Engineering Passives- Verain suggests some changes!

[Verain]

Like my thread on offensive passives:

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=7338365

 

This is for the engineering ones. Also like that thread, I want to be clear that I'm not trying to net some massive nerf: I want to fix the fact that out of six companions on each side, only one or two are ever worth considering for all ships.

 

 

This is actually LESS balanced than the offensive ones. At least over there, the shining star (6% accuracy) showed up on enough companions to allow for a few possible ones on each side.

 

 

> 13% less engine power consumed

> 13% less blaster power consumed

> 10% extra max engine power

> 10% extra max blaster power

 

These secondaries are also very boring.

 

 

 

So, first of all- the "less engine power consumed ones" are strictly better. 100-13% = 87%. 1/.87 ~= 1.15

 

So if you had 0 regeneration but full engines, having the 10% extra engine power companion would let you go 10% further- having 13% less consumption would let you go 15% further.

 

 

That is the best case scenario for the max power one- if you actually take a sting with, say, double speed:

 

5 to turn on afterburners, 10 per second cost, 2 engine regen per second, baseline 100.

 

With double blaster engineering crewmember: Almost 12 seconds (11.875) until you have to stop boosting.

With 10% max engine power crewmember: A bit over 13 seconds (13.125) until you have to stop boosting.

With 13% less engine power consumed crewmember: A bit over 14 seconds (14.3) until you have to stop boosting.

With BOTH engine engineering crewmembers: Almost 16 seconds (15.8) until you have to stop boosting.

 

Under the much more common situation of spending energy, regenerating some, spending again, then the 13% less consumed helps much much more.

 

 

Blasters is similar, with the one caveat that 13% less cost doesn't help railguns, but 10% max still technically does.

 

 

So we reach a rather sad conclusion: with each thing in the "engine" category having a superior one under all circumstances, and each one in the "blaster" category being similar, we decide which one we want more (engine) then decide whether we also care about blaster enough or not.

 

 

 

 

This means that your allowed crewmembers here are:

 

C2N2/Blizz: This is double engine guy gives you the best boost. Most of the benefit is the 13% efficiency one.

Yuun/2VR8: This guy has a 13% reduction to blasters and engine stuff. He's your option if you shoot a lot and don't care about the mild 10% boost to engine power.

 

You MIGHT also consider the double blaster companion- but you should not. Nothing can really afford to give up the 13% engine power increase.

 

 

The other options are strictly worse. Max engine / Max power (Risha / Andronikus) is the worst- you NEVER want it, not in ANY circumstance. Max engine and efficient fire is strictly worse than double efficient guy, as is efficient engine and max fire guy.

 

 

 

 

 

So, everyone runs one of the two above, with the occasional VERY punishing choice for a copilot ability (the mediocre servo jammer can be hard to come by). This is lame.

 

 

 

 

So, you might meaningfully choose efficient fire over efficient maneuvers- but with the other two strictly and mathematically inferior, you'll never have that choice. In order to make max engine competitive with efficient fire, you'd have to consider a 20% boost at minimum, and likewise with blasters. This is not a trivial chance to pool size- I will recommend something different.

 

 

My suggestions

 

 

> Efficient Maneuvers: 13% less engine power consumed

> Efficient Fire: Cost of using blasters is reduced by 15%

> Extra Power: Your blaster and engine pools are increased by 10% each.

> Redundant Systems: Reduce the time you spend snared, with reduced regeneration, or unable to use a component by 20%.

 

I think people would actually be making choices then.

[Verain]

Btw, above numbers are for F4.

 

For F1/F2, your engine regen rate goes from 2 to 1.5 in the sting example (-25%).

 

With double blaster engineering crewmember: Almost 11 seconds (11.18) until you have to stop boosting.

With 10% max engine power crewmember: A bit over 12 seconds (13.35) until you have to stop boosting.

With 13% less engine power consumed crewmember: A bit over 13 seconds (13.3) until you have to stop boosting.

With BOTH engine engineering crewmembers: Almost 15 seconds (14.7) until you have to stop boosting.

 

This narrows the gap a small amount, but it's still very much in favor of the efficiency.

 

For F3 (the one people actually use), your regen rate rises to 3 in the sting example (+50%)

 

With double blaster engineering crewmember: 13 and a half seconds (13.6) until you have to stop boosting.

With 10% max engine power crewmember: Exactly 15 seconds until you have to stop boosting.

With 13% less engine power consumed crewmember: Almost 17 seconds (16.8) until you have to stop boosting.

With BOTH engine engineering crewmembers: Almost 19 seconds (18.6) until you have to stop boosting.

 

 

As you can see, the common use case really rewards the less engine consumed by quite a bit.

[Altheran]

I don't think that reducing the duration of debuffs (snares, slicer loop) done by external sources is even possible.

 

As an alternative I thought about a turbo systems like turbo reactor, but the "reset time" of weapons and engines is so short anyway...

 

So ultimately, why not improved regen ? But to be as worth as cost reductions, numbers have to be high for weapons :

- Cost red on weapons ~ -2/s

- Recently used weapon regen : 4/s => ~ +50% to be equally worth.

On the contrary for Engines, the numbers would be much lower :

- Cost red on Afterburners : ~ -0.5/s

- Recently used engine regen : 2/s => ~ +25% to be equally worth.

The problem is that its redundant with regen magazines and thrusters. But it's not like it was redundant with Power Magazine/Thruster... Oh, wait...

[Verain]

I would think it would be possible to reduce the initial duration of a debuff on application- in fact, I would think that wouldn't be super hard, given that I see the mechanic in use eleswhere.

 

 

More importantly, I think that:

 

1)- The changes shouldn't really ramp up the power of the ships. If you buffed the capacity ones to actually be similar to the cost reduction ones, then ships will essentially all get a lot better- C2N2 or Blizz will now increase your engine powers by a whole lot.

2)- That kind of buff won't actually let you pick any other companions really. There will still be a better one. In the best scenario, a certain ship (ex: one with regen thrusters) might choose one of them while other ships choose another.

3)- I think picking "engine a lot, blasters a lot, engine a little, blasters a little" is what it boils down to even with balanced ones, and these choices will always be lame, so I think a new one would be better.

 

 

That's why I figured, just put both capacity ones together (without buffing them). Both of them together is a real choice. That leaves you with one more to come up with, and not much of a template.

 

Some other options for the final spot besides the snare/energy debuff reduction:

 

> Efficient Tuning: +30% blaster and engine regeneration when below 20 energy.

> Clever Routing: When power is diverted away from a system, its regeneration is only reduced by 15% (down from 25%).

> Maximum Power: When power is routed to a system, its regeneration is increased by 65% (up from 50%)

 

Even these are having a hard time being unique.

[Nemarus]

Looks like the Gunship brigade is out in force again today. Herp derp.

[Altheran]

Oh, please Nemarus... Not you too...

[Nemarus]

Oh, please Nemarus... Not you too...

 

No, not me. I just want Verain to know what it feels like to have some idiot come in to a well-reasoned, sensible post (like the one he just wrote), not read all of it, and reply with derailing troll class-agenda crap.

 

He does it to everyone else on the forum, so he might as well get a taste of it too on occasion.

 

Seriously, I barely mustered up the will to read or reply seriously and on-topic to what he wrote because he doesn't give that courtesy to others.

 

But here goes--yes I agree with your perspective and suggestions, Verain. The snare reduction one might be difficult technically though.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Nemarus

[Verain]

I post in a lot of threads, but when you open a thread with mediocre ideas that don't address the actual issues a class has, a post with some merit, and then it gets swarmed with class whiners who want to delete classes, yea, Imma call them out. No regrets there either, but you shouldn't assume a post in your thread is addressed to you unless you are quoted or something.

 

 

Anyway, on the more general topic of secondaries, I'm kind of confused as to how some of them came about. Certainly this one isn't the result of a failure of math or anything, making me wonder why four of the six combinations are strictly worse. The other passives don't seem to be intended to be like that- the devs may have guessed that 8% cooldown reduction on non-mine secondaries was on par with 25% extra ammo or even the vastly superior 6% accuracy, because these things all work with different directions. But 13% less consumed versus 10% max is strictly better, and they used that TWICE in engineering.

 

 

As such, they may have intended that only two of the companions be used, and that the others be a big tradeoff. But that seems a hard price to pay to reward players for fleet req and system mastery, when they could instead have each ship have 3-4 valid crewmembers, depending on what the pilot wants.

 

Basically, the balance here is so odd that it just MUST be by design. So I'm mostly asking that they change the design. With the offensive crewmen, I figured they just got the balance off- here there's no way they were aiming for it.

[Slivovidze]

Your math sure makes sense, but you don't really count with people's playstyles.

 

I use 10% extra blaster and engine power and I am more comfortable playing with that than with the 13% cost reduction. No particular reason, not that I was looking for one, I just have more success and better feel of stuff when I have 10% extra capacity.

 

I also don't think it needs to be buffed, but I don't mind if your arguements got me higher stats.

[Verain]

Next time you are in game, stopwatch how long it takes you to out of engine power during boost. If you are on a sat not doing anything, stopwatch how long before you run entirely out of energy when shooting.

 

 

Now try it with the companion that gives you -13% to both. You will see that both are now improved.

 

 

Starting from max and going until zero is the one scenario that having more initially should help- obviously you'd expect cost reductions or regenerations to catch up over a long scenario.

 

 

But it doesn't even do that! Even in the short term it is worse. Over the long term, it is MUCH worse.

 

 

 

In other words- you are flat out wrong. You will do better by swapping Risha for Yuun or Andronikus for 2VR8.

 

 

And if you liked those companions (I do) then you should definitely get behind the reality of the situation, and talk about it! Because right now you can't really use them without taking a hit to your power, and it's not like "lose a bunch here and gain a little there" like you might expect if you gave up 6% accuracy. You just lose out.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Verain

[Slivovidze]

Yeah yeah yada yada. Of course I tried them all when finding the best one.

 

And yet here I am with my 10% extra blaster and engine power, having more success than with 13% less consumption.

 

I don't care if I'm mathematically wrong, because in practice it works better for me.

 

I also didn't call you wrong, just said that some people might be more comfortable with the "worst" choices.

Somewhere there is someone flying a Comet Breaker with Plasma railgun, Laser canon, Thermites, Fortress Shield and Interdiction Drive, and he might be successful as well. People are strange, you know.

[Armonddd]

"delete crew members" is not a viable balancing method

[Ramalina]

Basically, the balance here is so odd that it just MUST be by design. So I'm mostly asking that they change the design. With the offensive crewmen, I figured they just got the balance off- here there's no way they were aiming for it.

 

GSF is full of balance oddities, and efficiency vs bonus to pool size is both relatively small and lacking in, "WT* were they thinking factor," by GSF standards.

 

A lot of the oddities probably stem from concepts that were cool in concept (say sensor damping for example) but turned out not to be so great in practice (stealth gunships). The extremely broken ones have almost all been fixed at this point, and they probably are working on the smaller ones, but they're clearly rate limited in what their crew can do per patch cycle. Of course then the fixing can create new effects. Such as sensor boost and sensor damping passives going from flat out the most important abilities crew could offer (even over actives), to now being nice but small enough that if your selection method involves dice or a dartboard you're really not going to handicap yourself.

 

In other words I think we should be marching around and waving our pitchforks and torches about things like engine components, maybe some of the offensive crew passives, possibly damage reduction mechanic interaction with armor piercing (I'd argue that AP should affect ship baseline and armor component DR but that things like crew passives and actives should be unaffected, either that or a lot of the AP should go from 100% to some lower value).

 

Of course, on my strikes I would be VERY pleased to have the efficiency and pool size buffs at the same time instead of having to pick a subset.

 

Philosophically I do support the pursuit of a perfect state of game balance, I just think that we're more in the getting the small dents out phase, and if they still have to sand, primer, and paint, then it's probably premature to think about buffing the clearcoat to a mirror finish.

 

To a certain extent, the existing design encourages you to think about whether you want a little of both, or a lot of one when it comes to engine vs blasters. It may be a matter of efficiency is the obvious choice if you want both, but if you prefer to stack one then the smaller effect of the pool size increase is a form of diminishing returns for stacking in just one category rather than spreading around stats. Conceptually that would be sort of like the ground game, though it's being achieved in different way in this case.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Ramalina

[Verain]

Yeah yeah yada yada. Of course I tried them all when finding the best one.

 

And yet here I am with my 10% extra blaster and engine power, having more success than with 13% less consumption.

 

You actually do not. Your perceptions are flawed, and your conclusions are wrong.

 

I don't care if I'm mathematically wrong, because in practice it works better for me.

 

It does not, I'm sorry. It's really simple math. In all situations you want the reduction. Please don't spread falsehoods.

 

 

There are a number of explanations for what happened to you- you could have been increasing in skill as you tried them, and had good experiences when you had picked the weaker talents, and then credited them as "the only thing different". Or you could just have felt better picking the companions with those passives and then let your emotions ride.

 

 

But you are definitely, and without exception, doing worse than you would be doing with the correct passives. You can follow my advice or not, but it is accurate.

 

I also didn't call you wrong

 

I am calling you wrong, however.

 

just said that some people might be more comfortable with the "worst" choices.

 

The worst choices here are not tradeoffs. They are simply worse.

 

 

Somewhere there is someone flying a Comet Breaker with Plasma railgun, Laser canon, Thermites, Fortress Shield and Interdiction Drive, and he might be successful as well. People are strange, you know.

 

I could believe it up to Fortress Shield.

 

As bad of a build as this is, it's defensible in some ways. Each of those components has advantages over the "correct" component (except Fortress Shield). Plasma can outperform Slug in some situations. Laser can outperform heavy at close range. Thermites can outperform protons (and vice versa). Interdiction Drive can provide a valuable group debuff. These choices are suboptimal over the course of all fights, but in some situations they are better.

 

 

There's no real scenario where you would prefer to pay 15% more.

 

 

The valid combinations are:

 

1- Engine Efficiency and Blaster Efficiency -> This is a popular one among anyone who runs and uses blasters.

2- Engine Efficiency and max engine pool -> This is a popular one among gunships, bombers, and those who don't need to reduce blaster cost much, but definitely value the extra pool, as small as it may be.

3- Blaster Efficiency and max blaster pool -> Generally poor, this could be picked by a ship with shield to engine, or booster recharge.

 

Engine Efficiency and max blaster is a worse version of 1. Blaster efficiency and max engine is a worse version of 1. Max blaster and max engine is a worse version of 1.

 

 

It would be valid to actually collapse the six possibilities into the above three, in fact- this wouldn't be ideal, but it's better than having four to five unusable companions for each ship (and three of them universally unusable).

[Verain]

GSF is full of balance oddities, and efficiency vs bonus to pool size is both relatively small and lacking in, "WT* were they thinking factor," by GSF standards.

 

This isn't a concern. In fact, a smaller balance issue such as this one is much easier to action than a large rebalancing.

 

It is also unambiguous. The numbers are entirely clear on this. I will demonstrate why this is important.

 

In other words I think we should be marching around and waving our pitchforks and torches about things like engine components, maybe some of the offensive crew passives, possibly damage reduction mechanic interaction with armor piercing (I'd argue that AP should affect ship baseline and armor component DR but that things like crew passives and actives should be unaffected, either that or a lot of the AP should go from 100% to some lower value).

 

Engine components are things I talk about in other threads. When you bring it up, though, I'm not actually sure what you are saying. For instance, I very much like the different timers on them now. Perhaps you think that they are too punishing to, say, Gunships. But perhaps Armonddd disagrees (example). Both of your are pretty skilled pilots, and can make some good points.

 

It wouldn't be OBVIOUS who is right. You could get into a heated debate and bat stuff back and forth, but at the end of the day the devs will have to do a lot of figuring to decide what is right.

 

In this case, there is no doubt- the engine max power is strictly worth less than the engine efficiency. The blaster max power is strictly worth less than the blaster efficiency. This means that of six combinations, three of them are demonstrably inferior (and one of the remaining three is essentially out of the game).

 

 

Big changes require big effort, and can alienate players. This is a smaller change, and we should get behind it because of that. It won't require the same level of dev attention as sorting out a fight between "delete gunships" and "delete missiles" as the engine component debates tend to be (and IMO the most pressing engine issues are with rotational thrusters and engine to weapon- things that don't normally make up a lot of the threadspace because they are too bad to the point of worthlessness, not too good).

 

To a certain extent, the existing design encourages you to think about whether you want a little of both, or a lot of one when it comes to engine vs blasters. It may be a matter of efficiency is the obvious choice if you want both, but if you prefer to stack one then the smaller effect of the pool size increase is a form of diminishing returns for stacking in just one category rather than spreading around stats. Conceptually that would be sort of like the ground game, though it's being achieved in different way in this case.

 

If this were the case, then the wasted crewmembers need to be fixed to use one of the three good ones: Good blaster plus minor blaster, good blaster plus good engine, and good engine plus minor engine. Choosing good blaster and minor engine, good engine and minor blaster, or minor blaster and minor engine, should never be an option, as they are without merit.

[Ramalina]

If this were the case, then the wasted crewmembers need to be fixed to use one of the three good ones: Good blaster plus minor blaster, good blaster plus good engine, and good engine plus minor engine. Choosing good blaster and minor engine, good engine and minor blaster, or minor blaster and minor engine, should never be an option, as they are without merit.

 

Good point. I think it never occurred to me because I wasn't interested in the active abilities, so I just went looking for the optimal passives for each ship and ignored the rest of the crew options.

 

It is worth noting, that I feel that I have all of the worthwhile crew options Rep side unlocked, and I don't think I've unlocked half of the unlockable ones yet. So apparently I consider about half of the crew available in GSF to have no merits aside from cosmetic/voice acting ones. The other interesting thing is that there's very little variation in my choices between ships, both within and across ship classes. When there is variation the most common cause is that I was reading over tooltips for some reason and forgot to change them back to the normal crew afterward (this has produced some fairly funny, "Oh, s**t!" moments when I press the crew active and it does not do what I expected it to).