Balancing combat internals with the Orca

[-VR- Max Factor]

Arena has very much to do with this! Arena is just that, a combat arena game. It's PvP only and should be balanced for fair, balanced, and competitive PvP gameplay.

Which it is, but what the OP is saying has nothing to do with Arena, it is incompatible with arena as you don't have fuel scoops, cargo etc etc. Arena is pretty balanced already.
Whether you like PvP in the main game or not it still happens.

I also think this has a positive effect on PvE as well as it stops you from being overpowered. You still have plenty of choice in what you can put into your internal slots, nothing is stopping you from experimenting, noting is barred, just the quantities.

Means there is a limit on how much combat rated internals you can carry. To me that makes it more interesting. A multiporpose ship may have less combat rated internals than a combat rated ship etc. Still gives you choices.

Me personally I wouldn't have HRP's in internal slots anyway. I would add a Hull plating section where you can purchase light, medium or heavy. This adds weight to your ship, thus reducing your Jump range, speed and manouverablilty and add reflective and reactive compounds and remove these from the bulkheads section. Then you can upgrade your bulkheads as before, but they use up internal slots as bulkheads are internal. Hull plating should be external.

 

[Jypson]

Well I want a class 8 distributor and Huge beam lasers on my Sidewinder, (because I want to, that is my choice) doesn't mean it's good for the game

That was also just an example. I think it would be unwise to restrict the largest slot for people who want a big shield, the real offenders are the myriad class 2-5 slots on many ships that can be stacked with HRPs.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



It sounds like this wouldn't affect you at all then. What then is your issue?

> If your proposal is to make certain internals military only, that will take away outfitting options that I might want to make. If I want a mining Corvette and now some of the slots are 'military only' that's going to put a real kink into my build; or if I want to risk an all cargo Trutter. Also, who's to say which ones should be military or utility?

You talk about meaningful choices, taking away choices doesn't make the ones left meaningful, only fewer of them (IMO).

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

> If your proposal is to make certain internals military only, that will take away outfitting options that I might want to make. If I want a mining Corvette and now some of the slots are 'military only' that's going to put a real kink into my build; or if I want to risk an all cargo Trutter. Also, who's to say which ones should be military or utility?

You talk about meaningful choices, taking away choices doesn't make the ones left meaningful, only fewer of them (IMO).

No they are not military only. They are the only internals that can mount a militaty internal. It can still mount all of the others as well.
For example you have 5 internal slots. 2 of them are military internals. In the military ones you can mount anything. In the non military ones you can mount only non military internals such as cargo, fuel scoop, base shields, scanners etc.

 

[Jypson]

Which it is, but what the OP is saying has nothing to do with Arena, it is incompatible with arena as you don't have fuel scoops, cargo etc etc. Arena is pretty balanced already.
Whether you like PvP in the main game or not it still happens.

I also think this has a positive effect on PvE as well as it stops you from being overpowered. You still have plenty of choice in what you can put into your internal slots, nothing is stopping you from experimenting, noting is barred, just the quantities.

Means there is a limit on how much combat rated internals you can carry. To me that makes it more interesting. A multiporpose ship may have less combat rated internals than a combat rated ship etc. Still gives you choices.

Me personally I wouldn't have HRP's in internal slots anyway. I would add a Hull plating section where you can purchase light, medium or heavy. This adds weight to your ship, thus reducing your Jump range, speed and manouverablilty and add reflective and reactive compounds and remove these from the bulkheads section. Then you can upgrade your bulkheads as before, but they use up internal slots as bulkheads are internal. Hull plating should be external.

> Like I said before, I have absolutely nothing against PvP, just against balancing the assets toward PvP, or mining for that matter. There is a lot to do in Elite, and we all have to share the same assets.

> I'm not sure what you mean by overpowered. Also, the suggestion was for military and utility slots, sounds pretty limiting to me.

> We're in complete agreement there, I don't like the implementation of HRP's anyway.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Well I want a class 8 distributor and Huge beam lasers on my Sidewinder, (because I want to, that is my choice) doesn't mean it's good for the game

That was also just an example. I think it would be unwise to restrict the largest slot for people who want a big shield, the real offenders are the myriad class 2-5 slots on many ships that can be stacked with HRPs.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



It sounds like this wouldn't affect you at all then. What then is your issue?

No they are not military only. They are the only internals that can mount a militaty internal. It can still mount all of the others as well.
For example you have 5 internal slots. 2 of them are military internals. In the military ones you can mount anything. In the non military ones you can mount only non military internals such as cargo, fuel scoop, base shields etc.

Sorry CMDR's completely missed the part about still being able to put utility items in a combat slot, that's my bad.

However, I gotta stick to my original opinion that limiting internals any further would be a net-negative for the game as a whole.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

> If your proposal is to make certain internals military only, that will take away outfitting options that I might want to make. If I want a mining Corvette and now some of the slots are 'military only' that's going to put a real kink into my build; or if I want to risk an all cargo Trutter. Also, who's to say which ones should be military or utility?

You talk about meaningful choices, taking away choices doesn't make the ones left meaningful, only fewer of them (IMO).

The suggestion is:

Combat rated can take anything

Utility rated can take anything non-combat (All bar interdictors, HRPs, SCBs and shields)

The only restriction is that you would not be able to stack combat modules in every internal slot regardless of ship. That is no more restrictive than not every ship having access to a class 8 distributor

 

[Faded Glory]

That was also just an example. I think it would be unwise to restrict the largest slot for people who want a big shield, the real offenders are the myriad class 2-5 slots on many ships that can be stacked with HRPs.

Wouldn't it be easier, and more meaningful / challenging, if it was the number of a certain type of component that you could fit that was restricted, as it is with shield generators and fuel scoops?

You can put your SCB / HRP wherever you want, but you can only have one or two of them, and if you want really large ones, then that prevents you having something else in that large internal compartment.

 

[Jypson]

The suggestion is:

Combat rated can take anything

Utility rated can take anything non-combat (All bar interdictors, HRPs, SCBs and shields)

The only restriction is that you would not be able to stack combat modules in every internal slot regardless of ship. That is no more restrictive than not every ship having access to a class 8 distributor

Yeah, sorry about that man, completely misread that part. I'm still against taking away choices though. I do like this suggestion though!

I'd rather start with just making the cost of stacking internals higher, so it's still possible but less and less optimal the more extreme you make it. Imagine if a full HRP build cut your top speed by 100 m/s, for example.

There should also probably be better scaling so the cost/benefit of fitting "tankiness" modules isn't massively lopsided for certain sizes of ship.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

I disagree, for the reasons I've stated already.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to understand. If you run balanced ships already, this wouldn't affect you at all, right? Similarly wouldn't affect mining out a Corvette or whatever.

It would only affect HRP or SCB stacking builds. If your stance is that you don't think module stacking, to the point that loadout holds a lot more sway than piloting skill, fair enough that's your opinion, but you've not said that; your objections all seem to be things like that the OP's suggestion doesn't do, so I am confused.

I agree with you that taking away choice is a good thing. To clarify my thoughts, I also think that in some cases, too much theoretical choice can end up limiting practical choices. I think practical choice is more important than theoretical choice. I want more realistic choices.

Unrelated to this: I've been subscribed to your YouTube channel for a while now. Good stuff!

 

[Alexander the Grape]

Wouldn't it be easier, and more meaningful / challenging, if it was the number of a certain type of component that you could fit that was restricted, as it is with shield generators and fuel scoops?

You can put your SCB / HRP wherever you want, but you can only have one or two of them, and if you want really large ones, then that prevents you having something else in that large internal compartment.

That would work. The reason I like that less is it because it makes little sense lore wise. Why would putting hull reinforcements over here be dependent on not having hull reinforcements over there?

Plus it doesn't allow for ship specific balancing

 

[CMDR Corlas]

An alternative solution would be to make it so that "utility-rated" slots can still equip military-rated internals, but with a decent percentage decrease in module effectiveness and/or an increase in performance penalty.

So you could still put an HRP in the giant bay in the middle of your ship, but it won't protect as well since that bay's placement means that if it's getting hit, you're already shot to pieces.

Or you could shove some SCB's in there, but it costs way more power to run them, since you have to set up a really weird power rig to wire them into your shields and the cooling for that module isn't near what it should be, so it runs hotter when used.

 

[Jypson]

I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to understand. If you run balanced ships already, this wouldn't affect you at all, right? Similarly wouldn't affect mining out a Corvette or whatever.

It would only affect HRP or SCB stacking builds. If your stance is that you don't think module stacking, to the point that loadout holds a lot more sway than piloting skill, fair enough that's your opinion, but you've not said that; your objections all seem to be things like that the OP's suggestion doesn't do, so I am confused.

I agree with you that taking away choice is a good thing. To clarify my thoughts, I also think that in some cases, too much theoretical choice can end up limiting practical choices. I think practical choice is more important than theoretical choice. I want more realistic choices.

Unrelated to this: I've been subscribed to your YouTube channel for a while now. Good stuff!

That was my bad, I completely misread the part about utility items in a combat slot. I am against taking away choices though. I really like this idea:

I'd rather start with just making the cost of stacking internals higher, so it's still possible but less and less optimal the more extreme you make it. Imagine if a full HRP build cut your top speed by 100 m/s, for example.

There should also probably be better scaling so the cost/benefit of fitting "tankiness" modules isn't massively lopsided for certain sizes of ship.

It doesn't take away any choices, just adds some more consequence to stacking. The choice is still yours, just a harder one to make!

Hope you're enjoying the channel, let me know what you think sometime, feedback is always appreciated!

 

[evoelise]

I think this idea makes a lot of sense. At the moment the only thing that stands any chance against a PVP-build ship is another PVP-build ship. If you're not PVP-built in open your only option is to run; frustrating for the victim and the attacker.

The current huge discrepancy between PVP-focused ships and all "other" ships takes any player skill out of the game and makes the "winner" solely due to build. So anything that levels the playing field helps, I'm pretty sure that this won't completely solve the problem but it's better than what we have now.

I would change your proposal slightly to state that shields can go in any slot not just combat ones (or give ships a specific shield slot).

HRPs seem a bit nonsensical to me anyway, the different bulkheads you can outfit make a lot more "sense". I'd remove HRPs altogether.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

I would change your proposal slightly to state that shields can go in any slot not just combat ones (or give ships a specific shield slot).

Yeah, I would consider that change myself. Shields are much less of an offender than other combat internals considering they're non-stackable in the first place

The only reason I would think otherwise is that it would allow Frontier to introduce large traders in the future with good base shields without making them super powerful in the class 7-8 slot

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Strange.

No, it's not "strange" - everyone's skill is different

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

No, it's not "strange" - everyone's skill is different

I don't think I am that great at combat either. Useless with Flight Assist off. But stacking HRP's just makes it easy without any skill involved at all which I think is just as bad.

You can stack up a type 6 with HRP's and ram an Annaconda to death with ease, and thats without shields as well. You could probably do that in a cobra as well. Surely you can see that is just wrong.

I don't like HRP's or SCB's, I personlly wish they had never been implemented in the first place.

 

[geoffrey.hdt]

I agree with everything in the OP.
This would make the game so much more fun.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Spoiler

I don't think I am that great at combat either. Useless with Flight Assist off. But stacking HRP's just makes it easy without any skill involved at all which I think is just as bad.

You can stack up a type 6 with HRP's and ram an Annaconda to death with ease, and thats without shields as well. You could probably do that in a cobra as well. Surely you can see that is just wrong.

I don't like HRP's or SCB's, I personlly wish they had never been implemented in the first place.

Collision mechanics IMO are borked - ramming a ship really should be instant (or near) death for both concerned.

That said, again, everyone's skill is different - I hear what you're saying, I accept that for you combat is easy mode in a vulture, however my argument is that for me NPCs are tricky.

EDIT: That is why I am suggesting, as well as taking away freedom of choice for ship builds, the OPs proposal would make PvE harder. Some may welcome that; others may not - perhaps best to judge post 2.1 after another NPC AI upgrade by MoM.

 

[geoffrey.hdt]

I think this idea makes a lot of sense. At the moment the only thing that stands any chance against a PVP-build ship is another PVP-build ship. If you're not PVP-built in open your only option is to run; frustrating for the victim and the attacker.

Yep, I confirm that.
I fly a full HRPs silent runner FAS. It feels overpowered against anything but other players with pure "PvP" build.
I wish a traders could have a chance to fight other players looking for a good fight. But all they can do at the moment is run away or switch to solo/private groups.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

The only reason I would think otherwise is that it would allow Frontier to introduce large traders in the future with good base shields without making them super powerful in the class 7-8 slot

Yeah, this is a great example how some limits can actually increase choice, diversity, and flexibility: Trade ships could have stronger shields and still haul a lot of cargo, combat ships could be more specialized in their role and still have the flexibility of branch out to other roles, but without also being able to be better traders than the trade ships.

My Corvette, for instance, is great at fighting. My Anaconda is really good at fighting, but can be set up to actually be a stronger ship (still prefer the Corvette's agility in a fight, but that's irrelevant right now). A change like the proposed one would allow FD to re-balance the behind the scenes numbers so that my Corvette could be "better" at combat as my Anaconda, but wouldn't be able be to configured to haul more cargo than the Anaconda (Corvette could have fewer slots, but relatively more mil-spec, and the Conda could have more, but fewer mil-spec). That would mean that my 'Vette wouldn't have to be "balanced" by gimping it's jump range; it would be balanced by the design of the internal structure of the ship.

 

[John Ring]

I too disagree.
It takes away choices in the Combat side and not in the "everything-else" side. I can not imagine how many "Open up the Slots for all Modules"-Threads would have been posted per day, if FD had implemented this in the first place. So, with other words, I agree with Liqua that restricting it even further is not the way to go (and the fact that it's one sided restriction makes it worse).

But, the other suggestion that the choices are still here, but the consequences are different is better, although in my opinion still not good. It already takes a speed and jump toll on you if you equip HRP's, to make it even further is a bit illogical (in the sense of weight scaling) and unfair(?).

In the other hand, if I was in a trading ship and a pirate wanted to kill me, I would just press the eject button even before the first hit landed. Playing the hero is not always the best option (know your limits)