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!

Kuciwalker's Avatar


Kuciwalker
04.08.2014 , 11:36 AM | #21
Quote: Originally Posted by Ramalina View Post
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.
Math fail. The ultimate outcome is binary (win or lose the match) and so the value of a stochastic buff is lower bounded at its nominal value.

Gavin_Kelvar's Avatar


Gavin_Kelvar
04.08.2014 , 11:55 AM | #22
Quote:
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%.



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.
But see you're missing one of my points (I know you're responding to another person but I think the example you made also applies to what I was saying): HLC will gain marginal benefit (if any) from a passive combo that combines firing arc with a passive exclusively for secondaries. Its tracking penalty is high enough that odds are it's of little benefit to increase your HLC firing arc since you don't need to be far from the center before you can start taking a massive accuracy hit.

Likewise RFL/LLC have such poor base accuracy at range it makes little sense to take firing arc instead of accuracy since it's quite likely you'll be facing enough targets stacking evasion that it won't be useful.

BLC could maybe swing firing arc since they aren't especially useful at range anyway. Lasers might have just low enough of a tracking penalty and a high enough base accuracy to benefit from either.

How is everyone taking accuracy a demonstration of it being too powerful when 4/6 of blaster weaponry dogfighters can use so clearly can't get much, or any benefit, from an increased firing arc?

As also noted in your above example evasion still hits really hard even though it isn't a god stat any more. Considering that accuracy is the only counter to it and it remains the most powerful defensive stat why would people NOT take accuracy?

For my part I run with Qyzen (accuracy/firing arc) as my concussion missiles get barely any benefit from reload time and the only times I run out of missiles are when we're steamrolling the other team. In all other scenarios I either find a reload drone or die before running out. As rightly noted the reload time is too weak so it really isn't worth taking and ammo is only beneficial if you regularly run out. So in the end for me it makes little sense to take a combo other than the accuracy/firing arc one.

It just seems you're focused on attributing people taking accuracy due to the amount of damage it increases and discounting how most blasters lack the base stats to truly benefit from firing arc except in a very narrow set of scenarios (namely point blank) and that accuracy still needs to be taken to counter the most powerful defense stat in the game. Likewise it seems your discounting how ammo is only useful to people who run out of ammo regularly.

Overall it seems that firing arc benefits missiles more than most blasters so it doesn't make much sense why you would skip out on the one passive that is clearly focused on benefiting blasters almost exclusively. Especially when ammo and reload are so circumstantial and/or underpowered.

Quote:
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?
Ok so to clarify (as I think this is what confuses me since your main reason for nerfing accuracy seems to be the power buff it grants) you aren't opposed to blasters having the current power buff they get with accuracy provided it was achieved through combined higher base accuracy and slightly lower passive? Unless you buffed firing arc to provide an equally powerful benefit to blasters I guess I don't see why people would suddenly stop taking the accuracy passive unless they were flying something like a Pike.

Armonddd's Avatar


Armonddd
04.08.2014 , 01:33 PM | #23
Quote: Originally Posted by Gavin_Kelvar View Post
HLC will gain marginal benefit (if any) from a passive combo that combines firing arc with a passive exclusively for secondaries.
This is exactly the problem: Pinpointing is too good compared to the other options.

If I had to make the choice between dropping Pinpointing (and sacrificing my HLC output) for a significant buff to my secondaries, that'd be interesting. I might go for that on a bomber or a pike, and I might consider it on a type 1 strike if I bring ions and HLCs (since at that point I can try using HLCs as a secondary weapon with most of my damage coming from ions and missiles).

But I don't -- I get two of whatever I want. That means Pinpointing is autopick. There's no choice involved; it's just, here, pick two of the four, and one of them is twice as good as the others. It's literally an illusion of choice, just like the entire design behind skill trees in the ground game. At this point, I'm not choosing two of four passives; I'm choosing between Pinpointing and Spare Ammo, Pinpointing and Improved Kill Zone, or Pinpointing and Rapid Reload. Except Rapid Reload is on the opposite end of the spectrum and is absolutely awful, so I'm choosing between Pinpointing and Spare Ammo or Pinpointing and Improved Kill Zone. Of the twelve offensive crew members in the game, only four have viable passives. Add in the fact that Jaesa has a terrible active ability and Kira has a subpar active ability, and there's really only one good offensive crew member per faction if you want an offensive crew member active ability.

Other companies have made massive strides towards eliminating illusions of choice, resulting in more interesting gameplay and more even playing fields, and BioWare should too.

Quote:
How is everyone taking accuracy a demonstration of it being too powerful when 4/6 of blaster weaponry dogfighters can use so clearly can't get much, or any benefit, from an increased firing arc?
The fact that the firing arc increase also affects secondary weapons makes this question irrelevant. (We'll ignore the fact that you were trying to debate Improved Kill Zone's effectiveness at range, when firing arc increases favor short-ranged combat, and that you forgot about ion cannons entirely.)

Quote:
As also noted in your above example evasion still hits really hard even though it isn't a god stat any more. Considering that accuracy is the only counter to it and it remains the most powerful defensive stat why would people NOT take accuracy?
This is exactly the problem -- there's no reason to not take accuracy.

Quote:
It just seems you're focused on attributing people taking accuracy due to the amount of damage it increases and discounting how most blasters lack the base stats to truly benefit from firing arc except in a very narrow set of scenarios (namely point blank) and that accuracy still needs to be taken to counter the most powerful defense stat in the game. Likewise it seems your discounting how ammo is only useful to people who run out of ammo regularly.
You're coming at it from a different angle from Verain and I. We're saying, accuracy is too good, there's no reason not to take it. You seem to be saying, everything else is bad, why wouldn't I take accuracy. The end result is the same: Pinpointing needs a nerf (with increased accuracy baked into the blasters themselves), and other options need a buff.

(Also, point blank range is far from a narrow set of scenarios, and it's far from the only time increased firing arc is useful -- see also: railguns, quads, and torpedoes).

Quote:
Ok so to clarify (as I think this is what confuses me since your main reason for nerfing accuracy seems to be the power buff it grants) you aren't opposed to blasters having the current power buff they get with accuracy provided it was achieved through combined higher base accuracy and slightly lower passive? Unless you buffed firing arc to provide an equally powerful benefit to blasters I guess I don't see why people would suddenly stop taking the accuracy passive unless they were flying something like a Pike.
Yeah, exactly. Blaster accuracy and damage output is fine (except for BLCs, but that's another topic). What's not fine is that you don't really have a choice when it comes to your crew members.

The goal here is to make choosing your crew members an interesting decision. Currently it's not -- I just load up the same four crew members every time I unlock a new ship, possibly with a difference in the defensive crew member.

The goal isn't to stop people from taking Pinpointing. Pinpointing is and always will be a strong buff for blasters, railguns, and rocket pods, and that's a good thing. People that use those weapons should want Pinpointing.

Other ships -- Pikes, Bombers, certain Starguards -- should want to think about bringing something in place of Pinpointing. They currently don't, because nothing is nearly as good as Pinpointing, even if you're doing less with your lasers. If they decide that Pinpointing supports their goals and playstyle better than the alternatives, that's fine -- so long as they're not 'choosing" to take Pinpointing because everything else is crap.

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

Gavin_Kelvar's Avatar


Gavin_Kelvar
04.08.2014 , 02:18 PM | #24
Quote: Originally Posted by Armonddd View Post
This is exactly the problem -- there's no reason to not take accuracy.
So you'd be in favor of further nerfs to evasion if it would help decrease the value placed on accuracy? (the quote was in reply to my point that accuracy is the only counter to evasion and even post 2.6 evasion is still the best defensive passive in the game which strongly encourages people to take the offensive passive that is its only direct counter).



Quote:
You seem to be saying, everything else is bad, why wouldn't I take accuracy. The end result is the same: Pinpointing needs a nerf (with increased accuracy baked into the blasters themselves), and other options need a buff.
To some degree yes. But more accurately I'm saying accuracy is the only one that clearly benefits blasters all the time and isn't like firing arc that depends on you using a weapon at close range with a low tracking penalty to truly be of any benefit. I'm also pointing out that reload time is currently useless (in that regard I agree it's in need of a buff but I wouldn't agree it's justification for nerfing accuracy). Ammo capacity is circumstantial and only beneficial if you regularly run out of ammo, if you don't normally run out of ammo though there's really no reason to take this.

Also I'd like to point out that so far as blasters are concerned accuracy is the only one that benefits blasters exclusively. So unless you're building a ship that is missile heavy (such as the Pike) it doesn't make sense why you'd exclude the only passive that (primarily) benefits blasters.

I'm also fuzzy on how the damage output increase of accuracy really demonstrates it being too good since firing arc depends on being at close range with a low tracking penalty weapon to be helpful with blasters, ammo capacity won't increase your total damage done unless you would have run out of missiles otherwise. Reload time seems to be the only one that could have a straight buff to damage output since its benefits aren't circumstantial (unlike firing arc and ammo).

If you want to argue damage output comparing accuracy to reload time seems like a fair comparison since they both should have a straight increase to damage under any circumstance but firing arc/ammo isn't since they're so circumstantial and they're not going to result in a straight damage buff like accuracy or reload time.

I'm just skeptical of the math demonstrating that accuracy is too powerful when the only passive that would have a straight damage buff with no drawbacks and thus be a direct comparison is reload time which we can all agree is too weak and so of course accuracy will appear really good by comparison. When firing arc/ammo capacity buffing damage are circumstantial I just feel it's too easy to manipulate the numbers to "prove" accuracy outpaces them since you're comparing something that provides a straight buff in all scenarios to passives that will only provide a buff in some scenarios but not others. (not saying anyone is maliciously trying to manipulate numbers)

Quote:
(Also, point blank range is far from a narrow set of scenarios, and it's far from the only time increased firing arc is useful -- see also: railguns, quads, and torpedoes).
Well I was addressing firing arc in the capacity of blasters. In which case it does fulfill a narrower range of scenarios since they'll only really benefit at close range. For a weapon with high tracking penalties I'm skeptical that an increased firing arc is beneficial at all since it's entirely possible that you wouldn't be able to hit anyone consistently at the edge of the firing arc anyway.

Quote:
Other ships -- Pikes, Bombers, certain Starguards -- should want to think about bringing something in place of Pinpointing. They currently don't, because nothing is nearly as good as Pinpointing, even if you're doing less with your lasers. If they decide that Pinpointing supports their goals and playstyle better than the alternatives, that's fine -- so long as they're not 'choosing" to take Pinpointing because everything else is crap.
Now to be fair one of the primary adversaries of Pikes & Star Guards are scouts who normally stack evasion. So it really shouldn't be a surprise that they gravitate towards the passive that specifically counters the defense of one of their most common/dangerous enemies.

Quote:
Maybe part of the problem is that the passives favor secondary weapons too much, and part of the solution is to rework Spare Ammo and Rapid Reload. Maybe the current four should be merged -- I'd take +2% accuracy and +2 degrees firing arc on my Flashfire, and my Pike would love +15% ammo -20% reload time. At that point you could introduce other interesting passives, perhaps reducing lock-on time or increasing range or something. That would make me really think about my crew members, instead of just loading up the same four every time I buy a new ship.
I think the passives benefitting secondaries too much is probably the case. For blasters you're only alternate to accuracy is firing arc. Unless you're in a ship like the Pike that relies primarily on missiles for damage it doesn't make sense why you wouldn't choose accuracy. Also you should factor in that, prior to 2.7, with landing a missile shot being so hard due to the ease in evading it there was little motivation to go with passive combos that favored secondaries.

Kuciwalker's Avatar


Kuciwalker
04.08.2014 , 02:24 PM | #25
If you nerf pinpointing then yes, you "balance" the offensive options but mostly just by making them indistinguishable. All of the options besides pinpointing are very weak/situational/niche. Two of the options do literally nothing for some builds (Spare Ammo / Rapid Reload on a bomber with a mine secondary).

The answer is that the other options need to be radically buffed.

Ramalina's Avatar


Ramalina
04.08.2014 , 03:09 PM | #26
Calling the accuracy buff being too good, I think that's an incorrect conclusion. If you look at the range of actives and passives in crew and in components there's a pattern. The categories (offense, defense, utility) and the magnitudes are pretty consistent, the effective interactions with other mechanics are wildly inconsistent.

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

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

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

Quote: Originally Posted by Kuciwalker View Post
Math fail. The ultimate outcome is binary (win or lose the match) and so the value of a stochastic buff is lower bounded at its nominal value.
Yeah, math fail, but not in the way that you're suggesting if I'm interpreting you right.

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

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

I was wildly incorrect in thinking the variability would affect average long term outcome. Verain's math is fine except at the tails of the distribution, and those areas are so small that they're irrelevant in practice.
"A padawan's master sets their Jedi trial, Rajivari set mine."
- Zhe Lian, Sage.

Twitch

Kuciwalker's Avatar


Kuciwalker
04.08.2014 , 03:31 PM | #27
Quote: Originally Posted by Ramalina View Post
Yeah, math fail, but not in the way that you're suggesting if I'm interpreting you right.

Binary effect yes, but the outcomes are shot hits or shot misses, not victory or defeat.
Nope. Final outcome of the system is winning or losing. Hitting and missing are just intermediate steps in arriving at that outcome.

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

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

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

Quote:
The lower limit of the value is zero, you can gain no additional hits from the buff. The maximum benefit is that all of your hits would have missed without the buff. Absurdly unlikely that you'll reach either of those limits with a lot of shots fired.
Given baseline levels of evasion, tracking, and range penalties it is actually pretty unlikely that your accuracy on any given shot (before Pinpointing) is > 94%. We can ignore that circumstance.

Ramalina's Avatar


Ramalina
04.08.2014 , 04:55 PM | #28
Quote: Originally Posted by Kuciwalker View Post
If a battle contained a single blaster shot, that single blaster shot would logically determine the outcome of the battle (ignoring the possiblity of ties). A 6% accuracy buff would increase hit probability by at least 6% and therefore victory probability by 6%.
I assume that this is math related trolling?

The probability function of victory in GSF is multivariate.

Multivariate probability functions can be a @!#$% to model, but I think we can all be happy that it means that a 6% passive buff to a random variable can have a lot less than a 6% influence on the probable outcome of a match.
"A padawan's master sets their Jedi trial, Rajivari set mine."
- Zhe Lian, Sage.

Twitch

Kuciwalker's Avatar


Kuciwalker
04.08.2014 , 05:22 PM | #29
Quote: Originally Posted by Ramalina View Post
I assume that this is math related trolling?

The probability function of victory in GSF is multivariate.

Multivariate probability functions can be a @!#$% to model, but I think we can all be happy that it means that a 6% passive buff to a random variable can have a lot less than a 6% influence on the probable outcome of a match.
We don't care that it's multivariate, we can just take the partial derivative of win chance wrt accuracy.

Armonddd's Avatar


Armonddd
04.08.2014 , 07:19 PM | #30
Quote: Originally Posted by Kuciwalker View Post
We don't care that it's multivariate, we can just take the partial derivative of win chance wrt accuracy.
Not sure if you're just throwing out math words at this point, or if we're just beyond my level of experience with statistics.
Space Ace of <Death Squadron>, <Black Squadron>, <Eclipse Squadron>, and <solo da>