The idea of removing the movement immunity from APO is kind of ridiculous on the face of it... there's only one other tenacity skill in STO (Polarize Hull), sure you can force every 'scort to run it but what's the point other than to just blindly nerf them?
The idea of removing the movement immunity from APO is kind of ridiculous on the face of it... there's only one other tenacity skill in STO (Polarize Hull), sure you can force every 'scort to run it but what's the point other than to just blindly nerf them?
Also remember that APO is at a minimum a LtCom power at level 1, and level 2 and 3 are both Commander power. So you have to take this in to consideration as well, and compared to other high level abilities such as Viral Matrix or Eject Warp Plasma, it is not OP by any stretch of the imagination. Also, even though it says "immunity to movement debuffs) there are still ways to stop a ship with APO on it, not a true total immunity.
I disagree. I propose that the +defense buff is removed. This brings escort defense values that are inflated beyond reason by APO3 back in line. Maybe also increase the global to 45s to prevent the current APO/APB chaining? (There is currently no permanent uptime on APO like you claim, it's "only" 50%.)
I would disagree with an increase in a attack pattern global... why penalize builds that don't rely on stupid doffs. I like running omega delta beta on a bunch of escorts with no doffs... and I use what makes the most sense... to me in takes more skill and is more fun then just running 2 stupid doffs and macroiing up delta omega delta omega delta omega.
The real issue is the Attack Pattern doffs... they will never change them... of course if they end up nerfing a 1 min cool down 15s up skill because stupid doffs have doubled its uptime... instead of fixing the real issue... which is the doff that doubles its uptime... then we should all /uninstall cause really there is no hope for them if they go that road.
What formula are you using to work Avoidance into EHP?
HP/(% dmg taken * % dmg taken)
So in the first example 900 / (.4*.8)
900/.32 = 2,812
This works, here is another way of looking at it. If you reduce damage by half, then reduce damage by half again it would take 4 times the amount of damage to kill you. 100/2 = 50. 50/2 = 25. Follow? .5 * .5 is .25 and anything divided by .25 is the same as * 4.
Escort bonus defense is not the issue. Escort bonus defense being multiplied by the insanely easy to get minimum 50% shield resist if not higher can be an issue. Of course if you strip one of the multipliers away they are easier to kill this is true just like an Escort has a significantly lower burst damage potential without the Tac Cap. abilities being used as multipliers.
The problem arises when said multipliers are exclusive to specific aspects of the mechanics and/or ships and classes and everything else stacks additively. And no I'm not saying to strait up nerf things or what have you. That will not work anyway. I'm saying you need to unify the systems and mechanics so they self correct and are easier to keep balanced. Like make Tac Cap abilities, and Omega for that matter, add on to the multiplier gained from consoles instead of multiplying them and everything else. Make bonus defense increase the chance of a 'glancing' hit while accuracy increases the damage dealt by a glancing hit. Introduce some form of 'ignores % enemy resistance' weapon, weapon mod, ability, whatever.
Till then you can tweak the numbers until your blue in the face and the moment a new item quality, ship, or skill boost is introduced it will all break again.
Sorry I keep editing but I just remembered a case in point example. Diablo 2 PVP while it wasn't the best balanced in the world was still atleast highly enjoyable and competitive. Some builds stomped others hard but for the most part you still had a decent chance if you had better skills than your opponent. Meanwhile Diablo 3 PVP has been pretty much scrapped for now and a big reason is just how laughable unfair and silly it would be when a really well equipped character has nearly 5x the damage output and health of a decently equipped one does. The difference in mechanic system between the two boils down to one simple factor, Diablo 2 systems are mostly additive in nature while Diablo 3 (thanks to the moronic inclusion of resist all among other things) are extremely multiplicative.
Another example, the LoL AP carry vs AD carry. Note this information might be slightly out of date as it has been awhile since I played. The AP carry cannot match the end game damage potential of an AD carry when fully geared because all their damage is additive (base + AP bonus) while the AD carry has multiplicative damage boosts (base * AS bonus * crit bonus).
This game is in the middle. Half the stuff is additive but then you get these weird corner cases like bonus defense, +% damage abilities, and likely a few others I'm forgetting, that completely mess everything up.
Okay, I've noticed something odd in regard to APO3 and bonus Defense.
Fed Eng. 6 SAP. APO3 tooltip +42.6%.
Chel Grett (Aegis). +90%. Hit APO3. 113.4%. +23.4% instead of +42.6%.
Chel Grett (notAegis). +80%. Hit APO3. 103.4%. +23.4% instead of +42.6%.
Advanced Escort (notAegis). +80%. Hit APO3. 103.4%. +23.4% instead of +42.6%.
KDF Tac. 6 SAP. APO3 tooltip +42.6%.
Chel Grett. +70.3%. Hit APO3. 103.4%. +33.1% instead of +42.6%.
Mirror Qin. +69.5%. Hit APO3. 103.4%. +33.9% instead of +42.6%.
Fed Sci. 0 SAP. APO tooltip +30%.
Chel Grett. +73.4%. Hit APO3. 96.5%. +23.1% instead of +30%.
Patrol Escort: +73.2%. Hit APO3. 96.5%. +23.3% instead of +30%.
KDF Eng. 0 SAP. APO3 tooltip +30%.
Chel Grett. +80%. Hit APO3. 96.5%. +16.5% instead of +30%.
6 SAP gives a 42% boost over 0 SAP. Sure enough, the Fed Eng with 6 SAP has 42% better bonus Defense from APO3 than the KDF Eng with 0 SAP. 16.5 x 1.42 = 23.42...
However, none of them are getting the actual bonus.
There appear to be "caps".
The 80% cap got pointed out earlier. Even at 100+ Eng power, the toons hit 80%.
Then there appears to be an APO3 cap. APO3 won't take you from 80% to 110%. It takes you to 96.5% with 0 SAP. The two toons with SAP 6 - will go to 103.4%. Both of the SAP 6 toons should have received +42.6% - but the one at 80 only received 23.4% while the one at 70.3% received +33.1%. Almost 10% less to start - almost 10% more of a bonus to reach the same end amount.
So I dropped the Tac to quarter impulse in the Mirror Qin. +25.9%. Hit APO3. 40.3%. +14.4%. Not the +42.6% expected.
I dropped the KDF Eng to quarter impulse in the Chel Grett. +30%. Hit APO3. 46.8%. +16.8%. Not the +30% expected.
In looking further at the KDF Eng (since I'm still on him), quarter impulse is 6.25. Hitting APO3 takes him to 9.92. Not hitting APO3, but manually adjusting speed to 9.91 takes him to 41.7%. So, APO3's doing something more than just bumping speed. However, if the speed is taking him to 41.7% - then he's actually only getting 5.1% from the APO3?
So uh...um...just how does APO actually work then?
Trannie mines needs a look on. These mines do way too much damage in comparison to other mines, with the exception of tricobalts. If the crit link happens, half the huill of a cruiser is gone and is just way too powerful in light of balance, and in comparison to other mines. I would like to see either the damage value lowered or the shield penetration rate reduced.
Not really. The one crits = all crits has to be fixed, after that it's not problematic at all. As a cluster torp using sci ship captain I'm quite certain that the problem is more towards people neglecting their kinetic resistance. Transphasics can hit hard, specially when they crit, but as soon as there is some basic resistance going and maybe an Aux2SIF running even cluster torps lose a lot of their oomph.
If defense tied to speed wont be altered i would liked to see the movement buff from APO removed. Currently its possible to have permanent uptime on APO using appropiate doffs and double copy of APO. This alone offers the best defense value along with a raw damage bonus which makes escort yet again the best ship in the game, and the remainder sitting ducks. If we are looking to balance the game and the ships, escorts cant have all the goodies while the other 2 classes sit with the mediocre stuff.
Maybe some sort of compromise. How about replace the immunity with an increased hold resistance? This way Graviton Gens buffed Tractor Beams actually have a greater effect than unbuffed but APO (and maybe even PH) still has an effect.
APO is with PH the main counter to holds. This shouldn't be completly removed.
Right now its very easy to keep ships pinned down by spamming EWP in combo with the doff that makes the ship halt. And this can be chained and done over and over. To prevent this from going overboard, i would like to see an immunity buff given after a ship has been exposed to it once, like they gave to most science skills. Im aware you can use a hazard emitter to remove it, but as long as you drift the EWP AOE you will constantly reapply it until you clear it. Worse is the effect lingers on your ship after you cleared the AOE effect, prolonging the torture. Right now EWP offers a movement halt and it gives the user zone control, along with damage which goes straigh to hull. In my opinion this is just way too much benefit for one skill alone.
Personally I think as long as HE is running the user should be safe against Plasma. If Cryptic could stop breaking this mechanic in some way or the other every now and then, things would look better. As long as there is plasma arround you, it should be able to tick against you. It can be problematic with lots of plasma in a match, but I don't think a simple immunity is the right way to go here.
Most likely I'm assuming your getting +10% I think from manuever skill correct? Possibly even have a trait boosting it maybe?
So you would take ship base * 1.42 to get the bonus from APO, then also add all the other bonuses and get final number. I think most ships are 45% base and escorts at 55% base when at max speed. If you take 55 * .426 you get 23.4 so that makes sense. Interesting Chel Grett gets the escorts bonus 10% defense, very interesting indeed.
Also that is likely still shoved into the speed modification if below 23 impulse as well.
There are no hard caps that I'm aware of on defense. You just get it modified if under 23 impulse is all like you take a penalty to shield regen below 50 power so to speak. Just tested on a toon and hit 137.4 with aegis / APO / EM and even with just APO went up to 114.? due to higher skill rank. Your other toon must have had something else going on to get the larger boost.
So in the first example 900 / (.4*.8)
900/.32 = 2,812
But a 20% chance to miss does not equate to 20% less damage. It's not static. It's like a proc.
With a 20% chance to miss - you could fire 10 shots. All 10 shots could miss. All 10 shots could hit. There could be any variety of hits and misses in there.
Most likely I'm assuming your getting +10% I think from manuever skill correct? Possibly even have a trait boosting it maybe?
So you would take ship base * 1.42 to get the bonus from APO, then also add all the other bonuses and get final number. I think most ships are 45% base and escorts at 55% base when at max speed. If you take 55 * .426 you get 23.4 so that makes sense. Interesting Chel Grett gets the escorts bonus 10% defense, very interesting indeed.
Also that is likely still shoved into the speed modification if below 23 impulse as well.
There are no hard caps that I'm aware of on defense. You just get it modified if under 23 impulse is all like you take a penalty to shield regen below 50 power so to speak.
They've all got the +10% from Elusive and +15% from Maneuvers.
Thing is, if it's just the APO number and the ship base number - then the Fed Eng and KDF Tac should have both seen +23.4%. 55 x .426... but the Tac received +33.1%. The Tac received enough to reach the 103.4%.
In a similar fashion, the KDF Eng that received +16.5% (55 x.3) to reach 96.5% should have been reflected in the Fed Sci that also reached 96.5%...but did so by receiving a boost of 23.1/23.3% to do so...not the +16.5% that the KDF Eng did.
Let me grab what their individual Impulse speeds were in their Chel Gretts...brb.
Okay, so the being below the 24 Impulse applies a penalty to the Tac and Sci which is lowering their non-APO3 defense and showing a larger bonus with the use of APO3 since the APO3 also takes them above that 24 - they're losing the penalty.
Taking the Fed Sci to 110/100 Power, 32.89 Impulse - takes him to 80% Defense. Hit the APO3, and he's at 96.5% - with the same +16.5% the KDF Eng w/o SAP received.
So it is the 55 x .30 for 16.5, +55, +10, +15... and tada - 96.5%. The APO3 is a percentage of the ships base - it's not an actual flat bonus.
This came up in that other thread, in a sense, about how things are on/off. There's no happy medium, eh?
Either the Escort's flitting around giving you the finger or they're hitting the respawn and giving you the finger...lol.
It almost cries out for the middleground...exactly the middleground, no?
It shouldn't be able to go as high as it can nor should should it be able to go as low as it goes. Chop off the two extremes and see what comes of it...
STO seemed always to be a game of extremes.
Extreme damage buffing, extreme heal stacking, and extreme debuff. Sometimes a ship can do it all, often you need a small team at least, but the result leads to very one-sided and extreme results. Achieving real balance between extremes is basically an impossibility.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Defense being tied to speed makes sense. It penalises escorts that "park" behind their target and it gives things like tractor beams a meaning.
I disagree.It gives a big advantage to the player who can use and uses danubes.
Once you got tractored twice (danubes/player ship) and hit with a vm in the same time you are in a bad position and with defences =0 (because you have zero speed) you are next candidate to respawn.
In the same time there should be a correlation between speed and defence to mimic real life.A moving target is harder to hit than a stationary one.
Maybe give defence a minimal threshold so if somebody gets tractored his defences won't fall to 0 but to 20-30% or something.
"There already is a Borg faction, its called the Federation. They assimilate everyone else's technology and remove any biological or technical distinctiveness and add it to their own."
I refuse to be content https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwI0u9L4R8U
But a 20% chance to miss does not equate to 20% less damage. It's not static. It's like a proc.
-snip-
With a 20% chance to miss - you could be looking at anywhere from 0% damage reduction to 100% damage reduction depending on how the to-hit rolls go...
It is an average. It will average out to 20% there are so many shots fired and so many rolls that to make an array to display all the possibilities would be a nightmare. You have the to hit roll, the crit roll, the damage roll (variance can be 20%+ on this alone) the proc roll etc etc. But at the end of the day the method I used represents an average number and when every ship fires 10+ shots every 3 seconds it is good enough for me.
*edit rant*
I was thinking about the APO a bit more and it really annoys me and is yet another example of how some things work one way and others another for no good reason.
Is the Elusive trait a modifier? Nope it just adds.
Is the Manuever skill a modifier? Nope, adds.
How about Aegis set? It adds.
Surely Evasive Maneuver skill works like APO does. NO, IT ADDS!
What happens when a ship has an additional bonus defense higher than current? APO gets relatively stronger on that ship. Does a cruiser get the same benefit as an escort with APO? Nope, well kind of for EHP math but that is beside the point.
Why on earth does one skill do its math in a *special* manner when nothing else that applies to said stat does? Why would you do that?
But a 20% chance to miss does not equate to 20% less damage. It's not static. It's like a proc.
With a 20% chance to miss - you could fire 10 shots. All 10 shots could miss. All 10 shots could hit. There could be any variety of hits and misses in there.
Snippety snip snip snip....
First this. You have a poor assumption here. So just forget all this and lets start over.
Avoidance stats are very difficult to quantify for balance purposes. They are very difficult NOT because you can't calculate the number of events they will avoid, but because you can't calculate the severity of those events.
Thats the actual problem. Damage done isn't static. It isn't a fixed rate. Also, misses can't crit. Solid on that? Over the long term of game play, the number will of course be knowable. Over YOUR experience as a player in a 2 minute or less match up, the number is NOT knowable. It can vary wildly for both the reasons you stated (a run of hits or misses) as well as the fact there is no way to predict what is getting dodged, was it the beam overload or the turret plink plink plink.....see? Incoming damage isn't static.
And that's why defense is wonky when defense is present at some value greater than ACC. This is the NORMAL state for all ships to be in.
That's HALF of the issue.
Well when defense is NOT present, crits happen. All hits and lots of converted crits. As badly as we may have been missing and not critting a relatively high def target, we will PUMMEL a no defense target. Ok. So what. Well you'll kill it is so what. Well why is that?
The why is because Non escorts are built around a different model for mitigation. That model is resistance based. Resistance based models are easy to work with. Resistances typically reduce all incoming damage. Unless you don't HAVE any resistances. But we all do. And incoming damage WAS, USED TO BE, ONCE UPON A TIME, was pretty predictable. So it was easy to gift ships with a level of base resistance, some hull points, some shields, and good to go. There was a good idea of what incoming damage would be like, easy to model, easy to predict, easy to manage by way of resistances.
And then came defense and it's evil twin acc. And the awful relationship they have with crits. Resistances can't compete with crit damage. It is to much to ask of it. Ok it will work for a little bit. A little. If you have a few running. But your asking a lot of it.
So you turn up the dial on hull hit points. Ok. Well because of the messed up way def ties in to speed and speed ties in to hull hit points.....we've actually made the ship we were trying to strengthen worse off than it was. Hulls and hull resistance are turned up about as high as they can be without us actually piloting space stations.
So turn up the dial on shield resistance. Great. Virtually anyone in the game can cap this as well. Does that seem normal for a game? Honestly does it seem normal to have this much already capped out? For anyone! Where's the room to move? Its gone. Crit damage driven by defense loss is making things loopy. Oh and nevermind that you need TT to make this work. Most res buffs won't save you unless you have the speed of TT balancing the shields. Just a fact. RSP, RSF, okay sure. TSS, EPTS, no. Just for example. So up goes the dial on shield modifiers as well!! Yay!
So it needs to be determined where on the scale of defense crit death becomes a certainty and we need to avoid that. Simple.
Adding different sources of defense for scis and cruisers shouldn't be undoable. Defense is in the code. Add a different source. Ok, its already been done. KHG 3 pc does it. See thats a good example of a sci like ability adding defense. So don't say it can't be done.
Sensor scan could ADD an accuracy component. That makes sense. I have scanned you with sensors, I see you, I will now shoot you. And we KNOW you can add acc. Items do it all the time. Sensor scan gives a resistance debuff? Aw c'mon now. Of course originally that made a LOT of sense. Time to realize it no longer does.
Guys, the thought process here is to recognize that at the two extremes bad things happen. How can we reel in defense to allow ourselves more leeway in things like resistances, hull strength, shield mods. Well we can spread defense out a little more equitably across the ships. There's a number of ways already in the game that could be utilized for that purpose.
I love my bop, I love my cruiser, I love my science ship. Great fun. I don't really have any problem killing any ship. I have a pretty good idea how to make that happen. That doesn't make instapopping ANY ship 'reasonable'. It is wrong under MOST circumstances. In this case it is an indication of an underlying flaw that is unbalancing all that is placed atop it. Address that and an entire laundry list of complaints start to just go away, or become less monstrous and easy to handle with the new tools available.
And that is why I favor relative value system mechanics.
Make Defense increase chance of a 'glancing hit'.
Make Accuracy increase the damage of 'glancing hits'.
Then the model becomes much more predictable and allows players another option for stat choices. Even if half your hits are glancing hits if they are dealing 80% damage because you focused on accuracy it will not be a huge factor. On the other hand if you didn't and they are only doing say 40% then you will wish that you did when your crit lands for less than your normal hits do. At the same time the guy who focused on say crits is laughing all the way when he only does 'glancing hits' 10% of the time on that whale cruiser.
Because as I said it is not just the 'miss chance' it is also the damage roll, crit chance, proc chance, etc etc. But overall the ratios between base EHP and buffed EHP is out of control leading to the issues you have. I have never before seen a game where your mitigation varies so wildly depending on if you bothered to bring a single ability (EPTS and/or Extend) or not. And that is not even counting the ridiculous amount of sustain those add on top of it.
And that is why I favor relative value system mechanics.
Make Defense increase chance of a 'glancing hit'.
Make Accuracy increase the damage of 'glancing hits'.
Then the model becomes much more predictable and allows players another option for stat choices. Even if half your hits are glancing hits if they are dealing 80% damage because you focused on accuracy it will not be a huge factor. On the other hand if you didn't and they are only doing say 40% then you will wish that you did when your crit lands for less than your normal hits do. At the same time the guy who focused on say crits is laughing all the way when he only does 'glancing hits' 10% of the time on that whale cruiser.
Because as I said it is not just the 'miss chance' it is also the damage roll, crit chance, proc chance, etc etc. But overall the ratios between base EHP and buffed EHP is out of control leading to the issues you have. I have never before seen a game where your mitigation varies so wildly depending on if you bothered to bring a single ability (EPTS and/or Extend) or not. And that is not even counting the ridiculous amount of sustain those add on top of it.
Ok I don't get it. What are you saying that wasn't said or what does that mean? I mean we know that if a shot misses, none of the other things have a chance to happen. That's a given. And not being able to predict what will or won't be avoided and therefore what may or may not have happened if it wasn't avoided, makes it difficult to manage that stat in relation to resistances. So I know you mean something, I'm just missing it.
If you using EHP as 'effective health points' just stop. That isn't leading to the issues we have. Trying to balance against avoidance by using a resistance based stat is. Cruisers do not have much avoidance. Avoidance is HUGELY effective. You need large helpings of resistance to match it. Then you realize you can't match it just with that. You need more hull. Then you realize you just lowered your ships defense even further. Things get worse. And really defense vs acc vs crit has a far greater impact on EHP than any other calculation in the game. A 60k hull ship, with 40 in hull resistance, 75 power in shields, and no defense is sitting at roughly zero effecitive health from where where I'm sitting.
Mitigation as regards to shields, in particular EPTS, although factoring in to this it isn't the culprit. It's there. It's included in one of the things mentioned as being pushed to cap far sooner and easily than it needs to be, but the result isn't the cause. The cause is.
Agian, the focus can't just be on one end. It needs to be at what is happening at both ends. No matter what you 'change' defense to be, what happens when there is none?
Exactly.
Plus as far as we know its a one roll system. Hit/miss one roll. If this had the possiblity of being a Hit/Miss/Glancing on one roll system we'd be looking at a different duck then.
But as far as we know we aren't and it's still a duck. Quack!!
I'm not even sure if you meant to change all misses to glancing hits or what. Like there will be no misses, just glancing hits and hits. But we don't need to do that. We just need to smooth things out a bit.
Adding different sources of defense for scis and cruisers shouldn't be undoable. Defense is in the code. Add a different source. Ok, its already been done. KHG 3 pc does it. See thats a good example of a sci like ability adding defense. So don't say it can't be done.
I'm not sure they need a 'different' source of defense, just remove the defense penalty from being immobilized. Being immobilized is bad enough without the extra damage.
I'd pair that with putting a hard-cap on defense for everyone, maybe at the cap for defense from speed, or maybe like 10% higher. Just lock out the extreme ends of the scale, and the stat becomes much less of a problem.
Cruisers and science ships don't have horrible defense when they are moving; they lag escorts a little, but it's not their defense while moving that's the problem. They get screwed because they just can't shake immobilization effects as easily as an escort, so they are a *lot* more likely to get held in place and vaporized.
Just get rid of the defense penalty for being stopped, so that everyone gets whatever defense they had *not* from movement, and ships built around resist tanking don't have to deal with all the extra incoming damage.
First this. You have a poor assumption here. So just forget all this and lets start over.
There was no assumption that damage was static. An example was given with static damage to show that even with static damage you could not account for Avoidance in EHP because Avoidance doesn't result in a static damage reduction...but that's not the same as stating that damage is static. So I'm not sure where there's the need to start over...
...additionally, the point's already been made in the thread about what the actual difference is between Escorts and Cruisers in regard to resistances/additional health with the Avoidance while also taking into account the additional damage being done...
...and posing the question of whether that is balanced or not.
Which has also included the discussion that it is not just Escort vs. Cruiser - there's also Science and various hybrids. There's Tac, Eng, and Sci to consider. There's so many variables to consider at this point - that most discussions of balance are moot. It's far easier to discuss the items/issues that are woefully borked and not working as intended than it is to address balance.
1v1 balance? Why? Is it a game of duels? 5v5 balance? Is it limited to 5v5 or are there 5+v5+ as well?
Still, I think the funny part of the discussion is how it's somewhat a discussion of tanking. As if we were in WoW, RIFT, etc, etc - discussing how the different tanks actually tank, which tank is best in different situations, etc, etc, etc... should Escorts, Cruisers, and Science Vessels all be considered tanks? Is it a case that all ships are some form of Mage Tank? Is everybody just Kirking it up?
Consider a person that's never played STO just doing a quick read about the different ship types and careers. They're going to make quite a few assumptions that simply do not play out in actually playing the game, no? Is that a problem or is thinking that's a problem the problem?
If damage was static you could actually account for avoidance. It would be trivial.
It isn't static, so your example is well. What is it really. I'm not quite sure. Are you simply taking a very small sample size and saying 'oh look i have exactly the results you would expect from a very small sample size!" So not sure what that was supposed to mean.
And that would be the first tip that you need to start over.
There really isn't that much else to consider first. You may say that's true, but it isn't. Just saying it doesn't make it so. Prove it. Show some reasoned thought that viral matrix is a key issue to address before defense can possibly be looked at succesfully. Just for example. Or that because there are some ships considered hybrids, that that makes it impossible to address this issue. Prove it. Reason it out for us. Don't just say so.
And I'm not sure where you're pulling out this one vs one or five vs one or whatever it is you think is being measured. That also isn't relevant to this issue.
If people are talking about tanking, well I guess that's an indication of a little bit of derailing of all the fine points you say are being made previously. It isn't about tanking. It's about how the game handles outgoing damage and incoming damage. It isn't JUST escort vs cruisers. Not sure where you got that either. This was all clearly defined one thread ago. Why is this getting off track once again? Its very simple. Don't overcomplicate it.
So I hoped that cleared up where the need is for starting over.
If damage was static you could actually account for avoidance. It would be trivial.
No, you couldn't. That's the point. Whether damage was static or it was not, you cannot account for avoidance. It's RNG. A 20% miss chance doesn't mean a 20% reduction in damage. It could mean anywhere from 0% to 100% reduction in damage. It's RNG. Every shot could miss, every shot could hit, or it could be somewhere between - most likely, it's going to be somewhere between.
It's one of the most commonly misunderstood things about probability. A 1:10 (10%) chance to win with a lottery ticket does not mean that you could buy ten tickets and one of them is going to be a winner. None of them could be winners, all of them might be winners, or there might be more than one winner. You've actually got better odds with the lottery ticket than you do with the straight up random chance we're talking about...because with those tickets, there are actually a certain number of guaranteed winning tickets. That's not the case with the to-hit roll chance. There's no guarantee that a certain number will hit. It's completely random.
An 80% chance to hit is better than 50/50, but it's not a guarantee that you're going to hit 8 out of 10 times - that you're going to hit 80 out of 100 times - that you're going to hit 800 out of 1000 times. Likewise, it's not a case that you're going to miss 2 out of 10, 20 out of 100, 200 out of 1000, etc, etc, etc.
You can make a guesstimate on the probable likelihood on the number of hits that will take place over a guesstimate of the number of shots that will be fired...but uh, no...that's not exactly approaching any level of accuracy.
Perhaps for a scripted PvE encounter, where you know the number of attacks that a mob will make within a given period of time in relation to what the party is doing against that mob - you can start to make better educated guesses on the role that avoidance will play... but it's still going to be an educated guess. In the end, it's still RNG. The dice might roll your way - they might not.
It isn't static, so your example is well. What is it really. I'm not quite sure. Are you simply taking a very small sample size and saying 'oh look i have exactly the results you would expect from a very small sample size!" So not sure what that was supposed to mean.
It's random sample showing a random sample. Do five sets of five sets - what are your results? Do fifty sets of fifty sets? Do five hundred sets of five hundred sets of five hundred sets of five hundred sets of five hundred sets... do five sets of fifty sets of five hundred sets of five thousand sets of fifty thousand sets of five hundred thousand sets... do 6 sets of 5 sets of 4 sets of 3 sets of 2 sets of 1 set...
...it's random.
It's one of the chief complaints from FPS players about MMO combat - the RNG.
Say Player A is in their BoP. They move into position on the target. They decloak. They time their BO and THY perfectly. Enter RNG. Maybe the BO misses. Maybe the THY misses. Maybe both miss. Maybe both hit. So Player A adds a Tractor to reduce Defense - to guarantee the Hit. No RNG. Course, depending on their timing - they might be telegraphing the attack by using the Tractor too soon. The target hits APO, PH, EM, etc, etc, etc - Player A has actually taken an action which may result in the target taking action that will increase the chance of missing and the attack failing. Thing is, it's back to RNG - both attacks could still land, could both miss, the BO might miss and the THY hit shields, or the BO might hit while the THY sails by to the left...
And that would be the first tip that you need to start over.
By showing that Avoidance can't be worked into an EHP formula... I need to start over showing that Avoidance can't be worked into an EHP formula? Er...
There really isn't that much else to consider first. You may say that's true, but it isn't. Just saying it doesn't make it so. Prove it. Show some reasoned thought that viral matrix is a key issue to address before defense can possibly be looked at succesfully. Just for example. Or that because there are some ships considered hybrids, that that makes it impossible to address this issue. Prove it. Reason it out for us. Don't just say so.
I'm starting to wonder if your replies to me actually aren't replies to me...
And I'm not sure where you're pulling out this one vs one or five vs one or whatever it is you think is being measured. That also isn't relevant to this issue.
The issue my example and post was in relation to...was trying to figure out how bareel was figuring Avoidance into an EHP formula - when EHP formulas are based on Health/Mitigation. So uh...how is it not relevant?
Again, I'm seriously wondering what your reply is actually to...
If people are talking about tanking, well I guess that's an indication of a little bit of derailing of all the fine points you say are being made previously. It isn't about tanking. It's about how the game handles outgoing damage and incoming damage. It isn't JUST escort vs cruisers. Not sure where you got that either. This was all clearly defined one thread ago. Why is this getting off track once again? Its very simple. Don't overcomplicate it.
In light of Thisslers thread regarding defense, i have to concure. Speed tied to defense should be removed as it gives escorts superiority in both defense and offense. They already deal ALOT of damage, then why the blazes is it too given the best defense value as well? That just doesnt make sense at all, and is turning STO to Escort Online. The defense value should not be removed from the game but rather given a fixed value based on ship class. This would balance out defense between ships. Actually it will make engineers in cruisers more valuable, and not sitting ducks to a tractor beaming escort taking down a cruiser in a split second, because his defense was reduced to 0 due to no speed.
Defense value. Defense being part of tanking. Escorts. Cruisers.
Yes what I would ideally like to see is the entire hit or miss scrapped. You either hit or glancing hit with that chance being determined by the enemies defense score. Then if you do infact deal a glancing hit the base damage penalty is determined by your accuracy score.
What would be the purpose of that you ask? Simple, the more accuracy your enemy has the less effective your defense becomes and vice versa. However, it also will allow the edges to be rounded off so a ship with 0 defense does not loose half of their effective HP. Because that will never happen I dunno what a good solution would be. I have long past accepted that the base systems and mechanics of this game were never designed to function properly with the amount of power creep each season brings us nor do they seem to care.
And VD this does not just apply in PvP or just to escorts. Even my cruisers in PvE tend to take a significantly higher amount of damage when they are tractored or if I am at full stop. Because I loose an EHP multiplier in my eyes, or a damage avoidance chance if we wish to be literal. Lastly you can infact work a chance based stat into a calculation that is used to determine a number representing an average result of various other things combined. It is done every day around the world for various reasons.
Look at it this way, removing an enemies defense score is just as effective as stripping their buffs with a sub-nuke (nearly) when trying to kill them. That is how strong of a multiplier it really is.
Yes what I would ideally like to see is the entire hit or miss scrapped. You either hit or glancing hit with that chance being determined by the enemies defense score. Then if you do infact deal a glancing hit the base damage penalty is determined by your accuracy score.
What would be the purpose of that you ask? Simple, the more accuracy your enemy has the less effective your defense becomes and vice versa. However, it also will allow the edges to be rounded off so a ship with 0 defense does not loose half of their effective HP. Because that will never happen I dunno what a good solution would be. I have long past accepted that the base systems and mechanics of this game were never designed to function properly with the amount of power creep each season brings us nor do they seem to care.
Have to agree to an extent with your reply to thissler here.
Personally, I think the standard: Critical Hit, Hit, Glancing Hit, Miss, Critical Miss...would work better than just Hit/Miss with a chance for Crit Hit.
Then again, I think all directed attacks should have some form of hit roll. There needs to be additional resistance/defense rolls added to certain abilities.
Generally speaking, the "combat system" is too simple for how "complicated" combat actually is...
VM for instance (since it's come up a few times). It shouldn't be a simple target and trigger, imo. It shouldn't be a guaranteed hit. There should be additional factors that come into play on if it is successful as well as how successful it is.
One can look at the majority of PvE in the game to see that it's a very "simple" combat system for the most part. The majority of these "issues" tend to arise in PvP, because Player A is using Ability X against Player B using Ability Y... something that simply does not happen in PvE. Not sure if it's something that can be resolved - not sure it's something Cryptic even has on its radar as something that needs to be resolved. It's not an "issue" for the majority of the game nor the majority of the players...STO's just not designed at that level despite there being that abundance of abilities that suggest otherwise.
And VD this does not just apply in PvP or just to escorts. Even my cruisers in PvE tend to take a significantly higher amount of damage when they are tractored or if I am at full stop. Because I loose an EHP multiplier in my eyes, or a damage avoidance chance if we wish to be literal. Lastly you can infact work a chance based stat into a calculation that is used to determine a number representing an average result of various other things combined. It is done every day around the world for various reasons.
I only brought up the Escort/Cruiser thing in that last post as a response to what thissler had said - because I hadn't brought it up in that manner in my posts (part of the questioning if I was the person actually being spoken to in that particular discussion).
Chance based stats are definitely used all over the place - whether one is talking risk management, shooting craps, etc, etc, etc. But when you're sitting at the blackjack table, have a king and a three - are you looking at probability of getting a card eight or lower...the house having lower than thirteen or possibly going bust...as part of your effective wealth?
Look at it this way, removing an enemies defense score is just as effective as stripping their buffs with a sub-nuke (nearly) when trying to kill them. That is how strong of a multiplier it really is.
I haven't discounted the strength of Defense, though. I have discounted the difference some folks are making out between various ships - it's not a case that some ships are flying around with max Defense all the time while other ships are just sitting ducks.
From that, I've posed the question in regard to balance issues (which I do not think can be resolved because of the complex nature of the team environment)...
Does the actual difference in Defense between various ships - does the actual difference in Resistance between various ships - does the actual difference in Shields between various ships - does the actual difference in Hull between various ships - does the the actual difference in Damage between various ships - and does the actual difference in Debuffs between various ships... does that ever actually approach any semblance of illusionary balance?
Comments
vids and guides and stuff
[9:52] [Zone #11] Neal@trapper1532: im a omega force shadow oprative and a maoc elite camander and here i am taking water samples
Also remember that APO is at a minimum a LtCom power at level 1, and level 2 and 3 are both Commander power. So you have to take this in to consideration as well, and compared to other high level abilities such as Viral Matrix or Eject Warp Plasma, it is not OP by any stretch of the imagination. Also, even though it says "immunity to movement debuffs) there are still ways to stop a ship with APO on it, not a true total immunity.
I would disagree with an increase in a attack pattern global... why penalize builds that don't rely on stupid doffs. I like running omega delta beta on a bunch of escorts with no doffs... and I use what makes the most sense... to me in takes more skill and is more fun then just running 2 stupid doffs and macroiing up delta omega delta omega delta omega.
The real issue is the Attack Pattern doffs... they will never change them... of course if they end up nerfing a 1 min cool down 15s up skill because stupid doffs have doubled its uptime... instead of fixing the real issue... which is the doff that doubles its uptime... then we should all /uninstall cause really there is no hope for them if they go that road.
HP/(% dmg taken * % dmg taken)
So in the first example 900 / (.4*.8)
900/.32 = 2,812
This works, here is another way of looking at it. If you reduce damage by half, then reduce damage by half again it would take 4 times the amount of damage to kill you. 100/2 = 50. 50/2 = 25. Follow? .5 * .5 is .25 and anything divided by .25 is the same as * 4.
Escort bonus defense is not the issue. Escort bonus defense being multiplied by the insanely easy to get minimum 50% shield resist if not higher can be an issue. Of course if you strip one of the multipliers away they are easier to kill this is true just like an Escort has a significantly lower burst damage potential without the Tac Cap. abilities being used as multipliers.
The problem arises when said multipliers are exclusive to specific aspects of the mechanics and/or ships and classes and everything else stacks additively. And no I'm not saying to strait up nerf things or what have you. That will not work anyway. I'm saying you need to unify the systems and mechanics so they self correct and are easier to keep balanced. Like make Tac Cap abilities, and Omega for that matter, add on to the multiplier gained from consoles instead of multiplying them and everything else. Make bonus defense increase the chance of a 'glancing' hit while accuracy increases the damage dealt by a glancing hit. Introduce some form of 'ignores % enemy resistance' weapon, weapon mod, ability, whatever.
Till then you can tweak the numbers until your blue in the face and the moment a new item quality, ship, or skill boost is introduced it will all break again.
Sorry I keep editing but I just remembered a case in point example. Diablo 2 PVP while it wasn't the best balanced in the world was still atleast highly enjoyable and competitive. Some builds stomped others hard but for the most part you still had a decent chance if you had better skills than your opponent. Meanwhile Diablo 3 PVP has been pretty much scrapped for now and a big reason is just how laughable unfair and silly it would be when a really well equipped character has nearly 5x the damage output and health of a decently equipped one does. The difference in mechanic system between the two boils down to one simple factor, Diablo 2 systems are mostly additive in nature while Diablo 3 (thanks to the moronic inclusion of resist all among other things) are extremely multiplicative.
Another example, the LoL AP carry vs AD carry. Note this information might be slightly out of date as it has been awhile since I played. The AP carry cannot match the end game damage potential of an AD carry when fully geared because all their damage is additive (base + AP bonus) while the AD carry has multiplicative damage boosts (base * AS bonus * crit bonus).
This game is in the middle. Half the stuff is additive but then you get these weird corner cases like bonus defense, +% damage abilities, and likely a few others I'm forgetting, that completely mess everything up.
Fed Eng. 6 SAP. APO3 tooltip +42.6%.
Chel Grett (Aegis). +90%. Hit APO3. 113.4%. +23.4% instead of +42.6%.
Chel Grett (notAegis). +80%. Hit APO3. 103.4%. +23.4% instead of +42.6%.
Advanced Escort (notAegis). +80%. Hit APO3. 103.4%. +23.4% instead of +42.6%.
KDF Tac. 6 SAP. APO3 tooltip +42.6%.
Chel Grett. +70.3%. Hit APO3. 103.4%. +33.1% instead of +42.6%.
Mirror Qin. +69.5%. Hit APO3. 103.4%. +33.9% instead of +42.6%.
Fed Sci. 0 SAP. APO tooltip +30%.
Chel Grett. +73.4%. Hit APO3. 96.5%. +23.1% instead of +30%.
Patrol Escort: +73.2%. Hit APO3. 96.5%. +23.3% instead of +30%.
KDF Eng. 0 SAP. APO3 tooltip +30%.
Chel Grett. +80%. Hit APO3. 96.5%. +16.5% instead of +30%.
6 SAP gives a 42% boost over 0 SAP. Sure enough, the Fed Eng with 6 SAP has 42% better bonus Defense from APO3 than the KDF Eng with 0 SAP. 16.5 x 1.42 = 23.42...
However, none of them are getting the actual bonus.
There appear to be "caps".
The 80% cap got pointed out earlier. Even at 100+ Eng power, the toons hit 80%.
Then there appears to be an APO3 cap. APO3 won't take you from 80% to 110%. It takes you to 96.5% with 0 SAP. The two toons with SAP 6 - will go to 103.4%. Both of the SAP 6 toons should have received +42.6% - but the one at 80 only received 23.4% while the one at 70.3% received +33.1%. Almost 10% less to start - almost 10% more of a bonus to reach the same end amount.
So I dropped the Tac to quarter impulse in the Mirror Qin. +25.9%. Hit APO3. 40.3%. +14.4%. Not the +42.6% expected.
I dropped the KDF Eng to quarter impulse in the Chel Grett. +30%. Hit APO3. 46.8%. +16.8%. Not the +30% expected.
In looking further at the KDF Eng (since I'm still on him), quarter impulse is 6.25. Hitting APO3 takes him to 9.92. Not hitting APO3, but manually adjusting speed to 9.91 takes him to 41.7%. So, APO3's doing something more than just bumping speed. However, if the speed is taking him to 41.7% - then he's actually only getting 5.1% from the APO3?
So uh...um...just how does APO actually work then?
Not really. The one crits = all crits has to be fixed, after that it's not problematic at all. As a cluster torp using sci ship captain I'm quite certain that the problem is more towards people neglecting their kinetic resistance. Transphasics can hit hard, specially when they crit, but as soon as there is some basic resistance going and maybe an Aux2SIF running even cluster torps lose a lot of their oomph.
I've read the thread, but I don't have an useful opinion yet.
Maybe some sort of compromise. How about replace the immunity with an increased hold resistance? This way Graviton Gens buffed Tractor Beams actually have a greater effect than unbuffed but APO (and maybe even PH) still has an effect.
APO is with PH the main counter to holds. This shouldn't be completly removed.
Personally I think as long as HE is running the user should be safe against Plasma. If Cryptic could stop breaking this mechanic in some way or the other every now and then, things would look better. As long as there is plasma arround you, it should be able to tick against you. It can be problematic with lots of plasma in a match, but I don't think a simple immunity is the right way to go here.
decker999
Join Date: Aug 2010
Most likely I'm assuming your getting +10% I think from manuever skill correct? Possibly even have a trait boosting it maybe?
So you would take ship base * 1.42 to get the bonus from APO, then also add all the other bonuses and get final number. I think most ships are 45% base and escorts at 55% base when at max speed. If you take 55 * .426 you get 23.4 so that makes sense. Interesting Chel Grett gets the escorts bonus 10% defense, very interesting indeed.
Also that is likely still shoved into the speed modification if below 23 impulse as well.
There are no hard caps that I'm aware of on defense. You just get it modified if under 23 impulse is all like you take a penalty to shield regen below 50 power so to speak. Just tested on a toon and hit 137.4 with aegis / APO / EM and even with just APO went up to 114.? due to higher skill rank. Your other toon must have had something else going on to get the larger boost.
But a 20% chance to miss does not equate to 20% less damage. It's not static. It's like a proc.
With a 20% chance to miss - you could fire 10 shots. All 10 shots could miss. All 10 shots could hit. There could be any variety of hits and misses in there.
For example, using the following dice roller: http://www.calculatewhat.com/games-and-sports/dice-roller/
Rolling 10x d100 and looking for values above 80% for a miss.
1) 8%, 74%, 74%, 32%, 37%, 33%, 86%, 43%, 72%, 98% = 2 misses.
2) 97%, 71%, 53%, 90%, 20%, 87%, 71%, 60%, 100%, 44% = 4 misses.
3) 93%, 97%, 99%, 72%, 46%, 80%, 72%, 71%, 94%, 3% = 4 misses.
4) 92%, 28%, 2%, 10%, 88%, 71%, 91%, 12%, 48%, 79% = 3 misses.
5) 95%, 36%, 85%, 97%, 61%, 36%, 49%, 18%, 25%, 45% = 3 misses.
Say each shot were to do a static 10 damage. 10 hits would do 100 damage. With the results above, we saw the following:
80 damage
60 damage
60 damage
70 damage
70 damage
20% miss rate, but in the five tests - there was only a 20% reduction once. There were two 40% and two 30%.
With a 20% chance to miss - you could be looking at anywhere from 0% damage reduction to 100% damage reduction depending on how the to-hit rolls go...
They've all got the +10% from Elusive and +15% from Maneuvers.
Thing is, if it's just the APO number and the ship base number - then the Fed Eng and KDF Tac should have both seen +23.4%. 55 x .426... but the Tac received +33.1%. The Tac received enough to reach the 103.4%.
In a similar fashion, the KDF Eng that received +16.5% (55 x.3) to reach 96.5% should have been reflected in the Fed Sci that also reached 96.5%...but did so by receiving a boost of 23.1/23.3% to do so...not the +16.5% that the KDF Eng did.
Let me grab what their individual Impulse speeds were in their Chel Gretts...brb.
edit: Okay, here they are...
Fed Eng (49/25 Power, 24.44 Impulse - APO3 - 44.07 Impulse)
KDF Tac (38/25 Power, 20.11 Impulse - APO3 - 34.80 Impulse)
Fed Sci (35/25 Power, 21.37 Impulse - APO3 - 31.13 Impulse)
KDF Eng (54/25 Power, 24.99 Impulse - APO3 - 39.69 Impulse)
Okay, so the being below the 24 Impulse applies a penalty to the Tac and Sci which is lowering their non-APO3 defense and showing a larger bonus with the use of APO3 since the APO3 also takes them above that 24 - they're losing the penalty.
Taking the Fed Sci to 110/100 Power, 32.89 Impulse - takes him to 80% Defense. Hit the APO3, and he's at 96.5% - with the same +16.5% the KDF Eng w/o SAP received.
So it is the 55 x .30 for 16.5, +55, +10, +15... and tada - 96.5%. The APO3 is a percentage of the ships base - it's not an actual flat bonus.
Thanks for that explanation, bareel.
STO seemed always to be a game of extremes.
Extreme damage buffing, extreme heal stacking, and extreme debuff. Sometimes a ship can do it all, often you need a small team at least, but the result leads to very one-sided and extreme results. Achieving real balance between extremes is basically an impossibility.
I disagree.It gives a big advantage to the player who can use and uses danubes.
Once you got tractored twice (danubes/player ship) and hit with a vm in the same time you are in a bad position and with defences =0 (because you have zero speed) you are next candidate to respawn.
In the same time there should be a correlation between speed and defence to mimic real life.A moving target is harder to hit than a stationary one.
Maybe give defence a minimal threshold so if somebody gets tractored his defences won't fall to 0 but to 20-30% or something.
I refuse to be content https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwI0u9L4R8U
It is an average. It will average out to 20% there are so many shots fired and so many rolls that to make an array to display all the possibilities would be a nightmare. You have the to hit roll, the crit roll, the damage roll (variance can be 20%+ on this alone) the proc roll etc etc. But at the end of the day the method I used represents an average number and when every ship fires 10+ shots every 3 seconds it is good enough for me.
*edit rant*
I was thinking about the APO a bit more and it really annoys me and is yet another example of how some things work one way and others another for no good reason.
Is the Elusive trait a modifier? Nope it just adds.
Is the Manuever skill a modifier? Nope, adds.
How about Aegis set? It adds.
Surely Evasive Maneuver skill works like APO does. NO, IT ADDS!
What happens when a ship has an additional bonus defense higher than current? APO gets relatively stronger on that ship. Does a cruiser get the same benefit as an escort with APO? Nope, well kind of for EHP math but that is beside the point.
Why on earth does one skill do its math in a *special* manner when nothing else that applies to said stat does? Why would you do that?
First this. You have a poor assumption here. So just forget all this and lets start over.
Avoidance stats are very difficult to quantify for balance purposes. They are very difficult NOT because you can't calculate the number of events they will avoid, but because you can't calculate the severity of those events.
Thats the actual problem. Damage done isn't static. It isn't a fixed rate. Also, misses can't crit. Solid on that? Over the long term of game play, the number will of course be knowable. Over YOUR experience as a player in a 2 minute or less match up, the number is NOT knowable. It can vary wildly for both the reasons you stated (a run of hits or misses) as well as the fact there is no way to predict what is getting dodged, was it the beam overload or the turret plink plink plink.....see? Incoming damage isn't static.
And that's why defense is wonky when defense is present at some value greater than ACC. This is the NORMAL state for all ships to be in.
That's HALF of the issue.
Well when defense is NOT present, crits happen. All hits and lots of converted crits. As badly as we may have been missing and not critting a relatively high def target, we will PUMMEL a no defense target. Ok. So what. Well you'll kill it is so what. Well why is that?
The why is because Non escorts are built around a different model for mitigation. That model is resistance based. Resistance based models are easy to work with. Resistances typically reduce all incoming damage. Unless you don't HAVE any resistances. But we all do. And incoming damage WAS, USED TO BE, ONCE UPON A TIME, was pretty predictable. So it was easy to gift ships with a level of base resistance, some hull points, some shields, and good to go. There was a good idea of what incoming damage would be like, easy to model, easy to predict, easy to manage by way of resistances.
And then came defense and it's evil twin acc. And the awful relationship they have with crits. Resistances can't compete with crit damage. It is to much to ask of it. Ok it will work for a little bit. A little. If you have a few running. But your asking a lot of it.
So you turn up the dial on hull hit points. Ok. Well because of the messed up way def ties in to speed and speed ties in to hull hit points.....we've actually made the ship we were trying to strengthen worse off than it was. Hulls and hull resistance are turned up about as high as they can be without us actually piloting space stations.
So turn up the dial on shield resistance. Great. Virtually anyone in the game can cap this as well. Does that seem normal for a game? Honestly does it seem normal to have this much already capped out? For anyone! Where's the room to move? Its gone. Crit damage driven by defense loss is making things loopy. Oh and nevermind that you need TT to make this work. Most res buffs won't save you unless you have the speed of TT balancing the shields. Just a fact. RSP, RSF, okay sure. TSS, EPTS, no. Just for example. So up goes the dial on shield modifiers as well!! Yay!
So it needs to be determined where on the scale of defense crit death becomes a certainty and we need to avoid that. Simple.
Adding different sources of defense for scis and cruisers shouldn't be undoable. Defense is in the code. Add a different source. Ok, its already been done. KHG 3 pc does it. See thats a good example of a sci like ability adding defense. So don't say it can't be done.
Sensor scan could ADD an accuracy component. That makes sense. I have scanned you with sensors, I see you, I will now shoot you. And we KNOW you can add acc. Items do it all the time. Sensor scan gives a resistance debuff? Aw c'mon now. Of course originally that made a LOT of sense. Time to realize it no longer does.
Guys, the thought process here is to recognize that at the two extremes bad things happen. How can we reel in defense to allow ourselves more leeway in things like resistances, hull strength, shield mods. Well we can spread defense out a little more equitably across the ships. There's a number of ways already in the game that could be utilized for that purpose.
I love my bop, I love my cruiser, I love my science ship. Great fun. I don't really have any problem killing any ship. I have a pretty good idea how to make that happen. That doesn't make instapopping ANY ship 'reasonable'. It is wrong under MOST circumstances. In this case it is an indication of an underlying flaw that is unbalancing all that is placed atop it. Address that and an entire laundry list of complaints start to just go away, or become less monstrous and easy to handle with the new tools available.
Cheers happy flying!!
Make Defense increase chance of a 'glancing hit'.
Make Accuracy increase the damage of 'glancing hits'.
Then the model becomes much more predictable and allows players another option for stat choices. Even if half your hits are glancing hits if they are dealing 80% damage because you focused on accuracy it will not be a huge factor. On the other hand if you didn't and they are only doing say 40% then you will wish that you did when your crit lands for less than your normal hits do. At the same time the guy who focused on say crits is laughing all the way when he only does 'glancing hits' 10% of the time on that whale cruiser.
Because as I said it is not just the 'miss chance' it is also the damage roll, crit chance, proc chance, etc etc. But overall the ratios between base EHP and buffed EHP is out of control leading to the issues you have. I have never before seen a game where your mitigation varies so wildly depending on if you bothered to bring a single ability (EPTS and/or Extend) or not. And that is not even counting the ridiculous amount of sustain those add on top of it.
Ok I don't get it. What are you saying that wasn't said or what does that mean? I mean we know that if a shot misses, none of the other things have a chance to happen. That's a given. And not being able to predict what will or won't be avoided and therefore what may or may not have happened if it wasn't avoided, makes it difficult to manage that stat in relation to resistances. So I know you mean something, I'm just missing it.
If you using EHP as 'effective health points' just stop. That isn't leading to the issues we have. Trying to balance against avoidance by using a resistance based stat is. Cruisers do not have much avoidance. Avoidance is HUGELY effective. You need large helpings of resistance to match it. Then you realize you can't match it just with that. You need more hull. Then you realize you just lowered your ships defense even further. Things get worse. And really defense vs acc vs crit has a far greater impact on EHP than any other calculation in the game. A 60k hull ship, with 40 in hull resistance, 75 power in shields, and no defense is sitting at roughly zero effecitive health from where where I'm sitting.
Mitigation as regards to shields, in particular EPTS, although factoring in to this it isn't the culprit. It's there. It's included in one of the things mentioned as being pushed to cap far sooner and easily than it needs to be, but the result isn't the cause. The cause is.
Agian, the focus can't just be on one end. It needs to be at what is happening at both ends. No matter what you 'change' defense to be, what happens when there is none?
Exactly.
Plus as far as we know its a one roll system. Hit/miss one roll. If this had the possiblity of being a Hit/Miss/Glancing on one roll system we'd be looking at a different duck then.
But as far as we know we aren't and it's still a duck. Quack!!
I'm not even sure if you meant to change all misses to glancing hits or what. Like there will be no misses, just glancing hits and hits. But we don't need to do that. We just need to smooth things out a bit.
Cheers happy flying and ty for posting
I'd pair that with putting a hard-cap on defense for everyone, maybe at the cap for defense from speed, or maybe like 10% higher. Just lock out the extreme ends of the scale, and the stat becomes much less of a problem.
Cruisers and science ships don't have horrible defense when they are moving; they lag escorts a little, but it's not their defense while moving that's the problem. They get screwed because they just can't shake immobilization effects as easily as an escort, so they are a *lot* more likely to get held in place and vaporized.
Just get rid of the defense penalty for being stopped, so that everyone gets whatever defense they had *not* from movement, and ships built around resist tanking don't have to deal with all the extra incoming damage.
There was no assumption that damage was static. An example was given with static damage to show that even with static damage you could not account for Avoidance in EHP because Avoidance doesn't result in a static damage reduction...but that's not the same as stating that damage is static. So I'm not sure where there's the need to start over...
...additionally, the point's already been made in the thread about what the actual difference is between Escorts and Cruisers in regard to resistances/additional health with the Avoidance while also taking into account the additional damage being done...
...and posing the question of whether that is balanced or not.
Which has also included the discussion that it is not just Escort vs. Cruiser - there's also Science and various hybrids. There's Tac, Eng, and Sci to consider. There's so many variables to consider at this point - that most discussions of balance are moot. It's far easier to discuss the items/issues that are woefully borked and not working as intended than it is to address balance.
1v1 balance? Why? Is it a game of duels? 5v5 balance? Is it limited to 5v5 or are there 5+v5+ as well?
Still, I think the funny part of the discussion is how it's somewhat a discussion of tanking. As if we were in WoW, RIFT, etc, etc - discussing how the different tanks actually tank, which tank is best in different situations, etc, etc, etc... should Escorts, Cruisers, and Science Vessels all be considered tanks? Is it a case that all ships are some form of Mage Tank? Is everybody just Kirking it up?
Consider a person that's never played STO just doing a quick read about the different ship types and careers. They're going to make quite a few assumptions that simply do not play out in actually playing the game, no? Is that a problem or is thinking that's a problem the problem?
If damage was static you could actually account for avoidance. It would be trivial.
It isn't static, so your example is well. What is it really. I'm not quite sure. Are you simply taking a very small sample size and saying 'oh look i have exactly the results you would expect from a very small sample size!" So not sure what that was supposed to mean.
And that would be the first tip that you need to start over.
There really isn't that much else to consider first. You may say that's true, but it isn't. Just saying it doesn't make it so. Prove it. Show some reasoned thought that viral matrix is a key issue to address before defense can possibly be looked at succesfully. Just for example. Or that because there are some ships considered hybrids, that that makes it impossible to address this issue. Prove it. Reason it out for us. Don't just say so.
And I'm not sure where you're pulling out this one vs one or five vs one or whatever it is you think is being measured. That also isn't relevant to this issue.
If people are talking about tanking, well I guess that's an indication of a little bit of derailing of all the fine points you say are being made previously. It isn't about tanking. It's about how the game handles outgoing damage and incoming damage. It isn't JUST escort vs cruisers. Not sure where you got that either. This was all clearly defined one thread ago. Why is this getting off track once again? Its very simple. Don't overcomplicate it.
So I hoped that cleared up where the need is for starting over.
Cheers!
No, you couldn't. That's the point. Whether damage was static or it was not, you cannot account for avoidance. It's RNG. A 20% miss chance doesn't mean a 20% reduction in damage. It could mean anywhere from 0% to 100% reduction in damage. It's RNG. Every shot could miss, every shot could hit, or it could be somewhere between - most likely, it's going to be somewhere between.
It's one of the most commonly misunderstood things about probability. A 1:10 (10%) chance to win with a lottery ticket does not mean that you could buy ten tickets and one of them is going to be a winner. None of them could be winners, all of them might be winners, or there might be more than one winner. You've actually got better odds with the lottery ticket than you do with the straight up random chance we're talking about...because with those tickets, there are actually a certain number of guaranteed winning tickets. That's not the case with the to-hit roll chance. There's no guarantee that a certain number will hit. It's completely random.
An 80% chance to hit is better than 50/50, but it's not a guarantee that you're going to hit 8 out of 10 times - that you're going to hit 80 out of 100 times - that you're going to hit 800 out of 1000 times. Likewise, it's not a case that you're going to miss 2 out of 10, 20 out of 100, 200 out of 1000, etc, etc, etc.
You can make a guesstimate on the probable likelihood on the number of hits that will take place over a guesstimate of the number of shots that will be fired...but uh, no...that's not exactly approaching any level of accuracy.
Perhaps for a scripted PvE encounter, where you know the number of attacks that a mob will make within a given period of time in relation to what the party is doing against that mob - you can start to make better educated guesses on the role that avoidance will play... but it's still going to be an educated guess. In the end, it's still RNG. The dice might roll your way - they might not.
It's random sample showing a random sample. Do five sets of five sets - what are your results? Do fifty sets of fifty sets? Do five hundred sets of five hundred sets of five hundred sets of five hundred sets of five hundred sets... do five sets of fifty sets of five hundred sets of five thousand sets of fifty thousand sets of five hundred thousand sets... do 6 sets of 5 sets of 4 sets of 3 sets of 2 sets of 1 set...
...it's random.
It's one of the chief complaints from FPS players about MMO combat - the RNG.
Say Player A is in their BoP. They move into position on the target. They decloak. They time their BO and THY perfectly. Enter RNG. Maybe the BO misses. Maybe the THY misses. Maybe both miss. Maybe both hit. So Player A adds a Tractor to reduce Defense - to guarantee the Hit. No RNG. Course, depending on their timing - they might be telegraphing the attack by using the Tractor too soon. The target hits APO, PH, EM, etc, etc, etc - Player A has actually taken an action which may result in the target taking action that will increase the chance of missing and the attack failing. Thing is, it's back to RNG - both attacks could still land, could both miss, the BO might miss and the THY hit shields, or the BO might hit while the THY sails by to the left...
By showing that Avoidance can't be worked into an EHP formula... I need to start over showing that Avoidance can't be worked into an EHP formula? Er...
I'm starting to wonder if your replies to me actually aren't replies to me...
The issue my example and post was in relation to...was trying to figure out how bareel was figuring Avoidance into an EHP formula - when EHP formulas are based on Health/Mitigation. So uh...how is it not relevant?
Again, I'm seriously wondering what your reply is actually to...
Hrmmm... so from the first post in this thread:
Defense value. Defense being part of tanking. Escorts. Cruisers.
Yep, right there in the first post of the thread.
Hope that clears that up for you...
What would be the purpose of that you ask? Simple, the more accuracy your enemy has the less effective your defense becomes and vice versa. However, it also will allow the edges to be rounded off so a ship with 0 defense does not loose half of their effective HP. Because that will never happen I dunno what a good solution would be. I have long past accepted that the base systems and mechanics of this game were never designed to function properly with the amount of power creep each season brings us nor do they seem to care.
And VD this does not just apply in PvP or just to escorts. Even my cruisers in PvE tend to take a significantly higher amount of damage when they are tractored or if I am at full stop. Because I loose an EHP multiplier in my eyes, or a damage avoidance chance if we wish to be literal. Lastly you can infact work a chance based stat into a calculation that is used to determine a number representing an average result of various other things combined. It is done every day around the world for various reasons.
Look at it this way, removing an enemies defense score is just as effective as stripping their buffs with a sub-nuke (nearly) when trying to kill them. That is how strong of a multiplier it really is.
Have to agree to an extent with your reply to thissler here.
Personally, I think the standard: Critical Hit, Hit, Glancing Hit, Miss, Critical Miss...would work better than just Hit/Miss with a chance for Crit Hit.
Then again, I think all directed attacks should have some form of hit roll. There needs to be additional resistance/defense rolls added to certain abilities.
Generally speaking, the "combat system" is too simple for how "complicated" combat actually is...
VM for instance (since it's come up a few times). It shouldn't be a simple target and trigger, imo. It shouldn't be a guaranteed hit. There should be additional factors that come into play on if it is successful as well as how successful it is.
One can look at the majority of PvE in the game to see that it's a very "simple" combat system for the most part. The majority of these "issues" tend to arise in PvP, because Player A is using Ability X against Player B using Ability Y... something that simply does not happen in PvE. Not sure if it's something that can be resolved - not sure it's something Cryptic even has on its radar as something that needs to be resolved. It's not an "issue" for the majority of the game nor the majority of the players...STO's just not designed at that level despite there being that abundance of abilities that suggest otherwise.
I only brought up the Escort/Cruiser thing in that last post as a response to what thissler had said - because I hadn't brought it up in that manner in my posts (part of the questioning if I was the person actually being spoken to in that particular discussion).
Chance based stats are definitely used all over the place - whether one is talking risk management, shooting craps, etc, etc, etc. But when you're sitting at the blackjack table, have a king and a three - are you looking at probability of getting a card eight or lower...the house having lower than thirteen or possibly going bust...as part of your effective wealth?
I haven't discounted the strength of Defense, though. I have discounted the difference some folks are making out between various ships - it's not a case that some ships are flying around with max Defense all the time while other ships are just sitting ducks.
From that, I've posed the question in regard to balance issues (which I do not think can be resolved because of the complex nature of the team environment)...
Does the actual difference in Defense between various ships - does the actual difference in Resistance between various ships - does the actual difference in Shields between various ships - does the actual difference in Hull between various ships - does the the actual difference in Damage between various ships - and does the actual difference in Debuffs between various ships... does that ever actually approach any semblance of illusionary balance?