Sick of not knowing!!

[Rat Catcher]

If you just enjoy what you're doing and keep your head buried then why oppose people who pay attention wanting to balance the game around you? Your assumption that arguments for game balancing are only to further an individual's playstyle is based on your own ego-centric perspective on game activities. Most of the arguments about game balancing from people in some way connected with the PvP community are centred around lowering the barrier for entry and making more ship styles viable to improve the health of the community and game as a whole. So you reject it out of contrarian principle and because you dislike anyone you associate as a PvPer rather than reasoned argument.

I was waiting for something like this

Thanks for not disappointing me - Those 'people' requiring 'balance' - regardless of their 'play' - wish to impose their perceptions on the entire player base, or did you miss that simple observation? I do not advocate any change at all, regardless of how one wastes their time playing... So who is ego-centric? Me who sees no reason to change things as they 'work' as they are, or those who wish for change to 'improve' their game?

So you reject it out of contrarian principle and because you dislike anyone you associate as a PvPer rather than reasoned argument.

Where have I said anything of the likes - kindly stop misrepresenting my comments.

 

[lenna]

Perhaps the simple answer would be to change the nature of the bonuses for premium ammo - avoid benefits that could result in obvious power creep while still offering a benefit.

For example: reduced heat or reload times, increased ammo quantity per synthesis, improve accuracy/armour penetration, or other subtle advantages.

With regards to having an indication of premium ammo being active (or perhaps being applied) it would not be that unreasonable for some form of indication to be given to other players.

A simplistic answer might be to include the information in a ship scan and to change the player ship symbol in some way to highlight the fact they have either mods or premium ammo applied. For example:-

1. Stock player ship with normal ammo: Empty Triangle
2. Player ship with either mods or exclusive kit (experimental or PP): Empty Triangle with a tri-cross (middle of the sides of the triangle converging on the centre)
3. Stock player ship with premium ammo: Empty Triangle with an inner/outer circle
4. Player ship with both mods (or exclusive kit) and premium ammo: Empty Triangle with both a tri-cross and an inner/outer circle

In this example, the premium ammo aspect could be applied as soon as synthesis of the ammo is started.

[EDIT]For the immersion-centric people - the change to the ship identification symbol could be announced via GalNet.

A new declaration policy came into force today for Pilots Federation members after a joint campaign by the military and law enforcement organisations of the 3 major powers. Some of the independent factions tried to veto the change but were ultimately overruled by the Pilots Federation senior administrators who saw logic to the request. The change was introduced in the light of increasing concerns over pilots customising their craft and equipment beyond factory specifications and the wider adoption of non-standard kit.

[/EDIT]

 

[RamirezKurita]

I was waiting for something like this

Thanks for not disappointing me - Those 'people' requiring 'balance' - regardless of their 'play' - wish to impose their perceptions on the entire player base, or did you miss that simple observation? I do not advocate any change at all, regardless of how one wastes their time playing... So who is ego-centric? Me who sees no reason to change things as they 'work' as they are, or those who wish for change to 'improve' their game?


Where have I said anything of the likes - kindly stop misrepresenting my comments.

The big different between those that advocate for balance compared to those that advocate for imbalance is that balance doesn't invalidate other play styles. Balance is overall about game health, not about individual play styles. The only play style that suffers as a result of balance is the abuse of overpowered mechanics, which is not something that a developer should support.

For example, someone who advocates for balance wouldn't want a legitimate strategy removing (either by outright removal or by effective removal by overnerfing) but instead would want it to be brought in line with other methods. Someone who advocates for imbalance wants their way/ways to be "right" and all others to be "wrong", while someone who advocates for balance wants a greater variety in different ways to be "right".

As a more specific example, consider the old days of thermal shock dominance. No other strategy was really worth considering in PvP other than heating up the target and watching them melt. Now, some players claimed it was fine and others should simply use thermal shock weapons themselves, and if we listened to them then we would still only see a single viable build for any kind of PvP work. Those who advocated for balance wanted thermal shock effects nerfing down to the point of balance; where it would be effective enough to use as a build yet without overpowering other options, which would have kept thermal shock as an option without excluding other play styles. Unfortunately, FD listened to the advocates for imbalance on the other extreme, and nerfed thermal shock into oblivion and so effectively removed it as a strategy.

 

[Rat Catcher]

The big different between those that advocate for balance compared to those that advocate for imbalance is that balance doesn't invalidate other play styles. Balance is overall about game health, not about individual play styles. The only play style that suffers as a result of balance is the abuse of overpowered mechanics, which is not something that a developer should support.

For example, someone who advocates for balance wouldn't want a legitimate strategy removing (either by outright removal or by effective removal by overnerfing) but instead would want it to be brought in line with other methods. Someone who advocates for imbalance wants their way/ways to be "right" and all others to be "wrong", while someone who advocates for balance wants a greater variety in different ways to be "right".

As a more specific example, consider the old days of thermal shock dominance. No other strategy was really worth considering in PvP other than heating up the target and watching them melt. Now, some players claimed it was fine and others should simply use thermal shock weapons themselves, and if we listened to them then we would still only see a single viable build for any kind of PvP work. Those who advocated for balance wanted thermal shock effects nerfing down to the point of balance; where it would be effective enough to use as a build yet without overpowering other options, which would have kept thermal shock as an option without excluding other play styles. Unfortunately, FD listened to the advocates for imbalance on the other extreme, and nerfed thermal shock into oblivion and so effectively removed it as a strategy.

Nicely put

Now of course, the brunt of the matter Reading through the (quite interesting) range of comments through this topic, balance itself appears 'moot' as it depends on which side of the combat fence one sits. The 'power creep' so often referenced is surely real, in both PvE & PvP camps, CZ's are a 'fine' example of 'bullet sponges' - stacking of SB's and HRP/MRP & SCB's (plus engineering where applicable) makes for very 'hardy' defense against fairly limited offense capability (although it is simple enough to engineer a Frag boat that will deliver 2k+ damage if all pellets hit).

As it stands PvE benefits from all of the 'buffs' - good for one such as I, without doubt. But, in fairness, the Devs cannot produce a game with infinite skill progression - resulting in the situation where the challenge presented by NPC's is 'too easy' for a few players and discontent as the game presents insufficient difficulty, so 'balance' is requested to bring back a semblance of challenge...

Hence my position, in not seeing any need to modify game parameters as there is sufficient challenge in-game to keep it enjoyable - even the CZ's provide some entertainment, despite the TTK for e.g. Spec Ops ships - as playing a game should be fun in my eyes and ED provides plenty of that.

At no point have I denigrated the PvP community (despite being accused of such), just made the point that change does affect everyone, even those satisfied with the game as it is currently crafted.

 

[B1rdy]

Don't we all play 'as we wish'? Arguments for 'balance' in whatever, for whatever reason, are still a rejection of something another may consider perfectly reasonable, the game (for all of its foibles) gives enough variety of activities for players to bring in new revenue as has been illustrated by sales figures published in Frontier Accounts. Player wastage is expected and happens for every game, sooner or later ED will go the way of other games, regardless of current player wishes.

A few years ago EA released some financial numbers showing micro transactions made about half of their revenue, if I remember correctly. Fdev also has provided some numbers, which made clear, that player retention needs to be taken into consideration. Especially since they want to sell a new expansion. Therefore it is reasonable to take care of the current state of the game.

I'm very selfish, at no point in my play do I consider the parts I have no interest in to be of consequence to me... I just play a game I have bought and enjoy what I'm doing.

Then, please, be invited to expand your perception by the arguments people made in this thread. Nobody wants you to accept anything, but you (and those who disagree with OP and the imbalance) should at least tolerate, when there is a well-founded need for balance expressed.

Nicely put

Now of course, the brunt of the matter Reading through the (quite interesting) range of comments through this topic, balance itself appears 'moot' as it depends on which side of the combat fence one sits. The 'power creep' so often referenced is surely real, in both PvE & PvP camps, CZ's are a 'fine' example of 'bullet sponges' - stacking of SB's and HRP/MRP & SCB's (plus engineering where applicable) makes for very 'hardy' defense against fairly limited offense capability (although it is simple enough to engineer a Frag boat that will deliver 2k+ damage if all pellets hit).

But it runs out of ammo after what, 10 mins? It is not a solution, it is a workaround at best, if only max DPS builds have a somewhat reasonable TTK.

As it stands PvE benefits from all of the 'buffs' - good for one such as I, without doubt. But, in fairness, the Devs cannot produce a game with infinite skill progression - resulting in the situation where the challenge presented by NPC's is 'too easy' for a few players and discontent as the game presents insufficient difficulty, so 'balance' is requested to bring back a semblance of challenge...

We are drifting off-topic here and this has also been discussed that difficulty could be scaled (further) by location or missions.

Hence my position, in not seeing any need to modify game parameters as there is sufficient challenge in-game to keep it enjoyable - even the CZ's provide some entertainment, despite the TTK for e.g. Spec Ops ships - as playing a game should be fun in my eyes and ED provides plenty of that.

Even though you don't have the need, people's argument, especially OPs, and reasoning should have made clear, that there is a general need to have certain aspects re-balanced.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

If you just enjoy what you're doing and keep your head buried then why oppose people who pay attention wanting to balance the game around you? Your assumption that arguments for game balancing are only to further an individual's playstyle is based on your own ego-centric perspective on game activities. Most of the arguments about game balancing from people in some way connected with the PvP community are centred around lowering the barrier for entry and making more ship styles viable to improve the health of the community and game as a whole. So you reject it out of contrarian principle and because you dislike anyone you associate as a PvPer rather than reasoned argument.

There is no balance - this game went completely out of whack with engineers. There isn't even a matchmaker to fit reasonably equipped vs each others. Power scores? FD never heard of it. They have little idea how to do a reasonable PvP game and on top of it they keep confusing PvE with PvP all the time.

 

[Han_Zen]

There is no balance - this game went completely out of whack with engineers. There isn't even a matchmaker to fit reasonably equipped vs each others. Power scores? FD never heard of it. They have little idea how to do a reasonable PvP game and on top of it they keep confusing PvE with PvP all the time.

Combat balance went out the window long before the engineers. The day the SCB were introduced, combat balance was gone(PvP and PvE).
After that, most changes have made it even worse.
The decision to allow storage of of defensive hitpoints in internals and module slots, was the nail in the coffin for ED as a valid PvP game.

Premium ammo is a poor attempt at giving an edge, to those that grind materials. Logically the best ammo should be available in the store. The home made stuff should be less effective. Premium synth ammo should be the same as regular store ammo.

 

[Deleted member 192138]

I would be open to that as an alternative. You can keep going for longer without restocking if you've ground the mats, but you won't be at an advantage and could be at a disadvantage depending on what mats you have the supply for.

 

[B1rdy]

There is no balance - this game went completely out of whack with engineers. There isn't even a matchmaker to fit reasonably equipped vs each others. Power scores? FD never heard of it.

From what DBOBE describes, you proposal is against the fundamental idea of ED. However it could mean a more fair experience, but I would not know, how to balance combat and non-combat ships.

They have little idea how to do a reasonable PvP game and on top of it they keep confusing PvE with PvP all the time.

Hmm...maybe.

 

[Morbad]

I would not know, how to balance combat and non-combat ships.

Can't be done, as far as direct combat is concerned, and this is completely ok.

Having a ship that has spent all it's power and mass budget on tools to absorb and inflict damage not be superior in a straight-up fight to a similar design, that has used those budgets elsewhere, would be absurd.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Combat balance went out the window long before the engineers. The day the SCB were introduced, combat balance was gone(PvP and PvE).
After that, most changes have made it even worse.
The decision to allow storage of of defensive hitpoints in internals and module slots, was the nail in the coffin for ED as a valid PvP game.

Premium ammo is a poor attempt at giving an edge, to those that grind materials. Logically the best ammo should be available in the store. The home made stuff should be less effective. Premium synth ammo should be the same as regular store ammo.

From what DBOBE describes, you proposal is against the fundamental idea of ED. However it could mean a more fair experience, but I would not know, how to balance combat and non-combat ships.
Hmm...maybe.

The fundamental idea to throw PvE and PvP into one bucket was probably not the best idea and design dint do a miracle to turn it into a good concept neither.

 

[B1rdy]

Can't be done, as far as direct combat is concerned, and this is completely ok.

Having a ship that has spent all it's power and mass budget on tools to absorb and inflict damage not be superior in a straight-up fight to a similar design, that has used those budgets elsewhere, would be absurd.

You needed a workaround for that, that would be in-line with lore and consistent with the game world...something like escorts maybe?

 

[Han_Zen]

Can't be done, as far as direct combat is concerned, and this is completely ok.

Having a ship that has spent all it's power and mass budget on tools to absorb and inflict damage not be superior in a straight-up fight to a similar design, that has used those budgets elsewhere, would be absurd.

It could be closer though. Without internal defense modules the theoretical difference between a trader and a fighter in the same ship, would be minimal. The weight of the cargo would slow the trader down a bit, but not to much.

 

[Morbad]

It could be closer though. Without internal defense modules the theoretical difference between a trader and a fighter in the same ship, would be minimal. The weight of the cargo would slow the trader down a bit, but not to much.

The difference between a trader and a fighter, even in the same ship, should not be minimal. Spending payload capacity on structural reinforcement and armor is entirely plausible and commonly done to ships, ground vehicles, and even aircraft.

Take a freighter and instead of carrying freight, break up the internal volume with watertight compartments, reinforce the keel, armor the bulkheads around critical areas, preemptively flood some perimeter compartments with water or fuel, then add more bilge pumps, more damage control systems/crew, and you could put three or four times the material between the outside of the ship and any vitals, while still having a huge fraction left over for reserve buoyancy and a much greater capacity to conduct emergency repairs and pump out water on the fly...making the ship vastly harder to sink than it's cargo focused counterparts, or even many less massive warships.

In ED, HRPs in optional internals are not a bad abstraction. I'd rebalance some of the protective values, as I think HRP masses are too low for the protection they provide, and the protection a bit too linear, but the concept does not bother me in the slightest.

 

[Han_Zen]

The difference between a trader and a fighter, even in the same ship, should not be minimal. Spending payload capacity on structural reinforcement and armor is entirely plausible and commonly done to ships, ground vehicles, and even aircraft.

Take a freighter and instead of carrying freight, break up the internal volume with watertight compartments, reinforce the keel, armor the bulkheads around critical areas, preemptively flood some perimeter compartments with water or fuel, then add more bilge pumps, more damage control systems/crew, and you could put three or four times the material between the outside of the ship and any vitals, while still having a huge fraction left over for reserve buoyancy and a much greater capacity to conduct emergency repairs and pump out water on the fly...making the ship vastly harder to sink than it's cargo focused counterparts, or even many less massive warships.

In ED, HRPs in optional internals are not a bad abstraction. I'd rebalance some of the protective values, as I think HRP masses are too low for the protection they provide, and the protection a bit too linear, but the concept does not bother me in the slightest.

The concept is plausible, but it’s not a good game design choice.
The alternative would be just as plausible. Only external armour can be used and the shield gets it’s energy from the PD. No alternatives.

 

[M00ka]

The difference between a trader and a fighter, even in the same ship, should not be minimal. Spending payload capacity on structural reinforcement and armor is entirely plausible and commonly done to ships, ground vehicles, and even aircraft.

Take a freighter and instead of carrying freight, break up the internal volume with watertight compartments, reinforce the keel, armor the bulkheads around critical areas, preemptively flood some perimeter compartments with water or fuel, then add more bilge pumps, more damage control systems/crew, and you could put three or four times the material between the outside of the ship and any vitals, while still having a huge fraction left over for reserve buoyancy and a much greater capacity to conduct emergency repairs and pump out water on the fly...making the ship vastly harder to sink than it's cargo focused counterparts, or even many less massive warships.

In ED, HRPs in optional internals are not a bad abstraction. I'd rebalance some of the protective values, as I think HRP masses are too low for the protection they provide, and the protection a bit too linear, but the concept does not bother me in the slightest.

Umm but it wouldn't be a freighter then would it. It would just be a largish ship that is hard to sink, kind of useless really.

 

[Riverside]

Umm but it wouldn't be a freighter then would it. It would just be a largish ship that is hard to sink, kind of useless really.

We are not flying specialised military vehicles, we are flying the equivalent of Toyota Pick-ups & Jeeps with bed mounted machine guns

 

[Just Paul]

Umm but it wouldn't be a freighter then would it. It would just be a largish ship that is hard to sink, kind of useless really.

Not really. The cargo capacity just would be smaller compared to a pure freighter. For example cargo ships traversing pirate infested waters usually add some defenses to counter the threat or military transporters adding armor against IEDs at the cost of payload.
In ED it means having 600-650t of cargo space instead of 750t+. The 100t loss usually doesn't make a big difference in pay, but it greatly increases the chances of arrival at the destination in one piece.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Not really. The cargo capacity just would be smaller compared to a pure freighter. For example cargo ships traversing pirate infested waters usually add some defenses to counter the threat or military transporters adding armor against IEDs at the cost of payload.
In ED it means having 600-650t of cargo space instead of 750t+. The 100t loss usually doesn't make a big difference in pay, but it greatly increases the chances of arrival at the destination in one piece.

That's a 20% decrease. Pretty substantial on the P/L. Freighters would be better off running in convoy.

 

[M00ka]

Not really. The cargo capacity just would be smaller compared to a pure freighter. For example cargo ships traversing pirate infested waters usually add some defenses to counter the threat or military transporters adding armor against IEDs at the cost of payload.
In ED it means having 600-650t of cargo space instead of 750t+. The 100t loss usually doesn't make a big difference in pay, but it greatly increases the chances of arrival at the destination in one piece.

Yes really. Go back and have another read of the original thread:

The difference between a trader and a fighter, even in the same ship, should not be minimal. Spending payload capacity on structural reinforcement and armor is entirely plausible and commonly done to ships, ground vehicles, and even aircraft.

Take a freighter and instead of carrying freight, break up the internal volume with watertight compartments, reinforce the keel, armor the bulkheads around critical areas, preemptively flood some perimeter compartments with water or fuel, then add more bilge pumps, more damage control systems/crew, and you could put three or four times the material between the outside of the ship and any vitals, while still having a huge fraction left over for reserve buoyancy and a much greater capacity to conduct emergency repairs and pump out water on the fly...making the ship vastly harder to sink than it's cargo focused counterparts, or even many less massive warships.

In ED, HRPs in optional internals are not a bad abstraction. I'd rebalance some of the protective values, as I think HRP masses are too low for the protection they provide, and the protection a bit too linear, but the concept does not bother me in the slightest.

See the bit I highlighted. The freighter is not longer capable of carrying frieght, it is in fact freightless. If Morbad has said something along the lines of …"Take a freighter and instead of carrying 100% of your normal freight load, reduce it by half by including extra armour" ....... then your argument would be valid