Crew offensive passives- ITT I propose changes!

[Ramalina]

Calling the accuracy buff being too good, I think that's an incorrect conclusion. If you look at the range of actives and passives in crew and in components there's a pattern. The categories (offense, defense, utility) and the magnitudes are pretty consistent, the effective interactions with other mechanics are wildly inconsistent.

 

On the balance, I really doubt that Pinpointing is suffering from Ion Railgun and BLC syndrome, but the rest probably are suffering from Charged Plating syndrome.

 

If everything gets nerfed to the level of rapid reload we might as well point out that all of the starfighters are clearly single seat spaceframes and just do away with crew altogether. Having nothing that's worth taking isn't really better than having only one thing that's worth taking. Given the price in fleet requisition for unlocking a whole set (4) of non-stock crew options I'm thinking that crew passives should cumulatively make a significant difference in performance. After all, should spending about as much as it takes to unlock the more expensive unlockable ships offer no benefit?

 

I think that buffing other options is probably the way to go, though as with underperforming components part of the solution may be to change what they do rather than just inflating values hoping to see an effect.

 

Math fail. The ultimate outcome is binary (win or lose the match) and so the value of a stochastic buff is lower bounded at its nominal value.

 

Yeah, math fail, but not in the way that you're suggesting if I'm interpreting you right.

 

Binary effect yes, but the outcomes are shot hits or shot misses, not victory or defeat.

 

The lower limit of the value is zero, you can gain no additional hits from the buff. The maximum benefit is that all of your hits would have missed without the buff. Absurdly unlikely that you'll reach either of those limits with a lot of shots fired.

 

I was wildly incorrect in thinking the variability would affect average long term outcome. Verain's math is fine except at the tails of the distribution, and those areas are so small that they're irrelevant in practice.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Ramalina

[Kuciwalker]

Yeah, math fail, but not in the way that you're suggesting if I'm interpreting you right.

 

Binary effect yes, but the outcomes are shot hits or shot misses, not victory or defeat.

 

Nope. Final outcome of the system is winning or losing. Hitting and missing are just intermediate steps in arriving at that outcome.

 

If a battle contained a single blaster shot, that single blaster shot would logically determine the outcome of the battle (ignoring the possiblity of ties). A 6% accuracy buff would increase hit probability by at least 6% and therefore victory probability by 6%.

 

(Yes, this is all pretty handwavy but I'm illustrating a point, not conducting a formal proof).

 

If a battle contains 10,000 blaster shots, then the law of large numbers makes accuracy more important. The probability of the buffed side hitting with more shots than the unbuffed side is very, very high.

 

The lower limit of the value is zero, you can gain no additional hits from the buff. The maximum benefit is that all of your hits would have missed without the buff. Absurdly unlikely that you'll reach either of those limits with a lot of shots fired.

 

Given baseline levels of evasion, tracking, and range penalties it is actually pretty unlikely that your accuracy on any given shot (before Pinpointing) is > 94%. We can ignore that circumstance.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Ramalina]

If a battle contained a single blaster shot, that single blaster shot would logically determine the outcome of the battle (ignoring the possiblity of ties). A 6% accuracy buff would increase hit probability by at least 6% and therefore victory probability by 6%.

 

I assume that this is math related trolling?

 

The probability function of victory in GSF is multivariate.

 

Multivariate probability functions can be a @!#$% to model, but I think we can all be happy that it means that a 6% passive buff to a random variable can have a lot less than a 6% influence on the probable outcome of a match.

[Kuciwalker]

I assume that this is math related trolling?

 

The probability function of victory in GSF is multivariate.

 

Multivariate probability functions can be a @!#$% to model, but I think we can all be happy that it means that a 6% passive buff to a random variable can have a lot less than a 6% influence on the probable outcome of a match.

 

We don't care that it's multivariate, we can just take the partial derivative of win chance wrt accuracy.

[Armonddd]

We don't care that it's multivariate, we can just take the partial derivative of win chance wrt accuracy.

 

Not sure if you're just throwing out math words at this point, or if we're just beyond my level of experience with statistics.

[Kuciwalker]

Translation: we can filter out the effects of all the other variables to examine only the effect of accuracy.

[Kuciwalker]

That said, yes, the fact that there are variables orthogonal to accuracy dilutes its value. I was disputing the contention that the law of large numbers (more precisely, the fact that it may not be satisfied in this case) dilutes it.

[Verain]

Maybe part of the problem is that the passives favor secondary weapons too much, and part of the solution is to rework Spare Ammo and Rapid Reload. Maybe the current four should be merged -- I'd take +2% accuracy and +2 degrees firing arc on my Flashfire, and my Pike would love +15% ammo -20% reload time. At that point you could introduce other interesting passives, perhaps reducing lock-on time or increasing range or something. That would make me really think about my crew members, instead of just loading up the same four every time I buy a new ship.

 

 

I definitely like this idea.

 

My gripe with accuracy is that if you EVER pick a crewman without the 6% accuracy, you are just wrong. I'm actually surprised that anyone is in this thread arguing with that- I'm sure every single one of them picks an accuracy crewmen in that spot, and is worried I'm trying to get them nerfed, which, of course, I'm not. I want the delta between some guy who picks one of the crewmen without this passive and someone who picks someone with him to not be so great.

 

In fact, why is accuracy even an option? With passives like these, when would you be like "yea, screw it, I don't need a 5-20% damage boost to all my blasters forever". It seems really out of place.

 

 

 

The ONLY time you pick a crewman without it is if you want a specific copilot ability. Now, unlike some of you, I LIKE that tradeoff- but I don't think it should be so steep. You shouldn't be trading a massive blaster bonus with something almost inconsequential.

 

Republic:

Aric Jorgan -> With Spare Ammo, Rapid Reload, and Concentrated Fire, this never-picked companion has a very desirable copilot ability, but lacks accuracy. If you DO love missiles enough to care about spare ammo and rapid reload, you'd probably prefer firing arc to actually launch them easier, and if you are rocket podding you want the accuracy for the extra blaster stuff. This guy represents a pretty big dealt by lacking that accuracy, and if accuracy wasn't as painful to lose, you might actually see people pick this guy!

 

Corso Riggs -> Every female smuggler's favorite niceguy beta, Corso brings the generally worthless Rapid Reload to the table with Improved Kill Zone, and, oddly, the evasion debuff. It's definitely odd to think that you'd want to run the evasion debuff but not the +accuracy. If rapid reload was something worthwhile, this guy would be some kind of cool burst niche- "I'll put the evasion thing on them, and then I'll really hammer them with whatever rapid reload lets me do". Instead, poor Corso can't be chosen.

 

HK-51 -> Honestly some people subscribe just because of this guy. He rolls around with Rapid Reload and Improved Kill Zone, and has the desirable Concentrated Fire. It's fair to say that if either one of his passives were accuracy, he would be chosen much much more, and make players happier in general. But of course, that's a trick- the real solution is to make accuracy not a massive delta. This guy is even a trap- many players run him because they love the character, but pay the price in blaster damage. All of the players who pick HK or Alric should instead run Qyzen.

 

Sergeant Rusk -> With the worthless Lingering Effect (copilot abilities like this I'll talk about in another thread), Spare Ammo, and Rapid Reload, this clown is just a terrible version of Alric Jorgan. In this ONE case, fixing the crew passives wouldn't even solve the issue of him not being picked, you'd also have to make his passive worth taking ever- and it's generally lame that it's something that would be in close competition with the very similar concentrated fire (if both of these had similar value, you'd take them on similar ships- a passive such as -evasion or something would be better on this guy).

 

Zenith -> This guy has Spare Ammo and Improved Kill Zone, a decent set of passives if you were all about cluster missiles, but again, the lack of accuracy holds you back just so so much. He also has the trashcan Lingering Effect. Not as bad as the Rapid Reload waste of slot, but still terrible. Republic can't even get Lingering Effect without dropping Accuracy, a note no one cares about because of the poor quality of the move, but it would be an issue if the copilot abilities were balanced before the offensive crew passives.

 

Empire:

 

HK-51 appears here, of course.

 

Kaliyo -> With Rapid Reload, Improved Kill Zone, and In Your Sights, this cute crewmember is a mirror of Corso- and just as bad.

 

Khem Val -> With Spare Ammo and Improved Kill Zone, Khem has often been chosen just for Bypass. Though mostly prenerf (and nerfed a spot more than normal), Bypass is still a solid choice with some surprising kill capability. The fact that this guy doesn't have accuracy really limits him though- the fact that empire can't even get bypass and accuracy is relatively surprising. This doesn't need to change, but the delta between accuracy and the others should be closed so that this decision isn't so punishing to the imperial player.

 

MZ-12 -> Though hydro spanner is a mostly terrible copilot ability, having no merit outside of charged plating and not that much even with it, it's unfortunate that his Spare Ammo / Rapid Reload combo (similar to Aric but without the good copilot ability) is forced on you if you wanted to get his aid.

 

Skadge -> The only other source of Bypass, this monster has Spare Ammo and Rapid Reload, relatively weak passives. He's very similar to Khem in fact, and generally simply worse.

 

 

 

If it were not for there being such a strict and notable hierarchy of passives, these NINE crewmembers might not be so punishing to anyone who wants to pick them. The best thing you can say about many of them is "at least their copilot ability sucks too".

 

There's only 15 offensive crewmen across both factions. Nine lack accuracy, and as such are generally discounted promptly. If accuracy was something else and comparable in power (with the accuracy boost baked in or something), then you'd not be stuck with such a driving decision. I think it's pretty lame that 60% of the list just gets thrown out- or tolerated for access to a copilot ability, in a couple cases.

 

 

 

Similar value for offensive passives- basically, making each one alter, slightly, how you deal damage- would really be great, and give us back at least some of those crewmembers.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Verain

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I definitely like this idea.

 

My gripe with accuracy is that if you EVER pick a crewman without the 6% accuracy, you are just wrong. I'm actually surprised that anyone is in this thread arguing with that- I'm sure every single one of them picks an accuracy crewmen in that spot, and is worried I'm trying to get them nerfed, which, of course, I'm not. I want the delta between some guy who picks one of the crewmen without this passive and someone who picks someone with him to not be so great.

 

Well as I said I pick accuracy since 1) rapid reload sucks and is the RFL of offensive passives 2) I rarely run out of ammo so for most situations it pretty much provides no benefit 3) I fly strikers and scouts are one of my biggest enemies, I'd be somewhat crazy to ignore the only passive that helps counter the most powerful defensive stat in the game. Which leaves me with accuracy and firing arc. I default to these two because they're the only ones where I will consistently get a benefit from.

 

You seem to assume that people pick accuracy because it is so good and not because reload is so minor that its benefit is negligible (automatically making people discount it as a choice) or so rarely ever need extra ammo it makes it a very niche passive (and unless you survive long enough to run out of ammo without this passive/can't find a resupply drone you'll never see a pay off with this passive). Considering that the only reason not to take the accuracy/firing arc combo is if you want a co-pilot ability.

 

Personally I'm in favor of leaving accuracy alone and buffing rapid reload and ammo so that they're not so terribly weak and/or niche that only under certain circumstances will you actually ever see a benefit from taking those passives. There's absolutely zero reason to take the reload/ammo passive combo as it is pretty much a combination of the two weakest/niche offensive passives. IMO before nerfs are considered both those passives should be buffed so that combo is equally useful to the accuracy/firing arc combo.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar