Hitpoint inflation is insane

[CMDR Cknarf]

The people getting one-shotted fly paper plane explorers and shieldless traders.

They weren’t going to engineer anything beyond an FSD anyway.

I believe there’s a balance to be found in defensive/offensive capability, but I doub’t we’ll get the buffs or nerfs to achieve that.

Maybe we should bug Fdev about bumping ammo capacities up a little.

 

[Old Duck]

I'd happily give up Engineers, but in that parallel universe I would like to see a balance pass on some things. For example, default weapon range / damage falloff is "pants" as you lot say. I often use Engineers to compensate for unrealistic deficiencies in base weapons and modules. And because I'm a realism nut, I purposefully avoid "god-mode" engineering and ship builds, so no large ships that fly like Eagles or Eagles that hull-tank like large ships for me. Thus PvP will always be out of reach for me unless I find someone without Horizons to shoot at. Speaking of, this is the "pay to win" elephant in the room that is ignored almost as much as EBL

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

The people getting one-shotted fly paper plane explorers and shieldless traders.

They weren’t going to engineer anything beyond an FSD anyway.

I believe there’s a balance to be found in defensive/offensive capability, but I doub’t we’ll get the buffs or nerfs to achieve that.

Maybe we should bug Fdev about bumping ammo capacities up a little.

1-shotting is hyperbole. I want reasonable kill times. Vanilla was reasonable mostly. Now you have lasers without damage falloff which is a huge buff. The game needed nothing of the powercreep explosion. Playing around with kinetic, explosive and thermal damage types would have been pretty sufficient.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I'd happily give up Engineers, but in that parallel universe I would like to see a balance pass on some things. For example, default weapon range / damage falloff is "pants" as you lot say. I often use Engineers to compensate for unrealistic deficiencies in base weapons and modules. And because I'm a realism nut, I purposefully avoid "god-mode" engineering and ship builds, so no large ships that fly like Eagles or Eagles that hull-tank like large ships for me. Thus PvP will always be out of reach for me unless I find someone without Horizons to shoot at. Speaking of, this is the "pay to win" elephant in the room that is ignored almost as much as EBL

Screw pay to win - that is just salty complaint by competitive players who dont want to grind or got left behind by the grind marathon. Engineers problem reaches far further. I can happily ignore PvP imbalance by going solo. I can't ignore the stupid bulletsponge in the environment tho.

 

[Screemonster]

I only ever hear people talk about nerfing boosters and hit point inflation. Which I agree with. So who are the people that went mad went fdev had a beta with shield booster nerfs? Can they pipe up and explain why it's a good idea to make the game boring? Is it just so they can afk at a cz

Were the shield booster nerfs before or after engineers? 'cause take a cutter with A-rated shields.
No boosters: 943MJ of shields.
1 A-rated booster: 1131MJ.
8 A-rated boosters: 2451MJ.
1 A-rated, heavy-duty booster: 1561MJ.
1 A-rated, heavy-duty booster and a reinforced shield: 2155MJ.
8 A-rated, heavy-duty boosters: 5891MJ
8 A-rated, heavy-duty boosters and a reinforced shield: 8129MJ

I haven't bothered with special effects, but... there is a marked difference in the pre-and-post-engineers concept of having limited shield boosters. Back then, one booster might not have been enough to withstand a gank - that cutter loaded with all frags dishes out 1464 DPS - but now engineers are a thing, a single booster and a reinforced shield provides you with almost as much protection as 8 unengineered boosters, while going full-engineered gives you more hit points than god.

 

[dm06]

I am not ok with that. with 2 mrps and all hrps it rivals the armor of bigger ships, which is both physically and gameplay wise stupid to me

Add other modules and you'll get less HP.
Also 1500 hull on eagle and corvette are different because of armour hardness.
I do not protect the ship. I just tend to consider that engineering in this case works as expected.
See other posts above not just me telling that the ship is not viable. The best thing it can do is to provide meaning of "module malfunction" and how it is to fly with dead external modules (one missile/mine explosion near by and this tiny ship will lose its weapons).

 

[Ian Skippy]

Right... but a useless build doesn't exactly demonstrate the problem very effectively. (Plus that eagle would handle like a brick)

That eagle with ET DD5 handles far from a brick, it would still outpitch a vulture...

 

[Ian Skippy]

You can do the same with big ships and get even more HP.


This is not a tank. There's no durability. After a single pew and couple of missiles it will be a brick. I am quite OK with that.

Its a armchair vs practice debate, I guess. On paper it looks silly, in practice there isnt much of a problem with this specific eagle having so much armor.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Bout time small ships got a buff. Lol

 

[Ian Skippy]

I only ever hear people talk about nerfing boosters and hit point inflation. Which I agree with. So who are the people that went mad went fdev had a beta with shield booster nerfs? Can they pipe up and explain why it's a good idea to make the game boring? Is it just so they can afk at a cz

"I worked hard to get my OP godmode ship, I love feeling invulnerable and FD should respect my time!"

That is basically it.

 

[Jaggid Edje]

"I worked hard to get my OP godmode ship, I love feeling invulnerable and FD should respect my time!"

That is basically it.

Seems like a fair argument though, doesn't it? Game added these things and people invested their playtime chasing them....Frontier can't just scrap it all and say "sorry, we changed our minds" and not expect to lose alot of angry players.

I totally agree that something needs to be done to address the rather serious issue of armour (and shield for that matter on some ships) being way overpowered with how they can be stacked and then engineered for god mode. But any solution does need to respect that time investment of existing players.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Seems like a fair argument though, doesn't it? Game added these things and people invested their playtime chasing them....Frontier can't just scrap it all and say "sorry, we changed our minds" and not expect to lose alot of angry players.

I totally agree that something needs to be done to address the rather serious issue of armour (and shield for that matter on some ships) being way overpowered with how they can be stacked and then engineered for god mode. But any solution does need to respect that time investment of existing players.

I worked hard to get a Python, then FD nerfed it. Then FD nerfed it some more. Big whoop, if someone cant handle balancing in an online game they should not play it. I know it sounds rough but come, we are grown ups playing with fake spaceships. Lets keep the outrage somewhat sensible.

 

[Jaggid Edje]

I worked hard to get a Python, then FD nerfed it. Then FD nerfed it some more. Big whoop, if someone cant handle balancing in an online game they should not play it. I know it sounds rough but come, we are grown ups playing with fake spaceships. Lets keep the outrage somewhat sensible.

Toning down (called nerfing by most) is fine, I meant scrapping the stuff entirely is not a good idea. Like completely doing away with engineering or even just blueprints which players have invested time in gathering materials for, etc.

They didn't take the Python away entirely, yah? (P.S. despite any nerfs it's still a really useful ship)

 

[rrobes]

FD making engineering "game play" started a slide that continues to this day, point counterpoint.

This is why I only have 5 modded ships, can't bring myself to engineer any more.

 

[znôrt]

Its a armchair vs practice debate, I guess. On paper it looks silly, in practice there isnt much of a problem with this specific eagle having so much armor.

it's not even that silly. you add 2 slots on a tiny ship with 5 it's going to make a big difference. it's much less on a vulture, even less on python and i guess hardly worth mention on a cutter. which, if you think about it, makes a actually a lot of sense. and yeah, small ships ftw!

still a wrinkle on the tsunami of hitpoint inflation we've been consistently having for years now. not really big news.

Frontier can't just scrap it all and say "sorry, we changed our minds" and not expect to lose alot of angry players.

"evolving game" and all that. also, for once it would be amusing to see the "you-are-taking-stuffz-away-from-me-qqqqq!" brigade enraged just because frontier gave us something. well, they didn't make much sense anyway

I totally agree that something needs to be done to address the rather serious issue of armour

every single time something has been done related to this, it has gotten worse. this is by 'design'.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Toning down (called nerfing by most) is fine, I meant scrapping the stuff entirely is not a good idea. Like completely doing away with engineering or even just blueprints which players have invested time in gathering materials for, etc.

They didn't take the Python away entirely, yah? (P.S. despite any nerfs it's still a really useful ship)

I
The proposed change was diminishing returns for boosters when you stack more than 3-4. People raged because they modded six or eight.

 

[Ian Skippy]

it's not even that silly. you add 2 slots on a tiny ship with 5 it's going to make a big difference. it's much less on a vulture, even less on python and i guess hardly worth mention on a cutter. which, if you think about it, makes a actually a lot of sense. and yeah, small ships ftw!

still a wrinkle on the tsunami of hitpoint inflation we've been consistently having for years now. not really big news.



"evolving game" and all that. also, for once it would be amusing to see the "you-are-taking-stuffz-away-from-me-qqqqq!" brigade enraged just because frontier gave us something. well, they didn't make much sense anyway



every single time something has been done related to this, it has gotten worse. this is by 'design'.

Oh, I am all for making small ships more useful. Larger ships should have larger slots, not more of them!

 

[Bigmaec]

I
The proposed change was diminishing returns for boosters when you stack more than 3-4. People raged because the modded six or eight.

Oh noes. How could I have survived a CZ with only 5000 mj in my prismatic Cutter?

Respect my time... sigh

 

[dm06]

Another king of pvp bestowing his wisdom gems. This thread is not about meta pvp. I created it to discuss that even taking into account adding modules and adding up the small ships inferior hardness value, small ships are not supposed to have all these hitpoints in the first place.

Pvp wha?.. The explosion is explosion and remains the same across game modes. You can experince it in reses or in combat zones in pve.
g5 heavy duty hull is g5 heavy duty hull. It modifies some parameters of the hull. What do you suggest? Different mods for different ship sizes?

 

[Jaggid Edje]

I
The proposed change was diminishing returns for boosters when you stack more than 3-4. People raged because they modded six or eight.

Bah, shameful then that people are crying about it. The game needs that and they wouldn't lose anything....other than the ability to stack ridiculous amounts.