doesnt Additional slot creates opportunity for additional regen capability?

I'd like to say that I am fine with the proposed plan of nerfing assault base speed while keeping the sprint and strafe speeds he safe (as Rattati stated he wanted to do). I might hate it when its out, but I'm willing to at least give it a try.

Would love input on the subject of how an actionable modifier value could be reached, and of course from the various method authors about what - if any - changes they would like to see to their method should a strafe modifier shift be instituted game wide.

My two cents:

Definitely up for tweaking mechanics, but it might be best to tweak one at a time. As I see it, a normalized speed/hp curve should be field tested and tuned (if necessary) prior to the introduction of other big changes. If we tweak too many mechanics at one time, the effects of those tweaks could compound, making troubleshooting and finetuning more difficult.

Totally in support of iterative balance changes.

That being said, presuming we could hone in on a raw number that falls below the "I can strafe enough to break hit detection" threshold, I would personally prioritize that and/or not class it as a balance change at all. It is in my view (which is open for discussion of course) not a balance change so much as a fix as it runs directly converse to players having continuing access to the ability to break basic mechanics of the game.

Completely agree with your reasoning, but I still have a few reservations ...

1. If we rolled out two big changes to movement at once, and we didn't like what we ended up with, which change would we blame?

2. If I recall correctly, Aim Assist was introduced and calibrated against 0.9 strafe. There's a possibility that some (or all) weapons might be too good at aiming themselves against a strafe multiplier lower than 0.9. If we reduce the strafe multiplier, Aim Assist may require immediate recalibration, and AA Adhesion values may not be the same one weapon to the next. What seems like as a simple, one variable change (0.9 ---> 0.x) could turn into a multi-variable, protracted process.

3. Reducing strafe speed will negatively impact legitimate strafing. Reducing Assault movement will negatively impact legitimate strafing. Doing both at once could really negatively impact legitimate strafing.

My two cents, of course :-)

I have, but that will be a later part when I am balancing the same powercore for assaults and logistics.

A much more elegant solution is:
to make Logi Eq bonus a BIG fitting bonus.
something like -50% or -75%.
Also, at the same time nerf PG+CPU for logis.


That would make it practical to fill those minimal cost Eq slots.


A fixed role bonus, perhaps?

I think you're spot on, and honestly in light of the above reasoning I would heavily lean towards doing the alteration to strafe not only first but post haste so that this conversation we are all having in the thread here could be advised by the effects of a changed strafe mechanic.

After all, it should be much easier to hotfix in a changed modifier than debate, consider, and implement a proper game wide speed/hp ratio, no? Besides which, if we arrive at a solid ratio and then alter strafe, what does that do to our ratio? Where as if we alter strafe and then use that to advise a ratio, we won't be doing our work twice as it were.

There is another potential solution to nerfing assault speed/hp.

Set the speed / hp curve (line) to run through current assault values and current sentinel value.

Buff the hp / speed of other classes up to the line. Most likely resulting in buffing scout base hp, as hit detection doesn't like them being faster than they are now, and buffing commando movement, to stop them overlapping with sentinels.

Now, this would obviously make scouts OP. So the next thing to do is normalise other stats and define gains and sacrifices, such as EWAR and slots.

So, for example. Give all suits equal shield and armour regen, stamina, stamina regen, EWAR and module slots (maintaining variation between races).

Now, trade scout mod slots for EWAR, stamina and the cloak / extra equipment slot.
Trade logi sidearm and stamina for equipment. Keep assault and logi EWAR as it is now.
Trade commando grenade, EWAR and mod slots for two light weapon slots.
Trade sentinel EWAR, mod slots and stamina for heavy weapons.

Keep current bonuses.

Net result:
All suits on hp / speed curve.
Assaults stay the same.
Scouts gain hp, loose regen.
Commandos and logis gain speed and regen.
Sentinels gain regen.

Only potential issue I see, would be OP logis. Perhaps they could make another trade. Maybe regen.

I think you're spot on, and honestly in light of the above reasoning I would heavily lean towards doing the alteration to strafe not only first but post haste so that this conversation we are all having in the thread here could be advised by the effects of a changed strafe mechanic.

After all, it should be much easier to hotfix in a changed modifier than debate, consider, and implement a proper game wide speed/hp ratio, no? Besides which, if we arrive at a solid ratio and then alter strafe, what does that do to our ratio? Where as if we alter strafe and then use that to advise a ratio, we won't be doing our work twice as it were.

Added Model: Varoth's 2nd

Parameters:
* Hold Assault and Heavy speed and hp constant.
* Fit Logis, Scouts and Commandos to the curve.
* Do not increase Scout speed.

Note:
Not sure whether or not you intended to alter slot count; please advise. Let me know if you'd like to see any other tweaks.

---

My two cents:
Ignoring all else, the first thing that comes to mind is that we're moving several units into what is likely wiggle's optimal bounds, the speed:hp ratio presently occupied by the MN Assault.

Came up with a different perspective after giving this more thought last night. What if Max Survivability was not a function of Speed to HP, but was rather a more specific function of Strafe Speed to HP? Further, what if there were a "sweet spot" on the grid, a point beyond which wiggle works best?

Putting together another spreadsheet as we speak ...

:: tinkering ::

Came up with a different perspective after giving this more thought last night. What if Max Survivability was not a function of Speed to HP, but was rather a more specific function of Strafe Speed to HP? Further, what if there were a "sweet spot" on the grid, a point beyond which wiggle works best?

Putting together another spreadsheet as we speak ...

:: tinkering ::

I'd personally approach it the other way around. Let's take the case of the MN Assault, for example ...

Say we start by reducing the strafe multiplier until the MN Assault is beyond wiggle range. Its movement speed to hitpoint ratio will remain unchanged, its position on the speed/hp plot will remain unchanged, and its relative distance from speed/hp curve will remain unchanged. If we later fit all suits to a speed/hp curve, MN Assault movement speed would very likely be reduced, even though its wiggling is no longer at issue.

If, on the other had, we begin by fitting all suits to a speed/hp curve, MN Assault movement speed would very likely be reduced, and it would become less good at wiggling. If a strafe adjustment from 0.9 is still needed, it will likely be a lesser adjustment than the one needed in the previous scenario.

TL;DR: If my thinking is correct, we'd likely get away with a lesser adjustment to the strafe multiplier if we begin by first drawing the extremes in closer to the speed/hp curve. Approaching the problem from the other direction (in my estimation) runs greater risk of over correction.

(spitballing here ... hope this makes sense)

Came up with a different perspective after giving this more thought last night. What if Max Survivability was not a function of Speed to HP, but was rather a more specific function of Strafe Speed to HP? Further, what if there were a "sweet spot" on the grid, a point beyond which wiggle works best?

Putting together another spreadsheet as we speak ...

:: tinkering ::

Assumption: There exists a wiggle "sweet spot" ... a ratio of Strafe Speed to HP beyond which optimal wiggle and/or strafe performance is returned.

* Units at or beyond this point tend to be hardest to hit
* Units at or beyond this point are sufficiently durable to withstand getting hit
* Units at or beyond this point make for the best slayer platforms
* Units at or beyond this point have the potential to become OP/FoTM

---

New Google Doc!

Let's start by looking at past and present FoTM. Under "Current (0.9)" we find the MN Assault with base hitpoints of 500 and 4.77 m/s strafe speed. As this unit is presently the best wiggler and OP/FoTM, we can assume the wiggle "sweet spot" is located somewhere around it. For simplicity's sake, we'll pick the bounds of 500HP and 4.50 m/s strafe. If these bounds are correct, the chart on the right of "Current (0.9)" shows all units with the mechanical foundation needed to be become great wigglers. There we find 8 units, including today's overperformers (Assaults), as well as yesterday's overperformers (high-hitpoint Scouts).

Now let's look at "Rattati's Prototype (0.9)". Here, we've effectively fit all units more tightly to a speed/hp curve, as described on Page 1 of this thread. The chart on the right, however, still shows that we have 7 units in range of the wiggle "sweet spot". All else held constant, these units arguably have the potential to be become great wigglers.

---

TL;DR: You may be onto to something, Cross. If the above assumptions are true, and we rolled out a reduction to strafe speed first, we might avoid a slayer migration. We also might cure wiggle. Spitballing, of course.

Caveat: There isn't necessarily a wiggle "sweet spot", though its as good a theory as any. If there is a wiggle "sweet spot", it isn't necessarily within the bounds described above. I arbitrarily set those bounds to 500 HP / 4.5 strafe to illustrate a point; if a sweet spot exists, these bounds are likely in the ballpark, but they aren't necessarily accurate.

A note of concern. There's too much bias toward hp tanking. Rattati mentions an additional slot for commandos. Why?

Are slots only for extenders and plates? Why can't anything other than hp mods be viable or useful? If you're going to add a slot, what are all possible uses of slot and are any of them going to make it otherwise OP?

If caldari commando gets an extra slot, will it be a high slot for hp and damage mods or a low slot for an additional shield regulator for increase regen ability or kincats and cardiac regulators for increased mobility. That's what an additional slot offers.

Rattatis KDR data already shows the the cal commando as the most efficient suit in the game as a sniper platform. Would an additional high slot really be used for an hp mod or to further bolster it's already impressive sniping ability?

Well personally speaking, I want an additional high slot on my Gallente Commando so I could have a damage mod at STD levels.

---

Also as for forced equipment, it's really not going to do much. People will simply stack on 4 Compact Nanohives and call it a day. It's a crude solution that won't bear the degree of intended results that people want. The only way to properly get the intended effect is through fitting reduction bonuses.

As a minmatar scout, and possibly that highest strafer in the game, I would gladly put my own strafe on the chopping block if it meant the end of the wiggle break-dance. Take it, end it, let the madness just stop.

One day if we get better hit detection, inertia, framerate, or any combination of those, maybe we can bring strafe speeds back up. Until then, nothing is worth buggering up hit detection.

As a minmatar scout, and possibly that highest strafer in the game, I would gladly put my own strafe on the chopping block if it meant the end of the wiggle break-dance. Take it, end it, let the madness just stop.

One day if we get better hit detection, inertia, framerate, or any combination of those, maybe we can bring strafe speeds back up. Until then, nothing is worth buggering up hit detection.

Completely agree. Though I'm not sold on a specific multiplier ...

One more graph
Google Doc: Strafe Speed Multipliers

Plots strafe speeds at multipliers 0.9x (present) through 0.6x (chromosome). Includes two "baselines" for point of reference. The upper baseline is current MN Assault strafe speed; the lower baseline is current MN Sentinel strafe speed. A few observations ...

* At a strafe multiplier of 0.85, tomorrow's MN Assault (4.51 m/s) would strafe at roughly the same speed as today's MN Logi (4.5 m/s).

* At a strafe multiplier of 0.8, tomorrow's MN Assault (4.24 m/s) would strafe at roughly the same speed as today's GA/CA Logi (4.23 m/s).

* At a strafe multiplier of 0.7, tomorrow's MN Assault (3.71 m/s) would strafe only slightly faster than today's MN Sentinel (3.65 m/s).

* If we implemented Chromosome's sprint multiplier of 0.6, tomorrow's MN Assault (3.18 m/s) would strafe at lower speed than today's AM Sentinel (3.29 m/s).

these are without plates yes?

excellent

Well personally speaking, I want an additional high slot on my Gallente Commando so I could have a damage mod at STD levels.

---

Also as for forced equipment, it's really not going to do much. People will simply stack on 4 Compact Nanohives and call it a day. It's a crude solution that won't bear the degree of intended results that people want. The only way to properly get the intended effect is through fitting reduction bonuses.