[spoon]

Originally posted by PvK:
That's an interesting argument, which makes some sense. Perhaps defensiveness is inherently slightly better than aggressiveness - any other thoughts?

Here is another way to look at the value offensiveness vs. defensiveness. Compare the amount of damage you would do against a ship with no bonuses in either characteristic, and divide that by the amount you would take from that same ship. In most cases, it is better to have taken a bonus in defensiveness than in agressiveness. So as long as you can avoid going lower than a base 5% to hit, defensiveness wins out. Here are the numbers...

Player A has taken +25% to defensiveness
Player B has taken +25% to aggressiveness
Player C has taken +0% in both.
"base to hit" is the chance to hit before aggressiveness or defensiveness is applied
Assume average of 100 damage (you could use any amount, this is just so we have numbers to look at)

Format is: (player) (amount of damage he deals) (amount of damage he takes) (damage dealt / damage taken)

Base to hit: 100% (point blank range, no other bonuses)
- Player A vs Player C 100 75 1.33
- Player B vs Player C 100 100 1.00

Base to hit: 75% (point blank range, ecm3, sensors3, stealth and scattering armor)
- Player A vs Player C 75 50 1.50
- Player B vs Player C 100 75 1.33

Base to hit 50%
-Player A vs Player C 50 25 2.00
-Player B vs Player C 75 50 1.5

Base to hit 25%
- Player A vs Player C 25 1 25.0
- Player B vs Player C 50 25 2.0

Base to hit 0%
- Player A vs Player C 1 1 1.0
- Player B vs Player C 25 1 25.0

-spoon

[ January 22, 2003, 00:57: Message edited by: spoon ]