Guardian vs Ever Vigilant

[ThunderGr]

No matter what, I cannot get myself to take Guardian. 50% to have a second reaction shot if the first one hits is too random for me. Does anyone actually prefer Guardian?

[Fringehunter7719]

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

Fringehunter7719 eredeti hozzászólása:

Guardian opens up synergies that Ever Vigilant doesn't. One of those is with threat assessment+overwatch, in the same way that Ever Vigilant can synergise with high ground you cannot otherwise reach in a turn.

Sure, but I don't need to spend the actions of another class to get EV's benefit. If we're going into what synergises where then that's a significantly wider discussion.

Threat assessment isn't another class's, or even another soldier's ability.

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

I wouldn't say its 'cavalier', as my Sharpshooter is significantly more likely to be not moving to begin with whether I use Overwatch or not, therefore it's far less of an opportunity cost.

Or far more, because your sharpshooter is the one falling furthest behind the evac zone or the targets are spread out or kill zone is on cooldown. Applying a subjective term like "very lucky" to something as broad as a 25:75 split is certainly cavalier. Doing that erroneously because that comparison wasn't even the one being made is extremely so.

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

There is legitimate reason to not move a specialist in a turn but not if you're expecting the same specialist to provide so much Overwatch cover that you'd discuss it in the same breath as a Killzone. As for whether they're in the cone... being realistic, it's not that rare to catch two pods in one cone with sufficient distance and then suddenly you're using it to the maximum effectiveness it's capable of.

It's substantially rarer than reinforcement drops, which frequently mean your soldiers are already in contact range. It's substantially rarer than having only one or two targets exposed to overwatch, but which can each benefit from being hit multiple times - guardian doesn't have the same 1 shot per target restriction as kill zone.

Regardless, this is nitpicking over what was only ever described as "the right circumstances" in the first place.

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

Certainly not rare enough to treat the idea of Guardian hitting more than twice a turn as something that can be considered noticeably often.

One overwatch in four, even ignoring the actual comparison originally made. Killzone can only be used one turn in four in the first place.

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

I'm not disregarding anything, I'm simply pointing out that if you're going to treat Guardian as if it benefitted from a tricked-out rifle and a cast of Threat Assessment, you have to be open to Ever Vigilant being used under situations that expressly favour it too, otherwise the comparison is meaningless - and part of that is synergy is not required and the effect triggers more often, since it's a guaranteed ability.

Which I was before you entered the conversation. The kind of guarantee that Ever Vigilant provides is not a useful one. Quite often your specialist will want to heal, combat protocol, scan, aid protocol, hack, revive, haywire or fire.

It's hardly unreasonable to suppose that people are attaching mods to their assault rifles. I sincerely doubt there's even a single player who does not. I suspect that's a rather more common consideration than there being high ground reachable in exactly two moves but not one move. It also might be pertinent to point out that you had already made the exact same assumption when discussing your preference in post #24. It seems strange that it's only worthy of criticism when others make the same comparisons you did.

On that same point it's quite odd how an overwatch shot was simultaneously a "shot to the face" that can "easily turn into a free kill" and "just an extra Overwatch shot with all the issues that normally arise" at the same time, depending purely on which ability generated that shot combined with your own biases.

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

Between Threat Assessment and Guardian, you have a situation that requires two actions, can only be done every 3 turns, depends on hitting with a suboptimal shot to have a chance of triggering, then needs the same odds to favour it again for the end result to pop to your favour. Compared to that, EV needs you to spend two moves on one soldier and works every turn. You don't need to quote statistics to prove that EV has reliability and repeatibility in its corner.

And just as you can move twice every turn (in theory) you can overwatch every turn (in theory). So perhaps some careful reasoning and application of statistics would have helped after all.

Threat assessment/Guardian gives you a better chance of generating that bonus hit than Ever Vigilant does (two rolls of the dice are better than one), and again that description of "suboptimal shot" seems to creep in only on guardian overwatch shots and is mysteriously absent from the exact same shots generated by Ever Vigilant. Guardian overwatch shots are no more or less suboptimal than Ever Vigilant ones.

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

As I say, I'm not expressly saying that Guardian never triggers, merely that 50% of the time is not really anywhere near equivalent something that always triggers, and requires a cast of another ability to attain it's potential at that.

Always triggering on something you very rarely need to do isn't perhaps as persuasive as you think it is. If all your specialist is doing is double moving every round then almost all of its potential is being wasted in the first place (to be clear, I don't suppose that you or anyone else actually does this, the number of double move turns that result in overwatch shot that gets triggered, and go on to hit is probably more like 1 turn in 5 or less). Even then some of those Ever Vigilant shots are going to miss, you're still rolling the dice.

[Genghison]

I always get guardian, give my specialists superior scopes, perception and at least an advanced expanded mag and watch them solo entire pods (on commander, haven't tried leg yet!). They're beasts and I love 'em

[JaegerBane]

Dude, I'm not going to go through your entire post and address everything point by point as I very much doubt anyone is actually going to read it all, and I'm getting the sense that you're willing to continue this argument well past the point I am, so we'll agree to disagree - but a few things that should probably be pointed out:

Fringehunter7719 eredeti hozzászólása:

Applying a subjective term like "very lucky" to something as broad as a 25:75 split is certainly cavalier.

I'm not really sure what point you're making here - but I would wager most people would equate nailing something that they had a 25% chance of achieving as 'being lucky'. You can apply whatever label you want to that logic but I'm not going to split hairs about exactly how much one has to beat the odds by before than can use the term 'lucky'. For the purposes of this discussion, the point was that it was neither certain nor was it a reasonable expectation for it to happen often.

It's substantially rarer than reinforcement drops, which frequently mean your soldiers are already in contact range.

Comparing the chances of being able to apply Killzone to two pods vs being able to use combined Threat Assessment/Guardian against a reinforcement drop to its maximum potential effect requires so many assumptions and situational happenstances that the probabilities are useless for the comparison the OP was mentioning. And tbh, that's a recurring theme here. Comparing two skills has turned into a wall of text as to what combination of level structure, skills and classes will create the highest number of kills within a threshold of probability that isn't defined or agreed upon.

The kind of guarantee that Ever Vigilant provides is not a useful one. Quite often your specialist will want to heal, combat protocol, scan, aid protocol, hack, revive, haywire or fire.

The usefulness of it depends entirely on the situation the soldier is faced with - to blanket describe it all as 'not useful' is not justifiable. Indeed they will have to forgo those options, but since both skills require you to forgo them, this is irrelevant.

It's hardly unreasonable to suppose that people are attaching mods to their assault rifles.

Quite true, but its also unreasonable to assume that movement will not help your specialist, or that your own specialist will always be the best recepient of Threat Assessment, or the other dozens of things you're happy to include in the maths above that realistically don't have any relevance to the skill beyond the fact that they suit the argument. It hasn't stopped you from including them.

Always triggering on something you very rarely need to do isn't perhaps as persuasive as you think it is. If all your specialist is doing is double moving every round then almost all of its potential is being wasted in the first place (to be clear, I don't suppose that you or anyone else actually does this, the number of double move turns that result in overwatch shot that gets triggered, and go on to hit is probably more like 1 turn in 5 or less). Even then some of those Ever Vigilant shots are going to miss, you're still rolling the dice.

That's true, and the fact that you're acknowledging it is part of the reason why I can't be bothered to argue any more because you clearly get the point (that they're both just different flavours of Overwatch). The main issue is that when one option is very easy to assess it's probability while the other is not (at least in the sense of a direct comparison, i.e. number of shots possible when one of the skills is focused on movement), it's easy to lose sight of what the point behind the comparison was.

Feel free to respond to all this as I will read it, I do find your thoughts interesting on the matter, but I'm passed the point where I willing to keep writing :p

[Fringehunter7719]

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

Fringehunter7719 eredeti hozzászólása:

Applying a subjective term like "very lucky" to something as broad as a 25:75 split is certainly cavalier.

I'm not really sure what point you're making here - but I would wager most people would equate nailing something that they had a 25% chance of achieving as 'being lucky'. You can apply whatever label you want to that logic but I'm not going to split hairs about exactly how much one has to beat the odds by before than can use the term 'lucky'.

That's exactly what you did. You jumped in to a comparison I made where the odds of A being better than B are about 50% and B being better than A are about 50% (that is threat assessment+guardian being better than kill zone or vice versa) and dismissed the whole scenario as relying on being not just "lucky", but "very lucky". You continue to attempt to do so even now.

It's most peculiar that after inserting yourself into the conversation, you misunderstand what I wrote and then ultimately state that you regard your original point as splitting hairs.

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

For the purposes of this discussion, the point was that it was neither certain nor was it a reasonable expectation for it to happen often.

And for all purposes that was, sadly, wrong.

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

It's substantially rarer than reinforcement drops, which frequently mean your soldiers are already in contact range.

Dude, comparing the chances of being able to apply Killzone to two pods vs being able to use combined Threat Assessment/Guardian against a reinforcement drop to its maximum potential effect requires so many assumptions and situational happenstances that the probabilities are useless for the comparison the OP was mentioning.

No, you're just wrong. This is what I mean about your self-described hair splitting. It actually happens really often. This is phenomenally easy to test, and hard to believe that anyone who's ever used guardian could miss the basics of the ability to quite this extent. Here's a video clip I whipped up (i.e. firing up the game, starting a mission and taking all of 2 reloads to get this combination) in just a few minutes because you continue to misinform the community in this way:

https://youtu.be/PuwD1rkms9g

I didn't even need to bother using threat assesment, guardian alone dramatically outperformed killzone for both of the two specialists.

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

And tbh, that's a recurring theme here. Comparing two skills has turned into a wall of text as to what combination of level structure, skills and classes will create the highest number of kills within a threshold of probability that isn't defined or agreed upon.

I didn't invite your critique of accurate points. It often takes more words to explain an error in detail than it does to make it.

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

The kind of guarantee that Ever Vigilant provides is not a useful one. Quite often your specialist will want to heal, combat protocol, scan, aid protocol, hack, revive, haywire or fire.

The usefulness of it depends entirely on the situation the soldier is faced with - to blanket describe it all as 'not useful' is not justifiable.

I didn't do that. I said that the so called "guarantee" is not a useful one, not that the ability is not. Heralding something that benefits you less and even then is random as a reliable guarantee is a mistake. There are (as I quite clearly said in the first place) costs and benefits to both, there are no guarantees either way.

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

It's hardly unreasonable to suppose that people are attaching mods to their assault rifles.

Quite true, but its also unreasonable to assume that movement will not help your specialist, or that your own specialist will always be the best recepient of Threat Assessment, or the other dozens of things you're happy to include in the maths above that realistically don't have any relevance to the skill beyond the fact that they suit the argument. It hasn't stopped you from including them.

I didn't include any of those things. You seem so determined to contradict me that you're again simply ignoring what I did say in preference to something going on in your head. All I actually said before you repeatedly pressed on with your "hair split" was "In the right circumstances, such as a reinforcement drop a threat assessment/guardian combo (especially with stock/repeater) is like a more powerful and shorter cooldown killzone. It's also enormously effective in ambushes. "

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

Always triggering on something you very rarely need to do isn't perhaps as persuasive as you think it is. If all your specialist is doing is double moving every round then almost all of its potential is being wasted in the first place (to be clear, I don't suppose that you or anyone else actually does this, the number of double move turns that result in overwatch shot that gets triggered, and go on to hit is probably more like 1 turn in 5 or less). Even then some of those Ever Vigilant shots are going to miss, you're still rolling the dice.

That's true, and the fact that you're acknowledging it is part of the reason why I can't be bothered to argue any more because you clearly get the point.

I said that before you ever replied as well. This isn't a question of me getting your point, it's a question of you finally bothering to read mine.

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

The main issue is that when one option is very easy to assess it's probability while the other is not (at least in the sense of a direct comparison, i.e. number of shots possible when one of the skills is focused on movement), it's easy to lose sight of what the point behind the comparison was.

Indeed, if only my original comment had been something like "Ever vigilant essentially allows an extra move in certain circumstances. Guardian allows extra overwatch shots. Extra mobility isn't useless by any means" eh? If only when you repeated that point in more detail I'd said "Yes, that seems a fair point." instead of doing as you did and dismissing those circumstances as "very lucky" and too rare for consideration.

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

Being realistic, do you think all of the text so far is going to be useful to anyone?
(Rhetorical question dude, I'm all texted out now :) )

Yes. Not to you perhaps because you don't seem to have read it and continue to misrepresent the mechanics. But to others it may well be. At the least the mistakes you made won't sit uncorrected for future searches.

[jouertue]

As I saw happening for a lot of threads comparing perks, it depends how you play the class and on your squad composition. Personally I run 2 specialists until I've a decent psi and 2 for the last mission. I prefere guardian because my specialists are busy guys, carrying Skull jack, suits, mimic beacons and any variation of ammo..they rarely do 2 moves. One exception was a specialist who pulled phantom at awc..I chose ev for him. It fits well the role of moving around looking for the spot to hack with pods around, but sometimes you want to move and don't overwatch..again it's all reduced at how you play..we all have different approaches and see different solutions, i never thought to use it to reach a possible high ground and overwatch for example and never evaluated which was more guaranteed, but still putting to good use guardians on L\I..

[hk_prometheus]

Fringehunter7719 eredeti hozzászólása:

Transporter_011 eredeti hozzászólása:

Ever Vigilant isn't ideal for squad based tactics, Guardian is better for that. But, if you're lucky enough to get the upgrades needed and two Specialists with good aim and speed mods, you're basically untouchable on most maps. Fit them with Wraith Suits and Stasis Vests and they're basically unkillable, even by themselves. Try it sometime.

Edit: Also, the third mod isn't required for this but its very helpful if you can get it. Superior Scope and Superior Repeater are really all that you need along with the medic abilities. Watch out for those damned Chryssalids though.

I'd like you to explain how they become basically unkillable. It doesn't appear that 2 overwatch shots is guaranteed to kill even a single alien. It certainly can't be relied on to stop a whole pod of late game aliens (which is what you're facing if you have wraith suits and stasis vests), let alone multiple pods that sometimes get activated on higher difficulties late game.

What is the advantage of sending off two specialists alone? What is the advantage of them double moving and then overwatching as opposed to single moving and shooting/overwatching?

They become unkilllable because of the absurd amount of movement bonus and the fact that they can grapple with the Wraith Suit as a free action to move even further out of harms way.

As long as you keep them in high cover they can move faster than any enemy group which will have to move in to your LOS at one square at a time granting you good reaction shots on this enemy while not giving up any defense. With superior scope, plus the specialist upgrade in the GTS which also provides plus 10 aim to all specialists, plus a superior repeater you can easily two man most maps even on Legend.

My Major Dutch Schaefer was a legendary hero on the last run. Not even any stasis armor, and he was basically unkillable with this setup. I could evac my entire group when ♥♥♥♥ hit the fan and let Dutch clear the remains, if Dutch got into trouble I would evac him or send him to the evac point because the aliens could not catch him.

On the final mission I basically used him as a target for my group of squad sight snipers. I kept 5 snipers out of the main room and used Dutch to draw enemies into the corrodoors, as they approached I kill zone everything. Dutch didn't take a single point of damage even though he could have healed himself 4x even if he had.

[SievertChaser]

Guys, sorry for butting in and not reading the entire thread - I tried starting another thread myself on this topic, silly me.

So, if I'm getting it right, Guardian can activate multiple times both on one target multiple times and on multiple targets?

The Threat Assessment is not THAT superior, then? Because if Covering Fire was just the same as just shooting an attacker, but with inferior aim, I didn't think it synergized with Guardian at all.

[hk_prometheus]

dennis.danilov eredeti hozzászólása:

Guys, sorry for butting in and not reading the entire thread - I tried starting another thread myself on this topic, silly me.

So, if I'm getting it right, Guardian can activate multiple times both on one target multiple times and on multiple targets?

The Threat Assessment is not THAT superior, then? Because if Covering Fire was just the same as just shooting an attacker, but with inferior aim, I didn't think it synergized with Guardian at all.

The problem with Covering Fire is that it relies on the enemy doing something bad to you, which is shooting or marking or mindspin, or tossing grenades etc. Any good commander will prevent these things from happening before he will ever need to see the benefits of Covering Fire.

The game is all about limiting the amount of risk that you take and forcing your opponent to make the risky moves. Covering Fire only helps if you basically allow your enemy to shoot at your squad which is VERY bad.

Threat Assessment is ultimately superior because it gives the commander an extra tactical decision when trying to set up an enemy in an ambush, which is what any decent commander should be doing on each and every turn.

[Fringehunter7719]

Transporter_011, thanks for your answer.

-----

dennis.danilov eredeti hozzászólása:

Guys, sorry for butting in and not reading the entire thread - I tried starting another thread myself on this topic, silly me.

So, if I'm getting it right, Guardian can activate multiple times both on one target multiple times and on multiple targets?

The Threat Assessment is not THAT superior, then? Because if Covering Fire was just the same as just shooting an attacker, but with inferior aim, I didn't think it synergized with Guardian at all.

Yes, Guardian can chain activate and it can take multiple shots at the same target. There's a short 45 sec video about half way down in post #49 that showcases this for clarity.

Covering fire is simply an overwatch shot that additionally can trigger when an enemy fires (within range and line of sight), as well as having the normal functionality of firing at enemies who move (within range and line of sight). Triggering by either method will consume the single overwatch charge as normal, so without double overwatching via threat assessment or guardian you'll still get a maximum of 1 shot.

That is to say it follows the mechanics of the ability it's named after:-
Covering Fire text: "Overwatch shots can now be triggered by any enemy action, not just movement"
Threat Assessment text: "Aid Protocol now grants the target a Covering Fire Overwatch shot, but the Aid Protocol cooldown is increased by 1 turn"

So with threat assessment the functionality of aid protocol changes from:
1 AP cost, grant any friendly target +20/30/40 defence, 2 turn CD, to
1 AP cost, grant any friendly target +20/30/40 defence + grant that target 1 overwatch shot with covering fire, 3 turn CD

That overwatch shot stacks with manual overwatch. Note: On snipers that will be a pistol overwatch because of the way their mechanics work.

[SievertChaser]

I knew the basics, so can we conclude that the two Medic Overwatch abilities are basically a Rapid Fire Lite (dash into position or move away from an exposed position, get a free Overwatch with relaxed conditions) while the hacker Overwatch abilities are for a frontline rifleman?

Also, any Long War Leader users here? Can the Leader work with an Overwatch specialist?

[JaegerBane]

Transporter_011 eredeti hozzászólása:

The problem with Covering Fire is that it relies on the enemy doing something bad to you, which is shooting or marking or mindspin, or tossing grenades etc. Any good commander will prevent these things from happening before he will ever need to see the benefits of Covering Fire.

The game is all about limiting the amount of risk that you take and forcing your opponent to make the risky moves. Covering Fire only helps if you basically allow your enemy to shoot at your squad which is VERY bad.

Excellent point, and ironically no better than what Covering Fire did in the previous game either. It's also paired against a very good skill again (think it was Sprinter in the last game).

If covering fire worked on Sharpshooter's rifle then it would potentially have some use (say, working in tandem with a mind-controlled meat shield or Mimic Beacon), but I can think of dozens of skills I'd prefer from the AWC over that.

[SievertChaser]

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

Transporter_011 eredeti hozzászólása:

The problem with Covering Fire is that it relies on the enemy doing something bad to you, which is shooting or marking or mindspin, or tossing grenades etc. Any good commander will prevent these things from happening before he will ever need to see the benefits of Covering Fire.

The game is all about limiting the amount of risk that you take and forcing your opponent to make the risky moves. Covering Fire only helps if you basically allow your enemy to shoot at your squad which is VERY bad.

Excellent point, and ironically no better than what Covering Fire did in the previous game either. It's also paired against a very good skill again (think it was Sprinter in the last game).

If covering fire worked on Sharpshooter's rifle then it would potentially have some use (say, working in tandem with a mind-controlled meat shield or Mimic Beacon), but I can think of dozens of skills I'd prefer from the AWC over that.

And in order to win over Threat Assessment you need to get stuck in a bad situation more than once every two turns. Threat Assessment given you a greater bonus (extra def) and the cool-down is a non-issue.

Covering fire still synergizes with Ever Vigilant, though, so I'll give it that niche.

[JaegerBane]

dennis.danilov eredeti hozzászólása:

Covering fire still synergizes with Ever Vigilant, though, so I'll give it that niche.

I'm not even sure I'd do that. By definition, Covering Fire will have you shooting at targets that are presumably behind cover. On Overwatch. Complete trash.

[SievertChaser]

JaegerBane eredeti hozzászólása:

dennis.danilov eredeti hozzászólása:

Covering fire still synergizes with Ever Vigilant, though, so I'll give it that niche.

I'm not even sure I'd do that. By definition, Covering Fire will have you shooting at targets that are presumably behind cover. On Overwatch. Complete trash.

Still good compared to not shooting at all.

Picture your Medic triggering a pod in an unfavorable position, possibly flanking them too (yes, I suck).

You can either get a load of plasma up your arse but shoot back, or move to a better position and give up the shot. With Ever Vigilant, you can pull off a tactical retreat to your squad's position, while Covering Fire will allow you to shoot back even if the aliens eventually get you.

[alangriffith]

Transporter_011 eredeti hozzászólása:

They become unkilllable because of the absurd amount of movement bonus and the fact that they can grapple with the Wraith Suit as a free action to move even further out of harms way.

As long as you keep them in high cover they can move faster than any enemy group which will have to move in to your LOS at one square at a time granting you good reaction shots on this enemy while not giving up any defense. With superior scope, plus the specialist upgrade in the GTS which also provides plus 10 aim to all specialists, plus a superior repeater you can easily two man most maps even on Legend.

Surely if you are fleeingout of range/sight of one pod you are risking running into and triggering another pod though, having just used up your move with a dash? It's that or flee back the way you came, but that would draw the aliens into the rest of your team (or is that why you evac them? but what about VIP missions where you can't evac them? and what about enemy pods ending up behind your two-man team?)

*********************
On the topid more generally, I do enjoy running with two specialists (one hacker, one medic), both with ever vigilant. If I cannot see enemies at start of turn, they move first to scout ahead, going to full cover at a dash range. If that triggers a pod, they have overwatch shots as the pod head for cover, and the rest of my team can follow up with grenades etc. (also my sniper on higher ground can generally hit enemies in cover after the specialist scouts reveal them). If the specialists don't trigger a pod I know the entire area is clear for the rest of my team to dash up, (or single move and reload if necessary). Really helps me make progress in timed missions.

I've tried scouting with phantom ranger instead but I can never get it to work properly. The ranger either moves too slowly and does nothing all fight, or dashes ahead and ends up accidentally flanked or too close to a suddenly revealed pod, so breaks concealment. also I love my combat rangers..

Once I'm engaged, my specialists often use up both their actions without moving, especially the hacker (what with haywire protocol, capacitor discharge, aid protocol, the various medic abilities and the ranged hack on objectives or scanning towers.). This often leaves them behind the rest of my team, who either move up and shoot (or double move and shoot/slash in the case of rangers), or have full turns after the specialists have killed/hacked the pod. So on the following turns my specialists dash to catch up/take the lead, and again provide overwatch to cover the others.

I can't say if guardian is better, though, as I never take guardian. It's partly the 50% chance of no effect, but also that I generally only need one overwatch to hit for the enemy to be sufficiently weakened for a followup kill next turn (often an area followup like a grenade, capacitor discharge or void rift). If the overwatch misses, guardian wouldn't have triggered anyway. Those enemies who are ubertough like sectopods and gatekeepers would generally take a double overwatch without it doing much, as their armour hadn't been stripped yet.
Maybe it's because I play on normal difficulty, I suppose with tougher enemies that second shot at the same target would be a lot more useful.

This playthrough my medic specialists kept getting killed before reaching decent rank, but AWC gave ever vigilant to a grenadier, so I've been using him with my hacker in a similar role (overwatch accuracy isn't good for a heavy of course, but holotargetting means an overwatch miss still helps everyone next turn).