A stacking penalty (Taking a leaf from other games)

[Dal-Gurak]

This thread is something I was thinking about when reading the thread on 'What if Tracking Penalty reduced Damage instead of Accuracy?' And improving the game for a wider appeal and crating a more level playing field.

 

The problems this game has are certainly no different from the problems other games have seen over the years. People often complain about the matchmaking in gsf. But if you are a player of MechWarrior Online, you'll quickly come to think that the matchmaking here is pretty good. Coming off the thread mentioned above however; what would people think of a stacking penalty to buffs? There are other games that have brought this in to effect with great success. EVE Online being one of them.

 

It's quite simple, if you want to stack a buff to a single stat over and over, you will be penalised for it. For example, if you wanted a fighter with high damage reduction, you would add the crew member, the armour (if you could) and then bring in the shield component. Once you activate your shield ability, the highest damage reduction value between the armour and shield becomes the base (which is unaffected) but the second has a 30% reduction in its effectiveness. A third buff would have an even greater reduced effectiveness. (I'm on the mind though that crew passive buffs would be exempt, but not their active co-pilot skills)

 

So what would this bring... If you wanted to try and squeeze as much as possible out of your damage reduction you can, but at a reduced effect. On the other hand, you might have better results looking at a different set-up. Using the armour with directional shields for example. But, this stacking penalty is applied to all. Shield penetration, accuracy buffs, evasion and critical chance and so on. So you will lose some defence, but be with the understanding that there is more of a chance to survive via other means.

 

After playing for a few months I've played a few set-ups from which I was able to do things that just shouldn't happen imo. A gunship that has such a high weapon energy recharge I could just sit and spam slug shots with impunity. A scout with enough evasion to run into a 5 man group (slow right down and take my time to aim), unload a heap of damage and get out alive, and of course a fighter/bomber with hulls that can absorb damage you are better off slapping your face off the side of a brick wall.

 

Now, I do like the variety of ships out there. And apart from bring able to go silly strong on some set-ups, I feel the balance is close, having enjoyed games in all ship times. What I feel the above will bring however is increased variety in set-ups. It will allow new players to come back into the fight as this would make base stats more important. And once again, a little more creativity and variety in set-ups. There are some components you just don't see being used. Directional shields for example, I find these a rare appearance. (I only bring directional shields up as I was playing x-wing on an old pc the other day). Those shields were all that stood between you and space.

 

 

What are the community's thoughts on this?

Edited December 1, 2014 by Dal-Gurak

[ALaggyGrunt]

This needs a lot more "Why?"

The reason evasion (especially with lock break) is king in dogfights is simple: if you are not hit, your shields will not be pierced/taken off, your ship will not be snared by ion rail, and you will be able to kill stuff that can't evade your shots.

 

The reason we don't see many directionals is this:

There are better components.

On the striker classes, quick-chargers are squishier but don't give you nearly as much mobility trouble as other striker shields.

On scout classes, distortion field.

On gunship classes, fortress (mastered = extra damage output) or DF (that evasion thing again).

On bombers, T3 is more of a troll bomber than a serious contender. In any serious fight, it has to stick to cover like the other two bomber types, or it will get snare stacked and bursted down like anything else.

 

Solution to these problems:

Give shields some resistance to debuffs. Quick-chargers might gain a bit of piercing resistance and a lot of energy drain/regeneration debuff resistance. DIrectionals and overcharged might get a lot of piercing resistance with a little snare and piercing resistance, and stuff like that. And give the non-evasive shields a little more strength, but not much.

Strikers need to be able to fly marathons without quick-charge shields. The scout should still be faster than the strike, but the striker should be able to fly longer times/distances on passive upgrades, because it can't take booster recharge.

[Dal-Gurak]

 

The reason we don't see many directionals is this:

There are better components.

 

 

That's part of the issue there I feel. Some components aren't used because there are simply better options. Which I think shouldn't be true. This change wouldn't effect the speed of the ships either

 

 

Quick-chargers might gain a bit of piercing resistance and a lot of energy drain/regeneration debuff resistance.

 

 

When you start going down this road I find things just become over complicated and result in even more problems. Once suggestion I might bring there however is energy drain when shields are up is reduced or removed. Keep it simple, if you want to drain energy, the targets shield must be down on the arc you fire at. If the shield is almost gone, the shot takes away the shields, then there is a percentage loss on the amount you drain base on how much shield was left. This I think would make all shields a little more useful. Shields such as directional; If you are sprinting towards a gs, all sheilds forward to protect yourself against the first ion shot. Or, if you are running, shields to the back and cover your ***.

 

 

The scout should still be faster than the strike, but the striker should be able to fly longer times/distances on passive upgrades, because it can't take booster recharge.

 

 

This wouldn't be effected as the passive buffs would be more important. Its stacking that would be penalised. The speed of a scout would still be the fastest as its base speed dictates that. A change like this would have more effect on stacking of multiple active skills. Ie, multiple critical chance buffs. A scout will lose a little evasion when hitting all the active buffs, but ships with active accuracy buffs will also see the same issue. Again, making the passive stats of the ship more important. And giving new players a little more of a chance.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Dal-Gurak
More information

[Dal-Gurak]

After a few cups of morning coffee and after thinking your points ALaggyGrunt.

 

I would perhaps amend my original post to say passive buffs aren't affected, the first active buff isn't either. But once a second active buff comes in to play, the over all buff from the active skills includes a penalty to the over all result of the active bonus.

[zaskar]

You're asking for what is called diminishing returns (DR) in mmo speak. For example, in this game, you cannot stack critical rating until you have 100% critical chance.

 

The first 100 points or so of critical rating buys you 1.99% of critical chance. The next 100 points buys you and additional 1.85%. By the time you've stacked 500 critical rating, you only have ~8%. Savvy players learned long ago that it's far better to use power with it's linear gains over crit, especially for classes and specs that don't have bonuses that are based on or enhance critical chance.

 

I'm way over simplifying as other things make critical chance than critical rating, like the primary stat and earned bonuses from companions.

 

Adding DR to GSF would friggin blow. 99% of pilots don't know the range of their lasers, you want them to min/max all the systems and crew too? This would not just be putting a nail in the coffin of GSF, it would be a huge vat of JB Weld poured over the GSF coffin.

 

The advanced players would become exponentially stronger and the learners would quit even faster.

[Ryuku-sama]

Then you may want to rename this thread to 'Another idea for an hidden nerf to battlescouts'

 

Only Battlescouts and in a lesser way Gunships can stack actives. Battlescout can either stack a copilot with their system OR Distortion. Gunship (T1 and T3) can stack one with Distortion.

From top of my head....It would affect TT+Wingman, TT (Precision Targeting)+CF, BO+CF. BO+Wingman wouldn't be affected since BO doesn't add any accuracy. TT (Target Prediction)+Supression, TT (Threat Evaluation)+Running Interferance+Distortion would also be affected. Combat Command would also affect TT, BO, CF and Wingman.... Charged Plating is never used with Nullify at the same time. So no penality here.

[MiaowZedong]

Then you may want to rename this thread to 'Another idea for an hidden nerf to battlescouts'.

 

I thought that was a given just from the title. After all, the lack of any kind of diminishing returns/stacking penalties is fundamentally what makes evasion stacking overpowered in the first place.

 

And it's not like nerfing scouts is a bad thing.

[LilSaihah]

Then you may want to rename this thread to 'Another idea for an hidden nerf to battlescouts.

 

Personally I'd apply it to:

 

Armor

ArPen

Crit Chance

Evasion

Shield Pen

 

i will wear my trophies taken off battlescout's carcass in like, a bandolier. maybe a belt with like, pieces of battlescout on it. or i'll have a blc on a necklace

Edited December 1, 2014 by LilSaihah

[Ryuku-sama]

Personally I'd apply it to:

 

Armor

ArPen

Crit Chance

Evasion

Shield Pen

 

i will wear my trophies taken off battlescout's carcass in like, a bandolier. maybe a belt with like, pieces of battlescout on it. or i'll have a blc on a necklace

 

DR. If you only affect ACTIVE, no one uses both Nullify and CHarged Plating at the same time.

Armor Pen is passive and either 0 or 100%.. Need complete redesign to aply a DR curve.

Crit chance... CF, BO, TT, Combat Command.

Evasion.. Disto and RI.

Shield Pen.. There is only one active. Bypass. You can't affect Thermite when stacked with Bypass simply because they works completely differently.

[Dal-Gurak]

You're asking for what is called diminishing returns (DR) in mmo speak. For example, in this game, you cannot stack critical rating until you have 100% critical chance.

 

That to me reinforces the position of such an implementation. To aid a learners understand and for the sake of consistency. Would it not be better to have this system present in gsf? As it is present in the rest of the game and in other mmos.

 

Adding DR to GSF would friggin blow. 99% of pilots don't know the range of their lasers, you want them to min/max all the systems and crew too?

 

So really this is about more information to be made readily available about how the game works to the players; especially the new learners. Given there is little information already (except from the good time given by other players to pass on their knowledge), making such a change wouldn't really have that big an impact. But it would inspire more variation over set-ups over time.

 

I don't think setups such as the battlescount are hugely overpower, but I do think there needs to be a bit of a tone down in given areas. But rather than risk the scouts evasion going too low (which would probably happen if we starting playing with individual stats), reduce their max possible evasion, at the same time as reducing other stacking buffs that would making killing scouts a lot easier if they had lowered evasion.

 

Charged Plating is never used with Nullify at the same time. So no penality here.

 

This again moves towards the choice of stacking. In some instances, with certain ships and components; you don't have the choice to stack anything. These setups tend to be rarer than those that allow it, or at least go away the more advanced a player progresses which is what I see. A penalty on the stacking would still allow a player to stack, but at the same time may bring a bit of variety.

 

New GSF maps, modes, ships and a legacy hangar for GSF;

 

Taking in to account of course that most of us want to see new ships and maps etc. Going forward I think a control over stacking of buffs/debuffs would be handy when bringing in new content down the road.

 

I'm certainly not talking huge penalties here, but some just to tone a few things down a little.

[btbarrett]

The reason we don't see many directionals is this:

There are better components.

On the striker classes, quick-chargers are squishier but don't give you nearly as much mobility trouble as other striker shields.

 

I think you see plenty of strikes running Directional Shields (DS). I know there are people that favor Quick Charge and I won't argue the merits of one versus the other, but DS is frequently seen and perfectly viable on strikes.

 

On scout classes, distortion field.

On gunship classes, fortress (mastered = extra damage output) or DF (that evasion thing again).

 

You won't get any argument from me here: Distortion Field is too good not to take.

 

On bombers, T3 is more of a troll bomber than a serious contender. In any serious fight, it has to stick to cover like the other two bomber types, or it will get snare stacked and bursted down like anything else.

 

I am going to disagree here. Calling the T3 a troll ship is drastic short-sell of its capabilities and most likely stems from trying to make the ship into something it isn't. The T3 doesn't play like the other two bombers and any attempt to force it into the same role is going to result in the ship performing poorly. It is a hybrid, and as such it performs well in a variety of areas, though perhaps not excelling in any one. I run the T3 quite frequently, and even did so during the event on Saturday and performed quite well with it against stiff competition. A T3 is capable of holding a Sat against all comers except a mine-layer, who are the undisputed kings of satellites. Unlike the T1 bombers though, a T3 has more of a defense against gunships than simply trying their best to LoS: the inclusion of Power Dive grants the T3 with a surprising amount of mobility. A quick power dive, interdiction sentry, and cluster missile is quite effective at dislodging and/or killing gunships. Furthermore, it is extremely effective at getting you that initial Sat cap. Using Power Dive to its fullest, I typically get to Sats at the same time as, or just after, Strikes with mobility maneuvers and Scouts that lack a mobility-enhancing engine maneuver. Once at the Sat, the T3 can outperform those ships in capturing/defending the Sat with regularity. A final feather in its cap is that due to its enhanced mobility the T3 can relocate to trouble nodes far more easily than either a T1 or T2 bomber can.

 

That combo of Interdictions and Clusters is also very effective against scouts, even in an open space setting. For this reason, I have no problems taking a T3 into a TDM and doing quite well.

 

The knock on the T3 is that it doesn't have an obvious role, but that doesn't mean that it is a bad ship. You just have to remember that its main advantage is its mobility and if you are playing the ship to capitalize on this asset then you aren't getting your money's worth.

 

As for Directional Shields on a T3, I love them. Double-fronting shields is fantastic for jousting and keen use of DS (as outlined in other threads on this forum) is very effective against gunships. For a relatively slow-moving ship that has a propensity to dogfight, the ability to move shields around is great, in my opinion.

 

 

 

As for the original point of this thread: I am not sure I agree with you in the way you described. I have no problem with a ship being able to achieve high DR or evasion for short periods of time. Generally speaking, there are ways to counter these stacks. I think if you placed diminishing returns on these stats the way you described you would homogenize the ship classes to a certain extent: everyone would take a shield booster, some DR, some evasion, etc. Personally, I like that we currently have ships that are specialists because it really makes the decisions you make about your loadout important and it magnifies the value of having 5 ships on the bar.

 

I would not be opposed to diminishing returns on the SAME ability, however. If you are on a Sat and 3 people pop Wingman or Running Interference, I would have no problem if those abilities didn't stack additively. It is occasions like those where you suddenly get a scout with 105% evasion because 3 people happened to hit RI and he hit DF. It happens more frequently with Wingman, but the principle is the same: having two gunships near one another popping Wingman at the same time in order to completely negate tracking penalties feels... cheap. By and large, I don't think that this occurs frequently enough outside of a Satellite to really make a nerf mandatory, but I wouldn't mind if they changed it somehow.

[ALaggyGrunt]

I take quick-chargers on strikes because the other team likes to put a huge neon "SHOOT ME FIRST!" sign on my back every time I go into a match. There will always be a swarm of scouts trying to kill me in any match with serious foes, so the mobility from quick-charge shields is a must.

You can do interdiction sentry+clusters on a T3 bomber, but there are better builds for dealing with battlescouts and gunships. Once they figure out they need to watch for you, a gunship or two can force you to stick to cover most of the game, and a battlescout... well, they make pretty much anything feel like paper when they get in the mood.

 

The most effective defense against something trying to kill you is to not get hit: mobility+cover+hitting from behind/distortion field. The right T3 bomber can do that, but it's like dropping SIM on a gunship while it's sniping: it works a whole lot better when they aren't expecting it.