Just because competitors use the same Pokemon over and over doesn't mean it's the best.
Even if it is then why do people on here complain about it so much if it's an inevitable fact in every game that there is only one best build?
Why do all the PVP builds I see posted not use shields?
- Thread starter erock25
- Start date
Just because competitors use the same Pokemon over and over doesn't mean it's the best.
Even if it is then why do people on here complain about it so much if it's an inevitable fact in every game that there is only one best build?
Of course it means they are the best, these people are more motivated than anyone to perform well, if there was something better they would be doing it.
As to why they complain so much because they should do something about it, just like to me how they should be nerfing those pokemon that are so prevalent, its pretty simple if you take the 10 they have that are viable and change them, and as a result 15 are viable, then they have made a change in a positive direction, encouraging change and diversity is good for your game, especially if its multiplayer.
If they do nothing your just accepting that its the way it is, that gets stale, its part of the reason all mobas have major balance patches.
Granted, removing HRPs or gimping it will not take away griefing. But it will make it less irritating.
When your hull isn't ridiculously strong, you will have to make up for it with shields. And silent running will be an iffy prospect, knowing that after your surprise initial hit, and perhaps taking some damage, you will have to abandon SR and bring the shields up.
Or maybe, you will even decide against SR in the first place, since bringing up the shields means that it will take time for them to charge up to full. Time that may mean you getting destroyed.
Whatever it is, it will give multipurpose ships a better chance against them. The gap in hull strength is not that far apart that these pure PVP builds can basically tank any kind of return fire with impunity.
I still run the SCB setup, dual scb's fired right after 2 heatsinks does the trick for the Anaconda. Complete refill of shield like before the nerf, and manageable overheating.
I think it's silly behaviour to change your build to what someone else is using.. but that's my personal experience. I like it when 2 stealth players
try to attack me and I keep my shields up and slowly eat their hull, because whenever they are within a few hundred meters I can still lock on and fire my 7 lasers and plasma cannon.
It's the attitude of thinking that another guy's ship build can make you a winner.. while in reality only you can make you a winner.
I think it's silly behaviour to change your build to what someone else is using.. but that's my personal experience. I like it when 2 stealth players
try to attack me and I keep my shields up and slowly eat their hull, because whenever they are within a few hundred meters I can still lock on and fire my 7 lasers and plasma cannon.
It's the attitude of thinking that another guy's ship build can make you a winner.. while in reality only you can make you a winner.
Just popping in here to answer the OP/subject.
Because shields are useless. In the grand scheme of an engagement, they are the distraction for the first 5 seconds but since there is no choice you can make to keep them up and useful, why bother?
This is probably down to expectations made from "other" space games like X-Wing/Tie, Freespace, etc. where very often games have always given you the opportunity to "go defensive" and effectively make a choice to sacrifice attack or manoeuvre capability for the sake of defence. In this game it just makes no sense; you can divert as much as you like, you can tank up a ship for shields as much as you like, but they'll be "gone in 60 seconds". If you're lucky.
It has to be taken in relation to all the other factors that balance combat though. I have maintained since day 1 that gimbals are the ruin of this game. If it was harder to get shots on people, shields would make more sense, but at the moment sustain fire from a gimbal user will chew them up in seconds. Hence chaff/silent running, the latter of which makes shields pointless.
Because shields are useless. In the grand scheme of an engagement, they are the distraction for the first 5 seconds but since there is no choice you can make to keep them up and useful, why bother?
This is probably down to expectations made from "other" space games like X-Wing/Tie, Freespace, etc. where very often games have always given you the opportunity to "go defensive" and effectively make a choice to sacrifice attack or manoeuvre capability for the sake of defence. In this game it just makes no sense; you can divert as much as you like, you can tank up a ship for shields as much as you like, but they'll be "gone in 60 seconds". If you're lucky.
It has to be taken in relation to all the other factors that balance combat though. I have maintained since day 1 that gimbals are the ruin of this game. If it was harder to get shots on people, shields would make more sense, but at the moment sustain fire from a gimbal user will chew them up in seconds. Hence chaff/silent running, the latter of which makes shields pointless.
Yep... We have two weapon systems (gimbal and fixed) that split the game in so many areas, it simple cannot achieve a logical balance. The moment we get PvP builds and PvE builds it's a sign of something not working well IMHO.
As you suggest, we should have had one approach. ie: Just fixed, or my preferred alternative, a gimbal with a far smaller coverage area, which then rewards you with more damage the closer the target is to the center.
I just don't see it ever being a set of nice logical mechanics now with two such different factors trying to be handled/balanced
It'll be changed, changed, and changed again, but the issues will simple move from "area" to another.
Last edited:
When people talk about "shield's being useless" or a "hull meta" they're talking about ships they can afford to regularly take into battle, rebuy, and grind rank for.
The best combat ships in the game are still the biggest
Well, that's just not true. Take BF3, for example (I use it because it's a game I know very, very well) The assault class has loads of options for guns. There are three go-to weapons (although there are others which are somewhat less effective): You can go for the M16A3, which gives you a high rate of fire and predictable recoil at the expense of accuracy and damage at range. You can take the FAMAS, which had a very high RoF at the expense of accuracy. Alternatively, you can take the AN-94, which rewards accuracy with a 2-round burst that gives you a serious advantage at >75m over the other two guns, and enables you to very effectively undertake anti-marksman duty as well, provided you can flush the jammie-dodgers out first. Then there's the choice between the medpack and the underslung grenade launcher, which gives you the option of greater longevity in an engagement against highly accurate explosive fire that also gives you anti-light vehicle capabilities. You also then have the perk system which makes a huge difference when you're running in a well-thought-out squad.
That doesn't even go into the options of taking a small, very high RoF, hipfire weapon, or, indeed, a shotgun for specific jobs, such as clearing a building. If you want to win a round on Conquest Large, you're going to need anti-vehicle players with one of three missile systems - RPGs/shoulder-fired rockets, laser-guided anti-tank systems or shoulder-mounted anti-air systems.
Suppressors also add depth to the gunplay as they prevent you from showing on the mini-map when you fire, but they reduce accuracy by making bullet drop more pronounced and reducing accuracy in close quarters when firing from the hip. You're less visible, but less deadly.
For a few brief occasions, there was one go-to loadout, but these were patched out very quickly indeed, as FPS players have a long, uninterrupted history of finding and exploiting the most effective loadout, and they soon start to complain if there are issues. There are, however, still really useless loadouts that you can put together, if you really want to.
The point is that FD could learn a great deal about balance from FPS games. At the moment, there's very little variety in PvP loadouts, and they're significantly different from PvE loadouts. case in point: silent running builds are absolutely useless against NPCs - to the extent that it seems they don't even pay any attention to them.
Last edited:
To sum up PvP:
If you want to fly with the big, you gotta sing along with Hammerfall - Last man standing
"I am the one, who sold his soul, to be the last man standing!"
You can either fly with soul by using a diverse build for your playstyle,
or you min/max selling your soul, jumping to whatever build is most effective.
Doesn't matter if you are trader, PvP-Combat pilot or other.
If you want to fly with the big, you gotta sing along with Hammerfall - Last man standing
"I am the one, who sold his soul, to be the last man standing!"
You can either fly with soul by using a diverse build for your playstyle,
or you min/max selling your soul, jumping to whatever build is most effective.
Doesn't matter if you are trader, PvP-Combat pilot or other.
...and is it my imagination, but with the second bite of the apple, and given a clean slate (with CQC), did FD then decide combat modules and behaviour needed to work somewhat differently?
I don't think so, they just took the easiest method of balancing something for a competitive environment, simplicity.
Not that theres anything wrong with that, just that if there was anywhere they were taking inspiration from FPS's from it was there, its small scope limited equipment with power-ups, its almost identical to an old arena map.
Last edited:
It's months since I've played CQC now. But I'll swear the fundamental behaviour of fixed and gimbals is different. ie: Not the same as in the core game. Anyhow... Maybe I've mistaken... Another discussion
Last edited:
It's months since I've played CQC now. But I'll swear the fundamental behaviour of fixed and gimbals is different. ie: Not the same as in the core game. Anyhow... Maybe I've mistaken... Another discussion
I've not played it at all so i'd trust your own thoughts on the issue much more than my own lol, that was just the opinion i'd formed from looking through the window so to speak. I looked through some articles about it etc to see if I wanted to bother but i felt a bit too much like it was trying to pretend to be something it isn't, I think i'd have enjoyed an open bar 1v1 arena better with rankings based on individual ship types. Struggle to get too into any of these things now all the PvP seems CQC or wings and I'm really not a fan of either
It's months since I've played CQC now. But I'll swear the fundamental behaviour of fixed and gimbals is different. ie: Not the same as in the core game. Anyhow... Maybe I've mistaken... Another discussion
He's right - the "fixed" weapons in CQC are actually more limited variants of the gimballed version in that their cone of fire is significantly smaller. The DPS comparison is irrelevant as the shields on the most effective ship (the Condor and the Imperial Fighter) are somewhat akin to wet tissue paper. Physical objects also break weapons lock - line-of-sight targeting is a thing, and it's actually glorious. Getting shot at? Oh look! it's a GREAT BIG ROCK. Lock on me now, bumface!I've not played it at all so i'd trust your own thoughts on the issue much more than my own lol, that was just the opinion i'd formed from looking through the window so to speak. I looked through some articles about it etc to see if I wanted to bother but i felt a bit too much like it was trying to pretend to be something it isn't, I think i'd have enjoyed an open bar 1v1 arena better with rankings based on individual ship types. Struggle to get too into any of these things now all the PvP seems CQC or wings and I'm really not a fan of either
The basic issue to my mind is the lack of variety in CQC. In my opinion, it needs more strategic depth (actually, combat in E|D needs oceans more strategic depth). Arenas are great fun in short bursts, imo, but they're very limited and repetitive, which tends to lead to that style of play favouring the small subset who don't mind doing the limited and repetitive pasting of random newbs in order to meet the few players that will actually force them to up their game and learn new tactics, which further exacerbates the problem.
It's months since I've played CQC now. But I'll swear the fundamental behaviour of fixed and gimbals is different. ie: Not the same as in the core game. Anyhow... Maybe I've mistaken... Another discussion
As said, there are no truly "fixed" weapons that I'm aware of but the small amount of - let's call it "aim assist" - on fixed weapons means you pretty much have to bullseye the target in the crosshairs before you'll hit it.
Gimbals in CQC are toned down massively over the core game. They're not as difficult as "core" game fixed weapons, they are like a toned-down gimbal. Which sounds like a rather hidden admission that for competitive combat, they really do take all the skill away. In CQC you never feel like you lost because of any other reason than pilot skill (to a degree - there are a few power-ups, ship differences, etc. obviously but in the grand scheme of things they don't contribute all that much).
YES!
It's actually the reason I rather like CQC - PvP in the core game is like the ugly sibling in comparison. I remember way back in 1.4 beta meeting one CMDR whom I just couldn't hit. The great thing about it was that s/he couldn't hit me either - we ended up in amazing dogfights that lasted minutes, before some killjoy jumped in and polished either me or him/her off.
Last edited:
I understand that point of view.. but I've found that nothing beats the pressure of a 29 million rebuy when a wing of players jump on me
WHen I see a player in a silly small ship with a ridiculous setup I'm like, yeah, that's easy.. 2-3 million rebuy is easy... too easy for me.
I actually have to estimate if I make it out alive before I enter a combat situation.. much more satisfying than trying to gank someone with a wing of stealth
and not caring about dying in the process as long as the other guy gets to go to his rebuy screen. THis is just plain silly behavior that's more fitted for
'average' games.. not open world space simulators, where it's about skill, not gangtactics. But I'm not trying to be too judgmental here.. each his own..
but don't take my respect for granted, that's something people will have to earn
As I'm sure others have said and I haven't bothered to read, going without shields allows for the maximal use of silent running. This is primarily a PvP meta not only because npc's ignore silent running, but because only players are ever organized enough to focus targets when the whole wing can identify them. Wearing shields is like wearing a bright orange safety helmet in a war zone while your friends wear gilley suits. Your friends may technically be easier to kill (sometimes not even the case), but you're the guy all the enemies will see and fire on first.
In 1v1 or spontaneous small engagements consisting of at most 2 opposing wings (preferably not full, but there are shield tanks that can make it work with full wings), shields are still a viable tool for the majority of combat ships and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
In 1v1 or spontaneous small engagements consisting of at most 2 opposing wings (preferably not full, but there are shield tanks that can make it work with full wings), shields are still a viable tool for the majority of combat ships and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Last edited:
This one made me smile. Didn't we all ask for this change to SCB's? And we got something incredibly complicated instead: more heat, longer module startup times.
Hard to guess what FD will do with HRPs, but it will probably be at least twice as complicated as anything we can suggest on the forum.
What would it look like if both SCB and HRP were limited to 1 per ship? HRP would probably not be necessary, because we already have reinforced bulkheads.
Last edited: