Who knows, maybe you are right, and the developers will learn a lesson on game balance from you? Could happen!

Edited January 29, 2014 by Sharee

[Armonddd]

Do i now?

 

Just to remind you, i am not the one here who demands changes to gameplay mechanics on the grounds that they are 'poor design'. I am quite content with the way they work now. Burden of proof (and the burden of doing the relevant math) is on those who claim there is some sort of inbalance that needs fixing.

 

So go ahead, have fun. Who knows, maybe you are right, and the developers will learn a lesson on game balance from you? Could happen!

 

Wow, really? Quoting burden of proof in an attempt to get the burden of proof off yourself?

 

GG Ramalina, we've been trolled hard.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Armonddd

[jcurri]

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.

 

So you admit that your "insane regen" is still not enough to hold a satellite against a flashfire, thanks. I'm not on a flashfire/sting high horse. I've leveled up both a flashfire, star guard, and 1/2 way through with my gunship. Still doesn't change the fact that the tier 2 scout is insanely superior to the striker.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I think the main problem for strikers when it comes to evasion is that 2/3 their blaster weapons have slow firing rates and harsh tracking penalties.

 

At midrange (3k meters) with quads you'll have 101% base accuracy at evasion will reduce that to 60%. The total firing arc is 24 degrees but you only need to fire 7 degrees off center for tracking penalties to reduce your accuracy to 50%.

 

Similarly with heavy cannons they'll have a base of 106% at midrange (3k meters) so against an evasion build you're starting with 65% accuracy. While the total firing arc is 20 degrees you only need to be 7 degrees off center before you have 51% accuracy.

 

That's where I think the problem is. An evasion build can effectively reduce a striker's weapons to 50% accuracy or lower without them even reaching the half way point on their firing arc. This causes several problems:

 

1) it forces strikers to bank shallower and as a result fly more in a straight line when engaging scouts with an evasion build if they want to minimize tracking penalties; this means they're both more vulnerable to enemy fire and also means that a scout's natural agility will greatly reduce the accuracy of a striker's weapons further

 

2) The requirement to keep the crosshairs close to center against an evasion build makes jousting the most favorable tactic to minimize tracking penalties yet distortion field invincibility effectively makes this strategy play into the scout's hands and thus is not advisable

 

3) strikers are best advised to engage scouts at midrange or further yet at midrange the effective DPS of their weapons is greatly reduced because of misses caused by evasion significantly reducing accuracy

 

4) strikers best blaster weapons are slow firing so each missed shot has much greater impact on them when you may only have a second or so in which to fire. "fire more shots" isn't necessarily a viable counter to evasion in practice because they may literally not have the time necessary to fire more shots

 

5) since you steer with your crosshairs you're in practice looking at very few situations outside of jousting where a striker will be able to keep their crosshairs close to center and avoid the harsh tracking penalties of their weapons.

 

In that regard I think what strikers need with buffing offensive power is giving them a component that allows them to stack passive accuracy on a 1:2 ratio with evasion. IMO when evasion isn't in play the weapons already do respectable amounts of damage and don't need a direct buff to damage (also a direct buff to damage could very well make them too powerful when used against an enemy without evasion).

Edited January 30, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar