Survivability Rating

Suggestions Balance
#1

The game’s Survivability rating needs to be reworked.

 

It is a constant observation as I fly T4-5 Guards with ~50k survivability and continually outlast and outperform other T5 Guards with 70-80k survivability. Its also to be noted a meager ECM or Recon with a mere survivability rating of 20k or less can outlast most guards while under fire by sheer skill and piloting ability using the speed and maneuverability it holds.

 

The suggestion I put forth is that the Survivability rating be first set by the “base” numbers then modified by the “boosts” that affect it. I don’t know how it works now, but it does not appear to accurately reflect how things really work. Resistances are like a flat point boost plus the hull/shield and speed is ignored. 

 

To me the Hull and Shield points are “base” levels, along with the basic Speed levels for survivability ratings. With a higher priority on how Speed can add more to survivability than sheer Hull or Shield, to a certain point. 

 

The Hull and Shield points would then give a “basic” level of survivability much like it does now in the rating system (of which I don’t know the whole formula to) and then have it modified by the various Regernation and Resistance perks. Higher regeneration and resistances add up to a better survivability level, while negative resistances reduce the survivability rating points. 

 

Without knowing the hard numbers, all I can suggest is like a flat % boost per % resistance. Basically add the 23.1% kinetic resist with the 47% EM resist and 0% Thermal to increase the Shield rating by 70.1%, where a comparable ship that focused on max shield would have only 0% kinetic, -50% EM and -23.1% Thermal resulting it their rating dropping -73.1%. It would more accurately reflect the amount of time such a shield would survive. Obviously fictional numbers need to be adjusted more accurately later.

 

In the case of Speed also being a base number, it should be able to be increased by the manuverability factors like the Acceleration, Roll and Pitch. Add a slight perk for Afterburner, Strafe and the rare Reverse speed to add up how well it does. Since speed can be a big factor the way it adds up with Acceleration, Roll and Pitch multiplying the base speed value it can increase more to reflect it. The thought for me is like how to account Shield regeneration - perhaps 1% per 100 points for Shield Regeneration, but Roll, Pitch and Accelerat would be 1% per 10 kind of thing.

 

The rest is nuances, but shouldn’t be completely ignored as Sensor Range, max Energy capacity and regeneration also add up to the pilot’s ability to act and should be reflected somewhat - of which I don’t think it is currently. 

 

I am not sure where to put this but the reason I see this as a kind of Balance thing is that people amount some form of significance to that survivability number, and often mistakenly build around that leading to just poor and crappy ships. Half of the game’s issue is people not knowing better, and having a misleading information system doesn’t help direct pilots to make better ships. 

#2

hold mouse over ship to see survival, then click CTRL to see the additional boosts. then you see everything.

 

it also makes you able to figure what the normal survival and stats, (everything) was at stock. 

#3

hold mouse over ship to see survival, then click CTRL to see the additional boosts. then you see everything.

 

it also makes you able to figure what the normal survival and stats, (everything) was at stock. 

:fed014:

#4

It’s good now.

It show how much dmg can ship take.

*not moving ship* from weapon with constance dps.

 

Acceleration, roll and speed wouldn’t work for survivability stats… coz it depends what pilot is doing, at what speed is at exact moment, how good is at dodging and how good is enemy’s aim etc

#5

:fed014:

 

yea sorry i lied.  :006j:

#6

It’s good now.

It show how much dmg can ship take.

*not moving ship* from weapon with constance dps.

 

Acceleration, roll and speed wouldn’t work for survivability stats… coz it depends what pilot is doing, at what speed is at exact moment, how good is at dodging and how good is enemy’s aim etc

point is that the ship that has 50 survivability might as well absorb more dmg than 70k one

#7

yea sorry i lied.  :006j:

it is not about the content of your post, but rather that it has nothing to do with what OP said

#8

point is that the ship that has 50 survivability might as well absorb more dmg than 70k one

situational stuff… self heals, engi heals, adaptives, command buffs, guard’s shield(if pilot know how to use it)

#9

it is not about the content of your post, but rather that it has nothing to do with what OP said

the first sentences

 

The suggestion I put forth is that the Survivability rating be first set by the “base” numbers then modified by the “boosts” that affect it. I

 

then i just told him how to see base numbers and the boosts from modules and implants

 

the OP probably think it was usefull compared to someone who needs me to quote everything i answer for otherwise he wont understand,  :005j: 

#10

There’s basically no way that a single number is going to be able to predict a ship’s staying power in a game, because it depends on what ships your allies and your enemies take, what map and side you’re on, how good each team is, and, above most everything else, how good you are at staying alive. A bad pilot isn’t going to survive that much longer if the numbers are more accurate - right now, survivability is mostly just a thing to glance at when you don’t have a calculator handy and aren’t sure if the resist or volume would be better. I would enjoy it if it factored in manuverability a bit more, but honestly, it’d be pretty hard to do that, and it’s mostly fine as is.

#11

Sometimes a well flown 9k survivability interceptor is harder to kill than a standard 70k survivability frigate.

#12

It’s good now.

It show how much dmg can ship take.

*not moving ship* from weapon with constance dps.

 

Acceleration, roll and speed wouldn’t work for survivability stats… coz it depends what pilot is doing, at what speed is at exact moment, how good is at dodging and how good is enemy’s aim etc

While I understand that it is partially that, but it isn’t right now.

 

The system does not take into account the basic Resistances as a factor. Just the bulk Hit Points and some small arbitrary number for module levels. Because of that it doesn’t accurately reflect that a ship has such a high or low survival chance based upon the damage it could receive.

 

It doesn’t matter in the game if you have 50% more shield if you are taking nearly 2x damage or worse on it. Its a simple math analysis on where if you receive something like an EM hit at -50% resistance the Shield that is boosted doesn’t hold up as well as one that boasts a +47% EM resist, its a night and day comparison. The basic fact is that higher resistances that reduce damage essentially buff the number of available hit points by making each shot hit less, so you can take more. In that fact it also means you end up with each heal doing more as you have less damage to heal lettin g you regain max shields faster. Allied heals also end up doing more and so on… where massive Shield points on a basic level do let you take more shots, it takes much longer to repair that, each heal essentially does less and you would not be near full shield strength anywhere near as fast as one that is primarily resistance oriented. 

 

So even on the basic level of stating a standing-still comparison it doesn’t even reflect that right. 

 

 

 

point is that the ship that has 50 survivability might as well absorb more dmg than 70k one

Thanks for seeing that.

situational stuff… self heals, engi heals, adaptives, command buffs, guard’s shield(if pilot know how to use it)

And no it isn’t really, but that’s another issue. I was talking about a literal 2x Guards in the same situation - same teammates around them, same Engineer right next to them, Command flying about with me - I have literally teamed up with them and put my Guard next to theirs and often inbetween them and the most enemies I see and STILL have the better Shield and Hull points showing.

 

 

Sometimes a well flown 9k survivability interceptor is harder to kill than a standard 70k survivability frigate.

And that is where I would like the numbers to reflect it better, as it is misleading as it stands. 

 

 

There’s basically no way that a single number is going to be able to predict a ship’s staying power in a game, because it depends on what ships your allies and your enemies take, what map and side you’re on, how good each team is, and, above most everything else, how good you are at staying alive. A bad pilot isn’t going to survive that much longer if the numbers are more accurate - right now, survivability is mostly just a thing to glance at when you don’t have a calculator handy and aren’t sure if the resist or volume would be better. I would enjoy it if it factored in manuverability a bit more, but honestly, it’d be pretty hard to do that, and it’s mostly fine as is.

Tho that is a great point and I agree with the core of it on how a team of good pilots will just be better, the basic fact is the core of what I was trying to argue: the numbers as they are are misleading as hell to those that use them to even try to improve their ship by them.

 

I think Survivability should be weighted better - ideally balanced for Interceptors, Fighters and Frigates slightly differently to reflect their key flying roles - so when you build a ship to perform better in how the game actually works it would reflect that. Higher resistances will lead to a better life over a massive bulk shield almost any day.

 

 

 

 

the first sentences

 

The suggestion I put forth is that the Survivability rating be first set by the “base” numbers then modified by the “boosts” that affect it. I

 

then i just told him how to see base numbers and the boosts from modules and implants

 

the OP probably think it was usefull compared to someone who needs me to quote everything i answer for otherwise he wont understand,  :005j: 

And no, I had actually not paid attention to this post for a week.  :00555: