Evasion Is Fine

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I found that the list of arguments helped me recognize the difference in some of the more subtle cases and the strength of the cases for and against, mostly due to the preponderance or lack of detail or statistics. Hopefully others will find it useful as well.

 

I for one found it helpful seeing a compilation of the arguments for/against. So thank you for putting in the effort.

 

I actually prefer Quick-Charge Shield because it allows me to be liberal with my afterburners without having to keep power to engines. I defend Distortion Field because I really like the ship customization element of GSF, and I would hate to see Distortion Field reduced to a non-option.

 

If I conveyed that I want it nerfed into the ground so it is next to useless then I apologize for the miscommunication on my part. I'd like it nerfed yes, but only to the extent that prevents it from being used to allow scouts to do things they ordinarily would not be capable of surviving and, based on in-game text + dev updates, they quite possibly aren't meant to have the defensive capacity to do.

 

As Brilo noted scouts seem to be jousting and coming to dead stops and, like him, I strongly dislike DField because of that. I also dislike it as it seems to grant scouts the capability to perform as a multirole starfighter (technically what the striker is supposed to do) with near equal proficiency thanks to DField (it gives them the defense capabilities they are supposed to lack and this is what allows them to then utilize their offensive capabilities to perform as multirole starfighters). In that regard I'd like it changed because currently it just isn't balanced well role wise when scouts are capable of performing their intended role (space superiority) plus the intended role (multirole starfighter) of another ship class (strikers).

[LeonBraun]

I'm sorry, but I thought that was the Strikefighter's role????

 

Scouts are for scouting, and high maneuverability dogfighting, aren't they?

 

Scouts = tie fighter, strike fighter = x-wing right?

 

So who do you think should win in a head on stationary firefight?

 

The scout?

Okay, if you say so...

 

Contrary to what some people think, Strikers are actually much better dog fighters than Scouts. It's much, much easier for a heftier Strike to hang out there with their stronger hulls and blast missiles at Scouts using their slower/steadier mobility. It takes a mere couple missiles and a few blaster shots to down a Scout.

 

As stated you want to be fighting at off angles in a striker and not coming at a Scout head on. While people think a Striker should be able to play chicken with a Scout, that plays right into a Scout's hand. As in order for them to achieve the best success with their burst build, they need targets that remain steady in their cross-hairs. They move fast and kill fast... A Striker moves slower and has to draw out a fight longer (meaning more than 3-6 seconds) and run the Scout out of their CDs.

 

If a target is moving at all, it takes longer for a Scout to get hits, thus wasting their CDs... Once they've been lured to blow their CDs, they're paper thin for a good 40 seconds or so, plenty of time to mow them down. Keep in mind, this is neither Top Gun, nor Rock, Paper, Scissors... Each fighter is designed to be able to take out others, but you have to be smart about playing to each other fighter's weaknesses.

Edited January 2, 2014 by LeonBraun

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Contrary to what some people think, Strikers are actually much better dog fighters than Scouts. It's much, much easier for a heftier Strike to hang out there with their stronger hulls and blast missiles at Scouts using their slower/steadier mobility. It takes a mere couple missiles and a few blaster shots to down a Scout.

 

Well strikers aren't supposed to be worthless in a dogfight, they are multirole starfighters after all. But in my experience a scout has the advantage in a turning dogfight hands down and the in game description of the Flashfire indicates that maneuverability is what they're supposed to use to get the upper hand against a striker.

 

As stated you want to be fighting at off angles in a striker and not coming at a Scout head on. While people think a Striker should be able to play chicken with a Scout, that plays right into a Scout's hand. As in order for them to achieve the best success with their burst build, they need targets that remain steady in their cross-hairs. They move fast and kill fast... A Striker moves slower and has to draw out a fight longer (meaning more than 3-6 seconds) and run the Scout out of their CDs.

 

Can you explain then why the Flashfire's in game description says it "may not compete head-on against a strike fighter"?

 

It is also my impression that without distortion field a scout wouldn't survive a head on attack against a striker due to the significantly weaker defenses. So if a scout is supposed to take striker's head on why does it seem they rely on a specific component's active ability to do it whereas a striker can probably play chicken with a scout regardless of build?

 

How exactly is it balanced (or logical) for the ship with the weakest hull to be capable of playing chicken with a ship with much more heavy defense and also a competent dogfighter (to distinguish it from gunships that aren't supposed to dogfight) and have a reasonable chance of winning?

[Sharee]

So if a scout is supposed to take striker's head on why does it seem they rely on a specific component's active ability to do it whereas a striker can probably play chicken with a scout regardless of build?

 

Because they are designed to work that way?

 

Where is it written that if a craft is supposed to be able to do something, it has to be able to do it without using active abilities?

 

How exactly is it balanced (or logical) for the ship with the weakest hull to be capable of playing chicken with a ship with much more heavy defense and also a competent dogfighter (to distinguish it from gunships that aren't supposed to dogfight) and have a reasonable chance of winning?

 

A tier 2 scout is suposed to be just as deadly as a strike fighter. Says so right in the Sting description.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Sharee

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Because they are designed to work that way?

 

Where is it written that if a craft is supposed to be able to do something, it has to be able to do it without using active abilities?

 

Nowhere I suppose. But it does seem to be illogical if the supposed intended tactic of a ship class can only be performed when the active ability of a specific component is used. Logically shouldn't a ship be capable of using the intended tactic of their class regardless of what component they have? Otherwise what's the point in having options if only one of those components will allow a ship class to use it's intended tactic?

 

That's my point, if you MUST use an active ability to use the scout's supposed intended tactics or they will loose to a striker then it would seem that they aren't intended to use that tactic. If it's the intended tactic of that ship class then they should be able to use that tactic regardless of ship component (and therefore use it, albeit less effectively, without a component's active ability).

 

A tier 2 scout is suposed to be just as deadly as a strike fighter. Says so right in the Sting description.

 

I don't question the offensive capability or that they are meant to be just as deadly as a striker, they are the space superiority fighter in the game after all. I'm questioning the defensive capability and how that blends with the offensive capability in the specific scenario of jousting.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Sharee]

Logically shouldn't a ship be capable of using the intended tactic of their class regardless of what component they have?

 

Is it THE intended tactic of their class tho? Or is it just one of the intended tactics the class is supposed to be capable of, depending on it's loadout?

 

Your quote is like saying a scout must always be more maneuverable than a strike, regardless of it's loadout. Yet, a strike optimized for turning speed will be more maneuverable than a scout optimized for speed.

 

Or saying a strike must always have stronger shields than a scout. My flashfire has 1820 shields, my strike 1440, because of their respective configurations.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Sharee

[Kuciwalker]

And yet they are still very easy kills if you dont tunnel vision them. On a gunship, you have to watch them. Wait for them to blow their defensive cooldowns and then take the shot.

 

By the time I'm done using all of my defensive cooldowns you are not going to have a shot on me; I'm going to be 10+km away and (if you're a gunship) behind an asteroid.

 

I never die more than twice in a match (almost never more than once; often never) and usually get 8+ kills. That's attributable to a skill gap, sure, but a big chunk of that skill gap is optimal use of excessively powerful defensive cooldowns.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Brilo]

Does anyone have anything to add to the Distortion Field discussion? We could really use a convincing and detailed argument for DF being in balance. Or is everyone now happy with the list as-is?

 

Thank you

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Is it THE intended tactic of their class tho? Or is it just one of the intended tactics the class is supposed to be capable of, depending on it's loadout?

 

Well I was responding to a comment that implied that jousting is the strength of the scout because of their burst dps nature (which I don't question that they're better at burst dps than strikers as strikers seemed to be better at sustained dps).

 

Anyhow my point was to question whether it is possible for a scout to joust with a striker and consistently live/win if they are not using an ability that grants them invulnerability to return fire from a striker's blaster. If the only way the jousting tactic can be successful against a striker with stronger defenses/built for attrition is if the scout becomes invulnerable it seems questionable at best to suggest this is balanced.

 

I'm going to just quote a comment made in another thread as I think the analogy to the ground game is very useful in explaining why distortion field's invulnerability is imbalanced.

 

If a sage could shoot 3 volleys of autocrit turbulence from within their magic immunity bubble you'd be up in arms, but if a scout does near the same thing, that's just part of the game and everyone should just suck it up and "LTP" right?

Edited January 2, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Sharee]

Anyhow my point was to question whether it is possible for a scout to joust with a striker and consistently live/win if they are not using an ability that grants them invulnerability to return fire from a striker's blaster.

 

Why do you keep differentiating between "He can do this passively" and "He can do this only with actives"? What difference does it make? Some crafts are designed with strong passives, some with strong actives, but both are part of the craft balance. Your insistence that it is somehow okay if a craft can do something with passives, but not with actives, seems completely arbitrary to me.

 

Claiming that "Craft X is not supposed to be able to do Y if it only can be done using Z active ability" is like claiming:

"A sage is not supposed to be able to kite melee attackers if he can only do it using force speed active ability. If he was meant to be able to kite, he would have been given a passive runspeed increase. Thus force speed is unbalanced, because it allows sage to do something he was not meant to be able to do"

 

That's your reasoning in a nutshell.

 

If the only way the jousting tactic can be successful against a striker with stronger defenses/built for attrition is if the scout becomes invulnerable it seems questionable at best to suggest this is balanced.[/color]

 

"If the only way the kiting tactic can be successful against a melee is if the sage becomes extremely fast for a brief period of time it seems questionable at best to suggest this is balanced"

 

See?

Edited January 2, 2014 by Sharee

[Resipsal]

As stated you want to be fighting at off angles in a striker and not coming at a Scout head on. While people think a Striker should be able to play chicken with a Scout, that plays right into a Scout's hand. As in order for them to achieve the best success with their burst build, they need targets that remain steady in their cross-hairs. They move fast and kill fast... A Striker moves slower and has to draw out a fight longer (meaning more than 3-6 seconds) and run the Scout out of their CDs.

 

ALL ships need enemies to be in the center of their crosshairs in order to have best success with blasters. If strikers are going to be attacking at off angles, their damage is going to be mostly coming from missiles, and Flashfires themselves have cluster missiles. Also keep in mind that the more maneuverable ship is generally going to decide the angle of attack.

 

Your argument that strikers have advantages vs Flashfires seems to come down to the power of proton torpedoes and concussion missiles. In my experience, those are highly situational weapons that don't work well on good pilots, especially scout pilots, due to the long lock on times.

 

If a target is moving at all, it takes longer for a Scout to get hits, thus wasting their CDs... Once they've been lured to blow their CDs, they're paper thin for a good 40 seconds or so, plenty of time to mow them down.

 

Distortion field lasts 6 seconds, and only has a 20 second cooldown. Once you trick the Flashfire into blowing distortion field, you have 14 seconds to kill him before he can pop it again. This is no mean feat, considering the maneuverability and engine efficiency that scouts have.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Resipsal

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Why do you keep differentiating between "He can do this passively" and "He can do this only with actives"? What difference does it make? Some crafts are designed with strong passives, some with strong actives, but both are part of the craft balance. Your insistence that it is somehow okay if a craft can do something with passives, but not with actives, seems completely arbitrary to me.

 

You misunderstand my point on actives/passives. I bring up whether scouts even have the ability to regularly use/win jousting tactics without an active because that places emphasis on whether the active ability is enhancing a tactic they are already capable of without actives or nullifying a weakness that would otherwise prevent them from using that tactic. It would seem that, lacking invulnerability, a scout's greatest weakness (paper thin defense) would be put into glaring relief during jousting. So my point was to observe that distortion field is allowing scouts to utilize tactics that would otherwise be playing to their greatest weakness, not one of their greatest strengths.

 

To be fair I wouldn't consider it automatically balanced if strikers had the distortion field invulnerability instead of scouts even though strikers are quite capable of jousting without using actives. Why? Because now it's like a case of GS 1 shotting people, yes GS are able to very rapidly kill people at extreme range but that doesn't mean 1 shotting is automatically balanced. In both scenarios it's that ambiguous area where it may not be balanced because it may be enhancing something that was already a strength to be too great a strength.

 

Claiming that "Craft X is not supposed to be able to do Y if it only can be done using Z active ability" is like claiming:

"A sage is not supposed to be able to kite melee attackers if he can only do it using force speed active ability. If he was meant to be able to kite, he would have been given a passive runspeed increase. Thus force speed is unbalanced, because it allows sage to do something he was not meant to be able to do"

 

That's your reasoning in a nutshell.

 

My reasoning would more accurately be described as saying can a ranged dps slinger regularly compete and win in melee or are they only capable of doing so when ability X is active? If, without this ability, melee combat would be playing to their weakness not strength then things are unbalanced if this ability is so powerful that it causes ranged dps slingers begin intentionally seeking out, and regularly win, melee combat even against melee classes.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Sharee]

So my point was to observe that distortion field is allowing scouts to utilize tactics that would otherwise be playing to their greatest weakness, not one of their greatest strengths.

 

But whether some tactic is or isn't natural to any particular craft is dictated by the abilities available to said craft. You cannot simply disregard those abilities, then analyse whether a tactic is or isn't viable for that craft without them.

 

If you allow me another ground play analogy, it's like evaluating whether a concealment operative would be good at getting within melee distance of a ranged class undetected if he had no stealth. And then making the conclusion that since stealth is the only thing allowing operatives to utilize tactics that would otherwise be doomed to fail, stealth is somehow unbalanced on an operative.

 

My reasoning would more accurately be described as saying can a ranged dps slinger regularly compete and win in melee or are they only capable of doing so when ability X is active? If, without this ability, melee combat would be playing to their weakness not strength then things are unbalanced if this ability is so powerful that it causes ranged dps slingers begin intentionally seeking out, and regularly win, melee combat even against melee classes.

 

You got it backwards.

 

How do we know that melee is not supposed to be a sliger's strong suit? How do we know they are not supposed to regularly compete and win in melee? We know it because they don't have ability X.

 

What a class/craft is or isn't supposed to be able to do is defined by its abilities, not the other way around.

 

If you in advance construct a mental image of what a scout should not be capable of, then discover he has an ability that allows him to do just that, it does not mean the ability is unbalanced, it just means your mental image was wrong.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Sharee

[Gavin_Kelvar]

But whether some tactic is or isn't natural to any particular craft is dictated by the abilities available to said craft. You cannot simply disregard those abilities, then analyse whether a tactic is or isn't viable for that craft without them.

 

Base stats dictate what a ship can and cannot do more so than active abilities. That's the whole idea, a gunship can't dogfight like a striker because their base stats make it so, not because there are no active abilities to give it a boost to be capable of dogfighting like a striker. The balance of active abilities should be assessed based on what the ship's base stats indicate it is supposed to be capable of and whether those abilities 1) enhance those capabilities in a balanced fashion 2a) give it abilities beyond what it should be capable of and are thus inbalanced 2b) nullify weaknesses in such a way that a ship can do things that their weakness should prevent them from doing and are thus inbalanced or 3) enhance the ship's strengths too much and to the point of being OP.

 

But what you're saying is that ship base stats play second fiddle to active abilities in determining what a ship class is supposed to be capable of. It's like saying that if an ability grants a ship performance outside of what the base stats say it should be capable of without it the ability it is nevertheless automatically balanced because it's mere existence makes it balanced.

 

Just because it exists doesn't mean it is automatically balanced. Otherwise there would be no such thing as OP or imbalance because all possible outcomes/uses of something would always be intended (excluding bugs/glitches of course).

 

If you allow me another ground play analogy, it's like evaluating whether a concealment operative would be good at getting within melee distance of a ranged class undetected if he had no stealth. And then making the conclusion that since stealth is the only thing allowing operatives to utilize tactics that would otherwise be doomed to fail, stealth is somehow unbalanced on an operative.

 

Your analogy would work much better if you were comparing the base stats of the ship and the ground game abilities not GSF active abilities and ground game abilities. In the ground game character stats enhance what a class can do but the abilities determine what a class can do; in GSF the base stats ultimately decide what a ship is capable of and the role it plays not active abilities.

 

You got it backwards.

 

How do we know that melee is not supposed to be a sliger's strong suit? How do we know they are not supposed to regularly compete and win in melee? We know it because they don't have ability X.

 

What a class/craft is or isn't supposed to be able to do is defined by its abilities, not the other way around.

 

If you in advance construct a mental image of what a scout should not be capable of, then discover he has an ability that allows him to do just that, it does not mean the ability is unbalanced, it just means your mental image was wrong.

 

I will grant that it wasn't the best analogy but that doesn't mean the point I was trying to illustrate isn't valid. I was trying to point out that if slingers found a way to use an ability to be melee DPS then that ability would need to be tweaked/nerfed and that it's mere existence wouldn't mean it was automatically balanced even though it gave them capability beyond what they would have without it. But whatever. The best analogy with the ground game that I've heard is probably the quote I had in an earlier post so I'm just going to post it again here:

 

If a sage could shoot 3 volleys of autocrit turbulence from within their magic immunity bubble you'd be up in arms, but if a scout does near the same thing, that's just part of the game and everyone should just suck it up and "LTP" right?

Edited January 3, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Sharee]

But what you're saying is that ship base stats play second fiddle to active abilities in determining what a ship class is supposed to be capable of.

 

No. What i am saying is that EVERYTHING the ship has determines what it is supposed to be capable of, in equal measure. Unlike you, who keeps insisting active abilities should, for some reason, play the second fiddle.

 

In the ground game character stats enhance what a class can do but the abilities determine what a class can do; in GSF the base stats ultimately decide what a ship is capable of and the role it plays not active abilities.

 

Because why? You say so?

 

No. In GSF, EVERYTHING, every passive and every active ability, the shield strength, speed, power draw, shield actives, engine actives, EVERYTHING determines what a ship is capable of and the role it plays. You cannot exclude some of it just because it doesn't fit into your agenda.

 

And that quote you like to repeat so much is irrelevant. You cannot dodge turbulences like you can dodge laser fire. Sage does not die to two hits when his immunity is down. A scout with distortion shield does. Etc. etc. Its all part of game balance.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Sharee

[Itkovian]

Nowhere I suppose. But it does seem to be illogical if the supposed intended tactic of a ship class can only be performed when the active ability of a specific component is used. Logically shouldn't a ship be capable of using the intended tactic of their class regardless of what component they have? Otherwise what's the point in having options if only one of those components will allow a ship class to use it's intended tactic?

 

That's my point, if you MUST use an active ability to use the scout's supposed intended tactics or they will loose to a striker then it would seem that they aren't intended to use that tactic. If it's the intended tactic of that ship class then they should be able to use that tactic regardless of ship component (and therefore use it, albeit less effectively, without a component's active ability).

 

This is a very reasonable argument, and a good guideline I must admit.

 

Personally I do feel there is a balance issue, though not a large one. Mainly something that requires minor balance tweaks to certain components.

 

Given that Scouts are already faster, more maneuverable, AND have higher evasion, the fact that their components allow them to ALSO have greater firepower and survivability than Strike fighters seems to be an issue.

 

That said, it is not a massive imbalance, as I still do quite well in my strike. If there should be any fixes (and the devs are the only one who can truly know for sure, but I suspect it is the case), they should be relatively minor,.

[GooseGrims]

 

That said, it is not a massive imbalance, as I still do quite well in my strike. If there should be any fixes (and the devs are the only one who can truly know for sure, but I suspect it is the case), they should be relatively minor,.

 

like many have said it mostly comes down to pilot skill, and correct me if im wrong but arent there upgrades to increase accuracy which in turn would negate some of the evasion of the scout your shooting at? i know theres an active ability to increase accuracy.

 

again i could be wrong but im noticing a trend on the GSF forums of some ppls builds not working out so well against some others and they yell OP, and Nerf!

 

News Flash: there is NO god build that will make you immune to everything and make you the best pilot.

 

i use distortion field on my flashfire and i HAVE been killed with it active, it comes down to the enemies accuracy, my evasion, RNG and who is the better pilot. and if you have more than 1 person firing at you then you chance of being hit with distortion active is increased its not an "i win button".

[Lymain]

Nowhere I suppose. But it does seem to be illogical if the supposed intended tactic of a ship class can only be performed when the active ability of a specific component is used. Logically shouldn't a ship be capable of using the intended tactic of their class regardless of what component they have? Otherwise what's the point in having options if only one of those components will allow a ship class to use it's intended tactic?

 

The 'intended tactics' change based on what components are equipped. I don't know how this isn't obvious. A Flashfire with Burst-Laser Cannons is going to be much better suited to close-ranged fighting while a Flashfire with Quad-Laser Cannons is going to be better off fighting at mid range. If you're using Quad-Laser Cannons against a ship with Burst-Laser Cannons, then you better do your best to stay out of a close range fight if you want to win. Whether that is 'intended' or not is impossible for us to say, but it's certainly the optimal tactic.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Lymain

[Sharee]

This is a very reasonable argument, and a good guideline I must admit.

 

Applying the same "good guideline" to a sage, you will arrive at the conclusion that they are not supposed to be able to heal their allies with an AOE heal:

 

Because

1, for it to work, the sage MUST use an active ability, and

2, logically, a sage should be capable of using the intended tactic of their class regardless of spec.

 

Consult the guideline:

 

That's my point, if you MUST use an active ability to use the ... supposed intended tactics ... then it would seem that they aren't intended to use that tactic.

 

and

 

Logically shouldn't ... be capable of using the intended tactic of their class regardless of what component they have?

 

[Sharee]

The 'intended tactics' change based on what components are equipped. I don't know how this isn't obvious.

 

That sentence deserves a bigger font size than the default

[Itkovian]

like many have said it mostly comes down to pilot skill, and correct me if im wrong but arent there upgrades to increase accuracy which in turn would negate some of the evasion of the scout your shooting at? i know theres an active ability to increase accuracy.

 

again i could be wrong but im noticing a trend on the GSF forums of some ppls builds not working out so well against some others and they yell OP, and Nerf!

 

Well, there is the Wingman ability, giving an increase of accuracy, but that's a generic bonus available to everyone, so it doesn't really enter into a discussion on role balance. To make a co-pilot ability a requisite for role balance obviously makes all other abilities useless and would in itself be a problem. Not that I think Wingman is the solution to role balance anyway, as I'm fine with scout evasion in general.

 

As for people making posts about class balance, why shouldn't they?

 

THIS is precisely when people SHOULD be finding flaws in role balance and pointing them out to the devs. GSF was released last month, and people are now hitting the "endgame" with fully upgraded ships. THIS is when balance issues MUST become apparent, as players poke at the cracks in the dev's design.

 

And make no mistake, the roles are NOT balanced. That's practically impossible. It'd be like saying that the classes in TOR were balanced when the game was released. What's worse, it'd be like saying they were balanced AND no beta testers had been allowed to reach endgame. There's just no way that the roles can be balanced.

 

So yeah, there's nothing wrong with people pointing out balance issues, because it's absolutely certain at least some of those are correct. It is the devs' job to shift through our feedback thread, and with the help of their metrics and various Divine Augurs to see which ones are valid and how they should be fixed.

 

Personally, I think the scout cooldowns work a tad too effectively at negating their weaknesses, going even beyond that and turning them into massive strengths, and so should probably be looked at. Or, conversely, perhaps Strikes can get some buff to compensate, but ultimately that's for the devs to decide, and I don't pretend to know what the best solution should be,

Edited January 3, 2014 by Itkovian

[GooseGrims]

Well, there is the Wingman ability, giving an increase of accuracy, but that's a generic bonus available to everyone, so it doesn't really enter into a discussion on role balance,

 

um excuse me? so something that can negate evasion has no place in a discussion where ppl claiming a scouts evasion (or evasion in general) is OP?

 

you might want to rethink that.

[Nocher]

I don't know if this argument has been made in this thread, but without evasion stacking, scouts would lose much of their defensive power, we have half the shields and hull as a strike fighter, and while piloting skill can help with this, it shuoldnt be the only thing in our defense.

 

I would guess a large reason people are asking for evasion nerfs is because the overwhelming offensive burst power of scouts makes it matter more to hit them every time.

 

That said, changing the passive and active effects of distortion field to something like 5% passive and 70% active so the highest you can stack is 101% when you use it and 31% when you don't (101% because accuracy is still fine, so it wouldn't be an invincibility button anymore, but would still be a valid CD) on top of some tweaks to our burst, should pacify the majority of the reasonable arguments.

[Delta_V]

I don't know if this argument has been made in this thread, but without evasion stacking, scouts would lose much of their defensive power, we have half the shields and hull as a strike fighter, and while piloting skill can help with this, it shuoldnt be the only thing in our defense.

 

I would guess a large reason people are asking for evasion nerfs is because the overwhelming offensive burst power of scouts makes it matter more to hit them every time.

 

That said, changing the passive and active effects of distortion field to something like 5% passive and 70% active so the highest you can stack is 101% when you use it and 31% when you don't (101% because accuracy is still fine, so it wouldn't be an invincibility button anymore, but would still be a valid CD) on top of some tweaks to our burst, should pacify the majority of the reasonable arguments.

 

The issue is that scouts are supposed to be the definition of "fragile speedsters" - compared to Strikes, they trade durability for speed and maneuverability. But with Distortion Field, even though they only have half the hull and shields, with 41% evasion, they only take 59% of damage from blasters that a Strike would in the same situation, greatly closing the gap in durability (and that's not even counting the 6 seconds of nigh-invincibility from the active ability). The end result is that Scouts end up being almost as durable as Strikes in practice, while enjoying significant advantages in speed and maneuverability.

[GooseGrims]

since ppl only want to bother with what details concern them i thought i would lay it out.

 

Scout only Shield ability

Distortion Field: +15% evasion -30% shield capacity (per shield arc) active ability increase evasion by 65% for 3 seconds (6 if upgraded) time extension tier 3 upgrade

 

Strike Fighter only shield ability

Charged Plating: +40% shield bleed through +55 shield capacity (per shield arc) active ability hull dmg reduction increased by 60% for 15 seconds (19 if upgraded) time extension tier 2 upgrade

 

not sure if typo but it shows the pike gets +50% shield bleed through.

 

seems pretty fair to me, that if you want to nerf the scouts shield ability then you should probly nerf the strike fighters too since it pretty much makes them as others have said about the scouts "invincible".

 

scouts dont get anything to take down shields where as the star Guard can switch from Ion Cannon to Quads and take a ship down in nothing flat, and the Pike has the ion missle which they can double with proton right away and take out any ship again in nothing flat. and using distortion field means the scout gets 30% less shield perr arc.

 

my Flashfires evasion is 31% +75% from the ablity

 

my Star Guards accuracy is 101% with Quads and 107% with Ion and +20% accuracy with wingman that is also applied to 2 allies within 1km

 

my Pikes accuracy is 101% with quads +20% from wingman.

 

even if the flashfire was using lightweight armor with all 3 upgrades for 12% more evasion it still wouldnt be more than either of the strike fighters acuracy.

 

i do not have access to the gunship so if these abilities are usable by them i apologize for saying it was only for those, but as they stand a Scout doesnt get Charged Plating and a Strike Fighter doesnt get Distortion field and both seem like pretty epic abilities which give each ship a "rawr" moment.

 

so as the topic says "Evasion Is Fine"

Edited January 3, 2014 by GooseGrims