Accuracy Capacitor: one component to fix them all

[Nemarus]

Imagine if we had one more flavor of Capacitor: the Accuracy Capacitor, which when upgraded would provide +20% accuracy to all weapons. Doesn't it make sense, after all? There are two components, Distortion Field and Lightweight Armor, which give a passive Evasion bonus of 18%. Shouldn't there be at least one component which gives a passive Accuracy bonus? Wouldn't there have to be to counter DF and LWA? And that's not even mentioning the inherent passive Evasion Scouts and Strikes get.

 

Here the consequences I could foresee if an Accuracy Capacitor was introduced into the game:

 

1) All Strikes and Scouts have Capacitors. Newbies can be told "this one trick" to do better in GSF: buy an Accuracy Capacitor and max it out. It would help newbies against Evasion, and it would help dampen the frustration and confusion caused by Tracking Penalty.

 

2) The Tier 2 and Tier 3 Gunships have Capacitors. Having an Accuracy edge over the T1 would give them further reason to be played.

 

3) When they are first added in, Accuracy Capacitors will be deemed "mandatory" compared to the other Capacitor choices. Every ship that has a Capacitor will choose the Accuracy Capacitor.

 

4) Since so many new ships might have Accuracy Capacitors, Evasion-heavy builds become a risk. As a result, fewer people choose Evasion-heavy builds.

 

5) As a result of fewer people playing Evasion-heavy builds, Accuracy Capacitors become less mandatory over time. As other hitpoint-heavy builds emerge, Evasion is less of a bogey-man. Other Capacitors re-assert themselves.

 

6) Eventually, the meta stabilizes. A (smaller than now) portion of the population still uses Evasion for defense, and to counter them a portion of the population uses Accuracy Capacitor. Other people try other things, which is good!

 

It would take some time, but eventually an equilibrium would be reached.

 

Two questions about this new component:

 

A) What should the magnitude of Accuracy bonus be?

It needs to be large enough to effectively counter the two passive sources of Evasion, Distortion Field and Lightweight Armor. In fact it should potentially even be a bit bigger than those two combined, so that it eats into a Scout's natural Evasion bonus as well. The nice thing is that giving someone too much Accuracy against non-Evasive targets doesn't hurt much. The goal here is to make the Accuracy Capacitor really valuable against Scouts, but less valuable against other targets. Since DF + LWA give +18% Evasion, I think that an upgraded Accuracy Capacitor should give 20% Accuracy. It has to be that big in order to make running an Evasion-build a risky proposition. If it doesn't make Evasion risky enough, then everyone still runs Evasion builds, and we see less of the good consequences above.

 

B) Should the Accuracy Capacitor bonus apply to Secondary Weapons (railguns and pods)?

My first instinct here was "No". But then I realized that the Accuracy Capacitor can really add a lot of value to the T2 and T3 Gunships if it affects railguns. Making it affect Rocket Pods is a little concerning, but I'm not sure how else to handle this. That being said, I could see the Accuracy Capacitor only affecting primary weapons. All Gunships would still benefit since Evasion-builds would be reduced over time.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Nemarus

[Ramalina]

Given how stable the value of smaller accuracy gains from upgrades and crew passives has been, I'm not sure I buy the argument that the meta would eventually shift away from all Accuracy all the time. Sounds sort of like wishful thinking to me.

 

It also sounds like a huge buff to close range dogfighting scout builds. To the extent that anything slows down their DPS it's often missed shots from tracking penalties or firing near max range.

 

I'd be very leery of this unless it followed some crafty plan to beat scouts and gunships senseless with the nerf bat before implementing an accuracy capacitor.

 

Scale wise I'd probably do either a 4-2-2-2 for 10% maxed, or a 6-3-3-3 for 15% maxed for the component if it were actually implemented.

 

A flat and constant buff really probably shouldn't hard counter an entire class of defensive mechanic.

 

Personally, if I were a developer I'd class this as, "math model it and maybe internal testing, but probably too unbalancing to make it to PTS."

 

Edit: To clarify, yes this would defensively thrash the common GS and Scout builds, but it would also be a huge offensive buff to them, any they're already overtuned or borderline highly tuned when it comes to offensive power. You'd have to dial burst way the hell back before you did anything like this if you didn't want balance disasters to ensue.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Ramalina

[MiaowZedong]

Personally, if I were a developer I'd class this as, "math model it and maybe internal testing, but probably too unbalancing to make it to PTS."

 

If anything like this were even remotely on the cards, then Evasion would either not exist, or be implemented similarly to Defence in the main game. If GSF was balanced around math models we wouldn't have the Evasion meta. Shayd is suggesting fixing it by introducing an (intentionally) overpowered component. While that is very tempting, especially as a redesign is objectively unlikely, I suspect it would result in yet another "broken" meta.

 

One way in which this would happen is that pods would be suddenly that much better. Railguns too, for that matter.

 

If we're looking for a quick fix, just delete the Evasion mechanic from the game. Bad mechanic is bad, trying to fix a bad mechanic with intentionally OP counters is like a plaster on a severed artery IMO.

Edited November 2, 2014 by MiaowZedong

[Verain]

Capacitors are actually a choice now. What would happen if you made one that is thrice as good as all the others? It would be mandatory.

 

If you want to nerf evasion, get behind that. If you want to delete evasion, just say so. But a +20% accuracy cap would be ruinous.

[Verain]

I could get behind some subset of:

 

1)- A suite of components that is very good against evasion, but suffers in the general case. For instance, you could take something like rapid fire lasers, which has no merit, and make it have a very high accuracy. You could create Tracking Railgun, which would be just like slug except deal 70% (or whatever) of the damage, but have a very high accuracy. You could also make a whole medium or long range laser that, instead of armor ignore, has this instead.

 

2)- A general nerf to tracking penalties. Rapid fire laser doesn't even need them, and everything but burst just feels so high anyway. Given that these stack SO well with ship evasion, it would be nice to see them lessened.

 

3)- You could actually make an accuracy capacitor (and it would ONLY apply to primary weapons- no other capacitor should be considered for even a moment, given that damage, frequency, and ranged only apply to primary weapons as well), but it would not be some absurd value. The devs consistently price accuracy to be cheaper, but a 10% accuracy capacitor would already be the best capacitor on live, and it would be a real choice in a game where evasion isn't so rewarded.

 

 

While it would be really nice to have a railgun that ignored evasion completely, or had a very high base accuracy, it's also really fine if evasion stays solid versus railguns. Gunships HAVE a job right now, and while it's frustrating as hell to miss the same battle scout with five ions in a row because of server dice, that whole part of the game would be lessened in intensity if there was some build that was VERY good against evasion. Right now, that build is "mines, and hope the scout misplays". If instead a strike running an anti-evasion build could switch to him and his options were flee or leave (not divine shield, avenging wrath, and start tthree-shotting everything), that would also be fine.

 

In general, I dislike that so many strategies don't ask what the meta is up to, because they are good enough. I'd like to see that change without making a mandatory component as is suggested above.

[Ramalina]

If anything like this were even remotely on the cards, then Evasion would either not exist, or be implemented similarly to Defence in the main game. If GSF was balanced around math models we wouldn't have the Evasion meta. Shayd is suggesting fixing it by introducing an (intentionally) overpowered component. While that is very tempting, especially as a redesign is objectively unlikely, I suspect it would result in yet another "broken" meta.

 

One way in which this would happen is that pods would be suddenly that much better. Railguns too, for that matter.

 

If we're looking for a quick fix, just delete the Evasion mechanic from the game. Bad mechanic is bad, trying to fix a bad mechanic with intentionally OP counters is like a plaster on a severed artery IMO.

 

GSF is definitely balanced around math modelling for a lot of the mechanics, including Evasion. The problem is that in any sort of engineering a truly comprehensive math model is too time consuming and expensive to build. So you make assumptions about which parts of the system are most important (or sometimes easiest to model), and do a partial model that you hope is good enough.

 

If the assumptions are off, then the model and reality may not match all that well.

 

GSF's models seem to be very mathematically sound, but some of the assumptions about how players would behave and how average vs. instantaneous performance would balance over a match as a whole were noticeably off in the early stages of GSF development.

 

Evasion ran into problems with both.

 

After the grand evasion nerf that the Devs did, they got evasion balanced with shields so closely that you'd need either Bioware's internal data or a lot of people running a GSF combat log parser (if a parse-able GSF combat log exsisted) to generate a big enough data set to have any hope of showing that the current balance isn't perfect.

 

I had a go at figuring out how well they had done with the evasion balance pass, and came to the conclusion that without more data there was no way to figure out if it was perfect balance or just very close to perfect balance.

 

Certainly a lot of people still hate Evasion, but that's chiefly a matter of bias when humans evaluate random events without using statistical tools. That's a problem with any mechanic that both affects outcome in a meaningful way and is primarily RNG based.

 

The current evasion meta such as it is stems primarily from a second missile break being attached to Distortion Field. That is extremely powerful. Without the break there are multiple shields that are competitive with DF in the general case, and superior in a number of specific cases (chiefly dealing with mines and with missiles that you fail to counter with break or LOS).

 

From an effective health stand point Evasion and Shields are equivalent right now, though you're better off stacking one than mixing both due to how the laws of probability work. In theory this should just be a playstyle choice based on the player preferring either consistent adequate performance or unreliable peak performance. Unfortunately the missile break is so strong that in practice this becomes, "take evasion for the second missile break unless you're a fool."

[zaskar]

Just no. That would make a minor component the most important factor in every build.

 

There is nothing wrong with the current meta. There are traps in some places like T1 strike and charged plating but for the most part it's up to the pilot how they build their ship. Adding a must have like this destroys the meta on every ship.

[DamascusAdontise]

I could get behind new components, but this must surely be a joke. Its obviously just a back handed way to nerf battlescouts, and indirectly to buff strikes and possibly put them at the pinnacle of the meta.

 

IMO the worst part about this is that it attempts to COMPLETELY invalidate evasion from the game (multiple components) through a single / cheap capacitor. Your numbers are much too high to be reasonable. All this would do is shift the meta in a different direction, not fix it.

 

Maybe its just me but it also seems a tad underhanded, the request pretends to be one thing (accuracy buff) but in reality its about something entirely different (removing evasion and punishing battlescouts)

 

I hate trickery in politics and I hate it in my games

[RickDagles]

I think it would be a good idea to give Strikefighters the accuracy capacitor. This would be a simple fix that would make them relevant.

[MiaowZedong]

GSF's models seem to be very mathematically sound

Definitely not. How is Lingering Effect part of a mathematically sound model? How is the huge balance value accorded to power drain part of a mathematically sound model? And if we assume that last part is because the devs assumed extremely low accuracy, then it cannot be mathematically sound to grant accuracy low value.

 

You say shields are balanced against evasion.

 

Let's consider, say, directionals against DF on a battlescout, that most popular of ships. So I can double my shields to one side, which (taking the HP of the DF build as a baseline) gives me +92% total HP. Of course, only against attacks from that one hemisphere. Against attacks from the other hemisphere it gives you a whopping -60%. Now DF, well 'it depends". In the best case scenario (stacking an upgraded TT and DF when your opponent doesn't use Wingman) you're looking at anywhere from +200% to more than +300% effective hit points (depending on weapon and range), from all angles, except against lock-on missiles where cancelling the lock is effectively plus infinity hit points. If they use Wingman, well, if your opponent is perfectly centered it's still from 110% to 52% (because BLC have great close range accuracy), with far more situations near the upper number, and of course, this is in the cloud cuckoo land where all shots are perfectly centered all the time.

 

Of course, I'm also counting Wingman against DF, but ignoring the fact that railshots with Bypass will put you down before they chew through your double shield arc, or that Ion does massive damage to shields. Just a simplified model with assumptions that favour Directional Shields, and yet they cannot come out on top except very situationally (jousting a BLC ship using Wingman at less than 1000m, and even then, DF is still more useful against his secondary so it's not clearly inferior) or in the specific case of area denial—a static element that can be avoided. You only need to take your evasion ship into area denial if your team is bad or are all flying battlescouts.

 

Of course, DF has a cooldown, but then Directionals penalise you heavily on one hemisphere, and can take a couple seconds to shuffle around. So, I am rather waiting for the sound mathematical model that gives them near perfect balance. Maybe some kind of average over the entire game, which I'm sorry is just laughably removed from reality—you don't need your defences all the time, just when you're taking damage.

 

Maybe you were comparing things like just the Lightweight Armour versus Reinforced Armour or Reactor upgrades, and then I am inclined to agree with you, in a vaccuum these components are balanced. DF itself is not so unbalanced in a vaccuum.

 

However Evasion is mitigation and has a very different EHP returns curve from stacking HP. This is why when you stack it past 30-35% or so net evasion, it becomes clearly superior to all alternatives. For scouts, this is very easy: even at 116% base accuracy plus Wingman making 136%, the highest achievable for most weapons, DF will put a scout at 32% net Evasion, so at the level where other defences cease being competitive (and again, I'm taking an example stacked against Evasion, in practice it's much better than this).

 

In fact, my whole point about the mechanic being bad, is that you cannot balance the individual components, because the stacking returns are different. If they are balanced individually, any ship that can select more than one Evasion component becomes overpowered. If you balance Evasion around the maximum stack a battlescout can achieve, it becomes garbage for most builds. Hence, 'bad mechanic is bad' and no matter what you do with it, there will be an imbalance somewhere.

Edited November 2, 2014 by MiaowZedong

[ALaggyGrunt]

A railgun which ignores evasion outright is unacceptable. If you thought there were a lot of 8-gunship matches before, you're in for a lot more. It would be a nice exercise in "How many shots am I missing because of either lag or RNG?", but as an actual gun... no, just no.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Rather than a capacitor I think what would be good would be something like that as a sensor component. You'd need to add it alongside another type of component (such as one that lowers missile lock times) but it would suddenly give value to an otherwise useless component class.

 

This would improve the offensive capabilities like the Clarion, T1 & T3 scouts, and T2 GS (I'm unsure whether it would be desirable to add it to the T1 GS since it's already in a good spot and doesn't need stuff to make it even better than the other GS variants). I don't know how much use bombers might make of it.

[Loadsamunny]

A railgun which ignores evasion outright is unacceptable. If you thought there were a lot of 8-gunship matches before, you're in for a lot more. It would be a nice exercise in "How many shots am I missing because of either lag or RNG?", but as an actual gun... no, just no.

 

Railguns already ignore evasion. My Flashfire stacks evasion, and even with TT and DF active, Railgun shots hit me without fail. 100%. Every. Single. Time.

 

I can only defeat a Gunship with a Quads/Pods build, and only if I have the drop on it and it doesn't know I'm there or that it's being fired on until it's too late to boost away. And only if they're dumb enough not to hit Fortress Shield. Granted, my Flashfire isn't fully upgraded, but that's still a lot to ask for to be able to make a successful jousting kill against a Gunship.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Loadsamunny

[Drakkolich]

Railguns already ignore evasion. My Flashfire stacks evasion, and even with TT and DF active, Railgun shots hit me without fail. 100%. Every. Single. Time.

 

I can only defeat a Gunship with a Quads/Pods build, and only if I have the drop on it and it doesn't know I'm there or that it's being fired on until it's too late to boost away. And only if they're dumb enough not to hit Fortress Shield. Granted, my Flashfire isn't fully upgraded, but that's still a lot to ask for to be able to make a successful jousting kill against a Gunship.

 

Ladies and gentlemen #1 troll on the forums strikes again. You sir impress me with your elaborate trolls.

[Loadsamunny]

Ladies and gentlemen #1 troll on the forums strikes again. You sir impress me with your elaborate trolls.

 

You want to play my Flashfire and see this crap for yourself? I wish people would actually try these things out for themselves instead of automatically just assuming troll. That word is far overused these days.

[LilSaihah]

20% accuracy would be far too high. If anything, it should mirror Lightweight Armor as a 10% accuracy buff.

[Ryuku-sama]

You want to play my Flashfire and see this crap for yourself? I wish people would actually try these things out for themselves instead of automatically just assuming troll. That word is far overused these days.

 

Dude.. You're just wrong. Plainly and totally wrong.

 

THere is one reason for you to believe you,re right. One never sees a Rail miss. There is no UI pop up or flying text telling you that a railgun just missed you through RNG. But believe me, any experianced pilot here, Railgun ARE affected by evasion.

 

And about the point where you can't kill a Sheep without surprise effect + highest DPS build + no CD poped by them.. That's pure BS. Every single ship and build can kill a GS in a pure 1vs1.

[Fractalsponge]

100%. Every. Single. Time.

 

It's been a while since I've seen such concentrated fail in one place.

[SithAceI]

Railguns already ignore evasion. My Flashfire stacks evasion, and even with TT and DF active, Railgun shots hit me without fail. 100%. Every. Single. Time.

 

I can only defeat a Gunship with a Quads/Pods build, and only if I have the drop on it and it doesn't know I'm there or that it's being fired on until it's too late to boost away. And only if they're dumb enough not to hit Fortress Shield. Granted, my Flashfire isn't fully upgraded, but that's still a lot to ask for to be able to make a successful jousting kill against a Gunship.

 

You obviously have not played a gunship.... mister one trick ponyscout.

[RickDagles]

I think it would be really bad to give scouts an accuracy capacitor since they already have Targetting Telemetry giving you a 10-15% accuracy boost. Doesn't it only seem fair to allow Strikefighters a 10% accuracy boost in some way? A Strikefighter with HLC and Wingman is pretty decent at getting a few shots in on scouts centered on your screen, but the weapon tracking penalty makes it hard to finish off targets when they start to escape. If the T1 and T2 Strike had a 10% accuracy capacitor it might make them lethal against scouts. Which is ok because they are still a super easy kill for Gunships.

[Verain]

A railgun which ignores evasion outright is unacceptable.

 

No, it would be totally fine. It might make a dent in the battle scout swarms, in fact.

 

The thing is, the game already has plenty of things that ignore armor. They pay for this with lower base damage. It also has things with a higher based accuracy. They pay for this with lower base damage. It could (and IMO should) have things that ignore evasion. This would be nice because "ignores evasion" has a pretty common cap (0% evasion), making it have limited utility versus targets that are merely at high deflection or ranges (or even NO utility), much as the armor pen portion of most weapons is not helpful at all versus any scouts, and barely a factor versus any target that doesn't stack DR.

 

 

So while an evasion ignoring railgun might not be the best way to address this, it would absolutely be a great part of a balanced approach. If you are afraid that gunships would gladly sacrifice TONS of their damage potential in order to ignore evasion, then that means evasion is too strong, and the idea is sound.

 

Armor ignore is probably undercosted by a bit, but charged plating is kind of binary, so we get that. The evasive scout build is pretty frustrating about that too. Making new components (or in the case of worthless components, such as rapid fire lasers) that ignore evasion entirely would allow for another side to this meta.

 

If you thought there were a lot of 8-gunship matches before, you're in for a lot more.

 

I didn't say "make slug ignore evasion". Those "8 gunships" of yours will be dropping something else that they have right now for the 'anti evasion railgun'. If the ignore-accuracy railgun doesn't get to ignore armor, for instance, suddenly your gunship who can shoot scouts is petrified of OTHER ships.

 

It would be a nice exercise in "How many shots am I missing because of either lag or RNG?", but as an actual gun... no, just no.

 

Yes, it would be pretty great. I doubt we'll see it, however. And it's not the only way to solve the issue, by ANY means. But it would be a pretty cool one. We could definitely use more railgun diversity anyway- right now there's two railguns with solid reasons to use them, and one that is generally poor. We could use more, and if choosing a railgun makes you poor against some targets, that's fine too.

 

 

 

Railguns already ignore evasion. My Flashfire stacks evasion, and even with TT and DF active, Railgun shots hit me without fail. 100%. Every. Single. Time.

 

This is not true. Please don't post things that are not true. If you aren't trolling, then you are actually not even aware of how many railguns are ACTUALLY being shot at you. Either way, you aren't contributing by saying this.

 

 

You want to play my Flashfire and see this crap for yourself?

 

He's played HIS flashfire, and HIS gunships, in THOUSANDS of games. And guess what? Evasion functions great versus railguns. It's the primary defense, in fact, given that the most popular railgun ignore damage reduction.

 

I wish people would actually try these things out for themselves

 

Obviously, he has played all the ships a lot, and you are well aware of this fact.

 

instead of automatically just assuming troll. That word is far overused these days.

 

The word troll is "overused" because some people don't know what it means. But here, it is being used PRECISELY CORRECT. Drako is accusing you (and I believe him, and we aren't the only ones) of trolling. That is to say: you are choosing deliberately incendiary points and opinions, you are stating things that you know are not true, and your primary purpose is to get a rise out of the forums, not get an actual answer. You will adopt personas designed to rile people up, such as "I can't be bothered to click a link" when a link is posted in response to a question that was answered a long time ago, you will make statements that everyone knows aren't true in the hopes of making everyone have to come and correct you, and you will make posts such as "hey, what EXACTLY is an ace" which a genuinely curious person would simply type into google, and almost anyone would realize that the question itself is inherently incendiary.

 

So yes, you're being called a troll, because you keep trolling. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

 

 

 

 

Doesn't it only seem fair to allow Strikefighters

 

I think strike-specific buffs are actually a great idea, but it's hard to guess what the devs even consider the knobs to be at this point. Adding some base accuracy, or even raw percent damage, to the strike base class would be great, I think. The big issue with discussing strike buffs with the rest of the community is that everyone views their strike differently, and wants something else out of it (except shield and hull- everyone seems happy to remain the generally most resilient type of craft). Personally, I think strike fighters should be much more devastating with their lasers, and generally more devastating with their lock on weapons. Others will state that they should be able to scoot around the battle field almost as well as scouts, and to be honest, I'd be fine with this buff too. I'd also be ok with a little of both, or something entirely different. So strikes having base +10% accuracy? That would be pretty keen, but your most passionate opponent will probably be someone who wants strikes to get a different buff instead.

[MeisterBabylon]

I'd also say this is a good idea but your numbers need a lot more tuning.

[ForceChuckle]

One never sees a Rail miss. .

 

While there is no flytext for it you actually can see rail misses (as a gunship's target) and it is glorious to behold.

[MiaowZedong]

To give context, I've made a little graph comparing the EHP returns of stacking HP (such as hull, or shields) and mitigation (such as evasion). Mitigation is blue, HP is red. For better readability, I haven't extended the Y-axis past 500% gains, so mitigation litterally goes off the chart at one point.

 

It's not really hard to see that being able to stack as much mitigation as is possible in GSF through Evasion is broken, and should never have been possible in the first place.

 

There are several possible solutions. The one proposed by the OP is to treat Evasion similarly to how Damage Reduction (which has a similar problem) is treated, by providing an easy specific counter. Another quick fix is to remove the bad mechanic (it would also greatly reduce the importance of the RNG, which is frustrating to some players, but not all). The 'academically correct' solution is to add a diminishing returns function, similar to how Defence Rating translates into Defence with diminishing returns in the main game. Or you could simply introduce a hard cap on Evasion somewhere around 25-30% at most. Or you could reduce the availability of Evasion, by removing some of the components, talents and crew passives than grant it (almost the same thing as capping it).

 

What is clear, though, is that Evasion stacking is not OK in a game where Accuracy stacking cannot keep up.

 

And my problem with the OP's solution through Accuracy stacking is that it effectively makes it mandatory, as many people have pointed out. However, mandatory Accuracy stacking is still better than the current Evasion stacking game.

 

Although, if we're stacking Accuracy, maybe we should make Combat Command actually useful as a team buff. That would probably be more interesting, meta-wise.

Edited November 2, 2014 by MiaowZedong

[Gavin_Kelvar]

What is clear, though, is that Evasion stacking is not OK in a game where Accuracy stacking cannot keep up.

 

I always thought it was weird how the one crew passive that allows you to boost accuracy was barely enough to counter the evasion crew passive with no other passive accuracy options to counter the passive evasion. If there were no tracking penalties so you just had the accuracy loss at range evasion stacking would still be pretty powerful, especially against some weapons.

 

There are several possible solutions. The one proposed by the OP is to treat Evasion similarly to how Damage Reduction (which has a similar problem) is treated, by providing an easy specific counter. Another quick fix is to remove the bad mechanic (it would also greatly reduce the importance of the RNG, which is frustrating to some players, but not all). The 'academically correct' solution is to add a diminishing returns function, similar to how Defence Rating translates into Defence with diminishing returns in the main game. Or you could simply introduce a hard cap on Evasion somewhere around 25-30% at most. Or you could reduce the availability of Evasion, by removing some of the components, talents and crew passives than grant it (almost the same thing as capping it).

 

I'm not sure how you'd add diminishing returns with the current stat setup. It'd probably be easier to just add a hard cap but you risk basically make the final upgrade tier to things like lightweight armor useless (which I think would greatly confuse newbies, assuming here that the tooltips didn't get a major overhaul to make the hard cap very clear). Personally I think the best option would be to replace the evasion stats of many components with stats that buff turning or provide tensor field like actives. Basically give pilots that go the "evasion build" route better ability to take manual evasion rather than giving them a better chance of a favorable RNG dice roll even when they're flying straight and level. You'd effectively cap a scout's passive evasion at 15%, accuracy would still be valuable but more in regard to reducing tracking penalties on high tracking penalty weapons rather than to counter evasion.

 

Although, if we're stacking Accuracy, maybe we should make Combat Command actually useful as a team buff. That would probably be more interesting, meta-wise.

 

Except that would still leave evasion powerful since you'd still be limiting accuracy buffs to actives with no passive accuracy buff counter to passive evasion.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar