Simple question:
Did the vid creator factor in "drag ammo" engineer effects?
Doesn't look like it.
Did the vid creator factor in "drag ammo" engineer effects?
Doesn't look like it.
problems with permaboost [video]
- Thread starter Badben
- Start date
Oh hey, nice to see my content on here.
As it turns out, my concerns w/r/t the Chieftain were unwarranted, as they seem to have given it an FAS flight profile and similarly good stats.
Permaboost is still an issue however.
I was under the impression that drag ammo only affected standard flight performance, not boost performance?
As it turns out, my concerns w/r/t the Chieftain were unwarranted, as they seem to have given it an FAS flight profile and similarly good stats.
Permaboost is still an issue however.
I was under the impression that drag ammo only affected standard flight performance, not boost performance?
It certainly limits the max speed of normal and boost to having 0 pips in eng,
might need to be looked into again, since several iterations of the game came out
after my last real test in the betas.
What do you mean avoid? Outside extreme ends of the spectrum of opposing ships, every ship can always face another and no ship can ever get behind another, precisely because they can both boost whenever they need to.
In essentially every PvP scenario, everyone can permaboost. It doesn't matter much if it's poorly timed, because you can just do it again. It's not like you have to wait fifteen seconds or move pips to ENG for a protracted period of time.
It's probably been more than a year since my CMDR has been shot at by another who had less than +30% to the worst recharge stat on their A rated distributor.
The drag munitions effect only affects non-boost thruster performance and doesn't change distributor charge rates.
Near permanent boost ability is precisely why drag munitions aren't terribly good.
Last edited:
Even if drag munitions were a viable workaround, that doesn't actually solve the imbalance issues that perma-boost creates. It just artificially limits your loadout if you want to counter it, and is pretty terrible as a "solution" to a balance problem.
Last edited:
Yep. Confirming that drag munitions just make the ship's non-boosting flight characteristics behave as though there were 0 engine pips. Boosting completely negates the effect, and flying one of the many ships who's performance doesn't change much with eng pips mitigates it.
I've actually been thinking about what boosting has become, it's affect on combat, and how to fix it. I really dislike how the rising ability of boosting has eroded a lot of the pros and cons of various ships and weapons, and I dislike the "ping-pong" spastic psudo-jousting it's lead to. It has made it excessively easy to recover from mistakes in positioning, and killed a lot of the fun jockeying for position and range control challenges in dog fighting.
It's a tough thing you fix, though. I'd prefer if boosting was something you actually had to think about using in combat, but don't want to make non-combat activities (like closing longer distances to / from stations, etc.) more tedious. The best thing I can think of is this:
Two different kinds of boost. It could with be different kinds of thruster modules, or even better, a sub-module of the thruster (like an SRV bay has) that determines your boost characteristics. The one that gives you a boost like the current one should generate an escalating amount of heat of you use it back to back. Using it once generates a similar amount of heat as it does no. Using it again right away (without waiting for like, a 5-10 second period) would increase the heat it generates by say, 50%. Bigger and bigger heat cost for succesive boosts, unless you give the thrusters time to cool off. It would let you use a few back to back, but then you'd effectively be without boost for a good while as a trade off.
The other boost module would be good for people looking to avoid combat. For this one, you'd just hold down the boost button. It would continuously drain a moderate amount of ENG, and give you a continuous boost. This boost would have mild acceleration (taking a bit longer to get you to your top boost speed, and more importantly only affect your main engines. No boost at all to maneuverability and lateral thrusters, so you're stuck with your "way over the blue zone" handling. Great for running away, going to / from stations or traversing planets, not very useful in a fight.
...so, put this way, i see these arguments as half thruths thrown together in a cause to buff the chieftain. which i don't mind the least! i have not much interest in that ship, but go ahead and buff it. it will not change much in the way more grim reality which has been affecting all ships, steadily, right from the start.
where will this madness end?
The video creator (Alexander the Grape) was actually arguing the exact opposite. He rejected a buff to the Chieftain and suggested a nerf to perma-boosting for all ships to re-balance the game.
I whole heartedly agree with the video. I would love it if FD took the time to look at all ships (in one fell swoop) as part of the Beyond series and re-balance their standard and engineered performance relative to each other. The performance of each ship should be meaningful and distinctive and not be capable of being nulled by engineering.
Last edited:
I like that a lot. As a temporary fix, the heat change could go in much quicker than a full redesign, and accomplish much of the desired goals, too. Maybe mix in an engineering change so that mods that effect ENG capacity/regen are nerfed a little.
Could be interesting to tie boost characteristic to thruster class. Something like:
A-class thrusters give a weaker boost (but you get the A-class non-boost performance)
B-class (the "military" option) gives current boost performance (but with the proposed heat, and normal B-class downsides)
C-class gives the continuous speed-boost (at the cost of non-boosted speed for being C-class)
D and E can boost like A's, already having their roles
Great video with some very good points. It isn't just permaboost though. Ship choice used to mean something. The only solution here is to get rid of engineers for good, or limit them to cosmetics only.
Yeah, THAT'S the reason.
+Rep OP for such a great analysis!
I think the best answer is to remove 50% or more of the advantages that boosting has for lateral thrusters.
Yes, it will be kind of a bummer in some ways, but it's a better solution than the others.
I think the best answer is to remove 50% or more of the advantages that boosting has for lateral thrusters.
Yes, it will be kind of a bummer in some ways, but it's a better solution than the others.
Last edited:
lol, thx, i didn't watch to the end
well, since i don't think permaboost is a problem per-se (just one more symptom of engineer power creep), rebalancing ALL ships just to please the chieftain crowd seems to me the silliest idea ever. like, we definitely haven't learnt anything, do we?
That's the point of his excellent video, though.
Effectively, it has made maneuverable ships redundant because any engineered ship can move like jagger when perma-boosting. Even if I got 2-2-2 to PIPs in my Corvette, by the time it has finished boosting, I can literally boost again a second after and have 3x times the agility.
Before Engineers came along, a Viper Mk.III was great because it was so agile - it is still agile (even more so if engineered), but even other ships smaller or even larger than it can turn and fly just as well when perma-boosting.
It has turned boosting into a PvP Meta (edit, yes it can be done in PvE also, but there's no rush) - and the only ships that actually get around this with FA/On or FA/Off are Thargoid ships. Thargoids...
I am wondering if it would benefit the game if there was a "Boost Cooldown" (which can be tailored for each ship) or a much higher "Heat Cost". I'd prefer the former, as this will not impact the recharge of the capacitors (engineered or not), and would allow more control over which ships should have the benefit of boosting more often than others - as it currently stands, boosting is too liberal (and being a liberally minded person, it pains me to say it!).
A cooldown on a per-ship basis would allow greater control balance. Ships that are designed for it (Viper Mk III, for example) should be able to boost more often and have a lower cooldown period for boosting.
If this would affect larger ships too much, then have the boost affect overall maneuverable performance rather than speed (but still get a decent boost speed out of it), but they won't be able to do it so often as a ship designed for it.
So, long story short - Cooldowns per ship to increase balance, yet not affect the recharge of the engines (you just wouldn't be able to boost until your boost cooldown has finished, despite having a full engine capacitor).
Effectively, it has made maneuverable ships redundant because any engineered ship can move like jagger when perma-boosting. Even if I got 2-2-2 to PIPs in my Corvette, by the time it has finished boosting, I can literally boost again a second after and have 3x times the agility.
Before Engineers came along, a Viper Mk.III was great because it was so agile - it is still agile (even more so if engineered), but even other ships smaller or even larger than it can turn and fly just as well when perma-boosting.
It has turned boosting into a PvP Meta (edit, yes it can be done in PvE also, but there's no rush) - and the only ships that actually get around this with FA/On or FA/Off are Thargoid ships. Thargoids...
I am wondering if it would benefit the game if there was a "Boost Cooldown" (which can be tailored for each ship) or a much higher "Heat Cost". I'd prefer the former, as this will not impact the recharge of the capacitors (engineered or not), and would allow more control over which ships should have the benefit of boosting more often than others - as it currently stands, boosting is too liberal (and being a liberally minded person, it pains me to say it!).
A cooldown on a per-ship basis would allow greater control balance. Ships that are designed for it (Viper Mk III, for example) should be able to boost more often and have a lower cooldown period for boosting.
If this would affect larger ships too much, then have the boost affect overall maneuverable performance rather than speed (but still get a decent boost speed out of it), but they won't be able to do it so often as a ship designed for it.
So, long story short - Cooldowns per ship to increase balance, yet not affect the recharge of the engines (you just wouldn't be able to boost until your boost cooldown has finished, despite having a full engine capacitor).
Last edited:
Well it'd be a hard counter, as nearly all engineered effects are.
Hard counters lead to fitting meta,
soft counters lead to skill improval.
Video speaks for itself. I wish to put down my little +1 here, in case some brass from the FD may be paying attention and would like to take note.
I would hope that they do.
I never really thought about it until I watched the video, but that permaboosting really could be the reason there is no variety in PvP cause if every ship is the same all it takes is the best shields/loadout to make it work and just boost around the corners.
I never really thought about it until I watched the video, but that permaboosting really could be the reason there is no variety in PvP cause if every ship is the same all it takes is the best shields/loadout to make it work and just boost around the corners.
Agreed. I had a longer post there about the problems of "hard counters", but I deleted it because I couldn't help but go off-topic with examples about shield cells and mega shields, and their own hard counters.