Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Crew offensive passives- ITT I propose changes!

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Galactic Starfighter
Crew offensive passives- ITT I propose changes!

Ramalina's Avatar


Ramalina
04.07.2014 , 11:53 AM | #11
Quote: Originally Posted by Toraak View Post
I would argue that the +6% accuracy being the best depends on what weapons your using. for BLC you should be close enough when you fire to alrdy have over 100% accuracy, so using the faster reload ability is actually better. For ships without that, i'd say it depends on what your flying and what components your using.
Rapid reload has no effect on blasters. For the ships that can equip BLCs the only one that gets a noticeable benefit is the type 2 gunship, which can reduce proton torp reload by almost 1 second. Despite being a detectable difference, it's not really a worthwhile difference. As a practical matter, in real life situations a ship that can equip BLCs is going to loose damage output by taking rapid reload instead of pinpointing. Assuming the choice is between rapid reload and either the ammunition or firing arc options, it's a little bit less clear, but in a lot of situations reload is going to finish in last place (or a tie for last place) when it comes to benefits.

In most cases, even with BLCs you'll get benefits from the accuracy. Unless you're shooting at a lot of targets that are less than 2 km away, have no evasion, and are dead center in your weapon's firing arc circle.

The only ships that the accuracy buff isn't clearly the most potent for would be some builds of Pike/Quell and minelayer/dronecarriers. That's because they have builds where damage from weapons using accuracy is a fairly small part of their overall damage output.
"A padawan's master sets their Jedi trial, Rajivari set mine."
- Zhe Lian, Sage.

Twitch

Verain's Avatar


Verain
04.07.2014 , 08:03 PM | #12
Amidst some solid replies, we have...some people who can't read much!

Kuci quotes this from me:
"1)- Accuracy should come down, likely to 4% or 5%. The remaining 1% or 2% accuracy could be added somewhere else passively, as almost everyone uses this and we don't really need a global accuracy nerf. Even with this, I'm afraid it is mandatory for almost all ships."

His response?

Quote:
No. No no no no no. The game needs less RNG not more. The only appropriate way to nerf this is if you correspondingly increase the base accuracy of every weapon in the game.
I'll briefly respond and say that the game is very RNG already, and it can use more or less as appropriate- but I was very careful to show that everything I was talking about was not meant as a global nerf to blasters, merely a way of handling the fact that 6% accuracy is basically 10-20% extra primary weapon damage, and is really out of line. As I stated above, you could bake this extra accuracy back into the weapons, or literally do whatever- it just shouldn't be mandatory.

Quote: Originally Posted by General_Brass View Post
Nerf accuracy to give evasion even greater power ?

Don't see how that would be a problem.

/Sarcasm
Again, this guy can't be bothered to read, and thinks that the name of this thread is "buff evasion". Meritless.





Then there's folks that disagree that 6% accuracy is too strong (this is incorrect, it is), and decided to talk about that:

Quote:
I don't think that the 6% accuracy is too strong
Do you take it or not? If you do take it, then you agree with me. If you don't take it, then you will do more damage by switching to it- I guarantee.

This doesn't mean that BLASTERS are too strong, or need nerfs- if you pick the accuracy power, maybe you should do the same damage that you do today (same accuracy). But if you don't pick it, you shouldn't suffer -6%. That is wow awful!

Quote: Originally Posted by Toraak View Post
I would argue that the +6% accuracy being the best depends on what weapons your using. for BLC you should be close enough when you fire to alrdy have over 100% accuracy, so using the faster reload ability is actually better. For ships without that, i'd say it depends on what your flying and what components your using.
Over tho course of 500 to 3000 meters, BLC scales from 117 base accuracy to 87 base accuracy. Versus a typical scout (33% evasion), you have an 84% hit rate at 500 meters, anywhere from dead center to 10 degrees off center- the most generous of any weapon. Versus this scout, this 6% accuracy passive is a 7% blaster damage increase.

If you are at 1000 meters, your accuracy is down to 111%. Your hit chance here is only 78% versus that scout, and the crew passive is up to 7.7%. At 1500 meters, still a reasonable range for BLC, you will have 105% accuracy, or a 72% hit chance on the scout. Here, the crew passive is an 8% bonus.

Now, you are correct- if you are attacking a bomber or a type 2 gunship at 800m, you may actually perceive no benefit for those few shots. But versus scouts and strikes, especially ones at the edges of your point of view, this is a massive boost. 500m shots within 10 degrees are NOT the majority of the shots you take.

NOTHING is close to this damage output increase. None of the others are even fighting.



The generally second place is the firing arc. The others are niche- you might want extra ammo on a rocket pod build, or you might care about reload time (probably not). Accuracy is a huge benefit- 6% accuracy is similar in value to 10% extra blaster and rocket pod damage, and very similar to 12% crit. The others need to be that good, or the accuracy needs to come down, with appropriate adjustments so as to not nerf every single ship, all of whom feel required to grab this universally amazing passive.

General_Brass's Avatar


General_Brass
04.07.2014 , 11:22 PM | #13
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post
Amidst some solid replies, we have...some people who can't read much!
LONG post by a man upset about the flaws of his idea being pointed out.

Just a heads up anything that has people taking less accuracy makes evasion more powerful.

Verain's Avatar


Verain
04.08.2014 , 12:33 AM | #14
Quote: Originally Posted by General_Brass View Post
LONG post by a man upset about the flaws of his idea being pointed out.

Just a heads up anything that has people taking less accuracy makes evasion more powerful.
No it doesn't. READ THE POST.

I say, RIGHT THERE, that you would need to bake in the accuracy. THE GOAL IS NOT TO NERF BLASTERS.

6% ACCURACY is far too good.


But def complain when your inability to read is pointed out.

Altheran's Avatar


Altheran
04.08.2014 , 12:55 AM | #15
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post
Do you take it or not? If you do take it, then you agree with me. If you don't take it, then you will do more damage by switching to it- I guarantee.

This doesn't mean that BLASTERS are too strong, or need nerfs- if you pick the accuracy power, maybe you should do the same damage that you do today (same accuracy). But if you don't pick it, you shouldn't suffer -6%. That is wow awful!
I use Concussion Missiles on all ship who can have them. Is Concussion Missiles too strong ?

I use Pinpointing, not because it's overly powerful, but because I use accuracy reliant ships (Scout and Strikes). And I can assure you that on a Pike with Heavy cannon, it helps a bit, but not that much, because in center this weapon is the most accurate at max range, and the high max range make it easy to center the aim. Actually my Pike has it because I didn't bother to put her back to her initial crew member.

Why it works so well on other ships is because almost all weapons have absurdly low base accuracy until you point blank ennemies, and most of the time you'll fight around max range rather than mid and below.

So when you take this 6% on an inaccurate weapon, you feel its efficiency.

If weapons were more accurate, you wouldn't feel any significant improvement from 6% accuracy. It would be almost as effective as the upgrades removing 5% tracking penalties (you want to nerf them too ? They're mandatory). It's just that when you reach hit chances around 50%, 6 extra percents start to matter a lot.

Gavin_Kelvar's Avatar


Gavin_Kelvar
04.08.2014 , 12:58 AM | #16
the one problem I see with nerfing accuracy is that it is the only counter to evasion. So a nerf to accuracy becomes an indirect buff to evasion. In order to keep the current balance you'd need a proportionate nerf to evasion.

I think honestly a main reason accuracy is always taken is because evasion, while not the god stat it once was, is still very powerful and you're looking to gimp yourself if you don't take accuracy to counter it. (This being particularly true for strikers who regularly have to contend with high evasion scouts in dogfights). Taking accuracy isn't simply occurring in a vacuum, it's occuring because it is the only counter to what is still arguably the most powerful defensive stat.

For my part I fly a Star Guard. Given that 2/3 of my weaponry are blasters and accuracy based it'd be kinda stupid to take crew passives that primarily benefit missiles (while the firing arc technically benefits blasters too given that the best hull damaging blasters for the Star Guard also have the highest tracking penalties it makes little sense to take a passive that will have marginal benefit, if any, to my selected blaster weapon types). For the other ships I fly (typically the Type 1 & 2 scouts) it makes little sense to take passive combos that will primarily (or only) benefit 50% of my weapons.

Overall I'd say the problem is that people take accuracy not because it's too powerful but because the only other passive that benefits blasters (2 degree firing arc) either doesn't compliment the high tracking penalty of their weapon choices (HLC/Quads) or doesn't benefit them as much as accuracy due to inherently low base accuracy at anything beyond point blank (RFL/LLC). Except for BLC & Lasers that might be able to benefit from either that pretty much means the majority of blaster weaponry scouts/strikes have access to lack the stats (either base accuracy or low tracking penalty) to benefit from an increased firing arc which pretty much leaves accuracy as the only worthwhile crew passive for blasters.

IMO if evasion was no better than taking damage reduction odds are the other offensive passives would be taken more often too (provided of course firing arc was balanced to actually be worthwhile for the majority of blasters and not just missiles). I do agree though that the reload time passive needs to be looked at since the buff it gives can be negligible at times.

Verain's Avatar


Verain
04.08.2014 , 01:47 AM | #17
Quote: Originally Posted by Altheran View Post
I use Concussion Missiles on all ship who can have them. Is Concussion Missiles too strong ?
Only two ships have concussions, and you aren't automatically wrong for not taking them.

Quote:
I use Pinpointing, not because it's overly powerful, but because I use accuracy reliant ships (Scout and Strikes).
Don't forget gunships, who actually ARE "accuracy based", whatever that means (scouts and strikes can at least have lockon missiles).
And don't forget that it's the correct passive on bombers as well.

In fact, it's the best passive by a mile because it increases your blaster damage by anywhere from 5 to 20 percent

Quote:
And I can assure you that on a Pike with Heavy cannon, it helps a bit, but not that much, because in center this weapon is the most accurate at max range, and the high max range make it easy to center the aim. Actually my Pike has it because I didn't bother to put her back to her initial crew member.
Heavy Laser is a great example of a weapon that benefits massive from it.

If you are at max range, your accuracy approaches 95%. Lets assume you are at merely 100%. Assume your target is a strike with evasion crew member- 10% evasion only. That's a pretty best case for you, and we'll even assume you are precisely on target (right). In that situation, your damage increase is 7% for picking the passive. That's pretty big.

Now lets pretend you are a bit off target- 3 degrees is totally reasonable. Unlike most guns, you have to choose between your tracking fix and armor pen, and we both know armor pen wins. And maybe, just maybe, it's a Pike, not a Starguard, with lightweight armor. Now your target has 19% evasion, and your hit chance is down to 75%. That evasion passive is now around 8% extra damage. If it's a scout who has 33% evasion and is 4 degrees off target, your hit chance is now 59%, and your crew passive represents 10%.

Quote:
Why it works so well on other ships is because almost all weapons have absurdly low base accuracy until you point blank ennemies, and most of the time you'll fight around max range rather than mid and below.
It's honestly just simple math as to why it's good. Your accuracy is less than 100% in essentially every case, and as the accuracy decreases, the power of a flat increase in accuracy goes up and up.

It's often a 10% damage boost to all blaster fire. Unlike a 10% magnitude boost, it often will keep shields from regenerating as well. It's simply far too good, and should not be a passive.

It's mandatory for all ships. Period. It needs a nerf.

Quote:
If weapons were more accurate, you wouldn't feel any significant improvement from 6% accuracy.
Weapons would have to be MASSIVELY more accurate for this to make sense.

Quote:
It would be almost as effective as the upgrades removing 5% tracking penalties (you want to nerf them too ?
Do you even READ.

It's supposed to be a choice and it isn't. The tracking penalties, and evasion, and all that jazz- that doesn't need to be changed unless you are supposed to be making a choice. You aren't- the only time you EVER make that choice is versus armor pen on heavy lasers (where you normally want the armor pen, actually, making it not mandatory, ZING!).

Quote:
It's just that when you reach hit chances around 50%, 6 extra percents start to matter a lot.
If your accuracy is 94%, you gain 6.4% damage from the passive. The other passives are nowhere NEAR that good!


And next...

Quote: Originally Posted by Gavin_Kelvar View Post
the one problem I see with nerfing accuracy is that it is the only counter to evasion. So a nerf to accuracy becomes an indirect buff to evasion. In order to keep the current balance you'd need a proportionate nerf to evasion.
But here's what I said...

Quote:
1)- Accuracy should come down, likely to 4% or 5%. The remaining 1% or 2% accuracy could be added somewhere else passively, as almost everyone uses this and we don't really need a global accuracy nerf. Even with this, I'm afraid it is mandatory for almost all ships.
See how my goal isn't to nerf blasters? See how all my posts in this thread have to repeat that, even the first one that you didn't read?

Quote:
For my part I fly a Star Guard. Given that 2/3 of my weaponry are blasters and accuracy based it'd be kinda stupid to take crew passives that primarily benefit missiles
It doesn't matter though. You could fly a gunship, same thing. Pike, same thing. Bomber, same thing.

Accuracy passive is mandatory and too good. This doesn't mean it should be nerfed without compensation, but we really need to make it a choice with the others, not just "you have to take accuracy". Probably, that passive should just be entirely deleted- who would say no to such a power? And replaced with something appropriate.

Ramalina's Avatar


Ramalina
04.08.2014 , 08:14 AM | #18
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post
Accuracy passive is mandatory and too good. This doesn't mean it should be nerfed without compensation, but we really need to make it a choice with the others, not just "you have to take accuracy". Probably, that passive should just be entirely deleted- who would say no to such a power? And replaced with something appropriate.
Shush, be quiet! Devs read this stuff you know. If all crew passives are nerfed into oblivion I'll have to go back and rewrite big chunks of my crew abilities post in Stasie's guide (in addition to the parts that already need more work).

The design intent looks to me like a full set of crew are supposed to be about as powerful as a five tier starship component slot and that optimized crew selection should make a hefty difference compared to worst possible crew selection. Take the sensor abilities, as originally designed they were very powerful due to how sensor damping worked. Their current weakness isn't representative of a design intent for weak crew passives, it's a byproduct of the designers not foreseeing how badly broken stealth gunships were from a balance standpoint.

My take is not that the accuracy is too powerful, it's that because of not fully anticipating how all the stats would work out the other abilities are probably far weaker than intended. Missile rate of fire, blaster firing arc, ammunition capacity; in theory these are all potent offensive traits. The problem is that they interact with other things like: lock-on times, missile reload times, missile breaks, tracking penalties, life expectancy, and rearming that devalue the benefits at the levels that are present in the passive abilities. What makes accuracy different is that there's no interaction that you have to anticipate in order to adjust the level of payoff to where you intended it to be.

I could be wrong of course, but I suspect that the simplest case illustrates what they meant to do, and the underwhelming performance of the others is because they either failed to anticipate the interactions of the others or vastly underestimated the effects of the interactions.

**Edit: Crew abilities in general could probably use a second pass of polish and tuning, but they're in the same category as ship components that are practically never taken. There are enough options available so that everyone can get by, so in terms of budgeting developer hours they aren't at the top of the to-do list, more likely on the, "we wish we had time to get around to it," list.
"A padawan's master sets their Jedi trial, Rajivari set mine."
- Zhe Lian, Sage.

Twitch

Armonddd's Avatar


Armonddd
04.08.2014 , 09:25 AM | #19
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post
It's honestly just simple math as to why it's good. Your accuracy is less than 100% in essentially every case, and as the accuracy decreases, the power of a flat increase in accuracy goes up and up.
This. As long as misses do 0% damage, accuracy is incredibly important.

Imagine if the ground game had a talent for +6% accuracy. That would be huge. And that's with your worst case accuracy being 90%, with most people bumping that up with legacy stuff. In GSF, the fact that evasion exists brings your worst case accuracy significantly farther down.

If I had to choose one offensive crew member passive instead of two, it would be pinpointing every time. You can't even make an argument for bombers taking something else because they rely on blasters less than other ships, because bombers who know what they're doing use their blasters a lot.

The point of choosing your crew members is supposed to be to make a choice about how to outfit your ship. If that's what the devs want, the blatant discrepancy in power between various passives needs to be addressed. Pinpointing and rapid reload are probably the worst offenders, but depth of field, silent running, power to blasters, and power to engines all lag behind the other options.

If that's not what the devs what, they might as well replace crew passives with a skill tree like they use in the ground game, which only the most naive of players wouldn't instantly recognize as an illusion of choice.
Space Ace of <Death Squadron>, <Black Squadron>, <Eclipse Squadron>, and <solo da>

Ramalina's Avatar


Ramalina
04.08.2014 , 09:51 AM | #20
One thing that's a minor but somewhat important detail, is that the accuracy buff isn't quite as good as the flat damage increase math would indicate. As a low magnitude stochastic buff, it needs time for the laws of probability to kick in and get the full effect. That is, it shows up over many many short bursts of blaster fire, but will tend to slightly underperform the listed value for any individual short burst of blaster fire. Increase to average damage isn't quite the same as a flat damage boost if not all samples are large enough for their mean value to be forced close to the population mean value.

Figuring out the real value would be a lot of work, and would require a lot of assumptions about what is going on during the 'average' dogfight. It's a bit less than the napkin math in this thread is claiming though. What's being claimed is the theoretical maximum effect of the 6% buff, not the in practice effect. Too lazy at the moment to chase down exactly how big that difference is though.

Doesn't change that the accuracy is still generally the best option in its class by a fair margin though. Just makes backing up our arguments about the exact values of relative balance stats a lot more work if we want to do a good job of it. Can probably hold off on the theorcrafting math models until the differences in passives are changed to be close enough so that you need probability models to tell if there's a difference.

As far as a recommendation for thread direction, I think it might be a good idea to bounce around ideas for bringing the other options into line with accuracy. Sort of been neglected since the initial post, and without the math to back it up properly I'm not sure arguing about the exact value of the accuracy buff accomplishes much in terms of giving the Devs useful feedback.
"A padawan's master sets their Jedi trial, Rajivari set mine."
- Zhe Lian, Sage.

Twitch