This was nerfed...right?

[TheMegaTurnip]

Flechettes should get buffed IMO.

I wanna see ten percent chunks coming off those powerplants, as the scumsuckers who fly ships like Corvettes and Cutters in PvP more often than not spend the majority of thier time trying to kill smaller ships. Flechettes can be ace now if you get them on target.

But it's about time we had a module that sufficiently punishes obcene shielding choices.

You want 7k shiled and 50% res' on it and your hull? Absolutley someone should be able to bust your powerplant with a few well placed flechette rounds.

It's called a trade off. If you don't want to worry about them, GitGud and use a pure hull tank.

Don't winge about imbalance when rocking ships with shielding so huge it effectively invalidates ships DESIGNED to kill the larger ones solo. (because the shileds are so big, you'll run out of ammo)

 

[lenna]

I would certainly benefit from some, indeed any, uncertainty in PvE combat.

The ONLY time there is truly certainty in PvE combat is if your ship is equipped in a min-maxed combat-centric way which is not necessarily the norm (and IMO should never be considered the norm).

Depending on the ship I am in, I have a fair degree of certainty over the possible outcomes but that is more from self-knowledge and knowledge of what my ship is built for than anything else that is an inherent "fait accompli" because of shields. There is always the possibility of being surprised even as it currently stands.

Saying the game lacks balance is actually a fallacy - and I believe the reference wrt "rare and meaningful" was more targeted at PvP than PvE. While there are plenty of opportunities for PvE Combat if you specifically look for them, the unsolicited incidents can be considered relatively rare.

Short version - if you want more uncertainty in your PvE combat, don't over-pimp your ship for combat. It is totally unnecessary and those that do go to those extremes should be able to expect the level of certainty of outcome that such builds may provide.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

The ONLY time there is truly certainty in PvE combat is if your ship is equipped in a min-maxed combat-centric way which is not necessarily the norm (and IMO should never be considered the norm).

Depending on the ship I am in, I have a fair degree of certainty over the possible outcomes but that is more from self-knowledge and knowledge of what my ship is built for than anything else that is an inherent "fait accompli" because of shields. There is always the possibility of being surprised even as it currently stands.

Saying the game lacks balance is actually a fallacy - and I believe the reference wrt "rare and meaningful" was more targeted at PvP than PvE. While there are plenty of opportunities for PvE Combat if you specifically look for them, the unsolicited incidents can be considered relatively rare.

Short version - if you want more uncertainty in your PvE combat, don't over-pimp your ship for combat. It is totally unnecessary and those that do go to those extremes should be able to expect the level of certainty of outcome that such builds may provide.

Any ship set up as a full breed comat vessel literally guarantees immunity in PvE combat lol.

I have'nt used a shield module since month two of starting this game, if you can find NPC's who can ice me, then where the hell are they? PvE is literally SO WEAK when it comes to combat. SO easy, with AI that fly in circles applying no pressure whatsoever just letting themselves be shot in the a**.

 

[lenna]

Flechettes should get buffed IMO.

I have to disagree on this score given the risks to the firing ship.

But it's about time we had a module that sufficiently punishes obcene shielding choices.

I would rather see the obscene shielding choices addressed directly in subtle and balanced ways. The addition of Flechette Launchers is a nice approach BUT I think that there are other more interesting things that could be done.

To take a leaf or two out of the books of martial arts - some way to turn their strength against them. This could be done either directly or indirectly. Adding Shield-bypass weapons/effects and Absolute damage weapons are one approach but there are others.

For example: increasing heat gain when taking damage based on shield damage resistance rates, or increasing heat generation when both regenerating the shields and taking shield damage. Such factors would need to be balanced carefully if they were introduced but I fully expect such measures to be never introduced. Given the historic nerfing to Thermal Cascade weapons I suspect that weapons designed to induce heat proportional in some way to shield strength may also be passed over for consideration.

Ultimately - while I may agree with your general sentiment regarding obscene "effective" shield strengths in a PvP context, whatever is done needs to be done carefully and I personally believe increasing the effectiveness of Flechettes is not the right way to go about it. Perhaps FD should consider adding engineering opportunities for both the Flechette and the Flak launchers as well as possibly the Shock Cannons and other Experimental/Tech-Broker locked non-AX/non-Guardian/non-Thargoid weapons.

 

[lenna]

Any ship set up as a full breed comat vessel literally guarantees immunity in PvE combat lol.

That is not quite what I said nor meant - but I guess it could be interpreted that way. *shrug*

Ultimately, in PvE we can pick our battles but unless you have pimped your ship to the nines the outcome of combat is far from being certain in your favour. Player piloting strategies/tactics can play a part in some cases but NPCs are far from being sitting ducks in the main.

I have'nt used a shield module since month two of starting this game, if you can find NPC's who can ice me, then where the hell are they? PvE is literally SO WEAK when it comes to combat. SO easy, with AI that fly in circles applying no pressure whatsoever just letting themselves be shot in the a**.

Good for you - but that is not a universally applicable experience.

Overall, as I pointed out earlier, ED has to cater for a wide variety of player wants and desires which ultimately means that some will inevitably feel unchallenged by the overall experience. There are no easy answers to AI behaviours in general and the only effective counter across the board seems to be by sheer numbers and AI-biased "cheats". CZs appear to be the primary areas for those looking for greater challenges.

 

[Bounder]

That is not quite what I said nor meant - but I guess it could be interpreted that way. *shrug*

Ultimately, in PvE we can pick our battles but unless you have pimped your ship to the nines the outcome of combat is far from being certain in your favour. Player piloting strategies/tactics can play a part in some cases but NPCs are far from being sitting ducks in the main.


Good for you - but that is not a universally applicable experience.

Overall, as I pointed out earlier, ED has to cater for a wide variety of player wants and desires which ultimately means that some will inevitably feel unchallenged by the overall experience. There are no easy answers to AI behaviours in general and the only effective counter across the board seems to be by sheer numbers and AI-biased "cheats".

LOL i just watched the OP video and it's identical to every other ED combat video i've seen here, ever; jousting, followed by a slow pitching contest, with self-aiming weapons!

Incredible! How could anyone find this fun? It's frustrating enough to make you wanna pull your own teeth out. Just look at the background (the stars / galaxy) - it slooowly pans upwards a lil' bit at a time, interspersed with slight roll corrections - both ships are just pitching, agonisingly slowly, whilst trading blows from self-aiming weapons (probably self-firing too?)! Both are complete sitting ducks, stuck there, confined to an area less than the size of a football pitch, as they sloowly pitch-up and pummel each other.

As i'm watching this, all of my Elite instincts are getting fired up... and just fed through a cheesegrater. All i'm thinking is "use lateral / dorsal thrusts, spin round 180° and you're on his tail, and outa his line of fire!" but of course neither ship can do any of those things. They're both stuck in treacle, with less freedom of movement (or expression) than a caged tortoise. It would be comically entertaining, if it wasn't so desperately pitiful. Gimme ANY Frontier: Elite ship (even an interplanetary shuttle with a 1 MW pulse laser) and i'd be literally running rings around BOTH these hapless paperweights. There's 'sitting ducks'.. and then there's jellyfish-out-of-water.

Any ship from the previous games could be flying around them in tight circles, in any plane or axis, popping up in-between them, firing missiles at one whilst boiling strips of hull off the other, or just making strafing runs at the pair o' them - shredding both equally on each pass.

ED combat is like sharks-with-lasers deathmatch, but confined to a shallow paddling pool. It's like putting ballistic armour and Predator-style self-aiming weapons on lions and tigers, and then making them fight in a rabbit hutch-sized arena, whilst doped to the eyeballs on valium.




23 years since a proper Frontier: Elite sequel, and counting.. None of you guys are 'playing Elite'. You've honestly no idea. Elite's a vastly more fun, exciting and rewarding style of gameplay, fighting against multiple ships at the same time, with real variety and dynamism to how each type of ship moves and maneouvres. It's fixed-beams, missiles and ECMS - all manually operated - in a racing flurry of intense arcade action, WHILST having full freedom of motion in all six degrees! Nothing like anything offered in ED! The exact, polar opposite in fact. Elite is supposed to be the antidote to this type of droll "slow planes in space" trope that almost every other sci-fi game or movie falls back on by default. It's supposed to be The Expanse to all the other Top Gun, in space clones... Just look at what it's been reduced to! Tragic, meaningless desecration.. and about as exciting as a game of MS Solitaire.

"Was this nerfed?" asks the OP...

More than you could possibly know, mate.

 

[lenna]

LOL i just watched the OP video and it's identical to every other ED combat video i've seen here, ever; jousting, followed by a slow pitching contest, with self-aiming weapons!

Then you were not looking close enough... nor seemingly have a clue how the Flechette launcher works.

The Flechette launcher is not auto-aiming, the Cutter was making numerous mistakes - first and foremost being either arrogant enough or stupid enough to ignore the opportunities they had and possibly relying too much on Turreted Beam/Pulse lasers.

As for my comments that you deigned to respond to... they were not referring to the experience illustrated in the OP which was PvP but rather PvE in general.

I have the distinct impression, but no proof, that the OP's video was a staged incident rather than a legitimate encounter. If it were a legitimate encounter, then it probably was with a Cutter pilot who had zero survival instincts.

My personal experience where PvE combat is concerned is that there is notable variety, but if anyone expects the AI to be better than it was 20+years ago then they are fooling themselves. If the AI is toned down from that era then there are probably good reasons to do so given the changes in nature of gameplay environment (it is after all no longer purely a single player game).

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

That is not quite what I said nor meant - but I guess it could be interpreted that way. *shrug*

Ultimately, in PvE we can pick our battles but unless you have pimped your ship to the nines the outcome of combat is far from being certain in your favour. Player piloting strategies/tactics can play a part in some cases but NPCs are far from being sitting ducks in the main.


Good for you - but that is not a universally applicable experience.

Overall, as I pointed out earlier, ED has to cater for a wide variety of player wants and desires which ultimately means that some will inevitably feel unchallenged by the overall experience. There are no easy answers to AI behaviours in general and the only effective counter across the board seems to be by sheer numbers and AI-biased "cheats". CZs appear to be the primary areas for those looking for greater challenges.

Im pretty sure ive got some decent footage or this "not a sitting duck" AI you speak of.

And as for AI behaviour. If they were to react and fly like players of the equivilent rank, there wouldnt be a problem, but they don't. In fact, the ranks almost seem utterly meaningless to the AI pilots actual skill. Consistently the Master ranked AI FAS' are the only ones who give me a fight and actually make an effort to get thier guns on target. Even elite rank NPC's try to rely on your stupidity to get the kill on you, allowing them to be SO easily maipulated its unreal.

A small change of somewhat realistic AI would kill a few birds with one stone.

1. Increase the challenge avalible to later game players

2. Increases the skill level of the player base collectively

3. As a direct result of point 2, PvP would probably be less frowned upon, and more would partake due to the game prepping them properly for the diffiulty spike. (Lets face it the pace and pressure in PVP are upped ty a factor of 15 from even the most aggresive NPC's)

 

[lenna]

Im pretty sure ive got some decent footage or this "not a sitting duck" AI you speak of.

And as for AI behaviour. If they were to react and fly like players of the equivilent rank, there wouldnt be a problem, but they don't. In fact, the ranks almost seem utterly meaningless to the AI pilots actual skill. Consistently the Master ranked AI FAS' are the only ones who give me a fight and actually make an effort to get thier guns on target. Even elite rank NPC's try to rely on your stupidity to get the kill on you, allowing them to be SO easily maipulated its unreal.

A small change of somewhat realistic AI would kill a few birds with one stone.

1. Increase the challenge avalible to later game players

2. Increases the skill level of the player base collectively

3. As a direct result of point 2, PvP would probably be less frowned upon, and more would partake due to the game prepping them properly for the diffiulty spike. (Lets face it the pace and pressure in PVP are upped ty a factor of 15 from even the most aggresive NPC's)

2 & 3 are a populare mis-conception held by PvPers - the problems with PvP are more from the specific behaviours of a minority than PvP in general for at least some like myself who are not completely opposed to PvP as a general idea - the point being PvE difficulty has little or nothing to do with the popularity of PvP. Not only that, is it really beyond the comprehension of some PvPers that there are people who play ED who have ZERO interest in PvP.

WRT 1 that is questionable logic at best - it depends on what the specific players are looking for, not everyone is looking specifically for especially challenging combat.

As for the footage, to use an analogy - you could provide footage of a politician in compromising circumstances but that does not mean all politicians engage those compromising activities. The point was not everyone finds the AI as easy as some do.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

2 & 3 are a populare mis-conception held by PvPers - the problems with PvP are more from the specific behaviours of a minority than PvP in general for at least some like myself who are not completely opposed to PvP as a general idea - the point being PvE difficulty has little or nothing to do with the popularity of PvP.

WRT 1 that is questionable logic at best - it depends on what the specific players are looking for, not everyone is looking specifically for especially challenging combat.

As for the footage, to use an analogy - you could provide footage of a politician in compromising circumstances but that does not mean all politicians engage those compromising activities. The point was not everyone finds the AI as easy as some do.

Then why play the combat aspect of the game? If you want to do stuff outside of combat thats fine, but easy mode NPC's for the simple reason people cant be bothered to put the effort in is just laughable. Whats the point in making it not challenging?

And no, its true, harder bots, means higher player skill threshold. As it's reuired to kill said harder NPC's. Kind of a no brainer that one.

And if people don't find it easy then thats good cause for them to improve. But i dont see why the game should have dumbed down AI simply because a small percentage of the layer base can't fly right in combat. That just seems silly, bring down the collective difficulty in lew of actualy acaling the AI properly? Bad design descision there.

I don't think anyone picked this game up wanting an easy experience did we?

I can't speak for everyone, but that was my main reason for buying it. Well along with the fact its a huge space game obvs.

But after the initial 200 hours, i saw too many flaws in the NPC logic. Its better now than when i started, but still nowhere near up to par of the AI in other games.

The best example of this is that they are programmed to avoid the cursor, not individual shots, so keep your fixed target on them and they will prioritize evasion over any sort of DPS at ALL. Meaning if you're moderatly accurate, you can manipulate the NPC's behaviour to such an extent you can get them to voluntairily boost ram asteroids and kill themselves. That is not good AI, that is not challengeing AI. Thats a straight up screw up.

 

[lenna]

...

Nope PvP Ganker/Griefer fallacy logic in action people

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Nope PvP Ganker/Griefer fallacy logic in action people

Denying reality much?

Higher difficulty breeds higher skill levels.

Thats just basic applied logic mate.

Sorry to dissapoint you.

Or more over, "I can't refute your points, so ima tar you with a scummy brush"

 

[lenna]

Denying reality much?

Just to clarify - you are blatantly wrong in your assumptions, and those kind of assumptions are the kind I have come to expect from habitual griefers and gankers.

Not everyone plays a given game for the same reasons, and while ED has a combat element it is not the heart and soul of the aim of the product. The combat element is not entirely avoidable and some may choose to engage in it for "fun" on occasion.

Not everyone plays computer games in general, or ED specifically, for combat or even necessarily looking for challenging gameplay. This is what I was eliciting to earlier with my reference to ED supporting a wide range of player wants and desires.

The fallacy logic is that somehow increasing NPC difficulty will make players in general more tolerant of certain behaviours by other players - sorry to disappoint but you are talking out the wrong end and making a distinctly smelly mess.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Just to clarify - you are blatantly wrong in your assumptions, and those kind of assumptions are the kind I have come to expect from habitual griefers and gankers.

Not everyone plays a given game for the same reasons, and while ED has a combat element it is not the heart and soul of the aim of the product. The combat element is not entirely avoidable and some may choose to engage in it for "fun" on occasion.

Not everyone plays computer games in general, or ED specifically, for combat or even necessarily looking for challenging gameplay. This is what I was eliciting to earlier with my reference to ED supporting a wide range of player wants and desires.

The fallacy logic is that somehow increasing NPC difficulty will make players in general more tolerant of certain behaviours by other players - sorry to disappoint but you are talking out the wrong end and making a distinctly smelly mess.

Again, lets tar a guy i have no iea about with a Sh*tty brush huh?

No mate If people had higher skill levels, there would be less whinging. Why? because people wouldnt feel like they are being trampled by someone well above thier boundary so easily. Again. Pretty basic logic there pal.

And it can support all skills and drive. SCALABLE the word that seems to cause the black F*cking plague on these forums. Harmless should be turd. Elite, should not be a walk in the park like they are. You wanna cater to different skill levels, PROPERLY SCALE THE AI. Tha way, the noobs dont feel done over, and the Pros dont get bored. Logical enough for you?

Right well maybe actually get the quote, rather than just an elipsis so people have to assume which bit you quoted. (Edit: IT shows now, was just ... when i replied)
And yours is that of the typical PvE denier. Can't handle basic logic > Calls people greifers.

The reason I chose to hand with the PvP crowd and NOT the PvE crowd, is simply a matter of the PvP crowd tend to base thier veiws on facts. Not opinions. Something the PvE community could stand to learn a lot from.

Higher skill level = more tolerance for people starting fights, simply because people will feel at less of a disadvantage. Im not really that bothered if people like it or not, thats just the reality.

90% of the time, its people complainging they got killed by some wizard of engineering who has put more effort in thatn then, yet the dude who has arguably ticked the most boxes in terms of game completion, has the least idea about what makes the game playable am i right there? XD LOL.

 

[lenna]

No mate If people had higher skill levels, there would be less whinging. Why? because people wouldnt feel like they are being trampled by someone well above thier boundary so easily. Again. Pretty basic logic there pal.

False logic - and the usual rubbish spewed by the PvP-focused agenda community.

I have already explained why it is false logic, if those with a PvP-focused agenda can't comprehend the reasoning then it is not my problem.

Besides which - there is the point that NPC behaviours can never truly map on to that of player opponents in the context of a game like ED. It is barely feasible in a 2D space domain let alone the 3D space domain.

 

[V'larr]

Flechettes should get buffed IMO.
I wanna see ten percent chunks coming off those powerplants, as the scumsuckers who fly ships like Corvettes and Cutters in PvP more often than not spend the majority of thier time trying to kill smaller ships. Flechettes can be ace now if you get them on target.

Too powerful, is my initial reaction. If that's before MRP/HRP and modding - then maybe? But then you're just reinforcing the idea that we "need" this hitpoint overinflation malarkey and THAT is a bad thing.

But it's about time we had a module that sufficiently punishes obcene shielding choices.

We already do, several different ones in fact. What we need is to directly address obscenely high hitpoint stacking instead of trying to come up with other silly gimmicks to counter it.

You want 7k shiled and 50% res' on it and your hull? Absolutley someone should be able to bust your powerplant with a few well placed flechette rounds.
It's called a trade off. If you don't want to worry about them, GitGud and use a pure hull tank.

See, no. I disagree, strongly. It should not be THAT simple to target the core internals of a ship.

That's like the Achilles Targeting Unit from Master of Orion 2, and oh my god does that piece of equipment break that game: allows you to bypass armor and go straight to hull (basically two separate hitpoint pools, the latter of which bears the risk of damage to internals) and ALSO *triples* the chance of hits to hull to damage the core internals of the ship (including the drives, which will cause an instant kill if those get destroyed). Consider that you can stack this with weapons that bypass shields, other equipment that doubles all damage that gets past the shield, doubles the base damage of all your beam weapons, and so on and so forth - you can devestate entire 100+ ship fleets with just 1 ship of your own, it's completely bonkers.

That's why gimmicks need to be toned down. Hitpoint overinflation needs to be addressed DIRECTLY instead of being ignored while continuing to go down the rock-paper-scissors power creep gimmick rabbit hole.


Additionally your posts go on about making kills more challenging - that's great but you need to also convince Fdev that quantity of kills needs to not be so important for combat XP progression as opposed to quality.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Too powerful, is my initial reaction. If that's before MRP/HRP and modding - then maybe? But then you're just reinforcing the idea that we "need" this hitpoint overinflation malarkey and THAT is a bad thing.



We already do, several different ones in fact. What we need is to directly address obscenely high hitpoint stacking instead of trying to come up with other silly gimmicks to counter it.



See, no. I disagree, strongly. It should not be THAT simple to target the core internals of a ship.

That's like the Achilles Targeting Unit from Master of Orion 2, and oh my god does that piece of equipment break that game: allows you to bypass armor and go straight to hull (basically two separate hitpoint pools, the latter of which bears the risk of damage to internals) and ALSO *triples* the chance of hits to hull to damage the core internals of the ship (including the drives, which will cause an instant kill if those get destroyed). Consider that you can stack this with weapons that bypass shields, other equipment that doubles all damage that gets past the shield, doubles the base damage of all your beam weapons, and so on and so forth - you can devestate entire 100+ ship fleets with just 1 ship of your own, it's completely bonkers.

That's why gimmicks need to be toned down. Hitpoint overinflation needs to be addressed DIRECTLY instead of being ignored while continuing to go down the rock-paper-scissors power creep gimmick rabbit hole.


Additionally your posts go on about making kills more challenging - that's great but you need to also convince Fdev that quantity of kills needs to not be so important for combat XP progression as opposed to quality.

My ood lord an actual constructive answer! OMFG! I'm bloody stunned. +1 just for that.

Yeah i was kinda playing devils advocate with that lol...

And we kinda do, we have phasing, which is redundant without either being an exceedingly good shot, or having said hitpoint overinflation to survive long enough in the war of attrition do do anything significant (FDL's are the exception here, they die SUPER fast to phasing), We have reverb torps, which are too much, and reverb mines and flechettes, both of which are more or less entirely reliant on your opponent being thick enough to fly into them.

I'd agree that gimmicks are the less desirable option, and have the potential to be game breaking, however, do we really expect FDev to do anything about the hitpoint issue?

No. Probably not. So silly gimmicks it unfortunaty probably will be. :/ Which yes, is a bit sh*tty, but i'd straight up rather have the option for a harsh counter that punishes the Meta chasers even if it's a little gimmicky. (I despise those who rely on meta tools in every game. Literally the scrub option.) IE: Backwards packhound uber shield cutters < Scum of the earth.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

False logic - and the usual rubbish spewed by the PvP-focused agenda community.

I have already explained why it is false logic, if those with a PvP-focused agenda can't comprehend the reasoning then it is not my problem.

Besides which - there is the point that NPC behaviours can never truly map on to that of player opponents in the context of a game like ED. It is barely feasible in a 2D space domain let alone the 3D space domain.

No actually, you didnt.

You just refuse to see basic logic. Sorry mate. Thats what it is.

In fact i can prove it, seeing the evolution of PvP on the Ps since release last year.

We took sh*t for PvPing for MONTHS. Now everyone has the skills and ships, those very cmdrs who were throwing shade at us, are now fighting with and beside us.

It's called confidence in ones ability.

Hence, completely legitamate point.

PvE typical "You don't understand the game" c*ap.

I understand basic psychology. If people feel they are at a vast disadvantage it will make them less likely to partake in that activity. If they feel the odds are even, most will participate.

BASIC LOGIC.

 

[Morbad]

Short version - if you want more uncertainty in your PvE combat, don't over-pimp your ship for combat. It is totally unnecessary and those that do go to those extremes should be able to expect the level of certainty of outcome that such builds may provide.

The certainty is always there, more because of AI behavior than loadouts, but there none the less. This all applies regardless of whether I'm in my pure combat corvette, or a general purpose and completely unengineered cobra III.

I also disagree that pure combat loadouts should give all encounters such certainty. The most enjoyable fights I've ever had are those tiny few where the outcome was uncertain to the end. Having to willfully seek such encounters out, either via foolish behavior, or by handicapping one's tools, is completely missing the point. I want to be run down, cornered, and finally, when all other options are exhausted, have to give it my all in a long-shot contest for survival.

As it stands, one glance at an NPC's ship, rank, and modules tab and I know how the fight will go, because both the AI tactics and because of how reliable various defences are. Even with the various improvements that have been made, which I do appreciate, there is no equivalent to a lucky shot or critical hit (except when it comes to canopies and the phasing weapons AI now employ, but loss of the canopy is a trivial issue), and the AI will never use innovative tactics.

Failing a dramatic shift in AI behavior, the next best thing would be mechanisms that make many things that are now flatly impossible simply improbable instead.

Real combat is filled with uncertainty that makes engaging in it hazardous, even for the side with an overwhelming advantage...farmers with generations-old rifles have been known to occasionally kill pilots of multi-million dollar ground attack aircraft with lucky shots; a large bully can slip and brain himself when picking on the 90 pound weakling; an inflatable boat full of explosives can cripple a capital ship of a first world navy; the elderly robbery victim could have a concealed weapon; a tank with impenetrable armor can still be immobilized with a well placed Molotov, etc. I know ED isn't a sim, but I would love to feel some degree of apprehension on the part of my CMDR before or during a fight, because there was at least some non-zero chance of just the right attack at just the right moment crippling the ship, killing the pilot, or simply resulting in a less given result.

Less predictable AI, fewer absolutes when it comes to defense and/or evasion, as well as the ability to obfuscate loadout specifics are all things I think would improve combat. The risk would be very satisfying for me the player, without me having to make my CMDR character behave like a fool to experience it.

 

[lenna]

No actually, you didnt.

I did - and in plain and simple English - go back to post #53 for the basic plain English summary.

To make things more explicit though - not everyone is playing ED for a combat challenge and even those with good combat skills may have ZERO interest in random PvP regardless of the relative level of the incidents. In addition, there is no excuse for certain toxic patterns of PvP behaviour.