Ships Unbalanced combat and ships overall

[cyberir]

Greetings!

I just want to state my opinion about this game
Currently the combat or pvp is almost completly broken at this moment this game is more pay2win and almost kills piloting skill because you can buy bigger ships and massacre smaller, for example Fer De Lance and Clipper can mass lock smaller ships and even outrun them with speed which means that smaller ships have no chance to run away from battle they cant handle, so what is the point of smaller ships ? while those 2 ships can run away when it gets too hot with no problems at all...where is the fun in diversity if all start using same ship ? I understand that smaller ships cant win 1 vs 1 to bigger ship but not giving option to retreat is senseless and pointless. My advice would be give smaller ships bigger top speed and acceleration than bigger ships which means

Lighter mass ships = bigger tops speeds and maneuverability, less firepower, low shields, fast energy recharge,quick power regeneration and fast collapsed shield recharge.

Medium Mass ships = slower than Lighter mass ships but much faster than Bigger mass ships, middle manuverability, medium firepower, medium energy regeneration, medium shields

Bigger mass ships = lower top speed lower acceleration and lower maneuverability, bigger firepower, big shields, slower energy recharge and slower collapsed shield recharge. Can mass lock smaller ships but cant hold them with their speed so they can run away.

I know many people who stoped playing ED because of broken pvp combat there is almost no fun to fly in combat zones if Fer de lance or Clipper gets you on sight you are as good as dead if there is any other tactic to survive beside log off just tell me i would like to hear them...

 

[Mephane]

While I agree with the general sentiment that the ships are currently very unbalanced, and everything is skewed towards the same few ships to dominate (Vulture, FDL, Clipper, Python, Anaconda - notice how no small ship is among the lot at all)...

this game is more pay2win

... the word doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[quickr]

This game is everything but pay2win. You missed the point there. I agree on everything else, though.

Viable tactics would be to form a wolf pack of small ships and fly in group.

 

[puca]

While I agree with the general sentiment that the ships are currently very unbalanced, and everything is skewed towards the same few ships to dominate (Vulture, FDL, Clipper, Python, Anaconda - notice how no small ship is among the lot at all)...

The Vulture fits in a small pad. So, no, didn't notice. There is 1 small pad ship, 2 medium pad ships, and 2 large pad ships in the above list. Diversity seems pretty good. Why should every ship be a good combat ship? In addition, people pirate in cobras and asps. This isn't exactly "fair combat," but a type of combat application -- you give up straight fighting ability for cargo and flexibility a pirate needs.

pay2win

That's not what pay2win means. Pay2win is using real money for in-game advantage. This does not really happen (well, except maybe some backers getting founder's world pass, and insurance discounts, but those don't affect combat per se). What this is more akin to is gaining levels in an MMO. You spend more time to get a better ship, just as an MMO character spends time to get levels and gear.

Except it's not like an MMO because, for example, an anaconda (the most expensive to kit ship in the game, full combat kit costs 500 million) that fights to the death with a vulture (combat kit 18-20 million) will lose.

Big ships are generally harder to fight in this game, but that's how space sim fighting games generally work. You _should_ need a group for a big ship.

 

[Tall_Toot]

Accidental Post

 

[Mephane]

The Vulture fits in a small pad. So, no, didn't notice. There is 1 small pad ship, 2 medium pad ships, and 2 large pad ships in the above list. Diversity seems pretty good.

The Vulture is a medium ship. The size category of a ship may be different from the pad used, and has more to do with the class of internal equipment and the weapon damage penalties. The Python is also a large ship despite fitting on the medium pad, it has the stats of a large ship, the equipment of a large ship, and a dev even once confirmed it is regarded as a large ship by all game mechanics.

 

[puca]

Ok, so what in your view is going wrong with the current balance? We have the same few trading ships, the same few exploration ships, and the same few combat ships. We also have a few cheap ships people don't use for serious combat anymore -- are they the problem? I still use haulers and adders for specific things (although I have lots of credits now).

 

[Tall_Toot]

Don't understand how you can say E;D is pay to win. Ships that require effort and dare I say it, an element of skill, to obtain can't be bought for real money. Hell, it's not like you can even buy upgrades for real money.

Real life combat vessels and vehicles are a balance of speed, armour and firepower, just like in E;D. But if I spend more I'll get one that will be more capable in all three areas, and run rings around cheaper, less capable opposition - otherwise you wouldn't buy it. Why should this not apply to Elite?

But then again, I'm sure people will moan about 'power creep' at some point, instead of expecting realistic technical advancement as ship design improves.....
I for one would love to see Sidewinder MkII with improved stats for example, where ship design evolves as new technologies are incorporated. But that's the engineer in me.

 

[Darth Sidious]

Um
Hi im an apha backer
ignoring the pay to win thingie.
i dont think the ships are out of ballance
would you go into battle right now as you are at this moment in real life?
i don't think so. everything comes with a price if it would have been ballanced like you suggest then realism would go down the drain

 

[cyberir]

I understand i overreacted with statment pay2win if there is no real money involved, what i wanted to say is more "virtual currency pay2win" dont know any other term basicly if you have loads of credits in game you can afford to get biggest ship and kill all the rest if there is any other more suitable term i dont know. Anyway lets forget about this pay2win that doesnt really matter and i dint have problems with that. Main problem is that there is almost no ship diversity and ships dont have their unique roles, if they would pros and cons based on their size the fights would be much more interisting, because smaller ships could easy organize in numbers and use wolfpack tactics to kill the enemy but still would have option to make safe distance when things go to hot, so that means that bigger ships could take a punch but also need escort of smaller sips to handle this kinda attacks.

Right now its more like if there is clipper or FDL and it get attacked by for example eagles/vipers/sidewinders they got no chance cause they cant maintain same speed, offense, defense and are like sitting ducks for this kinda fighters its literally a suicide mission even if they want to save their lives its immpossible, but in other hand FDL or Clipper can run away in any case if it gets too hot for them, seems like this ships are godlike in performance view.

 

[dayrth]

While I agree with the general sentiment that the ships are currently very unbalanced, and everything is skewed towards the same few ships to dominate (Vulture, FDL, Clipper, Python, Anaconda - notice how no small ship is among the lot at all)...

Vulture is not big, and in the hands of a good pilot, (not me ), the eagle can take on the big boys and avoid getting hit. Nothing like it for maneuverability. That list is also only relevant if you only do combat. Nothing is better at exploring for me than an Asp. If you trade you want one of the transports. How you kit your ship out is going to have an effect as well.

Seems to me you have a great deal of choice and it comes down to personal preference. That's about as balanced as I want.

 

[cyberir]

Vulture is not big, and in the hands of a good pilot, (not me ), the eagle can take on the big boys and avoid getting hit. Nothing like it for maneuverability. That list is also only relevant if you only do combat. Nothing is better at exploring for me than an Asp. If you trade you want one of the transports. How you kit your ship out is going to have an effect as well.

Seems to me you have a great deal of choice and it comes down to personal preference. That's about as balanced as I want.

Only maneuverability is not enough especially if you got limited amount of chaff and they got gimballed weapons also any decent pilot can just boost in one position and turn himself with assist off and Eagle is toasted.

 

[cyberir]

Um
Hi im an apha backer
ignoring the pay to win thingie.
i dont think the ships are out of ballance
would you go into battle right now as you are at this moment in real life?
i don't think so. everything comes with a price if it would have been ballanced like you suggest then realism would go down the drain

Sorry i dont really know what you mean if i would go into battle right now at this moment in real life ? With a spaceship or hand to hand combat ? and have you try use logic of fighting its like if i would be in a tank and you would have a super sport car, but only difference is that my tank can travel 400 Km/h and your super sport car can go only 200 km/h. So is this real life ? Because my tank is couple millions of dollars and super car is only couple hundred thousands it means that I must be faster in a tank that is only thing i can imagine you want to imagine in real life since we got no spaceships... All above is sarcasm cause my tank cant go faster than supercar because its heaviewr and more bulky but super car can go faster and get the distance while tank got other benefits as you might know which one.
And realism with current balance allready is going down the drain since there is no realism smaller ship mass locking bigger ships and bigger ships got higher top speed than smaller even if their mass/engine ratio is bigger, there is no logic behind this.

 

[skuripanda]

P2W aside (I understand what the OP means):

yes, Fer De Lance is overpowered compared to small ships. It has everything better: speed, weapons, shields armor. It can catch up smaller ships (faster), it can kill them (better armed) and it can't be hurt as fast (better armored). It's entirely unfair towards newer players who can only afford, say, an Eagle or Viper, and meeting a Fer De Lance means certain death. In a PVP situation against a Fer De Lance, a small ship has zero survivability.

And from a perspective of a larger ship owner (Python, Anaconda): Fer De Lance can't be killed. If you do manage to shoot it, it'll just run away top speed and outrun you easily.

In essence, a Fer De Lance with its speed is unbeatable in any situation. Even if it can't win a fight, it can run away and survive. Something that other ships don't have the luxury to do.

 

[CMDR AKIRA MASAKARI]

I don't like to idea of bigger=slower. It never made sense. Such a nonsense is already implemented in EVE, but there a frigate is average 100m major axis, a Battleship average 1000m major axis, and ships are unpiloted so i can bear it.
Here differences in size are maller, and ships are piloted.

So of course an anaconda should have a minor turning range and be less manueverable that a sidewinder.
But in a straight line, with no friction, giving adeguate engines to move the mass and a stiff enough frame a capital ship could be faster than a frigate.

 

[cyberir]

Mass lock death trap also made no sense to me since i though its only meant to make you harder to run away but not immpossible to run away. This is because bigger ship can outrun in speed smaller ships. At least if top speed is not limited acceleration should be putted more down and it would take more time to replenish boost energy...

 

[Sevanje]

In my humble opinion smaller ships are way to slow even if not compared to Fer De Lance. Nonetheless this is still a game so balancing before reality.

 

[Glyphon]

I don't like to idea of bigger=slower. It never made sense. Such a nonsense is already implemented in EVE, but there a frigate is average 100m major axis, a Battleship average 1000m major axis, and ships are unpiloted so i can bear it.
Here differences in size are maller, and ships are piloted.

So of course an anaconda should have a minor turning range and be less manueverable that a sidewinder.
But in a straight line, with no friction, giving adeguate engines to move the mass and a stiff enough frame a capital ship could be faster than a frigate.

and seeing as we are in space we should able to travel at many kilometers per second and not slow down after boosting but we don't because this is a video game and realism gets put aside for a second to make a fun game and a fun game for everyone, including those in small ships.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

I think the current ships are fine for the most part. I think they could afford to add more faster smaller ships though (condor?). I'm okay with some larger ships being fast. The FDL and clipper have their drawbacks, and I'm sure the courier will as well. I wouldn't mind seeing something eagle sized that could hit those speeds though.

The major exception is the vulture in my opinion. The vulture is just too cheap for its combat potential. If an asp scores 5 and 5 for combat and trade, a vulture scores 8 and 2. Added together their scores are equal, but that 8 carries a lot of water, and more than makes up for that 2.