Should certain weapons be more dangerous?

[ALGOMATIC]

Perhaps I haven't explained myself properly. The reason why some weapons are pre-nerfed and other pre-buffed is because all the weapons and combat related modules were initially tuned with PvP in mind, that's why we have completely silly things (from a verisimilitude point of view) like missiles that are actually firecrackers, shotguns oops frag cannons on spaceships, glorified miniguns that are more powerful in practice than explosive weapons like weapons, weapons range topping out usually at 3km, shield pills, etc etc etc etc etc. And yes, the engineers magical effects just added to the already high level of silliness of this game's combat mechanics.

Nothing in the combat part of the game was made with verisimilitude in mind. All was balanced, ormore precisely was attempted to balance, with PvP in mind (even if that balance attempt didn't achieve the intended results - which I agree they didn't, especially after engineers). But that was not what I was referring to anyway.

The OP asked why missiles, in reality a devastating weapon, is akin to a firecracker in this game. And I was trying to explain him that nothing in the combat part of this game ever had any intent on keeping verisimilitude, everything is just plain gamey in this particular matter in order to facilitate PvP duels or whatnot and trying to keep "skill matters" over "making sense" in this particular aspect of the game. So basically, things in the combat department don't make a slight hint of sense, because they weren't designed to make any.

Hopefully explained myself better this time.

Correct.

That is because npcs can be farmed with prerty much anything, you don't really need missiles etc. They make things more comfortable but are not a neccesity.

In pvp however, as you said, balance is a must, otherwise we are going to end up with 1 meta build for everyone.

 

[askavir]

Correct.

That is because npcs can be farmed with prerty much anything, you don't really need missiles etc. They make things more comfortable but are not a neccesity.

In pvp however, as you said, balance is a must, otherwise we are going to end up with 1 meta build for everyone.

Also, combat being 2 people firing missiles 100km away from each other would not be much fun, so concessions had to be made and FD went the WW2 airplanes route because it's still the era of the most interesting and exciting dogfights.

 

[fu9ar]

Hounds and seakers should get a nurf.
They are click to win weapon with no skill required. They are lethal against any hull tank, mod them with rapid fire and just hold the fire button. Click to win!

The joke is on you, because "hull tanking" isn't a real thing in Elite.

 

[Xae]

In PvE the problem with non-Laser/MC weapons is two issues.

Damage per Capacitor and Sustainability.

Multicannons and Pulse Lasers dominate in both regards.

Since bounty hunting is about chaining engagements with dozens of ships in a row DpC and Sustain are kings.

If bounty hunting was more "whale hunting" and taking down one guy and returning to base it would be different.

Are you talking from expirience or just therotical knowledge?

I fly a hybrid hull tank fas exclusively and I do pvp 100% of my gameplay.
Seakers and hounds are lame weapons in PvP which in itself an activity showcasing skill, since there is no gameplay in pvp.

If you buff the click to win missiles/hounds all the scrubs will be exclusively packing 2-3 of them on any build.

I dont bother with PD or Ecm becsuse I dont want to fight someone who just holds the trigger and spams those crappy weapons.
I dont want to spend a valuable utility spot to defend OP weapon from skilless player.

Tbh and good that it is so, its very rare to see missiles or hounds on a pvp ship. Right now hounds and missiles are mainly used as trolling tool near the station.
A full rapid fire hound/missile conda spamming all its weapons at once on a poor trader 4kms away is an instakill.

If you are refusing to use a counter to something don't complain about it.

I don't hear competitive players in SC2 go "I refuse to build Vikings against Protoss because Colossus is cheese".

Use what works, don't use what doesn't. There is no Bushido in internet pew pew games.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

Lol.. I bet your ammo restock cost more than the bounty was worth!

That is the only problem with missiles. They cost more than fighters!

 

[Notwyn]

"Snip"

If you are refusing to use a counter to something don't complain about it.

I don't hear competitive players in SC2 go "I refuse to build Vikings against Protoss because Colossus is cheese".

Use what works, don't use what doesn't. There is no Bushido in internet pew pew games.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub


That is the only problem with missiles. They cost more than fighters!

Interesting read, thanks for the link.

 

[Achilles7]

If you are refusing to use a counter to something don't complain about it.

I don't hear competitive players in SC2 go "I refuse to build Vikings against Protoss because Colossus is cheese".

Use what works, don't use what doesn't. There is no Bushido in internet pew pew games.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

Utter expedient crap! Your argument assumes that the game in question has no flaws.

My last PvP fight was against a FDL in my twin feedback rail & pacifier FAS....my opponent chose to low wake out to fire off his SCBs...then return. I told him (to paraphrase) "that was a rather cheap move, old boy...definitely not cricket!"

...according to your chosen definition, I'm a 'scrub'!?

However, I always play in the spirit of the game & even though I don't like gimbals or seekers...or reverski...or long range weapons, I'll get on with it & offer my 'gf' at the end win/lose or draw (even though in my head I'm using it in the 'get ed' sense! JOKE!...for the hard of humour) because Frontier have built the game with these 'skill levellers' & ergo - just like Quince money printing, for example - they are valid, fully sanctioned gameplay.

 

[Surprised Brony]

Utter expedient crap! Your argument assumes that the game in question has no flaws.

My last PvP fight was against a FDL in my twin feedback rail & pacifier FAS....my opponent chose to low wake out to fire off his SCBs...then return. I told him (to paraphrase) "that was a rather cheap move, old boy...definitely not cricket!"

...according to your chosen definition, I'm a 'scrub'!?

However, I always play in the spirit of the game & even though I don't like gimbals or seekers...or reverski...or long range weapons, I'll get on with it & offer my 'gf' at the end win/lose or draw (even though in my head I'm using it in the 'get ed' sense! JOKE!...for the hard of humour) because Frontier have built the game with these 'skill levellers' & ergo - just like Quince money printing, for example - they are valid, fully sanctioned gameplay.

That's just a combat tactic. Doesn't matter if you think it's sporting, you're trying to kill each other. In a fight where both sides have agreed to certain rules for an even and skill-measuring bout, you'd have a point. Otherwise, it's just another case of people wanting their views to become the rule.

 

[Fendalton]

Imo if you have to jump out of the fight to fire off SCB's, you've lost the fight.

 

[Xae]

Utter expedient crap! Your argument assumes that the game in question has no flaws.

My last PvP fight was against a FDL in my twin feedback rail & pacifier FAS....my opponent chose to low wake out to fire off his SCBs...then return. I told him (to paraphrase) "that was a rather cheap move, old boy...definitely not cricket!"

...according to your chosen definition, I'm a 'scrub'!?

However, I always play in the spirit of the game & even though I don't like gimbals or seekers...or reverski...or long range weapons, I'll get on with it & offer my 'gf' at the end win/lose or draw (even though in my head I'm using it in the 'get ed' sense! JOKE!...for the hard of humour) because Frontier have built the game with these 'skill levellers' & ergo - just like Quince money printing, for example - they are valid, fully sanctioned gameplay.

There is no objective "spirit of the game"!

That is the point of the article.

What makes your "honor code" valid and someone else's invalid?

There is only one set of rules. The set of rules the game enforces. Everything inside of that is fair game.

If something is too strong or too weak it is the job of the developer to change it.

 

[yolomcbobbinz]

I'd certainly be happy if we had a plasma slug option on missles

 

[Achilles7]

That's just a combat tactic. Doesn't matter if you think it's sporting, you're trying to kill each other. In a fight where both sides have agreed to certain rules for an even and skill-measuring bout, you'd have a point. Otherwise, it's just another case of people wanting their views to become the rule.

There is no objective "spirit of the game"!

That is the point of the article.

What makes your "honor code" valid and someone else's invalid?

There is only one set of rules. The set of rules the game enforces. Everything inside of that is fair game.

If something is too strong or too weak it is the job of the developer to change it.

Firstly Xae, I'm fully aware of the intended narrative in the article, thanks. Secondly, you basically repeated what I said...but with added expediency, disingenuity & 'holier than thou' attitude.

Ideally, Wheaton's Law should be the overarching maxim in all games; I provided one example where I believe another player stepped over this line & other examples that are fine, despite my personal feelings.

Let me knock you from your 'That is illogical, Captain' Spock-like stance for a moment & remind you that we are human beings & that this is a game...played for fun - something that is often lost on over-serious, humourless dorks who speak about banal technical parts/rules of the game like they are at a UN conference on human rights.

Of course the 'spirit of the game' is not laid down in the rules & is subjective...but such concepts are still relevant to other similar activities like sports. Take football, for example - & I'm talking about the 'football' where one predominantly use ones feet to manipulate the ball *cough* as in FOOT-BALL - not a weird, contrived drawn-out British bulldog/rugby amalgam! - there are the rules laid down by the Football Association, but there is also an unwritten 'code' that players generally follow; when a player appears to be injured, the opposing team will invariably put the ball out of play & correspondingly, the team whose player was injured will then give the ball back to the other team from the thow-in....this is not mandatory, but the 'spirit of the game' dictates the actions of both sides.

Referring to the above analogy in relation to Elite, with the 'wake out to use SCB' scenario in my previous post - ask yourself how would you react, bearing in mind your own humanity & personality balanced with the aforementioned article. I think it is highly unlikely that you would have a laissez-faire attitude to this event & think 'well that's not expressly forbidden in the rules, hence I'm okay with it!'.

There are many other examples in the history of the Elite including use of heat weapons, pad-blocking, station ramming etc etc to cause destruction/inconvenience to players - all within the rules...but only a bottom hole-retentive, officious would maintain that these examples are acceptable behaviour, while pointing to the rule book!

In conclusion, although somewhat intangible, there is a 'right way' to play a game & a 'wrong way', despite the article you referenced.

 

[GunnerBill]

Why would someone need to lo-wake to use a SCB?

 

[Troy_McClure]

Why would someone need to lo-wake to use a SCB?

To avoid having it countered by feedback railguns

 

[StiTch]

Hopefully explained myself better this time.

You have, but you still aren't correct. There isn't a hint of evidence weapons are initially balanced for PvP.

None of the weapons were ever going to make sense from a realisuhm perspective. We're talking about a game that has speed limits in space because it makes combat more engaging. It's about as far from a "space simulator" as it gets.

What I do notice is simply that PvE players frequently complain when equipment is balanced because it takes away their "press a button and blow up a ship" experience, and point the finger at PvPers out of spite. Sorry, but challenging and/or engaging combat is absolutely not just a PvP thing; the devs have every right to at least attempt to implement it for all players.

Oh, and a friendly piece of information: if we were looking at this realistically, missiles would actually be completely useless. The fundament of an explosion is an incredibly rapid expansion of hot air (also an applicable description for some of the folk around here); in the cold vacuum of space, that hot air dissipates immediately. You could probably hope to knock out a small satellite or sensors, but to actually melt through a ship's hull? The only way an explosion could be truly effective would be to penetrate the ship surface - so ironically, penetrator dumbfires should be the only working missile we have. And while the range we have on ours would be appalling, I see no reason that large frag cannons wouldn't be a usable tool in orbit-based space warfare.

The joke is on you, because "hull tanking" isn't a real thing in Elite.

Cool story bro.

Next.

 

[GunnerBill]

To avoid having it countered by feedback railguns

Cheers!

So avoiding someones magic weapon is against the spirit of the game?

Sounds like some players want a little bit too much for themselves!

 

[Troy_McClure]

Cheers!

So avoiding someones magic weapon is against the spirit of the game?

Sounds like some players want a little bit too much for themselves!

LOL yeah this argument is getting mighty complex now!

I can just hear the other guy (while waking out) "You cheating feedback cascade spamming barsteward!!" [squeeeee]

 

[ROSS-128]

You have, but you still aren't correct. There isn't a hint of evidence weapons are initially balanced for PvP.

None of the weapons were ever going to make sense from a realisuhm perspective. We're talking about a game that has speed limits in space because it makes combat more engaging. It's about as far from a "space simulator" as it gets.

What I do notice is simply that PvE players frequently complain when equipment is balanced because it takes away their "press a button and blow up a ship" experience, and point the finger at PvPers out of spite. Sorry, but challenging and/or engaging combat is absolutely not just a PvP thing; the devs have every right to at least attempt to implement it for all players.

Oh, and a friendly piece of information: if we were looking at this realistically, missiles would actually be completely useless. The fundament of an explosion is an incredibly rapid expansion of hot air (also an applicable description for some of the folk around here); in the cold vacuum of space, that hot air dissipates immediately. You could probably hope to knock out a small satellite or sensors, but to actually melt through a ship's hull? The only way an explosion could be truly effective would be to penetrate the ship surface - so ironically, penetrator dumbfires should be the only working missile we have. And while the range we have on ours would be appalling, I see no reason that large frag cannons wouldn't be a usable tool in orbit-based space warfare.




Cool story bro.

Next.

Fragmentation warheads are a thing, though arguably those would be more properly classified as kinetic damage.

Nuclear warheads are also a thing, though in space their damage is more appropriately classified as thermal. Though I also know we're not slinging nukes because when your engagement range is 3km, even a measly 1km flash zone (ie the range where it can fry you with thermal damage alone) is pretty significant.

Finally, since our warheads require a direct hit to do damage, it is possible that they have some configuration such as a squash-head, APHE, or a bunker-buster warhead that detonates directly on/inside the hull to ensure the blast is transmitted directly into the ship. Or it could even be a contact-detonated shaped charge.

And of course there's KKVs, though like frag missiles those would be more appropriately classed as kinetic and in-game missiles don't reach KKV speeds.

So there's plenty of options for functional missile warheads, especially if you're going for direct hits anyway.

 

[StiTch]

So there's plenty of options for functional missile warheads, especially if you're going for direct hits anyway.

Nuclear missiles would not deal thermal damage so much as "radiation damage"; i.e. the radiation emitted would mess with many sensors and equipment. The reaction itself may cause more damage than a bog standard explodey missile we're used to now, but ultimately I suspect missiles would all face the same issue: they have to be launched across relatively massive distances against ships that probably have every form of point defense under the sun (if you'll excuse that legendary pun). Should missile-based weaponry appear to become prominent I suspect kinetic/flak screen defenses and scramblers in various forums would become staple, and definitely not restricted to four on a massive ship. Actually, point defense is probably the earliest practical application of lasers in space combat.

With the technology we understand at the moment, the concept behind flak weaponry would probably be prominent. You're probably correct in that it would be launched from projectiles - perhaps similar to what was tried with real life rail guns, whereby the projectile effectively launches shot over a large area. It's easy to shoot a few missiles down; it's not so easy when those projectiles instead launch a wall of metal pieces.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

The joke is on you, because "hull tanking" isn't a real thing in Elite.

Lolwut?

 

[ALGOMATIC]

If you are refusing to use a counter to something don't complain about it.

I don't hear competitive players in SC2 go "I refuse to build Vikings against Protoss because Colossus is cheese".

Use what works, don't use what doesn't. There is no Bushido in internet pew pew games.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub


That is the only problem with missiles. They cost more than fighters!

I am not refusing for anything, you want to bring a missle boat to a pvp fight, be my guest, you will probably win vs a hull tank with pointing and holding the fire key. If thats how you want to win, go ahead.
I would think a pvp fight would invovle more than 1 button point and hold. Its not an exploration activity after all.