Nerf Reverski

[Powderpanic]

So the Reverski kings with the angry negative replies.

At no point did I say REMOVE Reverse for ships.

You will still be able to fly backwards after a nerf

Also, your big ships will still handle like fighters, even with a reverski nerf.

Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefers

 

[voidwalker]

Nothing in this game actually handles like a fighter.

This is how a fighter handles.

[video=youtube_share;q67n29B14O4]https://youtu.be/q67n29B14O4[/video]

This is how an OLD fighter handles

[video=youtube_share;7ppbljl42K0]https://youtu.be/7ppbljl42K0[/video]

 

[Powderpanic]

Nothing in this game actually handles like a fighter.

This is how a fighter handles.

https://youtu.be/q67n29B14O4

This is how an OLD fighter handles

https://youtu.be/7ppbljl42K0

A spaceship pew pew fighter

Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefers

 

[philngraves]

IMO, I'm not personally seeing the problem. I do see a problem with combat in general being very static with a lot of face tanking going on, but I'm also seeing supposed combat spacecraft with less agility than a fully-loaded Su-25T. So maybe what's needed here, instead of a nerf, is a massive buff across the board for all ships. Twice the speed, twice the agility, on all axes. Because my fastest spacecraft is a lightweight Viper III with 743m/s boost. That's only Mach 2.2, IN SPACE. That's not even orbital velocity. There are planes today a lot faster than that.

But your average small combat ship is going to get boost speeds between 400-500m/s with DD5. 500m/s = 1800km/h. Mach 1, the speed of sound, is 1193km/h at sea level. Average combat ships aren't even getting Mach 1. Ace Combat is literally more realistic than Elite Dangerous and a much more exciting game for aerial combat.

Additionally, I can get tighter turns with an Su-25T fully loaded for SEAD in DCS than I can with a completely stripped down Eagle. Why?

Every single ship in this game is too slow and not agile enough. Double everything at least. Hell, triple it. Buffs all around. Enough with the nerfs. Nerfs are dumb.

The issue with your suggestion is that, the more speed we aquire, the more the weapons will have to be buffed to keep up with the speed. Eventually, combat will be forced to degenerate into two options:
1. High speed burst damage joust matches with fast ships.
2. BVR combat with large ships.

Jousting is tedious and lacks any real dogfighting mechanics... You would just shoot while accelerating, then try to slow down. You and your opponent will be 20 km away from each other, just to turn and do it again.

BRV (Beyond Visual Range) is like what you have with modern combat. Sensors. Lock target. Fire at target that is so far away you can't see them. Wait for hit confirmation. Repeat if necesarry.

I agree that reverse should be throttled (her her, thats a pun) down a bit. Removing the blue seems like a damn simple way to start. Still, I think addressing HP inflation should be by far the first thing on the list. But thats just me.

 

[StiTch]

Because its a legit move that frustrates attackers and other n'er-do-wells. Yet again we have the aggressor attempting to dictate the boundaries of PvP / PvE by limiting the abilities of those that want to survive. Many players are not in ED just to pew-pew, there is a whole spectrum of players who are doing "other things" and PvP is just an event within their story. Let them play the way they want by not imposing your game on them.

There's absolutely squat here in terms of substantiated reasoning. You've basically defended god mode mechanics using an overt attack on an entire playerbase.

I am starting to see a pattern here...

How's that for a reason?

1/10.

 

[philngraves]

Nothing in this game actually handles like a fighter.

This is how a fighter handles.

https://youtu.be/q67n29B14O4

This is how an OLD fighter handles

https://youtu.be/7ppbljl42K0

I get that you are trying to point out the lack of proper physics, but referencing atmo flight sims doesn't do anything to help. Frontier went for dogfighting, sure, but it was in space. Nothing about space combat lends itself to dogfighting lol.
Space combat is ideal for BVR tactics and weapons. No resistances, extreme cold, black. Perfect conditions for sensor based long range smart weapons.
Frontier is literally making up their own style for the sake of playability.

 

[Powderpanic]

Because its a legit move that frustrates attackers and other n'er-do-wells. Yet again we have the aggressor attempting to dictate the boundaries of PvP / PvE by limiting the abilities of those that want to survive. Many players are not in ED just to pew-pew, there is a whole spectrum of players who are doing "other things" and PvP is just an event within their story. Let them play the way they want by not imposing your game on them.

How's that for a reason?

Where did I mention PVP?

Its a GLOBAL game problem.

Its nearly on par with boosting in a straight line defeats 99% of NPC's

Gweafers dont need to fly backwards to gank and our ganks dont last long enough to worry about it.

Powderpanic
The Voice of Griefers

 

[CMDR CPT. Boris]

You are used to flight model
I'm used to the flight model
Everyone is used to the flight model
I like the flight model
I don't want the flight model to change

Cmdr Cpt Boris
Just my voice

 

[voidwalker]

My dude, I'm not talking about buffing speed and agility by a million, I'm talking at least double what they are now, triple at the most. And I know what BVR is. I would be entirely open to BVR gameplay in Elite. I've become quite adept at sneaking up on F-15Cs with AMRAAMS with Su-27s using IRST and R-27ET missiles in DCS. It would add a potential new stealth layer to the game, maybe even make silent running combat ships more worthwhile.

And for the record, the majority of BVR engagements IRL and simulated end with a visual range engagement. It becomes more and more likely as you increase the numbers of the engagement. They say an F-22 can engage and shoot down 6 to 8 planes before they even know he's there. That's only true if all those missiles can find their target, and Su-27 pilots know damn well to keep their radars off in an engagement against an American plane, and they have the best ECM systems in the world as well. There will still be close range engagements because BVR can be evaded, and not without too much difficulty I might add.

 

[Aashenfox]

I get that you are trying to point out the lack of proper physics, but referencing atmo flight sims doesn't do anything to help. Frontier went for dogfighting, sure, but it was in space. Nothing about space combat lends itself to dogfighting lol.
Space combat is ideal for BVR tactics and weapons. No resistances, extreme cold, black. Perfect conditions for sensor based long range smart weapons.
Frontier is literally making up their own style for the sake of playability.

You're on a roll today Phil, much virtual rep. How this escapes people is beyond me. It is worthless comparing to real space cos that would be no fun, it is worthless to compare to a flight sim cos elite is not a flight sim.

We work with what we've got and we try to make it better.

 

[Ashnak]

Nothing in this game actually handles like a fighter.

Because this game (i.e. ED) doesn't have atmospheric fighters. It doesn't have atmospheres in those places where you can fly. In most of the places you will likely be fighting, it doesn't even have any appreciable gravity.

Put your fighter into space, and even if it could provide thrust (through some magic in the engines), your pitiful thrust vectoring won't even let you land at a station, quite apart from letting you fly around one.

EDs flight model is a compromise between physical and gameplay - and as a compromise, it means that neither party is happy with it. The art of a compromise isn't making everyone happy - it is to make everybody equally unhappy . A realistic flight model would make this game rather boring in terms of space combat - try Kerbal for that.
Instead, you get
- top speed locked to a local inertial frame
- local inertial frame switches apruptly (clearly visible when you approach a station or RES in SC)
- speed limit is way below what would be neccessary for real orbital mechanics

A realistic simulation would be extremely boring - EDs universe does not have antigravity, so in order to accelerate from a ground port to orbital velocity at human reasonable acceleration (and I'm not even talking passenger missions here...) would take you something like 3 to 5 minutes (on a 1 g world). Just to get into a stable orbit.

 

[voidwalker]

....we try to make it better.

Better for whom?

 

[JohnRoberts]

So, if reverski gets nerfed, would this lead to a significant reduction in our ability to slow down? I can image in the howls of protest the day that patch drops, as everyone explodes on the back wall of the station.

Or will Newton's Second Law only apply if the ship's heading is currently aligned with its velocity?

 

[Han_Zen]

My dude, I'm not talking about buffing speed and agility by a million, I'm talking at least double what they are now, triple at the most. And I know what BVR is. I would be entirely open to BVR gameplay in Elite. I've become quite adept at sneaking up on F-15Cs with AMRAAMS with Su-27s using IRST and R-27ET missiles in DCS. It would add a potential new stealth layer to the game, maybe even make silent running combat ships more worthwhile.

And for the record, the majority of BVR engagements IRL and simulated end with a visual range engagement. It becomes more and more likely as you increase the numbers of the engagement. They say an F-22 can engage and shoot down 6 to 8 planes before they even know he's there. That's only true if all those missiles can find their target, and Su-27 pilots know damn well to keep their radars off in an engagement against an American plane, and they have the best ECM systems in the world as well. There will still be close range engagements because BVR can be evaded, and not without too much difficulty I might add.

If you double the speed, you essentially cut the max latency for instancing in half. Space will feel emptier.

 

[Aashenfox]

Better for whom?

Better for people who prefer not to 'game' the game and win with skill in the way that was intended (ww2 style dogfight).

 

[voidwalker]

Why? How? Explain.

 

[Aashenfox]

So, if reverski gets nerfed, would this lead to a significant reduction in our ability to slow down? I can image in the howls of protest the day that patch drops, as everyone explodes on the back wall of the station.

Or will Newton's Second Law only apply if the ship's heading is currently aligned with its velocity?

Being a game we are free to decide that! Since both thrust (as an estimation of acceleration in meters per second squared) is a separate metric in a video game to a speed limit, which simply dictates up to what speed that thrust is continually applied.

 

[Aashenfox]

Why? How? Explain.

It's been said already, but sure. Slamming it in reverse and using long range weapons, knowing that your opponent cannot catch you (because your ship is faster) requires no skill. There is an oppotrunity here to negate this tactic or alter it to incorproate skill.

Increasing the skill 'cap' of a video game is always desirable. Of course, just saying 'nerf reverse' doesn't necessarily guarantee a well thought out implementation, but still, the opportunity is there.

 

[Exiton]

OP, already made that suggestion quite some time ago.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/335757-FA-OFF-and-speed-loss-after-boost

 

[Captain N]

A realistic flight model would make this game rather boring in terms of space combat - try Kerbal for that.

No, try Children of a Dead Earth. Kerbal is not a combat game.

CoaDE is actually quite fun. (Time to shill for my favourite game again)

BVR is a funny term to apply to space. Do we define "visual range" by what the human eye can see, or by what the Hubble space telescope can see?