I am SICK AND TIRED of missing 41% of my shots because of Evasion

[Sharee]

But even if the numbers were equal when using effective values, that is STILL indicative of poor balance. The Scouts are supposed to have their higher speed and maneuverability balanced by being more fragile. So if their effective durability due to evasion puts them on equal footing with Strikes, then clearly there is a balance issue.

 

But it doesn't.

 

Evasion only puts them on equal footing (having near identical effective hitpoints) when you count in evasion, hull HP, and nothing else(and even then it favors the strike slightly).

 

Count in damage resistance, shields, and the strike fighter EHP pulls ~40% ahead of the scout.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Sharee

[Armonddd]

Thousands of matches? Sounds like you will need those averages after all.

 

Your theoretical averages don't match the practical experiences of myself and the pilots I've flown those matches with. They just straight up disagree. I'll take in-flight experiences over napkin math any day.

 

But it doesn't.

 

Evasion only puts them on equal footing (having near identical effective hitpoints) when you count in evasion, hull HP, and nothing else(and even then it favors the strike slightly).

 

Count in damage resistance, shields, and the strike fighter EHP pulls ~40% ahead of the scout.

 

You're (deliberately?) ignoring maneuverability. A good strike pilot can keep me off his tail for ten or fifteen seconds before I get a bead on him and four-shot him. A good scout pilot can keep me off his tail for much, much longer - because, like Iktovian said, he can pop a cooldown or boost away, regen his shields, and undo most of the work my single shot did to him. If I don't have shield piercing, he undoes all the work that shot did. The fact that I can two-shot a scout means nothing if I can't get that second shot in before he gets a chance to do literally anything about it.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Armonddd

[Sharee]

Your theoretical averages don't match the practical experiences of myself and the pilots I've flown those matches with. They just straight up disagree. I'll take in-flight experiences over napkin math any day.

 

Funny that your in-flight experiences seem to notice how horrible it is everytime that your shot against the scout got evaded, but not the times when you fired at the scout 2 times and he exploded.

 

Whenever you fire at a scout, and your aim well, he is more likely to get hit than not. And when he does get hit, he HURTS. A lot. Sometimes i kill an incoming scout at a node 0.6 seconds after he enters weapon range. That is MY in-flight experience. And it is just as valid as yours. That is why you use math to balance a game, and not perceptions.

 

You're (deliberately?) ignoring maneuverability.

 

I'm NOT ignoring maneuverability. I am saying maneuverability is what balances that 40% EHP deficit the scout has compared to a strike. I did that twice already, in posts #14 and #19.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Sharee

[Itkovian]

But it doesn't.

 

Evasion only puts them on equal footing (having near identical effective hitpoints) when you count in evasion, hull HP, and nothing else(and even then it favors the strike slightly).

 

Count in damage resistance, shields, and the strike fighter EHP pulls ~40% ahead of the scout.

 

Would you mind posting detail numbers, including all these factors? It might help clear up the situation.

[Kuciwalker]

But it doesn't.

 

Evasion only puts them on equal footing (having near identical effective hitpoints) when you count in evasion, hull HP, and nothing else(and even then it favors the strike slightly).

 

Count in damage resistance, shields, and the strike fighter EHP pulls ~40% ahead of the scout.

 

False. I ran the numbers. The EHP for an evasion scout is 79% of the EHP of a health and shield boosting strike fighter. That is far too much given the massive non-statistical advantage scouts get from being harder to hit before evasion.

 

Evasion as a statistical mechanic is not fun. Evasion as a skill-based mechanic is.

[Sharee]

Would you mind posting detail numbers, including all these factors? It might help clear up the situation.

 

I already did.

Scout effective HP isn't much different from the effective HP of a strike fighter, even counting in *only* the evasion.

 

950 hull @ 41% evasion is 1610 HP

1450 hull @ 11% evasion is 1629 HP

 

If you count in damage reduction it's up to 1715 HP for the strike fighter.

 

And that doesn't count in the shields which are much stronger on the strike fighter, both shield strength and shield regen. Strongest shield you can get on a flashfire(if you want to keep the 41% evasion) is 1300. Strongest shield you can get on a starguard is 2340 (80% stronger than the scout, along with ~40% faster recharge).

 

Scout total: 1610+1300=2910

Strike total: 1715+2340=4055

 

2910 + 39% = 4045; Strike EHP is more than 39% higher than scout EHP. (note that this does not factor in the fact strike shields regen 40% faster) [EDIT] its not correct, see post below.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Sharee

[hadoken]

Would you mind posting detail numbers, including all these factors? It might help clear up the situation.

 

I doubt it, there's obviously an "Ima ignore your math cause it ain't fun" crowd in these parts.

[Sharee]

False. I ran the numbers. The EHP for an evasion scout is 79% of the EHP of a health and shield boosting strike fighter.

 

Well. Maybe i made a mistake. But whether 79% is too much or not is a matter of debate, and far from being a fact.

 

[EDIT] yea i made a mistake. Shields are protected by evasion as well, not just the hull. Still, scout EHP is lower than that of a strike fighter. Whether the difference is too low is arguable.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Sharee

[Ramalina]

Sharee has a point, numerically the MMORPG mechanics look pretty balanced.

 

The problem is that the 'flight model' wasn't dumbed down enough to remove all aspects of air combat considerations.

 

The problem stems from the fact that the MMORPG mechanics interact poorly with the air combat simulation aspects as far as balanced gameplay between ship types.

 

If the air combat sim aspects hadn't been quite so dumbed down, this wouldn't be a problem, no one expects a B-52 or A-10 to survive against a MiG-29 or Su-27. The problem is that there is no real role for anything other than space superiority fighters (heavy scouts) and air defense units (gunships). In a full fledged combat sim, the air superiority and air defense roles by themselves are pretty useless without recon, electronic warfare, strike/bomber/CAS, and refueling craft as well. In GSF you have at present recon and strike fighter ships, but there's nothing to do in game except space superiority. So ignoring faction and cartel clones, out of 6 ship types half are significantly under par when it comes to gameplay.

 

So it is theoretically possibly that good mission/battlespace design could correct the balance problems currently seen in game. Based on what we've seen of GSF so far though, I'd rather have numerical or RPG mechanics tweaked to bring things into line. Objective free team deathmatch is to my mind really incredibly bad battlespace/misson design, but it should at least serve to make balancing problems glaringly obvious.

[Brewski]

You could just as easily make the argument for Damage Reduction ("I'm sick and tired of weapons ignoring my armor!"), Shield Penetration ("I'm sick and tired of weapons ignoring my shield!") or just about any core game mechanic out there.

 

Evasion is a core mechanic in GSF, and is here to stay. You can make an argument that values should be adjusted, but to argue it needs to be removed completely is not productive. It's essentially advocating for a complete rewrite and revamp of the game.

 

GSF is a skill based game, but part of that skill comes in selecting the best ship and build for your role and style. Game mechanics are a core part of that. If the game mechanics aren't enjoyable for you, and nothing short of complete removal of said mechanic is the only way you'll be happy, then maybe it's the wrong game for you.

[Nemarus]

You could just as easily make the argument for Damage Reduction ("I'm sick and tired of weapons ignoring my armor!"), Shield Penetration ("I'm sick and tired of weapons ignoring my shield!") or just about any core game mechanic out there.

 

Evasion is a core mechanic in GSF, and is here to stay. You can make an argument that values should be adjusted, but to argue it needs to be removed completely is not productive. It's essentially advocating for a complete rewrite and revamp of the game.

 

GSF is a skill based game, but part of that skill comes in selecting the best ship and build for your role and style. Game mechanics are a core part of that. If the game mechanics aren't enjoyable for you, and nothing short of complete removal of said mechanic is the only way you'll be happy, then maybe it's the wrong game for you.

 

I've never said Evasion should be gone. I think a small amount of Evasion (up to 25%) makes for interesting and unpredictable combat. And I have no problem with active cooldowns which further boost Evasion for short, tactical durations.

 

But I do feel that 41% passive, constant evasion... avoidance of the primary weapon every ship has ... is onerous. It pushes things from "interesting and unpredictable" into "unintuitive and frustrating". And I think a lot of people who don't come to the forums but just try GSF are utterly befuddled by it. They work hard to finally line that squirrely scout in their sights... they shoot at it and think they are aiming properly... but nothing happens. That's not a good experience ever... and it's an even worst first impression.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Nemarus

[Sharee]

But I do feel that 41% passive, constant evasion... avoidance of the primary weapon every ship has ... is onerous. It pushes things from "interesting and unpredictable" into "unintuitive and frustrating".

 

One point - the 41% evasion is only achievable if you include crew member bonus(6% from response tuning)

But if you are including crew members in the calculation, you should also include offensive crewmember of the attacker, which effectively cancels out the defender (6% accuracy from pinpointing)

 

So the passive evasion is effectively 35% not 41% (assuming the attacker is using pinpointing, and i don't know why anyone wouldn't, unless he only relies on missiles, in which case evasion is irrelevant)

Edited January 24, 2014 by Sharee

[Flearos]

I already did.

 

 

Scout total: 1610+1300=2910

Strike total: 1715+2340=4055

 

2910 + 39% = 4045; Strike EHP is more than 39% higher than scout EHP. (note that this does not factor in the fact strike shields regen 40% faster) [EDIT] its not correct, see post below.

 

Part of the problem is so many lasers have shield pierce which really cuts into those EHP numbers and im not even sure how to go about calculating what effect it would have. I do know that Shield pierce is going to reduce a strikes EHP a lot faster than a scout.

[Sharee]

Part of the problem is so many lasers have shield pierce which really cuts into those EHP numbers and im not even sure how to go about calculating what effect it would have. I do know that Shield pierce is going to reduce a strikes EHP a lot faster than a scout.

 

Shield pierce doesn't really cut into EHP numbers unless the shot kills the craft while it's shields are still up. Otherwise it just redistributes the damage between hull and shields. Also, a strike hull can handle the damage leaking through shields a lot better than a scout hull can.

[Danylia]

GSF is a skill based game, but part of that skill comes in selecting the best ship and build for your role and style.

True. But only in case when the various ships and builds are either balanced against each other (rock-paper-scissors) or complement each other in the Gobliiins style. When you have ship/build which beats every other ship/build and is good (even best) at everything, there is a problem.

[Altheran]

So the passive evasion is effectively 35% not 41% (assuming the attacker is using pinpointing, and i don't know why anyone wouldn't, unless he only relies on missiles, in which case evasion is irrelevant)

 

If only the system of missile locking would allow an error margin to allow the launch of missiles that are slightly out of range to compensate the latency between us and the server (we are not supposed to know that what appears "in range" is "out of range" server-side)...

 

Then, maybe we wouldn't see as many threads about thing like Evasion over-efficiency, and Strike Fighter inefficiency.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Altheran

[Kuciwalker]

You could just as easily make the argument for Damage Reduction ("I'm sick and tired of weapons ignoring my armor!"), Shield Penetration ("I'm sick and tired of weapons ignoring my shield!") or just about any core game mechanic out there.

 

Except those other mechanics don't take a notionally skill-based mechanic ("I have to actually work to hit someone") and move it to a luck-based mechanic (roll to hit). This is even worse because they still have the skill-based mechanic of having to actually target someone, but even if you succeed at that challenge the game still claims that you "missed". In a twitch game it is not fun to have your skill invalidated by a die roll.

[Sharee]

Except those other mechanics don't take a notionally skill-based mechanic ("I have to actually work to hit someone") and move it to a luck-based mechanic (roll to hit).

 

Luck-based...

 

Your weapon does 100 damage per shot.

 

If enemy has 2000 health and no evasion, then you need to fire 20 accurate shots to kill him

If enemy has 1000 health and 50% evasion, then, on average, you also have to fire 20 accurate shots to kill him

 

The same amount of actual piloting skill is required to be able to consistently kill either of those enemies.

 

Yeah sometimes it takes more shots to kill the second enemy, sometimes less, but it's not like the game suddenly became skill-less.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Sharee

[Kuciwalker]

Luck-based...

 

Your weapon does 100 damage per shot.

 

If enemy has 2000 health and no evasion, then you need to fire 20 accurate shots to kill him

If enemy has 1000 health and 50% evasion, then, on average, you also have to fire 20 accurate shots to kill him

 

The same amount of actual piloting skill is required to be able to consistently kill either of those enemies.

 

Yes, if you are a simpleton they look the same. If you actually are able to think intelligently about these things, they aren't.

 

1. Expectation is not a sufficient statistic for most distributions, including this one.

1a. People care about more than expectation; they care about many of the higher moments.

2. Some weapons apply debuffs. Armor does nothing against the debuff, while dodge does.

3. Shields recharge based on a delay between hits. Dodge makes it more likely you will make it that far, armor does not.

 

And, most importantly:

 

4. If we accepted your argument, then why not just completely remove evasion and replace it with health. That would keep the EHP the same, wouldn't it? So why not do it?

 

That was sarcasm, of course. The reason they didn't do it is because they thought dodging was a thematically appropriate defense for a scout, while armor was a thematically appropriate defense for a strike fighter. But THEY GOT IT WRONG. The thematically appropriate version of "dodge" in a twitch shooter is having your fighter literally, physically, dodge out of the way under your own control. Having an artificial dodge roll after the player has already completed the thematic task of "hitting" the target is anti-thematic and unfun.

[Sharee]

 

4. If we accepted your argument, then why not just completely remove evasion and replace it with health. That would keep the EHP the same, wouldn't it? So why not do it?

 

Because that would effectively remove the scout from the game, turning it into a strike fighter. If you want that - hey, be my guest. Maybe we should remove gunships also while we are at it. Make everyone fly exactly the same ship. That will make it the most skill-based game, right? (and also the most boring)

 

The thematically appropriate version of "dodge" in a twitch shooter is having your fighter literally, physically, dodge out of the way under your own control.

 

I am not sure many would appreciate if the scout could manually dodge out of the way on-demand. We already have something with similar functionality, and it's not generally well-received.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Sharee

[Nemarus]

Because that would effectively remove the scout from the game. If you want that - hey, be my guest. Maybe we should remove gunships also while we are at it. Make everyone fly exactly the same ship. That will make it the most skill-based game, right? (and also the most boring)

 

What? It's possible to build a Scout with 1820 shields, 1140 hull, 9% damage reduction and only 10% evasion. That seems to indicate the devs think that Evasion is not required for a Scout to be viable... unless you think they are just intentionally including "bad build" traps in the game.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Nemarus

[Sharee]

What? It's possible to build a Scout with 1820 shields, 1140 hull, 9% damage reduction and only 10% evasion. That seems to indicate the devs think that Evasion is not required for a Scout to be viable... unless you think they are just intentionally including "bad build" traps in the game.

 

Games that offer freedom of choice usually include the freedom to screw up a build. This game is no different. Just look at the ground game. Ever seen a guardian wearing aim gear? I did.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Sharee

[Nemarus]

Games that offers freedom of choice usually include the freedom to screw up a build. This game is no different. Just look at the ground game. Ever seen a guardian wearing aim gear? I did.

 

Strawman if I ever saw one.

[hadoken]

Strawman if I ever saw one.

 

Not really, your argument of 'well they allow it, thus it's viable' is pretty ridiculous.

[Zoom_VI]

What? It's possible to build a Scout with 1820 shields, 1140 hull, 9% damage reduction and only 10% evasion. That seems to indicate the devs think that Evasion is not required for a Scout to be viable... unless you think they are just intentionally including "bad build" traps in the game.

 

I am curious to know how you are equipping both HP armor and Damage reduction armor at the same time.