The plan here is show a side by side comparison of a Sting, with the build I use the most frequently.

The build I'm using doesn't really matter as this is just to see what you really get from mastering a ship compared to how it starts off. The only thing I am assuming is that you have the starting parts for this build which to swap to from a complete stock sting would only cost 5500 requisition.

 

Here we go:

Sting

 

Burst Laser Cannon gains

5% Weapon Damage

2% Accuracy and 5% Critical hit chance

2 Degrees Firing Arc and 5% Weapon Tracking penalty reduced

100% Armor Penetration

18% Damage to Shields

So in total you gain about 25.5% dps to shields and 7.5% dps to hull, 7% accuracy at the very best circumstance for tracking penalty. The awesome armor penalty and the 2 degree arc increase.

 

Cluster Missile

14% Lock on time reduction

8% shield piercing

5% Missile damage

4 More ammo

30% Missile Damage but half ammo

 

Targeting Telemetry

Cooldown decreased by 15 seconds (33% decrease)

Sensor Radius increased by 5000m

Duration increased by 5 seconds (50% increase)

Evasion increased by 8% for the duration

25% More Critical damage and 10% more critical chance

 

Barrel Roll

Reduces cost by 20

Reduced cooldown by 10 seconds (33% decrease)

Turn rate increased by 10%

 

Distortion Field

Evasion while ability is active increased by 8% ( 33.75% increase)

Cooldown decreased by 10 seconds (33% decrease)

Now breaks missiles when activated

 

Large Reactor

12% Shield max

 

Lightweight Armor

6% More Evasion

 

Regeneration Thrusters

12% More engine regeneration

12% More engine regeneration when recently consumed

 

Damage Capacitor

6% More Primary weapon damage

 

 

So what does this all equate too, well just for simplicities sake I'm going to assume we are popping targeting telemetry on cooldown every 30 seconds.

 

Lets start with mobility

12% More engine regen and 33% more barrel rolls were not really much faster but we do have a bit more endurance to get to different places which is good.

10% more turn rate, this will help in turn wars and might help you aim that tiny bit faster

Thats it!

 

Ok how about Defences?

Well we get 6% more evasion which takes us from 27% to 33% passive evasion, we also get 8% from targeting telemetry which we can average out to 4% all the time since its up 50% of the time. so that takes us to an average of 37% passive evasion.

Distortion field gains 8% Evasion on its active, that takes it from 27%-35%

So for evasion after everything the differences are 27% to 37% passive evasion with a burst cooldown every 20 seconds instead of 30 seconds, which gets up from 27% to 35%

We get 12% Shield max which takes us from 1274 to 1430

Lets not forget the all important missile break on distortion, probably the biggest difference maker of all these changes.

Barrel rolls cooldown being reduced by 33% helps break more missiles aswell.

 

Now on to Damage, what everyone always talks about!

Burst lasers do 11% more damage to hull and 29% more damage to shields, have 7% more accuracy in the best tracking penalty situation and have 5% crit chance which is about 3.125% damage if you include targeting telemetry being up half the time.

Targeting also gives you 5% crit chance which is 3.125% damage.

 

Ok thats a lot of math, basically your lasers are 7% more accurate and do 17.25% More damage to hull and 35.25% more damage to shields.

 

For Cluster Missiles lets assume for fun you can lock missiles back to back just for the sake of seeing how much of a damage increase the lock on is.

 

A cluster has a lock on time of 1.5 seconds stock, it is 1.3 seconds upgraded, the reload time is 3 seconds.

So how much damage is 0.2 seconds less lock giving you? The diffence between 4.5 to 4.3 is a 4.4% damage increase.

 

Now thats not really fair as a faster lockon helps way more then pure damage like that, but still its an interesting number.

 

Alright so clusters deal 35% more damage and get 8% shield piercing, they also get that little ammo boost but then get their ammo halved. Now we know that targeting telemetry is giving clusters 3.125% more damage on average because of the crit chance and crit damage.

 

So basically assuming the lock on time is adding its damage to the equation cluster gets 42.525% more damage mastered then stock.

 

 

So after all this math we see that a mastered ships damage on average is about 40%-45% ish better then a stock ships damage.

The defenses go up by about 30%-35% across the board being that many more missile breaks with barrel, or about that much more evasion. You definitely don't get 30% more shields though you only get 12% more of those. The big changer here is Distortions missile break, it brings so much extra defense to a ship its hard to quantify in a number. It's why we keep mentioning how important it is.

The mobility of a ship doesn't really increase all that much as a mastered ship, 12% more engine regen and 10% more turning. it doesn't even come close to the 30%-35% defenses get or the 40%-45% that your weapons get.

 

The hard to quantitate upgrades are the shield piercing on clusters and armor pen on burst, armor pen is so important it can make you ignore the 70% damage reduction on a turret or the 99% damage reduction on a charged plating bomber which inturn makes you deal your full 100% damage to them.

 

I hope this helps show some people that a mastered ship isn't 3 or 4 times better then a stock one, its infact its about half as good as a mastered ship.

 

I'm sure a ton of you out there will argue my math or methods and honestly I welcome it, find my mistakes and let me know.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Drakkolich

For Phase 2 of this fun math discussion I play on doing the exact same thing only I'm going to do it as if I had spent 60k requisition.

 

First I'll let you know where I put the req.

 

Barrel roll

Power cost reduction 1000

Cooldown reduction 2500

 

Distortion

Increased evasion 1000

Cooldown reduction 2500

Missile break 10000

 

Cluster Missile

Lock on time reduction 1000

Increased shield piercing 2500

 

Burst Laser Cannon

Increased damage 1000

Increased accuracy and Crit chance 2500

Increased firing arc and tracking penalty reduction 5000

Armor penetration 10000

 

Armor maxed 5000

Thruster maxed 5000

Reactor maxed 5000

Capacitor maxed 5000

 

Targeting Telemetry

Cooldown reduction 1000

 

 

Alright so there's our 60k requisition spent. 60k is still less then half what is required to master a ship.

 

Lets see how much has changed.

 

Burst Laser Cannon gains

18% Damage to shields

 

Cluster Missile

5% Damage increase

4 More ammo

30% Damage increase

 

Targeting Telemetry

Sensor Radius increased by 5000m

Duration increased by 5 seconds (50% increase)

Evasion increased by 8% for the duration

25% More Critical damage and 10% more critical chance

 

Barrel Roll

Turn rate increased by 10%

 

Alright we have everything else.

 

Lets start with mobility

We've gained 10% turning

 

How about defenses?

4% average evasion from Targeting Telemetry

 

Alright we have got to gain significant damage then right? I mean we still have 90k to go till mastered.

 

Burst lasers do 18% more Damage to shields, and gain 0.625% damage from targeting telemetry on the crit chance we have already gotten. Targeting telemetry also adds 3.125% more damage of its own with its crit chance.

 

So compared to a mastered ship our 60k req ship's burst lasers do 3.75% more damage to hull and 21.75% more damage to shields

 

Cluster missiles

 

 

Alright so clusters deal 35% more damage , they also get that little ammo boost but then get their ammo halved. Now we know that targeting telemetry is giving clusters 3.125% more damage on average because of the crit chance and crit damage.

 

So bascially clusters do 38.125% more damage

 

 

With 60k req our lasers do almost the same damage to hull as mastered and gain a bit vs shields, our missiles still do almost 40% more damage on a mastered ship. However our defenses are pretty much maxed and all we gain in mobility is 10% turning.

 

From this you can clearly see how much that initial amount of requisition does, in a short time you change that about half as good gear gap from stock to mastered, to only a 20-30% average damage gap with a few upgrades other then damage missing.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Drakkolich

How do you get:

I hope this helps show some people that a mastered ship isn't 2 or 3 times better then a stock one, its infact at best 50% better.

From:

The mobility of a ship doesn't really increase all that much as a mastered ship, 12% more engine regen and 10% more turning. it doesn't even come close to the 30%-35% defenses get or the 40%-45% that your weapons get.

A crude estimate would then be that it's 103% better, using the most conservative of your own numbers and assigning zero value to turn rate, or the hard to quantify upgrades, and ignoring some points you yourself have raised (about lock on times, etc).

 

Unless you are positing no synergy whatsoever between the components of a ship (i.e. that dying less does not in fact allow more damage to be dealt, or that mobility neither increases damage ability nor survivability). In which case, you'll have to explain the reasoning, because your math does not otherwise support your conclusion.

 

P.S. another big maths flaw, you write that defences increase by 30-35% yet that is your figure for the increase in evasion and missile breaks (in fact you increase your missile breaks 200%, since you go from 1 on 30s CD to 2 on 20s CD=1 every 10s potentially*). With the increase of 12% in shields, assuming shields are roughly half of your raw HP pool, that a 38-43% increase in defences. Of course, since missile breaks are really increasing 200%, and since shields are generally better than hulls (this is why we all chose shield damage on our blaster upgrades, after all), the increase in defences is really even more than this, but in a hard to quantify way.

 

* I write "potentially" because out in space we often are not just chaining the breaks on CD, especially DF.

Edited October 21, 2014 by MiaowZedong

How do you get:

 

From:

 

A crude estimate would then be that it's 103% better, using the most conservative of your own numbers and assigning zero value to turn rate, or the hard to quantify upgrades, and ignoring some points you yourself have raised (about lock on times, etc).

 

Unless you are positing no synergy whatsoever between the components of a ship (i.e. that dying less does not in fact allow more damage to be dealt, or that mobility neither increases damage ability nor survivability). In which case, you'll have to explain the reasoning, because your math does not otherwise support your conclusion.

 

Yes you're right I had not considered synergy at all, I'm curious to how you came up with 103% though?

Are you saying if a ship is 30% more defensible I should add 30% more of the 40% damage increase?

Taking that example if you are 30% more defensible you actually gain 52% more damage?

 

Do we just add up all the %? If a ship is 30% more defensible and does 40% more damage and has 20% better mobility is it a 90% better ship?

 

I'm not really sure how to proceed in analyzing synergy.

 

Thanks for the input.

Yes you're right I had not considered synergy at all, I'm curious to how you came up with 103% though?

Are you saying if a ship is 30% more defensible I should add 30% more of the 40% damage increase?

Taking that example if you are 30% more defensible you actually gain 52% more damage?

 

Do we just add up all the %? If a ship is 30% more defensible and does 40% more damage and has 20% better mobility is it a 90% better ship?

 

I'm not really sure how to proceed in analyzing synergy.

 

Thanks for the input.

I am very crudely considering that synergy makes things stack multiplicatively. If I was trying for a real simulation and not just fast forum maths, I'd probably want to work out some ponderation; right now I'm just assuming that being, say, 10% faster allows you to deal 10% more damage thanks to being in a firing position more often, multiplicative of the damage's own bonus.

 

This is why I'd normally just write an approximation in English like "twice as good", "half as good again" rather than give hard numbers, which (IMO) imply precision, rather than ballpark estimates

Edited October 21, 2014 by MiaowZedong

There are three main concerns I have with your analysis.

 

1. Your conclusion ignores differences in kind and only notes differences in scale.

This is fairly straightforward, and you've noted this with Distortion Field, but I think it bears repeating for the sake of other ships. Improving the tools you have has asymmetric bonuses which are not easily calculated in a straight analysis. You are right in that it is difficult to assign a straight number to it, but we can approximate a value. We could even math the alternate option and assume that they have the same value; this is obviously wrong, but it is a workaround to provide a clean number.

 

2. A few components are weird.

You say that the components you're using don't matter, but I'm inclined to disagree.

In my experience Retro seems a bit more popular as a Sting engine than Barrel Roll. This may be your personal preference, and I don't really have the statistics to back up my objection, but Barrel Roll doesn't seem to be a particularly popular component for any ship other than Quarrel/Mangler. This has non-trivial implications for the conclusion; more missile locks, less mobility.

Pods aren't calculated. In my (again, limited) experience, pods and clusters enjoy about a 50/50 split in use. For a more complete analysis, it would be worth doing these as well.

 

3. You have miscalculated percentages.

In particular, you note that you will deal "99% more damage against a charged plating bomber" using the armor penetration bonus from BLCs and Pods. This is incorrect; you will deal something in the order of 9900% more damage to targets benefiting from CP. This is because of how effective HP scales; the more mitigation you have, the more each additional point of mitigation is worth.

This leads to the second point; you don't seem to have calculated any EHP value. This drastically alters the real value of Evasion and Armor.

 

 

The last point I'd consider is how we should be summing these improvements. It may be worth approaching them additively (100%+35%+35%+15%) or multiplicatively (100%*135%*135%*115%) because we are not usually doing just one of these things; we are trying to survive, kill and move all at the same time. That 15% is what I would probably argue is a fair conclusion to the mobility increase.

If we sum them additively, we end up with the mastered ship being 85% better than the stock ship. If we sum them multiplicatively, we end up with the mastered ship being 109% better than the stock ship.

Edited October 21, 2014 by LilSaihah

I am very crudely considering that synergy makes things stack multiplicatively. If I was trying for a real simulation and not just fast forum maths, I'd probably want to work out some ponderation; right now I'm just assuming that being, say, 10% faster allows you to deal 10% more damage thanks to being in a firing position more often, multiplicative of the damage's own bonus.

 

This is why I'd normally just write an approximation in English like "twice as good", "half as good again" rather than give hard numbers, which (IMO) imply precision, rather than ballpark estimates

 

Great idea made the change thanks.

There are three main concerns I have with your analysis.

 

1. Your conclusion ignores differences in kind and only notes differences in scale.

This is fairly straightforward, and you've noted this with Distortion Field, but I think it bears repeating for the sake of other ships. Improving the tools you have has asymmetric bonuses which are not easily calculated in a straight analysis. You are right in that it is difficult to assign a straight number to it, but we can approximate a value. We could even math the alternate option and assume that they have the same value; this is obviously wrong, but it is a workaround to provide a clean number.

 

2. A few components are weird.

You say that the components you're using don't matter, but I'm inclined to disagree.

In my experience Retro seems a bit more popular as a Sting engine than Barrel Roll. This may be your personal preference, and I don't really have the statistics to back up my objection, but Barrel Roll doesn't seem to be a particularly popular component for any ship other than Quarrel/Mangler. This has non-trivial implications for the conclusion; more missile locks, less mobility.

Pods aren't calculated. In my (again, limited) experience, pods and clusters enjoy about a 50/50 split in use. For a more complete analysis, it would be worth doing these as well.

 

3. You have miscalculated percentages.

In particular, you note that you will deal "99% more damage against a charged plating bomber" using the armor penetration bonus from BLCs and Pods. This is incorrect; you will deal something in the order of 9900% more damage to targets benefiting from CP. This is because of how effective HP scales; the more mitigation you have, the more each additional point of mitigation is worth.

This leads to the second point; you don't seem to have calculated any EHP value. This drastically alters the real value of Evasion and Armor.

 

 

The last point I'd consider is how we should be summing these improvements. It may be worth approaching them additively (100%+35%+35%+15%) or multiplicatively (100%*135%*135%*115%) because we are not usually doing just one of these things; we are trying to survive, kill and move all at the same time. That 15% is what I would probably argue is a fair conclusion to the mobility increase.

If we sum them additively, we end up with the mastered ship being 85% better than the stock ship. If we sum them multiplicatively, we end up with the mastered ship being 109% better than the stock ship.

 

I made the change to a stock ship being about half as good as a mastered one, which I think is a good sum up with the synergy stuff in question. Thanks for noticing the armor issues I changed that aswell.

 

As for that components don't matter I didn't mean they don't matter for builds or in game or what not. But that for analyzing a component without upgrades vs one with full upgrades it didn't really matter what ship or components I picked. That for the most part it would be about the same amount of "power" increase.

 

I hope that answers your "components don't matter" questions.

You're analyzing Stingfire, correct?

The difference between stock and mastered is a little greater than you say:

Stock has LLC. Those aren't quite as deadly as BLC, can't ignore armor, and have much stiffer tracking penalties, which are very important when fighting at very close range.

Overcharge is available for quickly burning low-evasion targets like fortress shield and charged plating.

Stock probably won't have concentrated fire, which makes it extra-nasty to builds which depend on massive health to survive.

Stock builds will have either Wingman or Pinpointing, which makes off-center shots with LLC difficult.

Stock builds will have either +10% shield strength or +5% evasion. They won't have the extra weapon efficiency which comes in really handy for "Done, new target sighted!" or "Just die already!"

You're analyzing Stingfire, correct?

The difference between stock and mastered is a little greater than you say:

Stock has LLC. Those aren't quite as deadly as BLC, can't ignore armor, and have much stiffer tracking penalties, which are very important when fighting at very close range.

Overcharge is available for quickly burning low-evasion targets like fortress shield and charged plating.

Stock probably won't have concentrated fire, which makes it extra-nasty to builds which depend on massive health to survive.

Stock builds will have either Wingman or Pinpointing, which makes off-center shots with LLC difficult.

Stock builds will have either +10% shield strength or +5% evasion. They won't have the extra weapon efficiency which comes in really handy for "Done, new target sighted!" or "Just die already!"

 

It's only 5500 req to unlock all the components I mentioned, I assumed that at the start of my post. Crew members have no bearing at all on the equation as you can't upgrade them. I know some are better then others and that's more a build issue.

This is just comparing how much power the upgrades give. Different builds always help, I could have analyzed the complete stock Sting like you mentioned however I thought I'd throw up a build that I use instead.

 

Hope that clears it up.

I have to disagree with your disregard for how important that small amount of extra mobility is. It is the thing that allows me to get to people's sixes in the conclusion of most jousts/brawls. And the only thing I find more satisfying in terms of flying numbers than blasting at someone's tails point blank, is chasing down a gunship a bit before killing it.

For a new player (or a bad one) mobility isn't worth much. So "the ship" doesn't directly get better with it.

 

Retro thrusters is a similar topic. One of the reasons I prefer T2 scout over T1 are retros. But is it really possible to say "retro thrusters are x% stronger than <another engine>". Or is power dive 33% stronger than retros because power dive ahs 10 seconds cooldown instead of 15?

Edited October 21, 2014 by Danalon

Retros are good for killing noobs. If one of us sees you moving backwards, and we have two good choices:

1: Get out of your cone of fire. You can't turn while the maneuver is executing, so we have 3 seconds in which to do just that. Where we go from there is a matter of tactical preference.

2: If your name is Scrab, pop cooldowns, follow you through the maneuver, and kill you.

 

The other thing you want out of a good evasive maneuver is to put distance between yourself and whatever swarm is trying to kill you, which is why so many people like Barrel Roll.

 

Oh, right. Retros are nice for basically free shots at whoever is following you way too closely, but if they have retros, they can put the two of you right back where you started.

Edited October 21, 2014 by ALaggyGrunt
Forgot something

If you retro against someone and get killed in your retro by that person, you did your retro wrong. "..pop cooldowns..." If you retro against a scout who can targeting telem you down in it, you had poor cooldown awareness and should not have retroed then. Instead, retro against him when you have disto and he does not have TT.

 

While retro against a great pilot is a bit less useful than against a new player, it's still the better move offensively. Yes, a vet won't be surprised by it, but it still represents a threat, and needs to be responded to.

Btw, I think the whole point of the thread is a good one, but it probably won't help. I think the folks who come in and cry about gear are pretty far away from understanding what is going on, and they bring that QQ in from the ground game, or WoW, or wherever it actually matters.

 

I also think it's pretty hard to quantify some of the upgrades, and in ALL cases there is this HUGE thing where people want to compare stock to mastered. But as Drako points out at the very start, that's hardly a common thing. Who plays one-two games and is like "welp, I can't be bothered to play SIX games, that's for sure!". That guy was never going to contribute to anything except the Well Of Salty-Tear.

 

The early upgrades are generally huge, offering ludicrously large cooldown reductions on missile breaks, offering decent damage upgrades for almost free, giving cooldown reductions for almost free, etc. When you've earned 10% of the req of that ship, you have upgrades like this.

 

 

 

 

And this part is mostly from Stasie, rephrased and reimagined by me. If you disagree, blame me, if you agree, credit him:

 

A player will look at a number you calculate- be it as small as 5%, or as large as 120%- and come to the conclusion that THIS IS EVERYTHING regardless. The fact that a good player could literally be 3000% better (with no exaggeration at all) than them will never enter their mind. I promise you, some new player will read this thread and think "These so called veteran players probably are no more than three times as good at me, and ONLY because they have played 1000 more games than me." But that's wildly silly- the difference is over 10x at the low end. From the moment they get out of the gate, everything is different. Power settings, angles, approaches, strategies, what the rest of the team is doing, everything. So you pointing out that the ship difference is whatever is actually super interesting- to experienced players only. Less experienced players will narrate themselves as being held back by gear, and if you demonstrate that a full mastered ship is 85% better than the stock ship they stopped using on their first day and 20% better than their ship, rest assured that every loss will be because of that 20%, but they stopped at 85% and are gonna quote that to themselves, and maybe assume your effort at calculations was balanced, so the gear is probably 5x that, so probably more like 525% better and WHO COULD FIGHT THAT.

 

And if you link them you doing 80k and getting 20 kills in a stock Rycer, they say stuff like "those other guys weren't very good" and "those guys didn't do anything, and look at how much they died", forgetting that they were busy being spawn camped by a stock Rycer, and that's why they didn't get to do anything, and that's why they all died.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Verain

Retros are good for killing noobs. If one of us sees you moving backwards, and we have two good choices:

1: Get out of your cone of fire. You can't turn while the maneuver is executing, so we have 3 seconds in which to do just that. Where we go from there is a matter of tactical preference.

2: If your name is Scrab, pop cooldowns, follow you through the maneuver, and kill you.

 

The other thing you want out of a good evasive maneuver is to put distance between yourself and whatever swarm is trying to kill you, which is why so many people like Barrel Roll.

 

Oh, right. Retros are nice for basically free shots at whoever is following you way too closely, but if they have retros, they can put the two of you right back where you started.

I very much disagree with your assessment concerning Retros. And the last thing I'm ever thinking about when I use them is trying to get someone who was following too closely to suddenly be in front of me (that fantasy went out the door within the first week of GSF hitting the servers with the prerelease thing). If that happens, it's almost never my target that gets pushed in front of me, and it's more of a happy accident than it is intentional.

 

And I'm almost never, ever, trying to put distance between myself and a battle ball with Retros (IE - I don't use them to run like I would BR). If I use them there, it's to put a little space between me and the battle ball so I can set 1 of them up, or prep myself to run. And if I run, it's running evasively, and Retros are only a last resort to break the lock of a torpedo or conc.

 

If you have good spatial awareness and good tactical sense, Retros can allow you to pull stunts/maneuvers that no other engine can help you accomplish, or even come close to. Personally, I think they are by far the most versatile engine component in the game. And it's perhaps the only engine maneuver that doesn't immediately put you in a defensive position. Snap Turn, Koiogran Turn, Barrel Roll, Power Dive... All of them put you in the position of running away from both your targets and any that are targeting you if you use it as a missile break.

 

And if you're an experienced pilot, you hear the engine and see the little icon on any of the maneuvers, and can tell immediately where the opposing pilot is going and will end up. So it's not like Retros are somehow different in that regard. They have the unfortunate side effect of occasionally setting you up for gunships, or if used poorly, against the opposition in a dogfight, but that's a price I'm more than willing to pay for the versatility. And it's been a LONG time since they set me up in a dogfight, and truly setting you up for a gunship is a bit of an edge case.

 

I guess the way I see it... All of the engine maneuvers help you run. Retros, if used appropriately, help you dance.

Edited October 21, 2014 by nyghtrunner

I like how people read into things, beyond what the OP actually typed. I didn't hear him say mobility was not important, he merely showed how mobility benefits less from upgrades than defense or offensive. Its just a fact, not an opinion

 

You get less mobility in upgrades than other things but that little bit clearly counts (I go for it as much as I can without gimping offense / defense)

 

Anyways kudos to Drako for putting this up, even if people do not understand. Drak admits some powers are hard to quantify in terms of value. We could argue all day about this but the point is really moot.

 

He lists the raw values for upgrades, not some ephemeral value set. This is tangible stuff taken from the tooltips or inferred from in game information (not open for debate) take it or leave it, I think the intention was to show exactly how much upgrades give you, in order to dispel a bit of the myth in the "gear" debate (or at least to clarify it in hard #'s)

I like how people read into things, beyond what the OP actually typed. I didn't hear him say mobility was not important, he merely showed how mobility benefits less from upgrades than defense or offensive. Its just a fact, not an opinion

 

You get less mobility in upgrades than other things but that little bit clearly counts (I go for it as much as I can without gimping offense / defense)

I like how you're not clearly reading enough to see the assumptions that are there to reach the conclusion. The issue I had taken was:

 

I hope this helps show some people that a mastered ship isn't 3 or 4 times better then a stock one, its infact its about half as good as a mastered ship.

 

You cannot just compound the percent increases in each factor of the ship to get a comparison of ship quality in total. Not only there are unaccounted for strategic benefits (which Drakolich seems to note but not factor in the total comparative difference), but it is probable that we don't really have a good way of quantifying the improvement aside from some statistical treatment of controlled matchups. Also averaging the damage output doesn't work when the game is twitchy and bursty, like in other PvP being able to deliver spikes (that can just kill your opponent) is more valuable than constant increased damage output - in economic terms agents are risk averse, so averaging out variances is valid only for small differences in terms of utility.

 

Either way, this post shows that a stock ship should be strictly less than half as valuable as a mastered ship, and the difference from half is probably large due to the points I've risen.

But lets go and pretend that a mastered ship is thrice as good as a stock ship, and then say 1.5x as good as ship that people actually play on (no one plays stock, that's not really a good compare).

 

Even with those big numbers, the problem is that people aren't going to realize that other players can literally be five to twenty or more times as effective as them. That is simply not going to be something that they can understand or parse, especially if they are on the low edge of that skill set.

So, obviously, everyone agrees that gear makes a big difference. Different people will quantify it differently, but as others have said the analysis here suggests that a fully upgraded ship makes a given pilot at least twice as effective as the same pilot would be in a "stock" ship.

 

Doubtless there is a spectrum; there are some pilots for whom it will make them more than twice as effective, and some who will not be that much more effective.

 

But this discussion does actually give credence to the argument that gear wins battles, since if we assume that all pilots in a match are equally skilled, then the side with the most upgrades will be more effective.

 

At this stage in the game, those new pilots (or just those who don't fly GSF religiously) who bemoan the gear disparity between themselves and the pilots with hundreds or thousands of matches behind them should not be summarily dismissed. The argument that "skill > gear" so "you just need to get better" is not necessarily a valid point, since even if a pilot does have equal skill, a lack of gear puts them at a disadvantage--this is objectively demonstrated in this thread, and not something that can be denied. Furthmermore, new or casual pilots will see little progress at this point in the game because their gain of requisition is being slowed and hampered by pilots with better gear or more practice.

 

Therefore, the upcoming change in requisition is probably a good thing. An even playing field is a good thing.

That's what I take from this discussion.

Even with those big numbers, the problem is that people aren't going to realize that other players can literally be five to twenty or more times as effective as them. That is simply not going to be something that they can understand or parse, especially if they are on the low edge of that skill set.

I was just disagreeing on the conclusion that a stock ship is about half as good as a mastered ship. What you're bringing up is something else.

 

I do agree with you on the importance of skill, though if I remember right you need about 5-10 games to change the components to the optimal ones, and then about that to get the sweeter upgrades to make your ship matter. Also most people will need to accumulate a fair bit of fleet commendations to get all the crew (more important than getting your hands on the Sting, I believe). I think it's reasonable to expect people to play (and learn dying) through 30 games to get to a nice starting point, but this is exactly what makes the transition steep. People don't like utterly sucking for a dozen or two games.

 

I don't think things should be dumbed down (for anyone with a flight combat simulation background, GSF doesn't require that much extra skill), though. And some bonus requisition would make this process less steep in terms of "gearing up", BUT, I would instead advocate a free-flight PvE component where you can get requisition for your stock ships and learn to fly. THAT would be a double win IMHO.

II don't think things should be dumbed down (for anyone with a flight combat simulation background, GSF doesn't require that much extra skill), though. And some bonus requisition would make this process less steep in terms of "gearing up", BUT, I would instead advocate a free-flight PvE component where you can get requisition for your stock ships and learn to fly. THAT would be a double win IMHO.

 

What?! No! My spot at the top of the scoreboard is mine and clearly not because my railguns are mastered and other players are new or don't have effective defensive components yet! You dare suggest that people be able to get through this game without running the gauntlet of my railguns and more importantly seeing how much better I am than them at the end of every match?!?! You want to give them a way to practice where they don't have to put up with my derision and sh*t-talking?! Nonsense I say!

To everyone who is disagreeing with my conclusion that a mastered ship is about twice as good as a stock one, I'd love to know how much better you think it is.

 

Second this thread was more aimed at the many people that say things like well you only did 10x my damage because you have better gear then me, it has nothing to do with skill.

When someone that does 10000 damage repeatedly in games comes and yells at me that the only reason I'm able to kill them and do 50000+ every game is because my gear is better, that becomes very frustrating. Like Verain said it seems impossible to people that someone might be that much better then them.

 

That's the main reason I put this up, if my math or conclusions offended anyone I apologize I've just been very frustrated with the sheer amount of players that think gear is the end all for such a skill dominated game. I definitely think I need to step back off my soapbox maybe though and just fly again for awhile. Trying to keep up with all these gear vs skill arguments is starting to wear me out.

 

On that note I'm really looking forward to the premades event on Bastion, and afterwards I plan to hold another Stock night there aswell.

To everyone who is disagreeing with my conclusion that a mastered ship is about twice as good as a stock one, I'd love to know how much better you think it is.

 

Second this thread was more aimed at the many people that say things like well you only did 10x my damage because you have better gear then me, it has nothing to do with skill.

When someone that does 10000 damage repeatedly in games comes and yells at me that the only reason I'm able to kill them and do 50000+ every game is because my gear is better, that becomes very frustrating. Like Verain said it seems impossible to people that someone might be that much better then them.

 

That's the main reason I put this up, if my math or conclusions offended anyone I apologize I've just been very frustrated with the sheer amount of players that think gear is the end all for such a skill dominated game. I definitely think I need to step back off my soapbox maybe though and just fly again for awhile. Trying to keep up with all these gear vs skill arguments is starting to wear me out.

 

On that note I'm really looking forward to the premades event on Bastion, and afterwards I plan to hold another Stock night there aswell.

 

YAAA Premades event and Stock night.....

To everyone who is disagreeing with my conclusion that a mastered ship is about twice as good as a stock one, I'd love to know how much better you think it is.

I cannot answer this before being able to construct a meaningful sense of measurement. Honestly, the only proper way I can see of measuring it is taking pairs of aces who have a 50-50 K/D ratio against each other, and then match them with stock vs. mastered layouts and measure the change in the K/D ratios.

 

However, as I said, your argument provides a clear upper bound, that a stock ship is at most half as good as a mastered ship and that's a very generous estimate.

 

Second this thread was more aimed at the many people that say things like well you only did 10x my damage because you have better gear then me, it has nothing to do with skill.

When someone that does 10000 damage repeatedly in games comes and yells at me that the only reason I'm able to kill them and do 50000+ every game is because my gear is better, that becomes very frustrating. Like Verain said it seems impossible to people that someone might be that much better then them.

The only problem I ever had on the Red Eclipse was a guy who went mad about people going off to have dogfights instead of objective holding when we were winning the game 800-200 with three objectives held. I told him to back off because people like having fun and we're crushing them anyway, he told me I'm a scrub, noobs like me ruin the game, and then proceeded to ignore me.

 

On the other hand, I still have a screenshot of a guy who seemed very happy he resembled something useful. I hadn't taken the screenshot for that reason, but now it's on record. I obviously messaged him and told him to keep playing, it's good attitude.

 

I AM always puzzled by people who pull ~10k damage. I seem to hit 30k+ and >1 K/D on my alts' stock tier 1 scouts consistently. Then again, not everybody used to really love all sort of "flying games" (from IL-2 Sturmovik to Jedi Starfighter). Those people obviously have no clue how things "work", not even at a basic level.

 

It is obviously wrong for them to yell at you (although I do not know your general demeanor, you seem to be very willing to help people out, give them tips and pointers), but I also recognise that a good portion of these guys were basically just thrown in the water and were expected to float. Pushing for a way to ease them into this might be more beneficial than the analysis given in this thread (as I pointed out, it only shows the least amount by which stock ships are outclassed by mastered ships, which is plenty - and there are my other points), which is why I brought up the suggestion of free-flight PVE with upgradable stock ships in a previous post in this thread.

 

That's the main reason I put this up, if my math or conclusions offended anyone I apologize I've just been very frustrated with the sheer amount of players that think gear is the end all for such a skill dominated game. I definitely think I need to step back off my soapbox maybe though and just fly again for awhile. Trying to keep up with all these gear vs skill arguments is starting to wear me out.

 

On that note I'm really looking forward to the premades event on Bastion, and afterwards I plan to hold another Stock night there aswell.

No need to apologise mate. Didn't mean to come off as confrontational, just wanted to fix the argument. And flying is a nice way to blow off some steam, or I wouldn't be invested enough in it to post here.