Overwatch perk comparison -- the numbers

[DaviBones]

I made a spreadsheet to compare the OW shots for varying hit-chance and number of available targets, which computes the average number of shots landed:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Some caveats:

• There may be an error in my math somewhere, but I am reasonably confident there is not.
• Number of available targets only goes up to 9, but that number isn't achievable in-game anyway due to ammo constraints.

Some interesting conclusions:

• Guardian is the worst perk of the three in every situation.
• If the chance for Guardian to proc was increased to 60%, it would start to be better than sentinel on very high CtH shots against many targets.
• If Guardian chance was increased to 75%, it would start to be the best perk on very high CtH shots against many targets.
• If Guardian chance was increased to 85%, it would be better than Rapid Reaction for 4+ shots, most of the time.
• The break point where Rapid Reaction is better than Sentinel is somewhere between 60% and 65%, but of course only when all 3 shots can be taken.

So, how does everyone feel about Guardian? Is its spot as the worst of the OW perks warranted since it is an AWC-only perk? Does the chance to get extremely lucky and hit 4+ shots in one turn outweigh the fact that it performs worse on average? I got Guardian on a gunner in 1.2 and she would routinely wreck pods singlehandedly, but that was before each soldier could only fire a single OW shot at each enemy.

[Saph7]

Guardian is a level 1/2 AWC perk, while Sentinel and Rapid Reaction are both level 3 only. That's the balancing factor. Guardian isn't meant to be as strong as its big brothers.

[Thrair]

It also shows up on the SPARK perk tree, much to my consternation.

For everyone else, it's balanced. It's a tier 1/2 perk, as was said. Pretty good for that, all things considered.