Not a chance.

[Fizzatron]

Not for a npc rescue ship - and who wants their modules degraded after a single encounter? They are space VD.

I disagree. If you're doing a run, having enhanced AX missiles & multicannons should take care of the problem on most builds, others it's high-waking. Then it's a matter of repairing at the destination, as you would refuel. They are scouts with added aggro.

Will anyone think it is worth the time investment given the FDEV penchant for nullifying optimized builds when they emerge?

If Frontier took that stance then they would do nothing as it's basically saying keep everything the same. And then the complaint would be that there's nothing new. All games balance and have meta changes, it's what keeps things fresh.

People would complain that SuperCell would nerf a new card once everyone had 'done the grind' to level it up, or make a meta card ineffective with a balance change or new card. I wonder how they'd be doing if they listened to those voices over their game designers opinions. I'm not saying they should be completely ignored either, before anyone thinks to go down that path of binary pivoting. Players opinions are to be heard but in the greater context of the game. Elite isn't Galaxians, you don't get three lives and five minutes of instant gratification.

There are many competitors emerging very soon, and I just don't see this treatment of the player base as a winning strategy.

oh, so this is about doom.

Think about the damage model you propose. The most popular of AX combat zones was the surface zone since swarms could be avoided, repair and rearm services are available at those sites. So you can fix your ship repeatedly.

The Glaive module degradation at those sites simply means you spend less time "playing" and more time doing a repair loop. That is play-interrupting anti-fun.

As I mentioned already above, everyone repairs & refuels at their destination. It is literally nothing that isn't done already.

Rescue missions are about going into an active war zone and, shock horror, rescuing people from danger. If a comfortable A-B route is desired, there are many passenger missions found everywhere in the bubble to do. You are literally trying to make an argument that the Thargoid rescue missions should work exactly like those.

It is also a lazy damage mechanic. Simply by being in the presence of an NPC opponent you are subject to a DOT. That is not a damage type that can be avoided by player skill, furthermore it is designed to target player earned buffs. That is abusive game design by any measure.

In my unarmed Dolphin, I lasted 8 minutes while trying to work out methods to escape without having to high-wake. None of that worked, so I ended up high-waking. It's much ado about nothing, so much so, that I think those who are taking this position really aren't doing so in good faith.

People will have to adjust their builds to factor in a new, and reasonably easy, foe to contend with. Frontier bad.

 

[CMDR-AD]

Think about the damage model you propose. The most popular of AX combat zones was the surface zone since swarms could be avoided, repair and rearm services are available at those sites. So you can fix your ship repeatedly.

The Glaive module degradation at those sites simply means you spend less time "playing" and more time doing a repair loop. That is play-interrupting anti-fun.

This exact point had come to my mind, and is why I've not yet committed to the time needed to give a try.

The surface AX zones in particular have been fantastic fun for me and CMDR friends (and great as we learned AX fighting). But I just don't know how they are going to play now that I'll be less effective against Interceptors (with fewer Guardian weapons), and less effective again against Interceptors (due to my remaining Guardian weapons degrading)... My skills probably aren't there, and I don't know that my CMDR friends are up for lots more rebuys, like the old EAX MC days.

Not sure.

 

[Fizzatron]

This exact point had come to my mind, and is why I've not yet committed to the time needed to give a try.

The surface AX zones in particular have been fantastic fun for me and CMDR friends (and great as we learned AX fighting). But I just don't know how they are going to play now that I'll be less effective against Interceptors (with fewer Guardian weapons), and less effective again against Interceptors (due to my remaining Guardian weapons degrading)... My skills probably aren't there, and I don't know that my CMDR friends are up for lots more rebuys, like the old EAX MC days.

Not sure.

I completed a solo ground AX zone with enhanced AX missiles and multicannons - though not the 'bonus' Hydras, to be fair. Sure, it's not as immediate as Shards, but it was fun, even more so when winging up in open. It's totally doable, and if Glaives enter that instance when you're running Shards etc.. then immediately take it out. It's not that much different when it comes to the Orthrus.

 

[HappyMoonMonkey]

Think about the damage model you propose. The most popular of AX combat zones was the surface zone

The surface AX zones in particular have been fantastic fun for me and CMDR friends (and great as we learned AX fighting). But I just don't know how they are going to play

OP thread wasn't about glaives in surface CZs but about glaives stopping access to the maelstrom. You're off topic.

 

[Vardaugas]

Say, how long does it take to kill a Glaive with two large and two medium gimballed enhanced AX multicannons? Asking for a friend.

 

[BackToTheMud]

It's not a clear cut issue though, sometimes it's more a matter of adjusting play styles to suit that can get some hot and bothered. In that case, I'm not sure what can be reasonably expected of FDev. This is one of those situations, though I get that it can act as a good jumping board for a doom/FDev bad thread.

It's more clear cut than you think. The whay the glaives are designed means that your only two options are to either high wake or fight. And as you can't use Guardian weapons, outmanouver them, use cold orbiting, or any skill based tactic, it comes down to a no-skill slug fest were the only thing that matter are the amount of hit points and how many gimballed(!!!) AX multi-cannons you have. So instead of skill based cold orbiting in medium ships we now have no-skill reverskiing in a large ship being the only reasonable option. This is objectively poor game design, and I have no idea what they were thinking when they designed this.

..."No idea" wasn't entierly true; I have a hypothesis. I suspect that cold orbeting wasn't something Fdev designed on purpose, it was just a case of some players being substantially smarter (and that would in no way include me) than the devs. Also, after salvations failed genocide attempt one of the CM's said that some players had said that they liked that they were getting killed by thargoids, so they desided to design something that that would beat the stuffing out of us while completely missing the point.

Now me writing this will not matter. No-one at Fdev will ever read this, let alone comment on it.

 

[HappyMoonMonkey]

It's more clear cut than you think. The whay the glaives are designed means that your only two options are to either high wake or fight. And as you can't use Guardian weapons, outmanouver them, use cold orbiting, or any skill based tactic,

It is clear cut in this thread however. OP was complaining about not being able to get to the maelstrom. The only options available for ANY thargoid when you are hyperdicted are to high wake or fight.
As previously commented in this thread, outmanouvring then to high wake IS a skill based tactic.
Avoiding them in supercruise so as not to get interdicted is also a skill based tactic.

 

[Shadowsnog]

i do not consider myself a skilled ax pilot (if its stronger than cyclops i usually bolt) yet i can consistently and safely outrun and wake, as well as kill and sample glaives. in a phantom.

 

[Cmdr Esteban]

All that’s really needed here is just some fancy flyin’.

Smoke me a kipper I’ll be back for breakfast.

 

[Fizzatron]

This is objectively poor game design, and I have no idea what they were thinking when they designed this.

Again, sounds like a skill issue.

 

[shockbait]

Say, how long does it take to kill a Glaive with two large and two medium gimballed enhanced AX multicannons? Asking for a friend.

Well my Mamba has one Large Gimballed AXMC and two Medium Gimballed AXMC's, and it takes me just under a minute to delete one in that, usually taking less than 20% hull damage. If I could keep my guns locked on the speedy buggers, I imagine they would melt in the time it takes to kill two or three scouts with AXMCs.

Also, to the doomers saying they and all their friends are going to quit AX combat over this; if you have a wing of friends in an AXCZ, you can just have one person bring AXMCs, and dock up/high wake your guardian gib boats until your friend kills the Glaive. If you're in Solo, AXMC's and AX Missiles work just fine for Cyclops and to a lesser extent Basilisks, won't do much to the Hydras, but if you're in solo you probably aren't fighting those anyway.

 

[Jmanis]

Here's the question - Why Glaives?

Too many players participating?

Too many profits earned at surface combat zones?

Too many players poking around Titans?

Too many players rescuing npcs from burning stations?

It's a bonehead gameplay move IMO. Apply a deterrent that prohibits accessing content from the broadest range of skill levels possible. It's just weird.

Probably because FD got tired of being criticised for just reskinning interceptors and scouts, and offering no new challenges with the same old Thargoid content.

 

[Mersozz]

The absolute instant that you regain control of your ship after the hyperdiction/interdiction, hit silent running and boost away. Once the fsd cooldown is over, engage fsd, turn silent running off again and then keep boosting until you've escaped. In my experience, problem solved. It's also reported that the ECM will counter the Glaives fsd shutdown missile but with the silent running trick I honestly haven't needed that.

This worked for me last night. I have found that going silent running immediately, and then boosting multiple times seems to shake them.

Depending on where I am, I will either run or fight. When I run, I use silent running.

 

[Jmanis]

Well my Mamba has one Large Gimballed AXMC and two Medium Gimballed AXMC's, and it takes me just under a minute to delete one in that, usually taking less than 20% hull damage. If I could keep my guns locked on the speedy buggers, I imagine they would melt in the time it takes to kill two or three scouts with AXMCs.

Also, to the doomers saying they and all their friends are going to quit AX combat over this; if you have a wing of friends in an AXCZ, you can just have one person bring AXMCs, and dock up/high wake your guardian gib boats until your friend kills the Glaive. If you're in Solo, AXMC's and AX Missiles work just fine for Cyclops and to a lesser extent Basilisks, won't do much to the Hydras, but if you're in solo you probably aren't fighting those anyway.

My clumsy fit with 4 eAXMC on an Anaconda could take down 3-4 Glaives at the Titan before being overwhelmed with damage.

The main greivance i hear from people isn't that they aren't killable, but that that fit, as you correctly mention, isn't effective against the bigger interceptors, and that it's an either-or thing

But... why's that a problem? Why should there be one fitout that can just deal with everything. In the context of mission running, i have to make choices and sacrifices with my fitout. I have a combat ship that is great at all forms of combat including engineered targets... but can't do anything else. So if there's just cargo delivery and salvage missions, I'm stuffed.

So my fit in that case is one that allows broad utility, but those engineered targets in wing assassinations are simply a no- go... and that's fine imo.

Guardian weapons have allowed people to take down all threats to date... now there's one it can't handle. So your choice is:

• a fit that handles everything except glaives; or
• a fit that handles everything except medusa/ hydras

That doesnt seem unreasonable to me... and for me, i can escape interceptors, i can't escape glaives easily... so one of these makes much more sense. Now, i hear about glaives showing up in the middle of AX CZ; maybe that's too much and it should be limited to maelstrom and control like originally stated,, or reserved only for Very High CZs.

But i just don't buy the idea at all that the Glaives should be able to be taken down by a fit that also takes down Hydras, when the goal here is to require new tactics.

 

[MickyG1982]

Probably because FD got tired of being criticised for just reskinning interceptors and scouts, and offering no new challenges with the same old Thargoid content.

Dammed if they do, dammed if they don't.

Someone is always going to cry about it...

 

[Chaparral]

Probably because FD got tired of being criticised for just reskinning interceptors and scouts, and offering no new challenges with the same old Thargoid content.

So among all of the stale content pools out there, exploration, Powerplay, FP bio, no new human ships for years, they respond to an urgent need of new Thargoid content?

Totally not buying it.

This is about gimping cash cows and player centered fun. Period.

 

[Jmanis]

So among all of the stale content pools out there, exploration, Powerplay, FP bio, no new human ships for years, they respond to an urgent need of new Thargoid content?

Considering the Thargoid war is front and center to everything right now, yes. Makes complete sense to me.

Totally not buying it.

This is about gimping cash cows and player centered fun. Period.

laughs in non-AX cash cow

Seriously. If FD are "gimping cash cows" they are doing worse than nothing about it. That's a complete red herring.

 

[Cmdr Zund]

Over powered NPC or Monty Hall game. A tale as old as I am.

 

[Planewalker]

I try to be fair both ways, and I think that Frontier do (mostly) listen when appropriate, but constructive criticism is better to build up rather than verbal beatings that tear down. Though, again, there are situations that do warrant the harsh truth too.

A harsh truth can be a solid foundation from which to build.

It is the literal reason why it is called constructive.

 

[Fizzatron]

A harsh truth can be a solid foundation from which to build.

It is the literal reason why it is called constructive.

I agree that the first part can be true, but harsh truth isn't always constructive though, that's what I'm saying, and is more of a last resort than anything - and if one feels that is the only thing that's warranted then it's worth reevaluating whether it's them, or you blowing something out of proportion, or the one in error - no-one is always right. The context and situation is a large determining factor.