Make stealth and hull great again!

[Screemonster]

I'd support a shield nerf. Boosters loose 50% of their strength across the board.

Stock boosters aren't that bad balancewise, even with a full stack of them. Engineering taking them from a 20% boost to a 70% boost is what makes them crazy.
Capping resistance resistance buffs at the largest individual booster in each category, and the total shield multiplier at "the largest individual booster or the total unmodified boost, whichever is greater" (ie. allow unengineered boosters to stack) would limit them pretty effectively and people wouldn't feel as bad using a couple of utilities on point defence to deal with those pesky missiles.

 

[Northpin]

Armor tanking should be just as viable as shield tanking. most modules should lie deep within a ship's hull and should not be able to be shot out until either most of the hull is gone or the opponent is using armor piercing weapons. Even with armor piercing weapons, the armor should still be able to take a portion of the damage with the remainder going towards the targeted module. Make armor tanking a thing!

Why's that? As i said rock scissors paper. Every build has a counter build.
Hull tanks are trading some stuff for other stuff. They cant perform the same way as shield tanks, they need a different approach.
A hull tank has more relaxed pip management requirements which translates in more energy for weapons and more speed/maneuverability overall.

And armor tanking can be a thing. Just fit 3x MRP for modules protection, fit AFMU to repair the MRP (this can be done during combat), fit at least 2 PDT so missiles are not really a problem and control the distance of engagement so you dont expose too much to easygoing long range module sniping (the microgimbal for hitscans should really go away)

So a hulltank has its vulnerabilities, but shield tanks have vulnerabilities too: reverb torpedoes, reverb mines, flechettes, phasing lasers - plus more complicated pip management and less power for weaps, crap hulls and so on...

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

Diminishing returns on stacking heavy duty boosters at the very least, like it already is on resistance boosters. Could have already happened, but a loud minority cried out, and FDEV scrapped it.

 

[Northpin]

Diminishing returns on stacking heavy duty boosters at the very least, like it already is on resistance boosters. Could have already happened, but a loud minority cried out, and FDEV scrapped it.

I would simply put a limit to shield boosters. As in maximum 50% of utility slots. That would mean max 3 for FDL/Mamba and max 4 for them big ships
They are already doing that with AX weapons.

 

[Sybine]

I´ve always thought that the combat problem in ED are the gimballed weapons. I understand big ships need them, to countermeasure the movements of small ships, but they are too accurate and the damage penalty of gimballed vs fixed is ridiculous. I fly an Imperial Courier, because I love it, and I know it´s not "the ideal combat ship", but it´s fast. I´d love some stealth upgrade so I can take down just medium ships, but it´s impossible.
Ok, to the point, I think big ships have too much maneuverability and they are always shooting at you. Cannot understand how is this possible with soo many years in ED, that a small ship cannot get the big ship´s tail, avoiding that turreted weapons. I have a Cutter, I know what I´m talking about, and the combat is totally booooring, just turn backwards and the weapons do the rest, because I can face my enemy everytime.
A possible solution is tweking the maneuverability of ALL ships, adjusting different types of gameplay depending on your ship, and not just the engineer´s investment.

 

[GoldenSilver484]

I would simply put a limit to shield boosters. As in maximum 50% of utility slots. That would mean max 3 for FDL/Mamba and max 4 for them big ships
They are already doing that with AX weapons.

That AX weapon limit is the sole reason I don't bother with AX content. It's one of, if not the only, artificial limitations to ship outfitting and is only used to make AX fights "harder."

Yet using four large premium shards and advanced missiles loaded with AX munitions shows how shallow AX content would be without it.

Damage sponge content sucks, but limiting a player's ability to damage that sponge, not only by forcing them to use a tiny selection of weaponry in order to even scratch the sponge, but then limiting the amount of sponge scratcters, is even worse, IMO.

The same for SBs, put as many as you want, but unlike AX weapons they should have diminishing returns, like resistances, to also prevent excessive spongeness.
Could start at 100% shield boost, really start ramping up at 150%, then max out at 200% with a full load of 8 A-rated HD boosters with the supercapacitors experimental.
Ships with few utility mounts would see little change, but ships with many utilities would quickly hit the diminishing effect, so would use other modules.
It's the same end result as artificially limiting outfitting for balance purposes, but it'll actually balance it.

 

[Northpin]

It's the same end result as artificially limiting outfitting for balance purposes, but it'll actually balance it.

Putting a limit is the easiest way to achieve balance. And if it's not easy, it may not happen after all.
Adjusting the values and implementing diminishing returns means diving into code and that can end up badly...

 

[Muetdhiver]

I would simply put a limit to shield boosters. As in maximum 50% of utility slots. That would mean max 3 for FDL/Mamba and max 4 for them big ships
They are already doing that with AX weapons.

I like this idea a lot TBH. 2/3/4 boosters for S/M/L ships. Simple and legible.

I would also like to see AFMU able to repair modules without shuting them down, and
adressing repairs in an automated manner following power priorities and damage levels.

 

[Old Duck]

I've had success both in PvP and PvE using stealth builds. I agree with some of the OP's points (especially night vision which is a Frontier-created cheat IMO), but I still think great stealth gameplay can be had right now.

Disclaimer - I don't meta PvP, I'm more of a casual who prefers going up against less "seasoned" players rather than top-tier veterans.

 

[Hacker#451563]

Stock boosters aren't that bad balancewise, even with a full stack of them. Engineering taking them from a 20% boost to a 70% boost is what makes them crazy.
Capping resistance resistance buffs at the largest individual booster in each category, and the total shield multiplier at "the largest individual booster or the total unmodified boost, whichever is greater" (ie. allow unengineered boosters to stack) would limit them pretty effectively and people wouldn't feel as bad using a couple of utilities on point defence to deal with those pesky missiles.

I'll clarify, I meant the boost from engineering. I don't think your idea is half bad though.

 

[cmdr Ramius007]

Night vision have no effect on SR, microgimbal not converge on unresolved targets, even if you see them, emmisive without cooldown is crux of a problem.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Stock boosters aren't that bad balancewise, even with a full stack of them. Engineering taking them from a 20% boost to a 70% boost is what makes them crazy.
Capping resistance resistance buffs at the largest individual booster in each category, and the total shield multiplier at "the largest individual booster or the total unmodified boost, whichever is greater" (ie. allow unengineered boosters to stack) would limit them pretty effectively and people wouldn't feel as bad using a couple of utilities on point defence to deal with those pesky missiles.

Yeah, the effect of grade 5 heavy duty shield booster engineering should be about what grade 1 currently is.

 

[InFlickWeTrust]

The problem you point at is real, but your suggestion would just make fights take even longer. Why not balance things by introducing a 'Corrosive' for shields, nerfing Boosters, etc.? Shield tanks need to have drawbacks just as serious as Hull tanks have if you want them balanced.

As for stealth, tie Sensor resolution to night vision. If your Sensors can't detect a target, night vision won't apply to it. Also, drop the whole shooting-removes-stealth thing. It should all come down to your heat.

No I think the Bigger Ships should be even stronger. I think it shouldnt be possible that an FDl destroyes a fully engineered Corvette. I think the Bigger ships should basically destroy the smaller ones much more easily. Right now it´s like a small somalian pirate fisher boat is able to sink a US Nimitz class Carrier.

 

[cmdr Ramius007]

No I think the Bigger Ships should be even stronger. I think it shouldnt be possible that an FDl destroyes a fully engineered Corvette. I think the Bigger ships should basically destroy the smaller ones much more easily. Right now it´s like a small somalian pirate fisher boat is able to sink a US Nimitz class Carrier.

Historically smaller ships were very succesfull in klling bigger ones, submarines picking battleships and carrier from whole battle groups alone, torpedo and missile boats killing destroyers and cruisers. You cant attack wing of 4 ships in DBS, assuming same level of engineering and expect kill in DBS for example. If anything i would like to see buffs to Majestic capital ship

 

[Zannry]

I still think great stealth gameplay can be had right now.

It's true you can still hide in an area of unresolved contacts and can drop target lock for the most part on demand.

For those of us that flew midnight black stealth builds and practiced to master FA off minimal thruster imput flying to eliminate our entire visual signature against the back drop of space nightvision killed that gameplay and invalidated hours of work mastering a technique of flying which is entirely pointless now.

 

[Screemonster]

Historically smaller ships were very succesfull in klling bigger ones, submarines picking battleships and carrier from whole battle groups alone, torpedo and missile boats killing destroyers and cruisers. You cant attack wing of 4 ships in DBS, assuming same level of engineering and expect kill in DBS for example. If anything i would like to see buffs to Majestic capital ship

Yeah. The term "destroyer" is a shortened version of "torpedo boat destroyer". Destroyers being fast escort ships capable of intercepting fast attack craft like motor torpedo boats that would otherwise be able to swarm and destroy a battleship (MTBs having too short a range to operate far from their base for extended periods)

 

[here_it_comes]

No I think the Bigger Ships should be even stronger.

Huh? When did we start talking about large ships? Bit reflexive there . . . let me guess; You got yourself into a Corvette so you can finally taste combat in victory, but still get whomped by smaller ships and it's soooo unfair because you bought a big ship and deserve to win, right?

I think it shouldnt be possible that an FDl destroyes a fully engineered Corvette.

That is easily the most inane statement I've seen on this forum, which says a lot.

I think the Bigger ships should basically destroy the smaller ones much more easily. Right now it´s like a small somalian pirate fisher boat is able to sink a US Nimitz class Carrier.

Destroyers come in at <10% the size of a Nimitz Carrier, which means that a DBS (170 tons) taking down a Corvette (900 tons) isn't strange at all. Even your own demonstration shows you to be dead wrong.

Practice combat in a smaller ship man, it will pay off and do much to ease the rump chaffing you are experiencing due to Corvettes not imparting God Mode. A mediocre pilot in a Corvette engineered to hell and back will still be dismantled by a competent pilot in a Courier/DBS/Viper/etc.

 

[InFlickWeTrust]

Huh? When did we start talking about large ships? Bit reflexive there . . . let me guess; You got yourself into a Corvette so you can finally taste combat in victory, but still get whomped by smaller ships and it's soooo unfair because you bought a big ship and deserve to win, right?



That is easily the most inane statement I've seen on this forum, which says a lot.



Destroyers come in at <10% the size of a Nimitz Carrier, which means that a DBS (170 tons) taking down a Corvette (900 tons) isn't strange at all. Even your own demonstration shows you to be dead wrong.

Practice combat in a smaller ship man, it will pay off and do much to ease the rump chaffing you are experiencing due to Corvettes not imparting God Mode. A mediocre pilot in a Corvette engineered to hell and back will still be dismantled by a competent pilot in a Courier/DBS/Viper/etc.

lol I have been playing since 2014 and have well over 3 Thousand hours. I am able to fly Smaller ships and Kill with them and I still think it shouldnt be so easy with ships like the FDl to kill these large vessels.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Remove PvP and all the complaints and requests for 'nerfs' will instantly go away...

 

[here_it_comes]

lol I have been playing since 2014 and have well over 3 Thousand hours.

. . . And you're still upset that pilots in smaller ships wreck your Corvette, enough so that you are dragging it into a completely unrelated thread on a forum.

Start a 'smaller ships shouldn't be allowed to kill me' thread instead of bloating a thread on stealth and hull tanking.