Engineering Under Threat - Open Letter etc

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I am completely against Nerfing engineering and the scales of balance being tipped by the devs in favour of those who did not bother to do so,

The recent announcement by Frontier that fleet carriers are being delayed, beta will be a thing again and focus is changing to bug fixes are things that were requested in the open letter.

So Frontier have listened to it and taken action.

One thing I seriously did not like about the Open Letter and main reason I did not sign was because it asked as one of the four primary issues for balance changes to bring engineered ships and non-engineered ships onto some kind of par.

I am totally against this. From my standpoint I probably spent 100s of hours of my time engineering ships. And I am not alone.

Now people who fly in Solo/PG dont really have much incentive to engineer other than that is what they want to do. It is not a must for them so we doubtless going to hear the usual voices.

And I know this post probably going to cause a lot of fighting, but I really think it is important to put this point of view across, that many players DO NOT WANT the hands of the devs to tip the scales of balance in favour of those who did not bother to engineer. I see a future where there are shieldless ships flying around in Shinrarta in open with ne'er a care in the world. For me that would be the end of this game. May as well remove "dangerous" from the title, just a joke then. Things have already went too far with the C&P system and ATR are implemented stupid, lazy, immersion breaking, and just a pandering to the carebear community. I wont digress into ATR that is another post.

And the next step on this kind of path is to make people invulnerable in Shinrarta or some proper Concord-style instant response NPCs. That is really the end of this game for me, say it right now if it happens.

1. THOSE WHO SPEND THE TIME AND EFFORT ENGINEERING THEIR SHIP DESERVE TO HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE WHO DO NOT. No one argues that a doctor aught to have same salary as a labourer, given all the time and effort the doctor put in to get where he is. No one argues that the man who works his butt off to get to the top aught to have the same salary as the guy who lazes around. YET, in this game there are so many voices that argue "just because it is a game we paid for it we deserve this and that etc etc".

2. THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING FOR UP-AND-COMING PLAYERS TO AIM FOR, and GETTING A GREAT SHIP TOGETHER is definitely one of those things, and especially has been for me, there needs to be something for new players to aim at. Nerfing engineered ships/bringing them down a peg is really the wrong thing and dis-incentivises people to play the game never mind engineer. And for those who don't buy Horizons why should they get an advantage also?

3. IT IS YET ANOTHER SLAP IN THE FACE AGAINST VETERAN PLAYERS AND THOSE WHO BOTHERED TO REALLY INVEST THEIR TIME IN THIS GAME. Let us take example of person who wants to get a top quality Shield, they need to Unlock Lei Chung, which means they need to unlock The Dweller, which means hopping around from market to market spending good few hours doing that. They then need to gather all the mats together, especially if they dont know how yet, takes a long time and lot of effort. Then they need to unlock Did Vaterman which means they also need to unlock Slean Jean who is a serious b***h to unlock as it means mining a whole bunch of stuff that was previously, before hotspots REALLY time-consuming and a ballache for those who were new to mining esp. And so on... To take all that away just because there are a lot of whining voices in this forum and elsewhere, or to just give it away to those who didnt bother...

4. COMBAT BALANCE IS FINE THE WAY IT IS - THERE ARE NO VOICES CALLING FOR MAJOR CHANGES FROM THE PVP COMMUNTIY. Right now and always has been a very dynamic game of rock, paper, scissors always evolving. There are no serious problems or voices in the PvP community saying that balance has to change etc etc. Yes there are some specific cases where a given ship or module could be buffed(I am generally against nerfing), and that aught to be listened to but there are no major complains of large systematic problems or balance issues from the people who actually do ship-to-ship combat. The only whining about these issues is from people who hide in solo/fed up with ships being attacked and not having the skill set to deal with it. Pandering to these people yet again is the wrong answer.

5. THE MOST IMPORTANT BALANCE-RELATED ISSUE THAT NEEDS FIXING IS CHEATING FROM 3rd PARTY PROGRAMS. This is what really needs to be focused on and a major stop to be put to it. There are "trainers" out there than make ships invulnerable, increase damage, etc, etc, dont know what else they do but they basically are cheat programs that wreck the game. The other really big "balance" issue when it comes to cheating is combat logging, which there has been absolutely no will to fix. There are so many easy fixes to this, like the person who loses connection to Frontier servers while under attack by another player is facing a rebuy screen when they log back in. Kill is just awarded to the attacking player and that is the end of it. Very easy fix, no problems. And as far as it being "legitimate" in Frontier's eyes to use the 15-second menu to exit combat this needs to change if in an instance with other players, it needs to be 15 seconds FROM THE LAST TIME THE SHIP TOOK DAMAGE - and that timer is reset every time damage is taken.

So, probably of all the points I have raised on the forums, this is the one I FEEL MOST STRONGLY ABOUT. For me, nerfing my engineered fleet and seriously lowering the bar of the game will pretty much end it for me, I most likely go find something else to play if it happens. It is not fair given all the effort I put in, and for all the CMDRs out there who did put the 100S OF HOURS together getting great ships that can survive and thrive in open and other areas its really a PUNCH IN THE FACE to make that kind of change.

Keep the balance largely as it is; it is right for those who put the effort to reap the rewards.

Signing off,

CMDR Gavin786

I see what you are saying regarding time invested but overall I disagree personally. My issue is mostly because the engineers are so unrealistic . I am a long term player as well but I personally feel the ability to build an essentially indestructible ship where you can always either jump out or sometimes even go for your tea laving your ship safe in a RES is just bad design.
On top of that I was really looking forward to the NPC crew in the DDF. Imo that should play at least as big an improvement to your ship as engineering does (passive bonuses depending on your crew) however IF FD implement that on top of current engineers the power creep would be ludicrous.
I do see where you are coming from regarding time invested being taken away from you however.
I am a bit biased however as whilst I have done engineering and would get hit by any nerf it would be less so than some as I had strict personal rules to not make my ship too OP

 

[CMDR John Luke Paperbone]

I cannot fathom, for the life of me, how the aggressor can gain any fun reward for engaging in a cr@ pshoot. That's not a "game" any more. Not really. There's no "gameplay". Just fish in a barrell.

I Honestly see this as a playerbase problem more than everything else.

Engineering is a tool, and as other tools ( let's say a gun, in real life, for a moment ) can be used for bad or for good.

No gameplay mechanics can protect you from jackasses in an online game

 

[Valorin]

I am completely against Nerfing engineering and the scales of balance being tipped by the devs in favour of those who did not bother to do so,

The recent announcement by Frontier that fleet carriers are being delayed, beta will be a thing again and focus is changing to bug fixes are things that were requested in the open letter.

So Frontier have listened to it and taken action.

One thing I seriously did not like about the Open Letter and main reason I did not sign was because it asked as one of the four primary issues for balance changes to bring engineered ships and non-engineered ships onto some kind of par.

I am totally against this. From my standpoint I probably spent 100s of hours of my time engineering ships. And I am not alone.

Now people who fly in Solo/PG dont really have much incentive to engineer other than that is what they want to do. It is not a must for them so we doubtless going to hear the usual voices.

And I know this post probably going to cause a lot of fighting, but I really think it is important to put this point of view across, that many players DO NOT WANT the hands of the devs to tip the scales of balance in favour of those who did not bother to engineer. I see a future where there are shieldless ships flying around in Shinrarta in open with ne'er a care in the world. For me that would be the end of this game. May as well remove "dangerous" from the title, just a joke then. Things have already went too far with the C&P system and ATR are implemented stupid, lazy, immersion breaking, and just a pandering to the carebear community. I wont digress into ATR that is another post.

And the next step on this kind of path is to make people invulnerable in Shinrarta or some proper Concord-style instant response NPCs. That is really the end of this game for me, say it right now if it happens.

1. THOSE WHO SPEND THE TIME AND EFFORT ENGINEERING THEIR SHIP DESERVE TO HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE WHO DO NOT. No one argues that a doctor aught to have same salary as a labourer, given all the time and effort the doctor put in to get where he is. No one argues that the man who works his butt off to get to the top aught to have the same salary as the guy who lazes around. YET, in this game there are so many voices that argue "just because it is a game we paid for it we deserve this and that etc etc".

2. THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING FOR UP-AND-COMING PLAYERS TO AIM FOR, and GETTING A GREAT SHIP TOGETHER is definitely one of those things, and especially has been for me, there needs to be something for new players to aim at. Nerfing engineered ships/bringing them down a peg is really the wrong thing and dis-incentivises people to play the game never mind engineer. And for those who don't buy Horizons why should they get an advantage also?

3. IT IS YET ANOTHER SLAP IN THE FACE AGAINST VETERAN PLAYERS AND THOSE WHO BOTHERED TO REALLY INVEST THEIR TIME IN THIS GAME. Let us take example of person who wants to get a top quality Shield, they need to Unlock Lei Chung, which means they need to unlock The Dweller, which means hopping around from market to market spending good few hours doing that. They then need to gather all the mats together, especially if they dont know how yet, takes a long time and lot of effort. Then they need to unlock Did Vaterman which means they also need to unlock Slean Jean who is a serious b***h to unlock as it means mining a whole bunch of stuff that was previously, before hotspots REALLY time-consuming and a ballache for those who were new to mining esp. And so on... To take all that away just because there are a lot of whining voices in this forum and elsewhere, or to just give it away to those who didnt bother...

4. COMBAT BALANCE IS FINE THE WAY IT IS - THERE ARE NO VOICES CALLING FOR MAJOR CHANGES FROM THE PVP COMMUNTIY. Right now and always has been a very dynamic game of rock, paper, scissors always evolving. There are no serious problems or voices in the PvP community saying that balance has to change etc etc. Yes there are some specific cases where a given ship or module could be buffed(I am generally against nerfing), and that aught to be listened to but there are no major complains of large systematic problems or balance issues from the people who actually do ship-to-ship combat. The only whining about these issues is from people who hide in solo/fed up with ships being attacked and not having the skill set to deal with it. Pandering to these people yet again is the wrong answer.

5. THE MOST IMPORTANT BALANCE-RELATED ISSUE THAT NEEDS FIXING IS CHEATING FROM 3rd PARTY PROGRAMS. This is what really needs to be focused on and a major stop to be put to it. There are "trainers" out there than make ships invulnerable, increase damage, etc, etc, dont know what else they do but they basically are cheat programs that wreck the game. The other really big "balance" issue when it comes to cheating is combat logging, which there has been absolutely no will to fix. There are so many easy fixes to this, like the person who loses connection to Frontier servers while under attack by another player is facing a rebuy screen when they log back in. Kill is just awarded to the attacking player and that is the end of it. Very easy fix, no problems. And as far as it being "legitimate" in Frontier's eyes to use the 15-second menu to exit combat this needs to change if in an instance with other players, it needs to be 15 seconds FROM THE LAST TIME THE SHIP TOOK DAMAGE - and that timer is reset every time damage is taken.

So, probably of all the points I have raised on the forums, this is the one I FEEL MOST STRONGLY ABOUT. For me, nerfing my engineered fleet and seriously lowering the bar of the game will pretty much end it for me, I most likely go find something else to play if it happens. It is not fair given all the effort I put in, and for all the CMDRs out there who did put the 100S OF HOURS together getting great ships that can survive and thrive in open and other areas its really a PUNCH IN THE FACE to make that kind of change.

Keep the balance largely as it is; it is right for those who put the effort to reap the rewards.

Signing off,

CMDR Gavin786

I fly a lot in Open. I have lots of engineered ships. I still think the gap between unengineered ships and engineered ones is to big, mostly when it comes to defence against engineered weapons. The way how engineered ships saw through shields and hull of unengineered ones, espeically explorers and most traders is nothing short of ridiculous. No ship that is not small should explode after three seconds of fire.

 

[WR3ND]

I'm not a fan of the meta power-creep and what it's done to the game since 3301, but I'd be surprised if they did nerf engineered modules either way. They've even specifically said in the past that they wouldn't, so people could keep their kit they worked on – it was pointed out in the Engineering betas how over-powered it was and people asked about it even back then.

Not sure where the notion that they might be nerfing Engineering is coming from.

 

[CMDR John Luke Paperbone]

"4. COMBAT BALANCE IS FINE THE WAY IT IS - THERE ARE NO VOICES CALLING FOR MAJOR CHANGES FROM THE PVP COMMUNTIY. "

Why not ask them? The last time experienced combat players suggested balancing shields and hull it was squealed into the void when FD contemplated it.

Hopefully with this pause it will give an opportunity to balance engineering in regards material requirements (i.e. some blueprints require more common things while some ask for orphan items), actually look at effects properly, balance hull / shield / SCBs etc and introduce actually imaginative blueprints rather than 'lightweight / sturdy'.

This on paper is good but in reality could produce outdated engineered builds, everyone should redo their ships from scratch. Is this good ? Is this bad ? I don't know, for me it would not be a problem ( and please consider that on my pitiful fleet of 5 ships, lol, only one of them has been seriously engineered ).

I know for sure that it would be a great problem for the ones that consider engineering a grind.

 

[Rubbernuke]

This on paper is good but in reality could produce outdated engineered builds, everyone should redo their ships from scratch. Is this good ? Is this bad ? I don't know, for me it would not be a problem ( and please consider that on my pitiful fleet of 5 ships, lol, only one of them has been seriously engineered ).

I know for sure that it would be a great problem for the ones that consider engineering a grind.

The problem is, engineering, in fact the whole game is very uneven- you have some blueprints that are overused (drag drives) while others are hardly touched. You have some materials used all over the place, while some are used once (what I term orphans). Some effects are amazing, while others are covered in dust.

My idea of balance is for FD with the sane parts of the community to go through this quagmire and make everything useful- balance is not taking away, its giving back choice. In giving more choice you then have less metas, leading to more unique outcomes.

 

[Screemonster]

I'm not a fan of the meta power-creep and what it's done to the game since 3301, but I'd be surprised if they did nerf engineered modules either way. They've even specifically said in the past that they wouldn't, so people could keep their kit they worked on – it was pointed out in the Engineering betas how over-powered it was and people asked about it even back then.

Not sure where the notion that they might be nerfing Engineering is coming from.

The fact that FD introduced spec ops ships and enemy captains as CZ effects and gave them engineered builds, even not particularly optimised ones, and we heard screaming from the players that they were bulletsponges tells us what we need to know about the state of them.

I'm not even bothered about their damage output, they're not really any more dangerous than getting the attention of an entire wing of other ships in a CZ (and the fact that people got used to the idea that you could just sit there and facetank half a dozen ships and expect your shields not to drop is an indictment in and of itself) but the fact that they take so bleedin' long to finally kill. And the captains have so many HP that unless you're rocking a "kill this one ship in particular" build that's suboptimal for the rest of the CZ, they're likely to escape if you don't focus them the minute they drop in.

 

[Han_Zen]

In my opinion the main issue are the modules, not the engineering.

Remove all internal defenses and premium ammo and buff armour(or add new higher tier) to compensate. Make PP weapons and modules available at tech broker.

This resolves the trader / combateer imbalance, the shield / hull imbalance and reduces the amount of modules that needs engineering.

It's a win for all. \o/

 

[M00ka]

I just wish engineering had some semblance of common sense about it. Think about it, you have to fly to the engineer to get the engineering applied and then you can pin the blueprint. But if you mod another module using that blueprint you still have to find an engineer to get the experimentals applied. But all of that goes out the cockpit window when you are facing a rebuy screen.

Personally (and yes I have donned the flame proof/salt resistant suit) is upon seeing the rebuy screen the only engineering you can get back are the ones you have blueprints for. No experimentals either. Hey you had to go to an engineer to get the experimentals in the first place, you shouldn't be able to get them at some random station. It makes zero sense that something you can't get normally you can get on death - the more you think about it the more silly it becomes.

 

[Morbad]

I don't feel anyone is 'entitled' to the use of defective mechanisms, no matter how much effort was put it in to obtaining them...and I build a fleet of Engineered vessels back when each roll was three times as costly as it is now, plus cargo, and secondaries were entirely random. Had a several modules I put hundreds of rolls into to get something approximating what I was looking for. Most of that effort has already been completely depreciated (and subsequently replaced) by past balance changes. If another balance change could improve the game, any lost effort on my part should not be used as an excuse to not implement such changes.

Likewise, I thought I had plenty to aim for before Engineering was even rumored...gaining experience, refining my tactics, improving my piloting ability...those things never really end.

Combat balance is not remotely fine the way it is. Inflation, most notably (but not exclusively) in defense, is totally out of control. There is huge spectrum of possibilities with Engineering, but only a tiny handful of "metas" that are broadly viable. 1v1 encounters are often tedious in the extreme (that defensive inflation), yet other factors (dramatically increased weapons ranges, most notably) make focus fire more dangerous than ever. Ironically, there are probably fewer practical choices for PvP loadout than there were before Engineering.

Cheating is an issue that FDev could certainly do more about. However, while I certainly acknowledge the existence of 3rd party hacks, there are plenty of other ways to cheat, and they should all be discouraged.

 

[CMDR John Luke Paperbone]

The problem is, engineering, in fact the whole game is very uneven- you have some blueprints that are overused (drag drives) while others are hardly touched. You have some materials used all over the place, while some are used once (what I term orphans). Some effects are amazing, while others are covered in dust.

My idea of balance is for FD with the sane parts of the community to go through this quagmire and make everything useful- balance is not taking away, its giving back choice. In giving more choice you then have less metas, leading to more unique outcomes.

I agree on your point, but my response to your previous post was about the consequences of your idea, not your idea per se

 

[Rampant]

I Honestly see this as a playerbase problem more than everything else.

Engineering is a tool, and as other tools ( let's say a gun, in real life, for a moment ) can be used for bad or for good.

No gameplay mechanics can protect you from jackasses in an online game

I don't label the guy who destroys me as a jackass.
Instead, I label the mechanics that encourage this "gameplay" to be jackass.

Where we are is that a powerfully engineered player is not encouraged to find other powerfully engineered combatants. Exactly the opposite, in fact. They are encouraged to find lesser engineered opponents, simply because, in the words of the OP - they think they "deserve" it - they think that their time spent engineering "entitles" them to engage in a carp shoot. (It encourages them to play "easy mode", because combat against other engineered players is too hard, boo hoo.)
Now, that there is a mindset that I find loathsome - that they actually believe they have "entitlements" simply due to their own notion of having put more time into the game than someone else. Loathsome mindset.

What's more, is that it actually encourages players like me to contemplate combat logging and to contemplate blocking.

Now, I'm against combat logging - strictly out of principle. Strongly against, in fact.

Did I already mention that engineering "encourages" players to engage lesser engineered opponents.
The kicker here is that, as a direct consequence, it also encourages players who would not normally do so, to consider combat logging...

 

[Rubbernuke]

]

Remove all internal defenses and premium ammo and buff armour(or add new higher tier) to compensate.

What about shield boosters? A more creative solution would be higher power requirements, and / or weapon effects that magnify with each booster. That way, a plain unboosted shield is immune to reverb, but a octo boosted 10K prismatic is glass against a reverb muntion that is magnified x8 in DPS.

If SCB are left in, and HRPs taken out, phasing would become the meta.

Make PP weapons and modules available at tech broker.

How does that change anything?

 

[CMDR John Luke Paperbone]

I don't label the guy who destroys me as a jackass.
Instead, I label the mechanics that encourage this "gameplay" to be jackass.

Where we are is that a powerfully engineered player is not encouraged to find other powerfully engineered combatants. Exactly the opposite, in fact. They are encouraged to find lesser engineered opponents, simply because, in the words of the OP - they think they "deserve" it - they think that their time spent engineering "entitles" them to engage in a carp shoot. (It encourages them to play "easy mode", because combat against other engineered players is too hard, boo hoo.)
Now, that there is a mindset that I find loathsome - that they actually believe they have "entitlements" simply due to their own notion of having put more time into the game than someone else. Loathsome mindset.

What's more, is that it actually encourages players like me to contemplate combat logging and to contemplate blocking.

Now, I'm against combat logging - strictly out of principle. Strongly against, in fact.

Did I already mention that engineering "encourages" players to engage lesser engineered opponents.
The kicker here is that, as a direct consequence, it also encourages players who would not normally do so, to consider combat logging...

The kind of mindset you describe, in my opinion, is the jackass one

So, in my opinion at least, my point remains.

 

[M00ka]

]

What about shield boosters? A more creative solution would be higher power requirements, and / or weapon effects that magnify with each booster. That way, a plain unboosted shield is immune to reverb, but a octo boosted 10K prismatic is glass against a reverb muntion that is magnified x8 in DPS.

If SCB are left in, and HRPs taken out, phasing would become the meta.

Isn't the meta the problem though? Whenever a ceiling is set, someone will find a way to break it. They will find some unique (at the time) combination of ship/weapon/engineering/experimental that gives them an edge. Then like utter idiots, they will jump on the forums or reddit and tell everyone about it, expecting everyone to bask in their glory. But all that does it let everyone know what the new meta is, so will immediately adopt it as they are either incapable of individual thought or scared silly about 'missing out'. So soon, everyone is flying around in the new meta, but because so many have copied it, it isn't a meta anymore, it is the norm. And this situation stays the same until the next meta is revealed and then the cycle starts again.

 

[Kenneth McGrew]

i CMDR Kenneth McGrew - The first of his name, King of the seismic charges, the dolphin heat bug and small ships, the rightful king of the entire galaxy from Amundsen's Star to ishums reach and protector of the realm, King of Dolphin rock, King of asteroids, Drogon of the great space seas, the unburnt, and overheating, Breaker of small ship stigmas and father of Cetacean ships galaxy wide, Lord & Emperor of the realm and longer title than Daenerys Stormborn do not approve of this letter / thread, & you do not speak on behalf of the SSCF

 

[babelfisch]

If something gets rebalanced, they should increase the capabilities of the base ships / modules rather than lowering engineering effects. Also add diminishing returns for SBs, HRPSs and MRPs.

Regarding OP, there is so much I could say about it but I don't talk to people who don't respect labourers.

 

[Han_Zen]

]

What about shield boosters? A more creative solution would be higher power requirements, and / or weapon effects that magnify with each booster. That way, a plain unboosted shield is immune to reverb, but a octo boosted 10K prismatic is glass against a reverb muntion that is magnified x8 in DPS.

If SCB are left in, and HRPs taken out, phasing would become the meta.



How does that change anything?

SCBs are internal defense and would have to go. Boosters could use even more stacking limitations, but that’s details.

 

[Aashenfox]

Honestly though? Experimental effects? Changing damage types up? Rebalancing resistances so they're not the standard? That stuff's great. Quality of life things like overcharged powerplants and long-range FSDs? Also good. Lightweight versus reinforced mods? Fantastic. Those mods make a tangible difference but not an overpowered one. A focused, gimballed burst laser will help you run a laser build that can punch up against tougher hulls, but on the kinds of ships that benefit from it (small and medium hardpoints) the thermal load means you'll need to combine it with thermal vent beams or heatsinks, or at least be careful on the trigger. That stuff's fine.

The problem that keeps getting brought up in the PvP chats I've been in is the hitpoint inflation on just about everything. Ships that can just throw four pips to shields and not even fly evasively, just wait until their opponents run out of ammo. A straight multiplier that puts the gulf between combat-fit ships and ships fitted for anything else even more out of wack than it already was - it's fine if a combat ship is stronger than a noncombat ship, but there's "just shy of 3k shields" (unengineered prismatic cutter with all a-rated boosters) and "just shy of 12k" (that same cutter with heavy-duty/reinforced mods).

If the defensive benefits were brought more into line with the offensive benefits (+80% bonus of raw numbers at most, some jiggling around of damage types) maybe we'd see people bothering to fight back against pirates and gankers and whatnot, or wings able to mind their own business on account of actually posing a threat to an attacker. As it is, they might as well sell their hardpoints to save weight for all the good they'll do.

It's all about needing diminishing returns on armor and mj, and a bit stronger ones on resistance. This would kill all birds with a single stone, EXCEPT, it would make explorers and traders more vulnerable again (which was the original reason for the 1000% defense inflation compared to 200% dps inflation). The main benefit to this though (stronger DR on resistance and 'some' DR on mj and armor), is that at least you could carry some mission/utility equipment around and still be competitive (because adding that 5th HRP does almost nothing).

 

[Rubbernuke]

Isn't the meta the problem though? Whenever a ceiling is set, someone will find a way to break it. They will find some unique (at the time) combination of ship/weapon/engineering/experimental that gives them an edge. Then like utter idiots, they will jump on the forums or reddit and tell everyone about it, expecting everyone to bask in their glory. But all that does it let everyone know what the new meta is, so will immediately adopt it as they are either incapable of individual thought or scared silly about 'missing out'. So soon, everyone is flying around in the new meta, but because so many have copied it, it isn't a meta anymore, it is the norm. And this situation stays the same until the next meta is revealed and then the cycle starts again.

For me at least, the more extreme you go the more vulnerable you should be- so in the end people will mostly settle for the middle ground which is what you want. It then still gives you headroom to go crazy, but at the same time provides downsides that should hopefully balance things out.