Engineering Under Threat - Open Letter etc

[Phisto Sobanii]

Except there is no entitlement to a kill snip

Read the words people write, please!

He was talking about being cheated out of a kill by task killing or disconnection - AKA cheating or an accident respectively. Anyone with half a brain knows that failing to secure a kill within the confines of the game rules is totally fair play.

 

[Stigbob]

The "cause" of clogging is ego-driven.

Its ignorance.

They don't know how to evade and low or high-wake, they don't know about menu-logging being fine. They also logged into the wrong mode in the first place.

They also don't know better than to cheat.

 

[lenna]

He was talking about being cheated out of a kill by task killing or disconnection

Except it is not true cheating (it is an EULA/ToS breach but that is another matter), the kill gains you nothing in game terms unless there is a bounty on them (or perhaps in the context of PP). But in any case, the point still stands - there is no explicit right for any given player to see any other given player's ship explode.

The point is that if there is a disconnect during combat the root cause is no where even close to being guaranteed as being deliberate. Anyone that thinks that this simple fact is erroneous or irrelevant obviously has no brain at all.

 

[lenna]

I can deal with any number of gankers, no problem at all.
But if a disconnect would mean ship destruction, I'll perma-migrate to solo.

Except if FD did implement such a scheme, then even Solo might be vulnerable to the underlying problem - probably less of an issue, but could still be a problem with OS/Driver/Game stability concerns - because FD would most likely not constrain it to PvP. FD have after-all ruled out various active PvP mitigation measures that have been proposed.

All this discussion of combat logging is pretty moot though - the topic of this thread was specifically about potential rebalancing of Engineering and all this diversion on to Combat Logging is doing is highlighting that griefers/gankers are possibly getting scared that they may lose their unjustifiable advantage in a combat setting and trying to derail the thread as a consequence.

If FD were to properly re-balance Engineering (both grand fathered and current) and module stacking so some sensible balanced (not crippling) trade-offs were added to bring some semblance of true parity across the various builds then it would fairly address a wide range of concerns.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

I think ganking and clogging are both overhyped. OP was about engineering.

I think they should change the process of engineering, not the outcome

 

[jasonbarron]

I can deal with any number of gankers, no problem at all.
But if a disconnect would mean ship destruction, I'll perma-migrate to solo.

I wouldn't recommend that a disconnect means your ship is automatically destroyed, but clearly having it remain in place is the only fair way to proceed from a rules standpoint. It isn't Fdev's fault if you have an unreliable connection, nor is it the PvP attacker's, and as it stands right now the scales of fairness are tipped heavily towards the player willing to pull the plug. Fdev leaving it in this state for any excuse is a miserable statement on the concept of fair play.

One idea I like is if you clog or are disconnected a Novice ranked AI takes control of your ship.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

I wouldn't recommend that a disconnect means your ship is automatically destroyed, but clearly having it remain in place is the only fair way to proceed from a rules standpoint. It isn't Fdev's fault if you have an unreliable connection, nor is it the PvP attacker's, and as it stands right now the scales of fairness are tipped heavily towards the player willing to pull the plug. Fdev leaving it in this state for any excuse is a miserable statement on the concept of fair play.

One idea I like is if you clog or are disconnected a Novice ranked AI takes control of your ship.

I think it would be fine to have an AI of the same combat elite rank fly a replica of the ship. That way the person who spontaneously disconnects is covered, and the attacker still gets their gameplay. This clog could be made known to the attacker by an “escape pod launch detected” cue

 

[jasonbarron]

I think it would be fine to have an AI of the same combat elite rank fly a replica of the ship. That way the person who spontaneously disconnects is covered, and the attacker still gets their gameplay. This clog could be made known to the attacker by an “escape pod launch detected” cue

I prefer the idea of a much lower ranked AI because punishment, but I'd be willing to concede the point and allow an AI ranked exactly the same to remain in control just to have it a thing, because anyway you slice it it would be a MASSIVE improvement from the current miserable state of affairs.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

I prefer the idea of a much lower ranked AI because punishment, but I'd be willing to concede the point and allow an AI ranked exactly the same to remain in control just to have it a thing, because anyway you slice it it would be a MASSIVE improvement from the current miserable state of affairs.

Miserable? Naw man, it's intended. There's no Ultimate Moral Right to seeing a player's ship explode. Don't worry, some "see you next Tuesday" will be along shortly to explain.

 

[lenna]

I think ganking and clogging are both overhyped. OP was about engineering.

Perhaps - but both are habitually moaned about in these forums from some quarters and where there is smoke there is likely to be fire.

But yes, the OP was about engineering and the ultimate issue is that the current state of play is the outcome of engineering in the combat context is on the most part unjustifiable.

I think they should change the process of engineering, not the outcome

Changing the process would alter very little, arguably the outcome needs to be adjusted and not the process. The current process is much better than what was originally implemented at initial release and there is really nothing much that can be done to improve it further except perhaps make the outcomes more predictable perhaps - for example:

1. L1 requires 1 batch of materials for 100%
2. L2 requires 1 batches of materials for 100%
3. L3 requires 2 batches of materials for 100%
4. L4 requires 3 batches of materials for 100%
5. L5 requires 5 batches of materials for 100%

Or something along those lines (needs to replicate the current mean average batch count) with each batch giving a fixed percentage at each engineering level.

As far as outcomes are concerned, in the combat area it is at least a tad imbalanced in at least some cases. However, the main problems are due to stacking and some cases of grandfathered kit.

There is also fundamentally an issue with the fact that those with access to Horizons have a unfair advantage wrt those that don't thus there is an underlying balancing issue wrt engineered v. non-engineered weapons and shields. Parity could be achieved through adding more balanced trade-offs in the case of shields/hull and actually adding some trade-offs of significance in the case of weapons. This is an issue that has not been addressed since the original release of engineering as part of Horizons.

I guess one option (to address the non-engineered v. engineered balance) without touching engineering would be to extend the principles of synthesis and space based material gathering to base game only owners. Then add temporary boosts to weapons and shields via synthesis that can either be only applied to non-engineered weapons/shields or have capped returns. For example, in the case of weapons:

1. Standard gives an L1 level boost to range and/or damage for 1hr
2. Enhanced gives an L3 level boost to range and/or damage for 1hr
3. Advanced gives an L5 level boost to range and/or damage for 1hr

These boosts would apply to both energy and ammo based weapons, and for those with engineering at L1/L3/L5 the net effect would not exceed the non-engineered weapon boost effect. The idea being the temporary boost will never be greater in net effect than 100% G5 engineering and the maximum boost only applies to non-engineered kit.

In the case of shields:

1. Standard gives an L1 level boost to resistance and/or strength for 1hr
2. Enhanced gives an L3 level boost to resistance and/or strength for 1hr
3. Advanced gives an L5 level boost to resistance and/or strength for 1hr

Similarly, these boosts would have parity across engineered and non-engineered kit.

 

[znôrt]

OP was about engineering.

correct. and there is a way out:

you can't take away the toys of people who have grinded for thousands of hours for them. but you can make them available for free for everyone. nobody ever said they were exclusive, right? and those who got them by grinding in the end have been benefiting from them for years already, and can get a badge and a decal for being grind pioneers.

this would solve the player vs player imbalance right away with no downsides.

now, the other problem is hitpoint inflation. note that engineers only exacerbated this, it was already a problem before engineers thanks to several gradual shield buffs and stacking. the solution to this is just buff dps across the board. not an expert but i guess around a 400% buff would work.

everyone gets to keep their toys, and a basic level of sanity is reinstated in the game. and then we just need a new network stack and game would be cream.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I wouldn't recommend that a disconnect means your ship is automatically destroyed, but clearly having it remain in place is the only fair way to proceed from a rules standpoint. It isn't Fdev's fault if you have an unreliable connection, nor is it the PvP attacker's, and as it stands right now the scales of fairness are tipped heavily towards the player willing to pull the plug. Fdev leaving it in this state for any excuse is a miserable statement on the concept of fair play.

One idea I like is if you clog or are disconnected a Novice ranked AI takes control of your ship.

I like the idea that on disconnection, RNGesus appears and depending on the context of your surroundings you play a game of Wheel of Misfortune™. If you land on the Bankrupt wedge.....booom!

 

[galahad2069]

the solution to this is just buff dps across the board. not an expert but i guess around a 400% buff would work.

Very bad idea. That would literally kill wingfights. The game shouldn't be balanced around 1v1 duels. But even in 1v1's it would pretty much result in one shottable modules, for instance.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Very bad idea. That would literally kill wingfights. The game shouldn't be balanced around 1v1 duels.

Why not? That surely is the context in which PvP should be based?

 

[znôrt]

Very bad idea. That would literally kill wingfights. The game shouldn't be balanced around 1v1 duels. But even in 1v1's it would pretty much result in one shottable modules, for instance.

making fights shorter and less dependent on uber shields, which is what many here (myself included) are arguing for. what's the problem?

wing fights would be the same, just much quicker.

 

[Rat Catcher]

making fights shorter and less dependent on uber shields, which is what many here (myself included) are arguing for. what's the problem?

win fights would be the same, just much quicker.

"But if my Uber Murderhobo ship could be one-shotted it wouldn't have a purpose!"
I'm totally in favour of balance in the game, as long as the balance is in my favour

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

making fights shorter and less dependent on uber shields, which is what many here (myself included) are arguing for. what's the problem?

wing fights would be the same, just much quicker.

I think it would be better to limit SCBs to 1 per ship. Or remove them entirely.

I don’t think a pure buff to damage is needed

 

[jasonbarron]

correct. and there is a way out:

you can't take away the toys of people who have grinded for thousands of hours for them. but you can make them available for free for everyone. nobody ever said they were exclusive, right? and those who got them by grinding in the end have been benefiting from them for years already, and can get a badge and a decal for being grind pioneers.

this would solve the player vs player imbalance right away with no downsides.

now, the other problem is hitpoint inflation. note that engineers only exacerbated this, it was already a problem before engineers thanks to several gradual shield buffs and stacking. the solution to this is just buff dps across the board. not an expert but i guess around a 400% buff would work.

everyone gets to keep their toys, and a basic level of sanity is reinstated in the game. and then we just need a new network stack and game would be cream.

Sweet baby Jesus, no. Just no. We don't need more powuh.

 

[galahad2069]

Why not? That surely is the context in which PvP should be based?

No, it's not.

 

[znôrt]

I think it would be better to limit SCBs to 1 per ship. Or remove them entirely.

I don’t think a pure buff to damage is needed

or that. but something!

i was thinking a damage boost would be the least risky change in terms of producing unsuspected unbalance ... but forgot about pve, that would need to be adjusted accordingly. removing scb is messier since there already anti-scb weapons in play, it can get even trickier. the biggest problem i see with removing scb though is the 'remove' part. tears would be shed, which i tried to avoid if you can't take anything away, the best approach is to make the op the new normal, and we're back at pre-engineers days with more variation and just numbers inflated globally which cancel out. but i'm sure some quirks would have to be addressed ...