Nerf Reverski

[voidwalker]

So basically, people you have defined as 'skilled' based on your subjective definition. Okay, gotcha.

If you want WWII dogfights, I can give you that. 200 hours in Spitfire and 130 in a Mustang on DCS. We'll have to get rid of predictive gunsights, any and all automation with regards to fuel mixtures and dynamics, and reverse thrust has to go away entirely. Also, all automation for turrets and gimbals, get rid of it. That's gotta be pilot- or crew-controlled entirely. We're also getting rid of any guided weapons completely. So, no guided missiles or torpedoes.

On one hand, you're congratulating a poster for dressing me down for making IRL comparisons, and then you go and make a pretty bad one yourself. To be fair, WWII pilots had a lot more real aviation skill than modern ones do. They had to. But I was never actually talking about making Elite more realistic or more like IRL. I was talking about making the combat experience much more dynamic and interesting by buffing everything. Personally, I'm also sick of nerfs in general. I would be okay for making ships faster on their forward axis, and leaving every other axis alone. But that's as close to making ships slower in reverse as I'm going to agree on.

 

[philngraves]

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.

I understand the concept, but even double the speed would lead to even further disparity in the game. At double the speed, cannon and multi cannon would be unable to shoot down ships with enhanced performance thrusters. These ships would actually OUTRUN the projectiles. Missiles would be largely useless, torps would be useless, and we would have to wait on Frontier to program newtonian physics into the game for projectiles to keep up with the ships.

This would lead to long range mods being required and eventually native to all projectiles, leading still further to energy weapons needed a buff to keep up. It would go round and round until the next issue that irks the community. Sadly, I think that buffs should be largely out of the question until Fdev sorts out the damage/hp issues.

I personally enjoyed the older Elite games with near newtonian physics models. They are rather tedious, and implementing too many changes involving tedium is a good way to make a great game a pariah.

 

[voidwalker]

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.

I didn't ask you to explain that, I asked for a justification for the claim that making ships faster and more agile would make space 'more empty'. Read the post I was replying to.

But since you're here and strawmanning, I'll reply to what you wrote. First of all, I'm not buying the whole 'ships reverse faster than they boost' nonsense. It is nonsense. I can make a video with all my ships proving this nonsense. Again, if you're talking about an Eagle vs a Type 7 or something, sure, maybe in that case, but I don't see a problem there. The T7 is already dead anyway.

And stop pretending this is about 'skill'. If you had any skill, you wouldn't be complaining about reverse, you'd be skilfully evading it.

 

[_Flin_]

Fly max. Flight assist off, turn around => Reverski.

So you'd nerf flight assist off as well?
Or just widen the gap between good pilots and noobs more?

 

[Brrokk]

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.

Doesn't the "skill" lie in knowing your ship's and the other ship's capabilities and deciding how best to use your capabilities to negate the other's? If anything is nerfed or buffed the optimum behaviour might be a bit different, but it will soon be figured out and then there will be cries to nerf that in turn.

E.g. if we adopt the suggestions of preventing pitch and yaw in reverse but buffing turrets to compensate, the Corvettes will just fly in lazy circles with all guns blazing. Which will be described as... "boring"! (I'd prefer it; it seems more "realistic" to me).

The process cannot end. This is just one of those "I don't want people to do X so make it stop working" threads.

 

[Han_Zen]

Why? How? Explain.

It takes time to transmit ship position from one computer to the next.

Without any correction a ship flying 1000 m/s relative to you, will be one meter of for each millisecond latency.

ED has positional correction. If I go in a straight line you will still see me where I am, not where I was a while ago. The problem starts when I do unpredictable maneuvers. I can start to jump around on your screen, because the game 'guesses' my moves wrong.

The faster ships can go and the quicker they can change direction, the trickier it gets for the game to keep things smooth.

 

[voidwalker]

So.... make new BVR weapons with faster projectiles? I'm not seeing the problem here. It's not like there aren't weapons in existence that can't be fired too close to a target because the warhead and seeker won't even go live until the rocket motor's gone out to avoid damaging them. You're stating new problems that would arise, but surely you can see they all have easy and workable solutions.

So, it's a server limitation.

The game's being designed around server limitations?

That's just bad design at its core if that's the case. It's also a poor excuse. There's no way doubling or even tripling the speed would cause that much extra latency, nowhere near enough as you're asserting.

 

[Dakron Nova]

Fly max. Flight assist off, turn around => Reverski.

So you'd nerf flight assist off as well?
Or just widen the gap between good pilots and noobs more?

Anyone remember the good 'ol days when you could boost, turn FA off an maintain your boost speed.

 

[Space Dandy]

Stupid thread just for the sake of wanting nerfs to appease someones bunghole retentive tendencies.

 

[Daniel Cloudsifter]

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?

Particularly anyone flying a Cutter. Those rocket sleds are hard enough to stop as it is.

 

[voidwalker]

Anyway, I've said my piece. OP, I disagree with this nerf in its entirety. Prefer buffs in general, with a few exceptions. But don't pretend this is about skill. Elite, in almost all aspects, doesn't require much skill at all. Come join me on an open PVP server on DCS. I'll show you skill.

 

[Han_Zen]

Anyone remember the good 'ol days when you could boost, turn FA off an maintain your boost speed.

The only way to get out of Freeport alive. Vipers were mean, back then.

 

[JohnRoberts]

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.

Well, ok. Lets assume thrusters just work as a force on our ships, and indeed the maximum force that can be applied depends of the direction of the force, relative to the ship (not the direction the ship is travelling). So far, thats kind of reasonable. The big are indeed at the back.

Ships also have a maximum speed (fair enough, for game play reason). Its like we arent in a vaccum, but in some ether that exerts a drag on the ship (but without any other more complex Fluid Dynamics effects).

So whats being proposed here some kind of Drag that is dependant on the speed of the ship and orientation of the ship relative to its velocity?

 

[Aashenfox]

Anyway, I've said my piece. OP, I disagree with this nerf in its entirety. Prefer buffs in general, with a few exceptions. But don't pretend this is about skill. Elite, in almost all aspects, doesn't require much skill at all. Come join me on an open PVP server on DCS. I'll show you skill.

I said my piece too, and I've pvped with some good players too. Not sure how this post or yours is relevant to the discussion, but hey, now we know each other a little better!

 

[CMDR CPT. Boris]

Anyone remember the good 'ol days when you could boost, turn FA off an maintain your boost speed.

 

[philngraves]

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?

BVR seems as good an acronym as any, and refers to visual range of the human eye. Modern tech like the sim voidwalker was referring to is appx~ 35km.

Space is a whole different animal in terms of a combat theatre. Extrapolating technology based in Elite, it wouldn't be just feasible but essential to develop long range weaponry. Lack of atmosphere and the cold, dark, emptiness would make heat identification simple. Then development of munitions that track and destroy at as long a range as possible would be your logical next step.

Frontier wanted excitement though, hence why they have their dog fighting. BVR in space would probably be boring as hell...

 

[Aashenfox]

Well, ok. Lets assume thrusters just work as a force on our ships, and indeed the maximum force that can be applied depends of the direction of the force, relative to the ship (not the direction the ship is travelling). So far, thats kind of reasonable. The big are indeed at the back.

Ships also have a maximum speed (fair enough, for game play reason). Its like we arent in a vaccum, but in some ether that exerts a drag on the ship (but without any other more complex Fluid Dynamics effects).

So whats being proposed here some kind of Drag that is dependant on the speed of the ship and orientation of the ship relative to its velocity?

I think you're overthinking it mate. In a game it's just 2 variables, acceleration up to top speed and top speed. They are not interactive (or don't need to be). The drag you refer to is already there, we're just saying, have it drag down to a lower speed, not drag 'more'.

 

[voidwalker]

BVR is always boring. Right up until an AMRAAM goes Bulldog 4km off your nose, then it's excruciatingly terrifying.

But BVR is also almost always just a prelude to a close range dogfight engagement. If you do manage to evade that AMRAAM, you can bet your bottom dollar a Sidewinder is about to follow, and after that, an F-16 attempting to get on your 6 with his cannons.

 

[Daniel Cloudsifter]

Anyone remember the good 'ol days when you could boost, turn FA off an maintain your boost speed.

Yes. At what patch did they change that? I just noticed about a month ago that it was no longer the case.

 

[voidwalker]

That was changed before the game even released, in Gamma.