While I applaud the efforts of the OP to give constructive advice, no. The issue is not that players are doing it wrong (of course any activity can always be done in a better way), it is that the new AI rules have fundamentally changed the core game, and it needs to be changed back.
The changes put in in 2.1 expose the 'magic' that AI require to be able to compete against a human. If the AI's combat tactics require them to magically respawn with 100% hull, to just happen to be in that unpopulated system because you have cargo where before there was no sign of them, or for the entire NPC population of the galaxy to behave differently when a Cmdr is around, then it should be much, much more complex than it is to be acceptable.
The AI was going to be better, but it isn't. It's just harder without being more intelligent. It doesn't follow any more believable rules than before, and in many ways seems rather less believable than before.
The best film score is one you don't notice because it feels natural. Most of ED does this really well, but the new AI just tears you out of your imagination with it's gameyness. We are being played.
If a player is looking for a harder combat challenge against the AI, this can be added to the existing framework with higher threat level signal sources or more challenging missions without affecting the core game. Not up to the challenge today? Don't drop into a threat level 5 in your T-6. Fancy a challenge in your bounty hunter ship? Take that special mission & carry some cargo too.
Advice on how to play better is all well and good but you should be able to learn your skills & coping mechanisms in-game.
honestly, If you approached all activities in the game as being risky then 2.1 would not have been a serious issue for you. The cheating NPC's would not have been such a big deal compared to the useless NPC's.
But we didn't: We got very complacent. Almost every death I suffered after 2.1 was due to me being cocky, not paying attention, not treating combat as risky enough, or reading a book.
Faced with being shocked out of that complacency, some people don't handle self-criticism very well. Every pilot who had a rude awakening has mentally answered this question:
"I was Elite before, now I die constantly: Ergo the computer is outright cheating cheating"
"I was Elite before, now I die constantly: Ergo this game is too hard and no fun"
"I was Elite before, now I die constantly: Ergo I must be a lot less skilled than I thought and I need to kick my ego to the kerb, get back into a Sidewinder, admit that it was a turkey-shoot, and learn how to fly, because I am still clearly a n00b, even after 6 months of playing!"
Option 'C' is not an answer we like to tell ourselves. It defies the ego, and a whole slew of perception biases.
It'd been interesting watching, psychologically!
But we didn't: We got very complacent. Almost every death I suffered after 2.1 was due to me being cocky, not paying attention, not treating combat as risky enough, or reading a book.
Faced with being shocked out of that complacency, some people don't handle self-criticism very well. Every pilot who had a rude awakening has mentally answered this question:
"I was Elite before, now I die constantly: Ergo the computer is outright cheating cheating"
"I was Elite before, now I die constantly: Ergo this game is too hard and no fun"
"I was Elite before, now I die constantly: Ergo I must be a lot less skilled than I thought and I need to kick my ego to the kerb, get back into a Sidewinder, admit that it was a turkey-shoot, and learn how to fly, because I am still clearly a n00b, even after 6 months of playing!"
Option 'C' is not an answer we like to tell ourselves. It defies the ego, and a whole slew of perception biases.
It'd been interesting watching, psychologically!
Mbar, consider just putting in a support ticket to have your combat rank reset to whatever the lowest is. This will make all the pew pew trivial, and allow you to keep playing the parts of the game you enjoy(trading, exploration, etc.) Your pew pew rank will advance but not exceed what you can comfortable play I think. The problem now is that many folks are way past what they should be ranked since the AI "leveled up" in 2.1.+rep OP. These look like great tips and I've bookmarked the post.
I think I've had enough though and will just check out the betas when they drop. If I'd wanted continuous pew pew I would have bought Strike Suit Zero.
While I applaud the efforts of the OP to give constructive advice, no. The issue is not that players are doing it wrong (of course any activity can always be done in a better way), it is that the new AI rules have fundamentally changed the core game, and it needs to be changed back.
The changes put in in 2.1 expose the 'magic' that AI require to be able to compete against a human. If the AI's combat tactics require them to magically respawn with 100% hull, to just happen to be in that unpopulated system because you have cargo where before there was no sign of them, or for the entire NPC population of the galaxy to behave differently when a Cmdr is around, then it should be much, much more complex than it is to be acceptable.
The AI was going to be better, but it isn't. It's just harder without being more intelligent. It doesn't follow any more believable rules than before, and in many ways seems rather less believable than before.
The best film score is one you don't notice because it feels natural. Most of ED does this really well, but the new AI just tears you out of your imagination with it's gameyness. We are being played.
If a player is looking for a harder combat challenge against the AI, this can be added to the existing framework with higher threat level signal sources or more challenging missions without affecting the core game. Not up to the challenge today? Don't drop into a threat level 5 in your T-6. Fancy a challenge in your bounty hunter ship? Take that special mission & carry some cargo too.
Advice on how to play better is all well and good but you should be able to learn your skills & coping mechanisms in-game.
A couple things I'd like to add:
If you're in a ship that naturally has weak shields for its size (ie any Fed ship), make sure to use HRPs in your combat loadout. A stock FAS has 540HP, a FAS loaded with HRPs can have a little over 2000HP and about 10%-ish damage reduction while still having room for a fuel scoop and class 5 shield. You'll have to keep an eye on your modules though, in a hull-tank ship those will always go long before your HP does. You can use the surplus HP for ramming, which is helped by the fact that ramming damage is influenced by your weight (heavier ships inflict more ramming damage and receive less).
Regarding SCBs: I'm not sure what causes it, but every now and then there will be an NPC that continuously fires SCBs throughout the fight. It usually happens to Cutters or Pythons, most other NPC ships either don't use SCBs or use them sparingly (ie with enough time to dissipate their heat). When this happens the SCB animation on their ship literally never stops, so you only ever have a 5 second window (the SCB's warm-up time) to drop their shields. I'm pretty sure it's a bug, because under normal circumstances that kind of use would quickly fry the ship and/or run out of SCB ammo. It can be countered by ramming if you're heavy and tanky enough, otherwise if you see it happening just run away, wake out, and make a bug report. Hopefully it will be resolved soon, if we (or FD) can figure out what causes it.
While the OP put a lot of effort into their post and deserve kudos for that, telling people how to adapt around bugs and broken mechanics isn't the best long-term approach. It would be like me writing up a guide on how to work around and with the existence of Dark Zone hackers in The Division, rather than recognising the hacking behavior as complete bullchips and looking to get it fixed. You also lose a lot more when you die to the nonsense in ED than you do in The Division.
The fact that we've had (and in some cases still seem to have) NPC's with super-weapons, super-maneuverability, impossible jump and interdiction mechanics and borked difficulty tables shouldn't be seen as things requiring adaptation unless you are heavily into self-punishment and have a ton of credits in the bank, and even then just no.![]()
This 100%. The actual combat ability of the AI is utterly miserable. You want to know how to beat it? 0 pips to sys, 4 pips to eng, 2 pips to wep and FA off boost circle strafe. Congratulations you win. The real difficulty with the game is not the AI, it's the incredibly stacked odds and sometimes flat out unwinnable situations the game puts players, and ONLY players in.
honestly, If you approached all activities in the game as being risky then 2.1 would not have been a serious issue for you.
Juicer, I totally understand what you're saying, and that is the perception at first, but really they don't cheat in all the ways you've mentioned. I kind of broke down what they do to seem like they cheat, and how you can "cheat" right back at them (e.g. use SCB+heatsinks to appear to have infinite shields, use FA off+boost to outturn them).
Engineer modded gear, only Deadly and Elite NPCs get those.
The simple fix for all of the above, if you prefer not to have to "git gud" is to put in a support ticket and ask FD to reset your combat rank. This will make the combat trivial again, and allow you to rank up agains the new tougher AI, which will set the game difficulty level appropriately for your play style. If you choose not to adapt, you won't progress in rank and so you won't have to face NPCs with engineer modded ships etc. It's a reasonable approach IMO to kind of get back to where you were before, and allows you to enjoy a lighter version of combat while still allowing more challenge for those who retain their combat rank and modify their play styles.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I get what you're trying to say, but if you literally do what you said there in any of the videos I posted, you wouldn't win. I could be wrong, post a video of a similar scenario vs Deadly or Elite NPCs and just 0/4/2 and FA off non-stop boost and see how it works out. Even if you could win that way, would you want to, or would you rather win decisively and quickly.
What are some of those impossible / unwinnable situations you feel the game puts us in? Maybe someone can provide some insight into how to address them? Maybe we've run into them as well and have figured something out?
But I also cannot see any harm in having a npc difficulty setting while playing in solo. Or for groups to have a group level npc difficulty setting. And of course monetary reward could be linked to set difficulty.
The signal to noise ratio here would be much improved if more people thought this way.Keep in mind that concrete info and examples are more useful than theory (e.g. a link to a coriolis.io build rather than just saying "Python is OP now")
*SNIP*
You switch your axis of movement with each boost. You roll 90 degrees, causing most fixed weapons to miss leaving you with having to tank turrets, which you can defeat with chaff or avoid the side of the ship they are mounted on. Occasionally the NPCs will reverse thrust, which requires you to reset the strafing motions by boosting passed them. Once they are locked in though, the AI is too dim whitted to realise it will lose eventually. Occasionally they won't even shoot back, this seems to happen when they have a PAC that they can't get a firing solution with, and they won't open fire with any other weapon until they can shoot the PAC.
As for why you would want to fight that way - you lose less shields than if you were to sling 4 pips to sys and try to actually tank. Since I have rarely been able to out turn a dangerous or above npc and get behind them, as they all FA off perfectly, I find it better to stay in their firing arc but to continuously dodge attacks. You are also better able to weather multiple attackers (but you may still die!), as they won't be able to sit behind and shoot while you get into a tight turning war.