Just buff the strike fighter.

[Sharee]

You are not taking into account accuracy penalties from tracking, speed and turning. Passive Accuracy actually becomes Active Accuracy because of these penalties.

 

I am not taking into account ANY accuracy, neither the penalties nor the bonuses, because you declared them 'not passive'. I simply compared what passives does a pike get to balance out the scout's 20% higher evasion.

 

 

Shields, Armor and Hull are direct counters to offensive weapons NOT Passive Evasion.

 

You can counter enemy defenses in two ways: either your weapons overcome them, or your own defenses match them. Therefore, shields armor and hull of a strike figher are a counter to the evasion of a scout.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Sharee

[Kaivers]

We have no reason to suspect this has anything to do with gunships.

 

Without Evasion the Accuracy of a railgun at max range becomes 95%. Default Slug Damage is 1600 while default Shields and Hull of a Scout is around 2000. So how does Evasion have nothing to do with a Gunship when without it a Scout would lose approximately 80% of its health in one shot?

 

Gunships do in fact have tracking penalties. They also have accuracy penalties at range- many of the "OMG MISS" at 14km will be because of the lower accuracy of the railgun at that range, but there's no way to distinguish miss from evade from whiskey without flytext.

 

Thanks for the correction, I see there is a tracking accuracy penalty of -5%. My question to you is this, how does the effect of this penalty differ from Strike Fighters? In Railgun mode are Gunship's required to lead their targets while also maintaining a rate of motion? (Note that due to role Railguns are actually Gunship's primary weapon although they are referred to as Secondary in loadout, therefore they are the equivalent of laser cannons on a Strikefighter)

 

They also have turning penalties if they are facing lively well flown pilots at least much of the time, and the speed penalty mostly assures that they can't kite very long and have to have a plan of escape normally.

 

I'm referring to turning penalties that affect accuracy. Simply put, if I can't turn fast enough I will never get you into my sights for the accuracy benefit to take effect.

 

I don't think the "counter to scouts" was on the minds of the devs when they made strike fighters.

 

All evidence suggests they were. The influence of the RL role of Strike Fighters, their description of them as "multirole", even their description of the Scout built for dogfighting that cannot go "head to head" with some Strike Fighters.

 

Edit: There are builds for both Strike Fighter types that emphasize either "bombing" or "air to air" capabilities. Likewise there are builds for both Scouts that emphasize either "recon" or "air to air" capabilities. Since bombing capabilities are more offensive in nature than Recon capabilities (i.e. they require a toolkit to maximize offense) Strike Fighters should be the dominant air to air craft when it comes to offense.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Kaivers

[Armonddd]

However if you include crew members, you also should include the passive accuracy bonus from the attacker's offensive crew member. Which counteracts the former. So 41% passive evasion becomes only ~35% passive evasion.

 

I actually agreed with you on this until yesterday. It turns out that because of differences in crew members between factions, it is impossible for republic characters to get +6% accuracy without sacrificing either +25% ammo capacity or Concentrated Fire -- both of which are arguably critical if you use rocket pods.

[Kaivers]

You can counter enemy defenses in two ways: either your weapons overcome them, or your own defenses match them. Therefore, shields armor and hull of a strike figher are a counter to the evasion of a scout.

 

We will have to agree to disagree on that!

[Altheran]

We will have to agree to disagree on that!

 

In a way, what Sharee says is true.

 

In theory : if evasion is their defense, and high-regenerative shields are ours (for example) and if they provide the same utility, then we don't need to counter their evasion.

 

But I wouldn't say that shields are a "counter", but an "alternative".

Edited January 29, 2014 by Altheran

[Kaivers]

In a way, what Sharee says is true.

 

In theory : if evasion is their defense, and high-regenerative shields are ours (for example) and if they provide the same utility, then we don't need to counter their evasion.

 

But I wouldn't say that shields are a "counter", but an "alternative".

 

Again we will have to agree to disagree. To avoid writing a thesis I'll just say...if your defense is stronger it occupies or hinders your opponent long enough for you to get an advantage via some other means. If your defenses are equal then the side with superior (edit) offense, strategy and/or tactics will be the victor.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Kaivers

[Flearos]

And what is the counter to the scout's 20% passive evasion? How about the strike fighter's ~50% stronger hull? Or ~40% stronger shields, along with ~130% faster shield recharge? He even gets a 5% damage resistance on top. (Just an example comparing a pike with quickcharge shield to a flashfire with distortion field. You can of course use a different configuration, but the strike fighter's hull, shield power, and shield recharge will always be much higher than the scout's. And that's not even counting in the fact these all work against missiles and mines, while the evasion doesn't.)

 

The problem is what so many was to pierce or bypass shields they quickly become less and less competitive with evasion. The 5% damage reduction is a non factor because so many spam weapons pierce 100% of armor.

[Sharee]

Again we will have to agree to disagree. To avoid writing a thesis I'll just say...if your defense is stronger it occupies or hinders your opponent long enough for you to get an advantage via some other means. If your defenses are equal then the side with superior (edit) offense, strategy and/or tactics will be the victor.

 

The scout does not have a stronger defense tho**, that's my whole point. His defense is weaker, as it should be. He has his extra maneuverability to balance that out.

 

(**Unless of course you mean that 20% better evasion is a stronger defense than 50% stronger hull with 40% stronger shields that recharge 130% faster. In that case we do have to agree to disagree)

[Sharee]

The problem is what so many was to pierce or bypass shields they quickly become less and less competitive with evasion. The 5% damage reduction is a non factor because so many spam weapons pierce 100% of armor.

 

Shield pierce does nothing but redistribute damage between shields and armor. The only time this even matters is if the attacker can kill enemy hull while the shields are still up, and that is much more likely to happen to a scout than to a strike fighter whose hull is ~50% stronger.

[Kaivers]

The scout does not have a stronger defense tho**, that's my whole point. His defense is weaker, as it should be. He has his extra maneuverability to balance that out.

 

(**Unless of course you mean that 20% better evasion is a stronger defense than 50% stronger hull with 40% stronger shields that recharge 130% faster. In that case we do have to agree to disagree)

 

Bottom line: Passive Evasion as is = a form of Scout defense with no viable offensive counter from Strike Fighters.

[Sharee]

Bottom line: Passive Evasion as is = a form of Scout defense with no viable offensive counter from Strike Fighters.

 

Bottom line, passive evasion has exactly the same offensive counter as stronger hull with higher shields: You have to shoot some more to get a kill.

[Zoom_VI]

Bottom line: Passive Evasion as is = a form of Scout defense with no viable offensive counter from Strike Fighters.

 

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.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Zoom_VI

[Kaivers]

Bottom line, passive evasion has exactly the same offensive counter as stronger hull with higher shields: You have to shoot some more to get a kill.

 

And its more difficult to "shoot more" to get a kill than it is to evade. Can't really explain this any better. Let's agree to disagree. Its all in the DEVS hands anyway.

[Sharee]

And its more difficult to "shoot more" to get a kill than it is to evade.

 

Just as it is more difficult to shoot more to get a kill than it is to have bigger hull and shields.

[Kaivers]

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.

 

I never said its GOD mode. I could very well say too many people aggressively favor evasion as a means to compensate for other deficiencies.

 

Again, lets just agree to disagree and leave it to the powers that be.

[Armonddd]

Bottom line, passive evasion has exactly the same offensive counter as stronger hull with higher shields: You have to shoot some more to get a kill.

 

I dunno why you don't see the difference between a counter you the player have control over, and a counter the game controls for you.

[Sharee]

I dunno why you don't see the difference between a counter you the player have control over, and a counter the game controls for you.

 

You have no more control over how strong hull and shields the enemy has than over how high his passive evade chance is.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Sharee

[Luneward]

Except that the game DOES control whether you hit an opponent or not when they're running evasion. If they're running higher health or damage reduction you just need to be a better shot or better pilot, which puts it in the players control. A player can adjust their tactics to make up for low accuracy or tracking penalties. There's only a few things they can do to make up for evasion, and it usually involves a tradeoff in other areas (component loadouts, different co-pilot abilities etc)

[Sharee]

Except that the game DOES control whether you hit an opponent or not when they're running evasion. If they're running higher health or damage reduction you just need to be a better shot or better pilot, which puts it in the players control. A player can adjust their tactics to make up for low accuracy or tracking penalties. There's only a few things they can do to make up for evasion, and it usually involves a tradeoff in other areas (component loadouts, different co-pilot abilities etc)

 

Look, whether you need to shoot at a ship 10 times because it can survive 10 hits, or you need to shoot at it 10 times because it can survive 6 hits but 4 of your shots miss, the end result is the same, on average you need to shoot 10 times to kill it.

 

There is no 'tactic adjusting', nor do you need to be a better shot or better pilot in either case. Simply shoot it till its dead.

 

The only difference is that with evasion sometimes you need to fire more shots, sometimes less, and some people do not like this. Which is fine. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

[Kain_Turinbar]

Look, whether you need to shoot at a ship 10 times because it can survive 10 hits, or you need to shoot at it 10 times because it can survive 6 hits but 4 of your shots miss, the end result is the same, on average you need to shoot 10 times to kill it.

 

There is no 'tactic adjusting', nor do you need to be a better shot or better pilot in either case. Simply shoot it till its dead.

 

The only difference is that with evasion sometimes you need to fire more shots, sometimes less, and some people do not like this. Which is fine. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

 

Not only that with evasion you don't know if your aim was off or if the RNG gods were ******** on you. It annoys me when I just with a scout and don't score a hit and wonder if luck was just on his side or did I drink one cup of coffee too many.

[Sharee]

Not only that with evasion you don't know if your aim was off or if the RNG gods were ******** on you. It annoys me when I just with a scout and don't score a hit and wonder if luck was just on his side or did I drink one cup of coffee too many.

 

Your aiming reticle changes when it is correctly lined up with the lead indicator, so you can tell if the shot was aimed well or not. But even if you are not sure, what difference does it make? Bad aim or rng gods - just shoot again.

[Armonddd]

You have no more control over how strong hull and shields the enemy has than over how high his passive evade chance is.

 

Yes I do. I can line up shots more accurately. I can choose to use concussion missiles or etc. I can't do any thing about the game rolling for whether my shots hit.

[Sharee]

Yes I do. I can line up shots more accurately. I can choose to use concussion missiles or etc. I can't do any thing about the game rolling for whether my shots hit.

 

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.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Sharee

[Tenacity]

Look, whether you need to shoot at a ship 10 times because it can survive 10 hits, or you need to shoot at it 10 times because it can survive 6 hits but 4 of your shots miss, the end result is the same, on average you need to shoot 10 times to kill it.

 

There is no 'tactic adjusting', nor do you need to be a better shot or better pilot in either case. Simply shoot it till its dead.

 

The only difference is that with evasion sometimes you need to fire more shots, sometimes less, and some people do not like this. Which is fine. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

 

What you're not understanding is that evasion negates pilot skill, whereas higher hull/shields does not.

 

If those two targets are sitting still, sure, they'll require the same number of shots to kill. However, in the heat of a dogfight where maneuvering and such is involved, burst damage makes far more impact than sustained damage. That target that evades your shots will be more likely to survive long enough to kill you than the target who soaks them up.

[Sharee]

What you're not understanding is that evasion negates pilot skill, whereas higher hull/shields does not.

 

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.

 

If those two targets are sitting still, sure, they'll require the same number of shots to kill. However, in the heat of a dogfight where maneuvering and such is involved, burst damage makes far more impact than sustained damage.

 

This has nothing to do with maneuvering. Maneuvering will make you miss(due to bad aim) your shots against an evasive craft just as much as against a tough craft.

 

That target that evades your shots will be more likely to survive long enough to kill you than the target who soaks them up.

 

A target that evades will survive longer than a craft that is tough, but a target that does not evade won't. Trading toughness for evasion cuts both ways. You act like it's only a boon.