Nuff said. We are doomed if we ever come in to contact with one.
Why Are Weapons And Sensors Badly Unrealistic?
- Thread starter Mrjupp
- Start date
Nuff said. We are doomed if we ever come in to contact with one.
I don't even know if Sensors are actually working correctly. I see absolutely no difference in sensor range between 6D and 6A sensors on my Python, which supposedly is 1800m difference. I can see stuff beyond 7000m with 6D sensors, which supposedly only have a range of 5400m
I honestly think they're just not working yet.
I honestly think they're just not working yet.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I doubt that future combat would rely on any ship to carry a pilot - they are too fragile and their life support systems add weight and power requirements to the ship as well as placing limitations on accelerations - we've already seen drones entering into combat.
I doubt that requiring to engage opponents using assets that are huge distances from each other would make for engaging gameplay.
Last edited:
Except that in the game, AI is banned.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I didn't suggest AI - all I said was that it is unlikely that the pilot would be onboard the combatant.
Hmm. The distance (I think, I could be wrong) is the distance at which it resolves the ship and it's systems. Like the KWS and Cargo scanners, they only resolve within the distance. If the target moves outside the range, the scan fails to complete.
Is that headcanon or real canon? because thats a cool reason
*facepalms*
Ah. I see.
You don't need AI, you just need good remote control.
Try playing Elite from a different computer using Teamviewer
definitely a no on that. I can fully identify ships beyond my scanner range.
Viper sensors don't even make 5000m on D-rating. Did you ever identify a ship beyond 5000m in a Viper?
Last edited:
Eeek! Actually something similar. I don't know what I was thinking, honestly. It's not a good mistake to make.You don't need AI, you just need good remote control.
Try playing Elite from a different computer using Teamviewer
So it identifies it as a Viper, but can you make out it's loadout? I know the Cargo and KWS Scanner do work as described.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Well, you could say that even though technology has 'advanced' in some areas, that attrition also has occurred in others.
Talk about technology being advanced and yet there being attrition, ask a construction company to build a pyramid like the ones in Egypt and see how far you get... Ha... Ask someone to build a house these days and expect it to last as long as something that's been standing 80 years already and going strong...
Advancing technology does not always equal "Better" if you look at things as a whole.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If sensors can detect targets further away then the volume "visible" to the player's ship increases on the cube of the ratio of the increase, i.e. doubling the range increases the visible volume by a factor of 8.
As the number of players in an instance is capped, the average players per unit volume decreases to 1/8th of what it was before the increase in sensor range - meaning that those players in the instance will, on average, be more spread out. It also probably means that there are more co-located instances as the volume of each increases.
Will that improve the game?
I experienced Harriers shooting down F-15E's in an exercise many years ago. The RAF were quite sneaky about it and in a 4 v 4 against USAF they "killed" three F-15's at no loss to themselves before retiring (low on gas). The surviving 15 survived because he went sub-orbital at speed.
Tactics will always beat technology especially when combined with overconfidence.
Oh, and to address the topic at hand: weapons and sensors work fine in the game.
Tactics will always beat technology especially when combined with overconfidence.
Oh, and to address the topic at hand: weapons and sensors work fine in the game.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Apologies - it seemed that you were referring to limited range of weapons and sensors in this post:
Could you quote the part where I said you missed my point as well?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
What was the point were you trying to make?
I'd like it if FD implemented a distinction between active and passive sensors.
The main difference between the two would be:
Passive sensors would have the limited range they currently have.
Using them will not betray you if you are not within the passive sensor range of another ship.
Active sensors would have a much greater range, but also betray your position to everybody in range of your ping.
You would also use them for finding stuff in space, locating shipwrecks, locating USS when in supercruise etc.
I personally do not like the way USS detection functions right now. I would like a more active role for me as a CMDR.
I want to actively search for them instead of waiting for them to show up.
All this would make for great gameplay, because you would have to make a decision between getting more info and betraying your position and you would be more involved in the scanning process.
The main difference between the two would be:
Passive sensors would have the limited range they currently have.
Using them will not betray you if you are not within the passive sensor range of another ship.
Active sensors would have a much greater range, but also betray your position to everybody in range of your ping.
You would also use them for finding stuff in space, locating shipwrecks, locating USS when in supercruise etc.
I personally do not like the way USS detection functions right now. I would like a more active role for me as a CMDR.
I want to actively search for them instead of waiting for them to show up.
All this would make for great gameplay, because you would have to make a decision between getting more info and betraying your position and you would be more involved in the scanning process.
That compared to a plane built in 1974, the future ships of ED don't match up to any of it's weapon systems, flight dynamics (remembering it's meant to be planes in space too - anyone arguing about "atmospheric handling" obviously forgot the point that objects in real life do not handle in space the way they do in ED), sensors, etc.
It's hard to look back at a 1974 technology, 10 years before the first Elite game was made and then look at what we have right now and suppose that in 3300 or whatever, ED is anywhere close to being realistic, which was the OP's point that I expanded on.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The Devs are on record as stating that E: D is a game first and foremost - not a simulation - gameplay rules with respect to ship capabilities.
One example: combat at higher speeds was tried by Frontier at an early development stage and was judged to be worse from a gameplay perspective than lower speeds.