Delete Chaff from the game (and make gimballed weapon weaker)

[Crank Larson]

I just think its wrong game mechanics, when gimbaled build have very different result regarding if opponent have chaff (or two) or dont have any.

Why would you want to take options away? The whole point about different builds is that they have different advantages/disadvantages.

Is that sarcasm really necessary?

1st dilema.... chaff or not, single or dual.... on ships with 4 utility slots yes, its dilema. Not only mine. And also even bigger dilema it is, because dual chaff is much more effective than single. And dual chaff = 2 utility slots, its half of slots of almost every pvp ship (yes, fdl is lucky)

2nd dilema, silent run. You said "absolutely no-one or nothing is preventing you doing it now". You are wrong, somenthing is preventing doing that - if you turn SR, you disable own shields, you dont know? So SR is viable only for hull tanks, and they are, countered already by many ways (packhounds, scramble, HYC, etc .... and incoming enzymes)

Your attitude is like "why you even dare to try create somenthing different, or even better as it is?"

They're not dilemmas, they are choices. You aren't trying to create something different, you are trying to take away choice.

 

[Muzz UK]

I've always wondered what combat would be like with manual lasers and cannons... a lot harder and I guess we'd see a massive increase in the use of homing missiles and projectiles!

Nice idea but the casuals and non combat pilots would not be happy especially given a lot of people finder NPC difficulty hard anyway.

 

[Alex Brentnall]

Was thinking about gimbaled weapon, and... because they have wide fire arc, they should be much smaller and weaker than their fixed variants. Yes i noticed they are weaker as fixed, but not much. And its good because they are countered by chaff, so in current system they are adequate powerfull.
And also... I think a chaff is quite obsolete idea and only silent run shoult be a counter to gimbals.
so....
I think:
1. Delete chaff from the game (I hate it... it waste utility slot(s), need to be timed, it has ammo, and chaffing looks stupid imo)
2. make gimbals weaker, much weaker. I think its fair price for "aim bot" and wider fire arc
Is it stupid idea?

Just to throw a few things out there:

1) Gimbals are already significantly weaker than fixed and turrets are weaker than gimballed. Check here to see https://eddp.co/u/PBdPXBR3
Significant drop off, more on that in the summary..

2) Chaff is very effective in Elite because in space the method of detection is heat. Very easy to pick up heat signatures against a near absolute zero backdrop. Chaff in Elite is hot shavings of metal same as some irl systems, seems logical it'd counter gimballed targeting systems.
Additionally this is the same reason that you drop off sensors and missiles can be distracted by heat sinks.



Overall I don't feel your chaff arguments are compelling. Visually it's fine and fits the lore, it has skill and a limited use so isn't an I-win item if doubled up and promotes a choice on utility slots. Nobody is forced to use it so it's an option you can personally avoid if you wish. The only thing that stands up as an arguement here is the visual look and as above it is as it should be (more or less).


As for gimbals - how much weaker are you wanting them to be? On large pulse lasers it's turret / gimballed / fixed at a ratio of 9.5 / 14.8 / 18.1.... Or to put it another way gimbals loose 18% of damage compared to fixed and turrets loose 47.5% of damage compared to fixed.
I can sort of see an arguement but there are counters to gimballed enemies and there already is a drop-off.

I also disagree that silent running should be the only counter to gimballed. As gimballed can be used in fixed mode by un-targeting you are pretty much saying if anyone faces gimballed enemies they need to throw away their shields.

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

well, given that fixed weapons already do more damageand and gimbals also have less accuracy, isn't that already the offset between them, why would chaff now have to affect them further?

so either make gimballed and fixed the same damage and keep chaff, or no chaff seems to be a better deal than the current double penalty.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Is that sarcasm really necessary?

1st dilema.... chaff or not, single or dual.... on ships with 4 utility slots yes, its dilema. Not only mine. And also even bigger dilema it is, because dual chaff is much more effective than single. And dual chaff = 2 utility slots, its half of slots of almost every pvp ship (yes, fdl is lucky)

2nd dilema, silent run. You said "absolutely no-one or nothing is preventing you doing it now". You are wrong, somenthing is preventing doing that - if you turn SR, you disable own shields, you dont know? So SR is viable only for hull tanks, and they are, countered already by many ways (packhounds, scramble, HYC, etc .... and incoming enzymes)

Your attitude is like "why you even dare to try create somenthing different, or even better as it is?"

There was not an ounce of sarcasm in what I said, and you selectively quoted me and ignored the very first thing I said: FDev had made interesting proposals around this topic in the past, but they were rejected by the community.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

I've always wondered what combat would be like with manual lasers and cannons... a lot harder and I guess we'd see a massive increase in the use of homing missiles and projectiles!

Nice idea but the casuals and non combat pilots would not be happy especially given a lot of people finder NPC difficulty hard anyway.

In older games I was really good with fixed weapons, using lead indicators, etc.
But I also used a joystick (my beloved Sidewinder Force Feedback II...!), which was really accurate.

These days I use a gamepad, and I've tried using fixed with it, but it's just not precise enough. (More so, because it's a knock off Xbox pad. Lol)
So Gimballed weapons are more comfortable for me. But if I ever got a decent desk (or any desk) I'd buy a hotas and go back to fixed i think.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[vrcan]

There was not an ounce of sarcasm in what I said, and you selectively quoted me and ignored the very first thing I said: FDev had made interesting proposals around this topic in the past, but they were rejected by the community.

Yes, i see, you are right, sorry i quoted just part of message, and also, i was wrong with sarcasm.

 

[Rubbernuke]

There should be a greater role for sensor grades full stop, I've always wanted sensors to drive the quality of fire from gimbals and turrets. Currently only A and D get used, which is silly and superficial.

What you need to do is make A grade slightly better than current so its worth the weight and power. When equipped it cuts through chaff better, but has the downside of weight, power use, and perhaps makes silent running impossible due to its huge radar ping output. Or, you could make A grade have the range (but eats power) B grade has more resistance to chaff (but weighs a ton), C is middle of the road, D is light and E is budget.

 

[varonica]

(optionally + silent run which do not disable shield).

I'd like to raise this point. Silent running is, by definition, running with minimum noise and disturbance to avoid detection, originally drawn from submarine warfare;

Silent running is a stealth mode of operation for naval submarines. The aim is to evade discovery by passive sonar by eliminating superfluous noise: nonessential systems are shut down, the crew is urged to rest and refrain from making any unnecessary sound, and speed is greatly reduced to minimize propeller noise.
The propellers have a characteristic RPM band in which no cavitation noise arises. Since this rotation speed is usually relatively low, the first electric submarines had special "silent running" engines designed for optimum performance at reduced speed. These required less active cooling (further reducing noise), and were generally equipped with plain bearings rather than ball bearings. These engines were also acoustically decoupled from the hull, as they employed belt transmission rather than direct coupling to the propeller shaft.
Nuclear submarines can run even more quietly, at very low speeds only, by turning off active reactor cooling during silent running. The reactor is then only cooled by natural convection of the water.

So you are running with minimum power output to avoid detection, but you want full power to the shields? Surely that defeats the entire concept of silent running!

 

[StiTch]

I'd like sensors to play a bigger role in targetting, and tracking, as well as being able to counter countermeasures alittle.

Other than sensor range, there's no point in using A rated.

Sensors modules could do with an overhaul too, they're currently class locked, as a form of mass balancing.
If they become unlocked, but more important to scanners, tracking, and whatnot, they become self balancing again.

So you could install 1D sensors on your Anaconda and save a crap tonne of mass, but you won't be able to detect much beyond your nose, tracking will be practically zero, and scanners would work much slower.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

Agreed.

There is a middle ground here - as usual forumites are very polarised one way or the other.

Simple fact is that gimbals still provide too much effectiveness for their ease of use: they allow you to fire by barely looking at the opponent and provide most of the damage the fixed weapons do. This both advantages lower skill and fails to penalise ships that can subsequently take advantage of the huge manoeuverability advantages associated with not having to stare directly at your opponent...i.e. this is not about "penalising crap players", because it's taken advantage of by unskilled and skilled player alike.

The result is that between two skilled opponents, one sporting fixed and the other gimballed, the gimballed player will typically win even if the fixed player brought hefty amounts of chaff - its supposed counter measure. As such many skilled PvP players fly the skies with 2 or even 3 chaff launchers.

However, I am against reducing the damage figures of gimballed weapons directly, especially with shields in such a strong place.

As such to revisit sensor tracking is a pretty good solution, especially with the new engineering. All it would mean is a) as you say a reason to utilise good sensors and b) no damage potential is lost, but requires player to roughly look at the opponent instead of anywhere in one hemisphere around you. So it's both balancing and engaging.

 

[vrcan]

Just to throw a few things out there:

1) Gimbals are already significantly weaker than fixed and turrets are weaker than gimballed. Check here to see https://eddp.co/u/PBdPXBR3
Significant drop off, more on that in the summary..

2) Chaff is very effective in Elite because in space the method of detection is heat. Very easy to pick up heat signatures against a near absolute zero backdrop. Chaff in Elite is hot shavings of metal same as some irl systems, seems logical it'd counter gimballed targeting systems.
Additionally this is the same reason that you drop off sensors and missiles can be distracted by heat sinks.



Overall I don't feel your chaff arguments are compelling. Visually it's fine and fits the lore, it has skill and a limited use so isn't an I-win item if doubled up and promotes a choice on utility slots. Nobody is forced to use it so it's an option you can personally avoid if you wish. The only thing that stands up as an arguement here is the visual look and as above it is as it should be (more or less).


As for gimbals - how much weaker are you wanting them to be? On large pulse lasers it's turret / gimballed / fixed at a ratio of 9.5 / 14.8 / 18.1.... Or to put it another way gimbals loose 18% of damage compared to fixed and turrets loose 47.5% of damage compared to fixed.
I can sort of see an arguement but there are counters to gimballed enemies and there already is a drop-off.

I also disagree that silent running should be the only counter to gimballed. As gimballed can be used in fixed mode by un-targeting you are pretty much saying if anyone faces gimballed enemies they need to throw away their shields.

I dont agree, Gimbals are not significantly weaker IMO. My idea is about 50-60% dps of fixed version

Chaff is very effective only when used as dual chaff.

I just don not like that mechanics how strongly are gimballed build fights affected by chaff.

I can imagine scenario, where no chaff exist, gimbaled weapons has just half damage of fixed, but that damage is always available and cant be countered by somenthing like chaff

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

Oh btw, another possibility might be giving gimballed wepaons a shortcut option to put them into a fixed state. that way people could use them against chaff spamming targets.

I am by nature a very lazy person so i stuff my cutter with turrets (also because it's cool aving little autoaiming things doing stuff for me) but I never considered gimballed ones. I either use a huge fixed wepaon additionally to the turres or simply switch my turrets to "fixed" when an annoying chaffer apperas. but sicne gimbal lacks that ability they never have gotten interested for me.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

When a lock is lost because of chaff or low heat, turrets should stop firing and gimbals should shoot where aimed (as fixed).

That would be better than the current random firing arcs followed by 'unlock target' to fire as fixed process.

 

[vrcan]

Oh btw, another possibility might be giving gimballed wepaons a shortcut option to put them into a fixed state. that way people could use them against chaff spamming targets.

I am by nature a very lazy person so i stuff my cutter with turrets (also because it's cool aving little autoaiming things doing stuff for me) but I never considered gimballed ones. I either use a huge fixed wepaon additionally to the turres or simply switch my turrets to "fixed" when an annoying chaffer apperas. but sicne gimbal lacks that ability they never have gotten interested for me.

Nice point with turret feature to set them as fixed.
I forgot about that. WIth gimbaled its no way to use them as fixed by unselecting target, in the case of projectile weapons (MCs, cannons).
I think this topic is quite out of effect (sorry i dont know explain in english what i mean) because PvP has probably completely different point of view and those who are not experienced in PVP in (i am not telling its wrong) can not understand what i am talking about and what are my dilemas.

 

[StiTch]

When a lock is lost because of chaff or low heat, turrets should stop firing and gimbals should shoot where aimed (as fixed).

That would be better than the current random firing arcs followed by 'unlock target' to fire as fixed process.

Actually it's a pretty good system because it's engaging, challenging and immersive.

It's pretty much what we'd expect chaff to do for a start - I hate using realism as a balance point in a futuristic space game, but this is one rare moment we're drawing from current (well, now slightly old) tech. It doesn't cause locks to be lost, it causes the tracking to have no bloody idea what's going on; it would be receiving signals (false positives) from a myriad directions.

It also gives the player a choice in combat. At closer ranges against bigger ships, it might be worth retaining lock and resuming fire, as most of your shots will hit. This subsequently allows you to retain targeting on subsystems. Alternatively you can go to fixed firing, but lose the lock - this means having to blindfire instead of magically being told where to fire to hit their subsystems, in the middle of having targeting disrupted.

There's absolutely no reason to give chaff yet another advantage. Let its one actual countermeasure actually work, if ya don't mind.

Fun fact: iirc both the Brits and Germans developed chaff technology independently during the war, and both kept it up their sleeves until the Brits finally broke it out years later; we were both under the impression we were keeping the tech secret until the perfect moment to take advantage of it.

 

[Crank Larson]

Oh btw, another possibility might be giving gimballed wepaons a shortcut option to put them into a fixed state. that way people could use them against chaff spamming targets.

They already have this. With nothing targeted, your gimbals act as fixed weapons.

 

[Drelthar]

Yes it's a terrible idea.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Chaff is a very important defensive module for smaller ships. They'd be almost completely screwed without it.

If chaff is annoying you, install missiles.

This is 100% right.

The game's all about pros and cons of loadout, and chaff has counters. When an opponent chaffs, you can:

-Use missiles
-Use fixed weapons
-Unlock your target (which is essentially the same mechanic as the silent running you're suggesting, OP)

The problem with the silent running counter is that you only have to plink the target with a single emissive round and you're back in business.

I get the impression you already know this, OP, so why the appeal?

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

Nice point with turret feature to set them as fixed.
I forgot about that. WIth gimbaled its no way to use them as fixed by unselecting target, in the case of projectile weapons (MCs, cannons).
I think this topic is quite out of effect (sorry i dont know explain in english what i mean) because PvP has probably completely different point of view and those who are not experienced in PVP in (i am not telling its wrong) can not understand what i am talking about and what are my dilemas.

See, and if gimballed had a possibility to be set as fixed, like turrets have they could enter fixed aim mode working exactly like fixed wepaons. I also wonder if chaff scrambles targetting, wouldnt thsi eman the normal target leading circle of fixed wepaons should start to be inaccurate as well? because it makes no sense that the pc can in case of turrets/gimballs not grip the target right, but can correctly set lead fire vectors on a target.

They already have this. With nothing targeted, your gimbals act as fixed weapons.

thats only true for lasers but not for anythgin requiring lead fire. Further it's not liek with turrets who go fixed and youc na still target the opponent.

 

[JesusRocks1988]

I'm confused... OP starts off by saying gimbals are in a good place power-wise because they're countered by chaff.

But then goes onto say that chaff should be removed and gimbals weakened... Wat?

Why change the chaff/gimbal relationship when they're in a good place already?