That's my guess too but I'd like to grant the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Mooka could try explaining our argument back to us? That way we can at least make sure we're on the same page.
FD utter failure: engineering brought to an excess
- Thread starter Guest 161958
- Start date
-
- Tags
- balance dw2 engineering pvp
That's my guess too but I'd like to grant the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Mooka could try explaining our argument back to us? That way we can at least make sure we're on the same page.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Baffling...
I'll pass. I am an explorer, and I have no interest in adding security features to systems that have traditionally had none. I don't need my hand held by game mechanics.
Since it is much easier for each of you to belittle rather than discuss, you might want to read my post again - here is the link.
In the post I clearly said there are problems on both sides of the fence, nearly all that got killed as part of DW2 got killed because they failed in taking some very basic advice from the organisers, that is not to be in open. They had a dedicated PG (or several - not sure on that) for the purpose of the event but chose to ignore that. Did I get the reason right or will you call me names again?
But I reserve the right to state, in my opinion, there is a gap. If an explorer is ridiculed for building a ship purely for exploration with the onus on maximum jump range then I can laugh and point at those who build a PvP death machine that has a single digit jump range then complain and whine like incessant children because of the delay in ship transfers. If as Commander Lighthouse ascertains that there is no gap, everything is equal, then this entire discussion would not be happening as everyone would be on a level playing field. But that is not the case is it!
That depends on how far you want to engineer your ship and the combat lodaout (some weapons upgrades are harder to unlock), for example, being the obsessed guy I am with jump ranges, I wanted to get a G4 lightweight upgrade to my life support, that's only available through Lori Jameson and you have to be dangerous rated plus be elite rated at any discipline (in my case, exploration elite). At the time of doing that, I had already unlocked all other engineers and had engineered my python to do PvP.
Funny you mention the DBX for your example as it’s probably the most able to survive. See my DBX is only 200 mj and 2300hull pvp fit and 1600 exploration fit both around 43ly JR. this ship took a dualing match with a all frag fas and I got him down to 60 with my pas. Even in my exploration fit can evade most gankers. Truthfully the DBX would definitely survive if flown to its fullest
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
No one is ridiculing explorers for building their ships the way they want to. If they are, then they are behaving beyond the bounds of rationality and civility. What we're explaining is they have no right to complain about being easy to kill if they CHOOSE to make themselves easy to kill. There's no mockery in that premise, just demonstrable reality. If you want a level playing field, then you have the choice to level it yourself. Otherwise, Elite is not intended to be a 'level playing field'. There is no 'equality' here, it's not an intended feature. Balance =/= equality. What you do have is equal access to the game's features that everyone else has (provided you've paid for Horizons) and therefore, what your ship is capable of depends entirely on your choices.
Last edited:
I said it was an example, you'd be right generally speaking.
In the videos I saw, most of the kills were from more than one shot - in fact, most of them were from several salvoes. One I saw was 1-shot, and a few were 2-shot but most were three or more. Against a single attacking ship. I guess my point there is that you really do have to be going out of your way in order to be in the position of being in a ship that is capable of being one-shotted, and actually being one-shotted. It has a lot to do with not taking the proper action for the situation, which is at the very least some form of move to get out of there.
It is not overly difficult to avoid getting a full salvo on your ship unless you're flying something very big and not fast. I have done it myself, in a couple of multirole ships I have, one example being a Python with 700 hull and 750 shields. It was good enough to get away with light damage. Did it again in my Krait Mk II (1100 hull, 650 shields) against a Fer-de-Lance armed with frags and plasma. However it did require me to be alert and proactive and not just sit there playing target practice, as the target.
So yeah, perhaps you need 3000+ defense if you either want to be a sitting duck or have no choice other than to be a sitting duck. However I still think that 3000 would vanish pretty quickly if you just sat there tanking damage.
You're right. Remember the tears / intense crying when the FdL could not jump far enough to please the PvP crowd? There were lot's, and FDev caved and increased the jump range. They also went on to later increase the power and other ship stats to make it the ridiculously overpowered ship it is today. And the Anaconda remains the single most OP ship of the game which truly needs it's jump range cut in half or at least a third.
TMK there hasn't been any such change to exploration ships nor trader ships, miner ships, etc. Would have expected the same buffing to explorer ship to have, say, increased default shielding or trader ships to have increased default speed or other measures. But that would make things balanced which is still an unknown term in the design guide for Elite as everything remains so unbalanced today.
Best thing FDev can do right now for this apparent problem is nerf jump range on all combat ships and mainly the FdL and Anaconda. It/they should not jump far. But this won't happen...
Last edited:
In the hands of a non-panicking pilot. Which makes a huge difference.
I used to play in open;
Interdiction 1; panicked and got say rebut before I knew what happened.
Interdiction 2; Me Pyhton, Foe Python, we measured up, started firing and both called it quits at 50% (He sent me message 'at least you stayed and fought')
Interdiction 3; Me Cutter, foe Sidewinder! Over land. I boosted into him and he dived and crashed on impact.
Interdiction 4; Me Anaconda, them (3) FDLs, Never knew what hit me. Had just both the condo and spent ages engineering. Threw toys out of the pram and swore never to go near Open again.
I've said many many times; I'm all for PvP against a beatable opponent. Pretty pointless if anything else. Sure, Submit and fly like the wind, unless there's a few of them who kill you in a blink of an eye.
I still say killing explorer ships for giggles is just a move. Where's the challenge? Do PvP players actually privately gloat about killing an unarmed vessel?
Not every ganker want an intense encounter. Sound familiar? Like not every player in open wants intense encounters of being ganked? Gankers are also players. PVP activities/ganking/you name it does not seperate them from the others. They are just playing casual this time.
This kind of things just happens, and it was all under E
rules. Trying to claim morality highlands/calling people names won't make it any easier. To answer the last question you asked, yes. For the recklessness an explorer could go to open with their origami build.
Amuse us, explain it to us all clearly. Only thing I've seen are cute swearing videos. But no explanation in this thread let alone numerous times. Expect this would be easy for you to explain in a sentence or two. Thanks.
And who is that's forcing you to fly a stripped down ship? The "unbalanced" situation you find yourself in is totally a consequence of the choices you have made.
You can participate in any expedition in multiple ways that are relatively safe. Joining PG Fleetcom is probably the easiest. You could also select a fast ship that most gankers would be unlikely to catch.
Or
Just fly a ship outfitted to withstand an attack.
Don't blame FD just because you chose to put yourself at risk in a likely kill box with a stripped down exploration build just to gain a few extra LY of range. ED is all about risk/reward choices.
Don't take a knife to a gunfight - just that simple.
I've been exploring all month in an 80LY jump capable Anaonda and haven't been attacked once, because I chose to fly where no on else is likely to be. Worth Millions.
Don't try to seperate the player base like that. PVPers are in some degrees different from PVErs, but both ships you mentioned are widely used in both PVP and PVE activities. Especially the anaconda. If FDev ever nerfed the 'conda, most cries will come from PVErs, considering that PVPers are just a minority.
Now, the type-7 and the type-9 got buffed some patches ago. Are they enough of trader ships to you?
A second thought. The anaconda isn't even a mainstream PVP ship, although it is capable of a little bit of everything.
Last edited:
I saw this post early this morning before the coffee had fully kicked in so apologies in the late response.
Commander Voidwalker, sorry to hear about your injuries but to be brutally honest, if you were going to join the Academy (only civilians and the press call it ADFA, it is drummed into everyone there that calling it ADFA is definitely a no-go area (lol - damn PC idiots). Oh for those outside of Australia, the Australian Defence Force Academy is the equivalent of the US West Point or Annapolis, or the Brit's Sandhurst - part university, part Office Training School) to be a 'fighter pilot' then someone in Recruiting lied their butts off to you. There is no way in hell someone can come off the street and be assured a position as a fast jet pilot, the best is just a student pilot. Each student is evaluated during their final year of pilot training, and dependent on vacancies, allotted to whichever type of aircraft needs new aircrew. Only the top 5 to 10% of the those that complete their basic flying training will be even evaluated to on whether they have the necessary physical, psychological, mental and intelligence to be considered to undertake fast jet pilot. So there is no way that someone coming off the street at 17/18 years old would be told they could become a 'fighter pilot' - and if you were, please contact the nearest ADF recruiting office to ensure that whoever told you that is no longer part of the recruiting cadre. As for just completing ADFA, well I hope you angst came after you left as you attitude here would probably be flagged by both the staff at the Academy and the plethora of official and unofficial psych evaluations.
How do I know this: One year as the SNCOIC a Recruiting Centre and unfortunately two years on staff at the Academy (worst two years in my three decade career - god if I had one more cadet tell me that his mother or father is someone important and I can't tell him or her to do something I would have gladly kicked the child out of the Academy to land somewhere near the Russell Roundabout
). But those two years did get me a posting to the USA for three years so all wasn't too bad I guess.
All that minimum engineering, all the tips help nothing if you are up against players who know what to do. You may escape lucky but you'll die more often when the game holds you neatly in place for several seconds while spooling up the FS drive. And you can do nothing.
Is it asking too much to simply be able to build an efficient ship (for example for exploration in DW2), as efficient as it can be for the half+ year journey ahead, which for all intents and purposes is absolutely suited for in game activities and survival within them?
Because you seem to be suggesting that thousands of CMDRs instead need to compromise their builds, and therefore their in game experience and fun, just because of:-
a) A toxic minority who feel compelled to attack hollow squares instead of filled ones (for no in game reason/outcome at all). The more pointless, needless and cynical the destruction the better!
b) FD's complete lack of desire to seemingly hold the activity in (a) accountable.
Toxic illegal destruction should be made accountable in all systems except where there is a government of anarchy. ie: Crimes should be reported at Beagle Point for illegal destruction. Why shouldn't/wouldn't they be? And Engineering has helped toxic gankers more than it's hindered them, because it's unbalanced/unnecessarily overpowered.
Indeed, and it seems many people are simply envisaging interdiction type scenarios, where we know these gankers also often simply pop to a location (such as where explorers are meeting in numbers), and attack out of the blue in an organised Wing for maximum grief. Literally popping exploration ships in a few seconds, from first shot to rebuy... Engineering and/or knowing how to evade interdiction does not help with these toxic antics.
Last edited:
Not every ganker want an intense encounter. Sound familiar? Like not every player in open wants intense encounters of being ganked? Gankers are also players. PVP activities/ganking/you name it does not seperate them from the others. They are just playing casual this time.
This kind of things just happens, and it was all under E
To answer the last question you asked, yes. For the recklessness an explorer could go to open with their origami build.
But it does separate them from others.
Flying 5.5k ly in a PvP built ship to do nothing but kills easy player targets differentiates them from the normal people. That's like flying from Dublin to New York to beat up a few school kids. Not only are they actually flying so far to kill a few players, but their picking on the weakest of the weak.
I'm sure a Psychologist could provide a better explanation. All I know is it seems childish to me, not to mention the high possibility of some 'issues'.. But that's my opinion.