Given what I have been seeing over the last few weeks, it appears that we are moving away from one or two ultimate ship builds. To a more strategic position where you have to make choices which will have positive and negative consequences. This in my view, is the right direction.
Break through SCBs instantly with modified railguns (Newletter 121)
- Thread starter Alexander the Grape
- Start date
People never think about things in context. They can't imagine the meta until they're playing it for some reason. In this case it is obvious what Frontier is doing.
The counters to these rail guns:
Granted it's going to take most people a LONG time to realize there are obvious work arounds like these, and even longer to get the skill to use them while popping a heat sink. But not too worry, you'll soon have CMDR co-pilots who can handle the timing of the SCBs and heatsinks perfectly.
Thanks Frontier for making combat a little more interesting, and forcing people to rely on skill rather than magic potions to win a fight.
The counters to these rail guns:
- Small ships now have increased speed, so they can run away before popping an SCB, or just run away entirely.
- Large ships have the new knock-back cannon. So they can time their SCB charging with a knock back effect to make it impossible for nimble enemies to aim their fixed rail gun. Yes this works for bullseye NPCs as well. And larger less nimble ships with fixed weapons are easy to dodge just by flying with a modicum of skill.
- And finally the rail gun hit rate may be slower than the charge time for SCBs. A shooter also has no idea when you will hit the SCB button. So just getting into a turning war, or boosting behind them while popping SCB might be sufficient to make it nearly impossible for them to get you in that short window.
Granted it's going to take most people a LONG time to realize there are obvious work arounds like these, and even longer to get the skill to use them while popping a heat sink. But not too worry, you'll soon have CMDR co-pilots who can handle the timing of the SCBs and heatsinks perfectly.
Thanks Frontier for making combat a little more interesting, and forcing people to rely on skill rather than magic potions to win a fight.
Actually this is the same problem for both sides, as I can't see any of your counters having any effect with exception of the knock back cannon, which if it is a sufficient counter to let you get off a SCB is infact just as OP as these rails are and everyone will be using them
Nobody really knows how it will work in practice, it could have a 6s charge-up time for example which would really make it fine but having seen the PP weapons in action I'm not very forgiving when it comes to weapon balance and FD
Edit: But if you take it as its simplest form which is a normal railgun that removes shields if you hit a target when its using SCB's, then it is extremely OP short of them adding a module that invalidates it (which makes it worthless to add) or the opportunity cost of using it is too high because the other weapons are also extremely strong (which is also bad) lol.
Last edited:
Actually this is the same problem for both sides, as I can't see any of your counters having any effect with exception of the knock back cannon, which if it is a sufficient counter to let you get off a SCB is infact just as OP as these rails are and everyone will be using them
Nobody really knows how it will work in practice, it could have a 6s charge-up time for example which would really make it fine but having seen the PP weapons in action I'm not very forgiving when it comes to weapon balance and FD
Since the knock back cannon seems to make it easier to hit with a second shot, then I'm going to have to agree that the KB cannon is probably OP.
However the other two are just as useful. If not more so because they don't require you to aim a weapon while toggling to a new fire group to pop off a heatsink. All you need to do is fly better than your opponent. And yes there are ways to defeat back pedaling of equal or larger ships, at least as far as fixed weapons are concerned. If a small faster ship has you "on the rails" (pun intended) then it's not a hardware issue.
Last edited:
People never think about things in context. They can't imagine the meta until they're playing it for some reason. In this case it is obvious what Frontier is doing.
The counters to these rail guns:
- Small ships now have increased speed, so they can run away before popping an SCB, or just run away entirely.
- Large ships have the new knock-back cannon. So they can time their SCB charging with a knock back effect to make it impossible for nimble enemies to aim their fixed rail gun. Yes this works for bullseye NPCs as well. And larger less nimble ships with fixed weapons are easy to dodge just by flying with a modicum of skill.
- And finally the rail gun hit rate may be slower than the charge time for SCBs. A shooter also has no idea when you will hit the SCB button. So just getting into a turning war, or boosting behind them while popping SCB might be sufficient to make it nearly impossible for them to get you in that short window.
Granted it's going to take most people a LONG time to realize there are obvious work arounds like these, and even longer to get the skill to use them while popping a heat sink. But not too worry, you'll soon have CMDR co-pilots who can handle the timing of the SCBs and heatsinks perfectly.
Thanks Frontier for making combat a little more interesting, and forcing people to rely on skill rather than magic potions to win a fight.
I've got one major issue with all of this; If one particular setup (ie. stealth rails) is vastly superior to anything else, it forces the player to either adopt that strategy or in the event a hard counter is available adopt it instead. This doesn't create MORE variety, it just adjusts which ship/module combinations are overpowered at the time. Granted there will always be at least one ship/module combination that's better than others (Games like ED are inherently imbalanced) but the effect can be mitigated by reducing the number of binary counters (100% success without/100%failure with). We already have double-chaff hard-countering gimbals and shields/countermeasures 100% countering missiles. Very few people would seriously consider either for PvP. At least chaff wears out after a couple minutes, and NPCs aren't hip to the idea of double chaff so gimbals are perfectly viable in PvE at least. Nobody in their right mind bothers with missiles though, and that's partly due to the poor combat endurance, which is only compounded by the idiotic binary hard-counter rendering them useless against anything with countermeasures.
Limiting the number of binary counters and overpowered modules that flat-out REQUIRE a given binary counter to oppose helps keep variety alive in the game.
Try to dodge rail gun in anything larger than a Viper and tell me how that went.
Rail gun isn't hard to land at all.
Fair enough, I hate OP rails with now endless ammo as much as the next guy. But we don't even know how much damage these do. They could do all thermal damage for all we know, and only be useful to pirates... Or in group PVP.
Also, it's not like there are zero counters to rail DPS. We also have bulkheads and HRPs. And superior flying of course.
Maybe not every shot, but if I want to dodge 1-2 rail hits, I can do it by boosting straight at you. The real problem here is that rail ammo is synthesizable. SCB ammo is not.
Look. I'm not saying I love this new module, but let's give it a chance. If the primary effect is that it forces players to get better, then maybe some will even get good enough to feel comfy playing in Open. You know, right after they nerf this rail gun (yeah it's going to happen, guaranteed.)
Last edited:
We definitely don't have all the information yet that's for sure. This particular module does strike me as potentially overpowered compared to the others we know about, though it may turn out to have serious drawbacks that reduce it to niche status (as it wouldn't fit in as well with the HRP meta if it for example did 30% damage to hull). For all we know though there could be something potentially worse leering at us with rheumy eyes and shaggy unkempt hair from the future Beta...
The best thing to do would be to wait for Beta, but shrieking like a bunch of harpies at the first sign of trouble is just human nature.
I don't think it's human nature, I mean plenty of us don't.
It doesn't take much to know we don't have all the information at this time, and that balancing a game means considering the whole rather than considering one thing in isolation.
Last edited:
This approach is risking another step towards Top Trump combat IMHO. You turn up to a fight, outfitted for X, but unfortunately, your opponent is outfitted for Y, so you're no where near as effect as you could be, so have little choice to run.
Consider someone interdicts you. You have no shields as you've beefed up your hull. They've filled their boots with missiles, which cause carnage to your hull... so you run.
So you change your build, and now have shields, SCBs and point defense to overcome missile spam. You're interdicted by somenoe spamming Feedback Cascade beams...
And so it goes on...
Everyone goes for all or nothing in their outfitting, therefore out trumping their victim, or leaving themselves little choice but to to run...
That's my concern....
ps: And worse still, the game still risks leaving PvP builds completely different to PvE builds to yet further divide CMDRs.
Last edited:
Three thoughts: 1) At least the above adds variety to combat, rather than just 'whatever the current pvp meta is', 2) the alternative is that people start to outfit 'jack-of-all-trades' ships to counter the uncertainty, and the disparity between pvp and pve builds is actually reduced, 3) Running from combat isn't a bad thing either - more people run for self-preservation things like damage, fuel and rebuy costs can be increased form the current low levels, 4) ECM & Point defence against missiles is kinda how I've always imagined ship-to-ship combat should be (hi Starshatter!
) so that's fine by me.Having said that, I do think that, as stands, the Cascade weapon looks ridiculously OP. And it does also seem like Frontier have lost any clear plot or picture as to what they wanted combat to be and are now just chucking any old idea in in a knee-jerk reaction to the last bad idea.
Last edited:
Three thoughts: 1) At least the above adds variety to combat, rather than just 'whatever the current pvp meta is', 2) the alternative is that people start to outfit 'jack-of-all-trades' ships to counter the uncertainty, and the disparity between pvp and pve builds is actually reduced, 3) Running from combat isn't a bad thing either - more people run for self-preservation things like damage, fuel and rebuy costs can be increased form the current low levels, 4) ECM & Point defence against missiles is kinda how I've always imagined ship-to-ship combat should be (hi Starshatter!
Having said that, I do think that, as stands, the Cascade weapon looks ridiculously OP. And it does also seem like Frontier have lost any clear plot or picture as to what they wanted combat to be and are now just chucking any old idea in in a knee-jerk reaction to the last bad idea.
Understood... But...
1) At least the above adds variety to combat, rather than just 'whatever the current pvp meta is'
At least the curreny PvP meta is fairly limited. What if it now simply shatters into a number of different equally effective outfits, but only of course only effect when the othe player hasn't (by chance) got the appropriate setup to counter it.
2) the alternative is that people start to outfit 'jack-of-all-trades' ships to counter the uncertainty, and the disparity between pvp and pve builds is actually reduced,
Maybe... But the temptation for PvP may always be to put your eggs into one effective basket, rather than spread them so you're not strong in any.
3) Running from combat isn't a bad thing either - more people run for self-preservation things like damage, fuel and rebuy costs can be increased form the current low levels,
True, but given the game's minimal (non) attempt at orchestrating/organising consensual PvP, having to a leave a battle more often because an enemy has module X and you're set up to defend mainly against Y might get even more frustrating...
4) ECM & Point defence against missiles is kinda how I've always imagined ship-to-ship combat should be (hi Starshatter!
) so that's fine by me.Understood, but then the meta moves to Cutters interdicting you with 7 missile launchers, so you beef up you shields, fit SCBs, and fit not one, but four point defense, then only to be met by Mr Beam Cascade, so a lot of you efforts are now pointless. ie: Your hull could have been 1000 more powerful, but instead you've got loads invested in worthless point defense units, and a shield you're going to lose at the first SCB.
I just hope this does create subtle variety in combat, and not Top Trumps combat...
Last edited:
True, i hope we get our hands on those modded rails in the beta to see what the tradeoff is,
i guess basic hull dmg and module damage.
Did you recon, the pp "cytoscrambler" does deal hull damage,
but it is so super low it is not worth being put into the equation,
however that particular weapon has 0 module damage.
Tried to pirate with it keeping the target alive, it died to hull dmg, before
a single module went to 99% due to cytos.
If this mod makes the rail into an anti-shield SCB counter with decreased hull dmg
but keeping module dmg i'd be more than happy to grab it in live.
I'll wholeheartedly agree with you there. We don't have subtlety now though, and I am sceptical that throwing 'wacky' new weapons into the mix is the best way forward, rather than better balancing of what we already have. (I still think that combat would be better if stacking of anything (like SCBs, boosters, chaff, pcbs, armour etc.) wasn't allowed on ships, with quality determining effectiveness, rather than sheer number installed).
InMemoriamSirocco
Banned
K, I'll take a Vulture then
Back on topic:
Maybe, instead of shield tanking, a combination of hull tanking and Bi-weave-shield without boosters would be worth a shot. I hear they recharge rather quickly. No SCBs involved.
Last edited:
K, I'll take a Vulture then
Back on topic:
Maybe, instead of shield tanking, a combination of hull tanking and Bi-weave-shield without boosters would be worth a shot. I hear they recharge rather quickly. No SCBs involved.
And tell large ships to screw off? I don't think so.
K, I'll take a Vulture then
Back on topic:
Maybe, instead of shield tanking, a combination of hull tanking and Bi-weave-shield without boosters would be worth a shot. I hear they recharge rather quickly. No SCBs involved.
If you can dodge fire long enough to reboot a biweave, then dodging fire long enough to pop an SCB should be easy.
Last edited:
I want to see a Cutter dodge railgun, I really do.
I concur... TBH, I even think the fixed/gimbal divide creates issues... I would have preferred to see a single unified aiming mechanic combining the two. Where:-
- the gimbal coverage is probably a tad smaller
- the more the angle, the (far) less the damage is done, such that direct ahead fire inflicts (noticeably) the most damage.
Last edited:
I believe it is pointless, brother... the A,B,C of this game is not for everyone.
Even the devs have some problems understanding it.. or maybe ... they, simply, aren't playing their own game.