Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,988
# 71
01-19-2013, 08:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bareel View Post
HP/(% dmg taken * % dmg taken)

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.

For example, using the following dice roller: http://www.calculatewhat.com/games-a...s/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...

Willard the Rat, Klingon Science Officer
Fleet Advanced Research Vessel Retrofit (FT5U) - D'Kyr Science Vessel (T5U)
Hazari Destroyer (FT6) - Phantom Intel Escort (T6)
Benthan Assault Cruiser (FT6) - Hirogen Apex Battle Cruiser (FT5U)
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,988
# 72
01-19-2013, 08:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bareel View Post
Some base # * 1.42 I would guess.

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.

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.

Willard the Rat, Klingon Science Officer
Fleet Advanced Research Vessel Retrofit (FT5U) - D'Kyr Science Vessel (T5U)
Hazari Destroyer (FT6) - Phantom Intel Escort (T6)
Benthan Assault Cruiser (FT6) - Hirogen Apex Battle Cruiser (FT5U)

Last edited by virusdancer; 01-19-2013 at 08:39 AM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,757
# 73
01-19-2013, 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by virusdancer View Post
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.
Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 369
# 74
01-19-2013, 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mancom View Post
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.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,244
# 75
01-19-2013, 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by virusdancer View Post
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?

Last edited by bareel; 01-19-2013 at 11:13 AM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,644
# 76
01-19-2013, 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by virusdancer View Post
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.

Cheers happy flying!!

Awesome Blog
Awesome Videos
Website that's always under construction
And...FACEBOOK MEH!

Last edited by thissler; 01-19-2013 at 12:29 PM. Reason: extraneous punctuation!!!
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,244
# 77
01-19-2013, 01:23 PM
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.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,644
# 78
01-19-2013, 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bareel View Post
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.


Cheers happy flying and ty for posting

Awesome Blog
Awesome Videos
Website that's always under construction
And...FACEBOOK MEH!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 141
# 79
01-19-2013, 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thissler View Post

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.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,988
# 80
01-19-2013, 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thissler View Post
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?

Willard the Rat, Klingon Science Officer
Fleet Advanced Research Vessel Retrofit (FT5U) - D'Kyr Science Vessel (T5U)
Hazari Destroyer (FT6) - Phantom Intel Escort (T6)
Benthan Assault Cruiser (FT6) - Hirogen Apex Battle Cruiser (FT5U)
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:48 PM.