1.2 vs 2.2 FDL: A comparison

[Arguendo]

I'll never understand why so many people hate on the FdL...Also, what exactly is so wrong if it's popular enough that a lot of people use it? Why does it bother you people if others don't fly the ship you have? Saying the FdL needs to be changed to bring it in line with others would be like Audi saying they need to make the R8 slower because no one is buying A5's anymore.

The fallacy in your argument is using a lesser car by the same manufacturer. What the people who "hate" (they don't, that's just hyperbole btw) the FdL are saying is that everyone is buying an Audi RS7, because the BMW M6 and the Mercedes CLS63 AMG can't corner worth a damn. That's not true in real-life ofcourse, but in ED it pretty much is. Every other combat ship in its class is totally dominated by the FdL, much because of continous tweaks, nerfs and buffs, in addition to the Engineers.

FDev are actually falling on their own arguments about wanting to balance PvP. They claim that the Gimbals need a bit of nerfing, and Fixed a nice buff, because 75% of players use Gimbals. By their reasoning that means Gimbals are too OP. How they can not see that the same goes for the FdL is beyond me. I am pretty sure that the PvPers sport pretty much the same percentage of FdLs, if not more.

Ofcourse, everybody could just accept that the FdL is the baddest boy in the hood and leave it at that, but it certainly doesn't do much for diversity in the game

(And whoever compares the Python to the FdL, please don't. They're not comparable, because one is MultiRole and the other is a true Combat ship. It's like comparing the F-35 to the A-10. People try, but it's just silly. Talk about the FAS instead. It's a better comparison imho, even though today's ED makes comparisons impossible)

 

[Aris_]

Someone somewhere I think did a graph of where the mass tipping point is between enhanced / not enhanced. Note that my mass is lower than the 80 tons unmodded stated on coriolis: even my chaff are lightweight.

[/I]

http://i.imgur.com/0SfMTVc.png

 

[Aris_]

......

....Ofcourse, everybody could just accept that the FdL is the baddest boy in the hood and leave it at that, but it certainly doesn't do much for diversity in the game

(And whoever compares the Python to the FdL, please don't. They're not comparable, because one is MultiRole and the other is a true Combat ship. It's like comparing the F-35 to the A-10. People try, but it's just silly. Talk about the FAS instead. It's a better comparison imho, even though today's ED makes comparisons impossible)

FAS only advantage against FDL is maneuverability too demanding for the average pvp player and not a guaranty for a win, FDL can chaff continuously for 2-3min so have to be in statics and with 4sys to 2wep FDL can have 2-4k mj effective shields not counting scbs.

Maneuvering in that high level to avoid damage needs a very special build and for what, to counter Fdev inefficiency to provide a counter balance for pvp FDL use.

With python you can counter damage taken with scbs but cascade rails can negate that and have to deal with chaff and pd or ecm the 2 extra utilities the FDL has (if you try hounds or dumfire).

Either you buff everything else or relay to very difficult builds to fly effectively against well flown FDL

 

[Notwyn]

Toot horn much?
So the top 1% of 1% pilots think the FDL is too good. The other 99% like it as is. I'm thinking rebalancing isn't required.

 

[Arguendo]

FAS only advantage against FDL is maneuverability too demanding for the average pvp player and not a guaranty for a win

First off, I didn't ask for a comparison I just wanted people to stop comparing the Python to the FdL as they are supposed to do different things. People can't realistically expect the Python to stand up to an FdL. The FAS on the other hand....

With the Engineers and their special effects, the FAS is dead in the water. In today's environment you are dead when your shields go down, and the FAS can't shieldtank enough to make it viable. Perhaps with the new Module Reinforcements that are coming it will be able to stand up a bit better, but we'll have to wait and see for that.

Toot horn much?
So the top 1% of 1% pilots think the FDL is too good. The other 99% like it as is. I'm thinking rebalancing isn't required.

You're not looking at the big picture. Right now there is one Meta, and it's the FdL. You hardly see any other ship out there for PvP, and the rest are Cutters and Corvettes. The latter are in the minority. All other ships in the FdL's class have fallen way behind on the power curve, and aren't viable anymore.
The people you are talking about want the rebalancing to make the ship selection diverse, not just nerf anything that's OP. They want to be able to fly with and against something other then the FdL...barring the odd nutjob that keeps insisting on flying a Courier

 

[Kubicide]

I've never understood what Sandro meant by that best resistance to smaller weapons thing. If you review Cmdr Frentox's hull hardness table here ...

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-Armor-Damage-Mechanics-Hardness-Piercing-Etc

... it may have just been a reference to the FdL's good (though not unique) hardness value.

If not, there's a secondary layer of damage reduction we don't yet understand although tbh I think that is unlikely. The hull hardness values have been tested with small weapons.

Yeah I'm just curious to know what exactly he means with this:

"Don't tell anyone about the fact it's hull is a bit more resistant to smaller weapons than any other ship (one of the benefits of only using the most expensive materials, I guess). "

I get it that they need to keep certain stats 'secret' in the game to keep some sort of balance element in place and not manipulated by players. But curious as to what would be added to this ship only, and what is inferred by smaller weapons. Is it an armor thing or ? Guess we can only... guess.

 

[Truesilver]

Toot horn much?
So the top 1% of 1% pilots think the FDL is too good. The other 99% like it as is. I'm thinking rebalancing isn't required.

I'm afraid that in the context of this comment ...

Stop being ship-racists and grow up when you lose to a player in a different ship than you.

... I think it very appropriate to record that many of the people most publicly concerned by the current state of the FdL hardly fit the accuser's bill of being the game's sore losers.

The people you are talking about want the rebalancing to make the ship selection diverse, not just nerf anything that's OP. They want to be able to fly with and against something other then the FdL...barring the odd nutjob that keeps insisting on flying a Courier

Hee hee!

Yeah I'm just curious to know what exactly he means with this:

"Don't tell anyone about the fact it's hull is a bit more resistant to smaller weapons than any other ship (one of the benefits of only using the most expensive materials, I guess). "

I get it that they need to keep certain stats 'secret' in the game to keep some sort of balance element in place and not manipulated by players. But curious as to what would be added to this ship only, and what is inferred by smaller weapons. Is it an armor thing or ? Guess we can only... guess.

Are you aware of the way that damage reduction by weapon v hull is calculated?

You take the weapon's armour piercing value (which I will soon add to my tables for ease of reference) and then compare to the ship's hull hardness, in Cmdr Frenotx's tables that I linked earlier. If the weapon's APV is equal to or greater than the ship's HH, it does full damage. Otherwise its damage is reduced by the same % as the difference.

So the FdL has a high HH of 62 and many smaller weapons with lower APV will do greatly reduced damage to it.

However ... it isn't unique. And that's the bit about Sandro's comment that I don't understand.

 

[thirstyfish]

Only 690k in bounties?

I guess that's some profit but that's not exactly real progress, unless you're still in Cobra-III territory, progression-wise. When doing combat I rarely ever port before obtaining 2 million in bounties I can hand in in-system, and I typically don't use KWS as they generally only grab bounties that exist out-of-system, in my experience, and as such aren't worth the pain and effort of using them.

Please note that I do have weapons that require reloading. This is not a pure pulse laser build where I can hang out until I need to refuel. One outing typically lasts 20 ish minutes, dempendant on wanted ships spawning of course. This fdl and all of its weapons are not modified. If I wanted to maximize my profits, then I would use a pair of multi cannons where the rails are, or go all pulse. I opted for rail guns because they are fun. This is a game. It is supposed to be fun. If I make it all about progression, then this game turns into a job. No thank you. I don't need to do that to myself. Actually, if I wanted to maximize profits, I would do commodity trading in my python.

 

[jasonbarron]

At first when I heard about the balance adjustments I was intrigued and a bit excited. This thread has compelled me to reconsider. No offense to you 0.001% Top Gun pilot's but I'm starting to think Fdev has made a big mistake letting you guys shape the game to such an extent. After listening to the dialogue about the FdL, just for instance, I've been forced to reconsider my position as it seems your (and by "your" I mean "All you uber Top Gun Pilots who seem to know every fact, number, bit of obscure data there is to know about every facet of every mod combination all while still somehow finding time to amass however many 1000's of hours required to hone your superhuman combat skills") agenda is too esoteric and obscure to fall in line with what is going to make the majority of players happy. It's starting to appear to me that the dev's are now bending to the will of a very small group of players who simply want their various eccentricities catered to. One of those being to take away one of the best combat ships in the game. I'm actually convinced now some of you guys aren't going to be happy until all of us are forced to fly around in a courier pecking away for five minutes at our adversaries with our lone rail gun.


What had seemed like a good thing, and in many ways may well be, is starting to take on some ominous overtones. Given that 99% of all of our forum presence is more or less devoted to somehow lobbying for our own pet peeves, I'm inclined to push back on this movement.

 

[Bryan K]

The fallacy in your argument is using a lesser car by the same manufacturer. What the people who "hate" (they don't, that's just hyperbole btw) the FdL are saying is that everyone is buying an Audi RS7, because the BMW M6 and the Mercedes CLS63 AMG can't corner worth a damn. That's not true in real-life ofcourse, but in ED it pretty much is. Every other combat ship in its class is totally dominated by the FdL, much because of continous tweaks, nerfs and buffs, in addition to the Engineers.

FDev are actually falling on their own arguments about wanting to balance PvP. They claim that the Gimbals need a bit of nerfing, and Fixed a nice buff, because 75% of players use Gimbals. By their reasoning that means Gimbals are too OP. How they can not see that the same goes for the FdL is beyond me. I am pretty sure that the PvPers sport pretty much the same percentage of FdLs, if not more.

Ofcourse, everybody could just accept that the FdL is the baddest boy in the hood and leave it at that, but it certainly doesn't do much for diversity in the game

(And whoever compares the Python to the FdL, please don't. They're not comparable, because one is MultiRole and the other is a true Combat ship. It's like comparing the F-35 to the A-10. People try, but it's just silly. Talk about the FAS instead. It's a better comparison imho, even though today's ED makes comparisons impossible)

But WHY does there have to be diversity? It's the same issue as FDev nerfing gimbals and buffing fixed weaponry. They don't like that everyone likes one thing and force us to rethink our loadouts. Why? What is so wrong with things not being diverse? Humans always seek out the best of something, so no matter what, it will always happen. Why does everyone try to beat that idea to death?

 

[Kubicide]

Are you aware of the way that damage reduction by weapon v hull is calculated?

You take the weapon's armour piercing value (which I will soon add to my tables for ease of reference) and then compare to the ship's hull hardness, in Cmdr Frenotx's tables that I linked earlier. If the weapon's APV is equal to or greater than the ship's HH, it does full damage. Otherwise its damage is reduced by the same % as the difference.

So the FdL has a high HH of 62 and many smaller weapons with lower APV will do greatly reduced damage to it.

However ... it isn't unique. And that's the bit about Sandro's comment that I don't understand.

Yes, I'm fully aware. But it's the words used by Sandro about something that no other ship has. What is this mysterious advantage or thing that's exclusive to the FdL? It's unlikely this can be easily or correctly reverse engineered by playtesting.

 

[Patrick_68000]

The FDL is supposed to be terrifying

Yes the FDL has a reputation to assume

 

[Truesilver]

Yes, I'm fully aware. But it's the words used by Sandro about something that no other ship has. What is this mysterious advantage or thing that's exclusive to the FdL? It's unlikely this can be easily or correctly reverse engineered by playtesting.

Yes, then we're both in the same boat. The thing is that iirc Frenotx's tests were conducted with a c1 fixed pulse and although the FdL did very well it didn't do uniquely well. The backwards-calculated hull hardness should fully take into account Sandro's remark and this of course is what doesn't add up.

I suppose it's possible that it was a throwaway comment that was almost but not completely accurate, or that the testing missed something, or that there's been a slight change.

Official FDev hardness values in the Shipyard stats would be a nice UI addition.

 

[Devari]

But WHY does there have to be diversity? It's the same issue as FDev nerfing gimbals and buffing fixed weaponry. They don't like that everyone likes one thing and force us to rethink our loadouts. Why? What is so wrong with things not being diverse? Humans always seek out the best of something, so no matter what, it will always happen. Why does everyone try to beat that idea to death?

The issue isn't the lack of diversity in ship options or design, it's the fact that FD has no coherent plan for the game and as a result we have gone through several massive changes in terms of both Engineers and the basic combat game mechanics. As a result ships that originally had a very viable niche, like the FAS and hull-tanking, were rendered ineffective with all the changes we got in 2.1 and 2.2. In addition to certain ships losing their niche, the Engineering mods have allowed players to compensate for the shortcoming of certain ships much more effectively than others and this also dramatically shifted the balance of which ships are "competitive". As a result ships like the FDL and Python have remained at the top of the new meta while the FAS and similar ships that lost their niche are no longer viable options.

For some reason, however, FD thinks that their game is only "balanced" if every option is used equally by players and this is where the idea of nerfing anything popular had started. No on was actually asking for a gimbal nerf based on anything to do with the gimbal game mechancis, and yet we have one because FD thinks "too many" players use gimbals. No one is asking for an FDL nerf based on any actual understanding of the ship's strengths and weaknesses, but there will always be a tiny minority of players who assume that if "too many" players are using something it must be overpowered. Anyone who actually flies the FDL clearly understands its limitations in comparison to the Python but certain players won't be able to understand that and their knee-jerk reaction is to call for a "nerf" anytime they see something used frequently.

This isn't unique to the FDL, I have also read threads where there is the occasional player who thinks the Python or Anaconda need to be "nerfed" because they are popular as well. The issue is that none of these threads demonstrate any clear understanding of why these ships are used frequently and simply assume that "popular" is the same as "overpowered". Unfortunately this is the level at which FD is currently operating in terms of their attempts at game "balance" and that is the only reason threads like these even exist.

 

[Ziljan]

You're not looking at the big picture. Right now there is one Meta, and it's the FdL. You hardly see any other ship out there for PvP, and the rest are Cutters and Corvettes. The latter are in the minority. All other ships in the FdL's class have fallen way behind on the power curve, and aren't viable anymore.
The people you are talking about want the rebalancing to make the ship selection diverse, not just nerf anything that's OP. They want to be able to fly with and against something other then the FdL...barring the odd nutjob that keeps insisting on flying a Courier

PVP isn't the "big picture". The game is almost entirely PVE, and variety PVP folks craved was addressed by boosting the jack-of-all-trades ships so they could be masters of combat then the Bigger Picture would make the FDL irrelevant.

Who would fly a short range dedicated fighter when they could fly longer range "do anything" ship that could fight just as well?

The answer you seek lies in having NEW SHIPS that are also dedicated fighters, not in unbalancing the non-PVP aspects of the game by making multi-roles OP again.

 

[Devari]

Who would fly a short range dedicated fighter when they could fly longer range "do anything" ship that could fight just as well?

We already have this situation with the Python, it can fight on par with the FDL in most circumstances but also carries 180-200 tons of cargo at the same time. There are a few things the Python can't do well, namely stealth, and it certainly isn't as fun to fly as the FDL so the FDL will always have a solid combat niche but in most circumstances the Python can handle anything the FDL can and is arguably better for general PVE (mostly due to the 7A distributor, SCBs and stronger hull).

The answer you seek lies in having NEW SHIPS that are also dedicated fighters, not in unbalancing the non-PVP aspects of the game by making multi-roles OP again.

We used to have a better balance in terms of the typical progression of Viper -> Vulture/Courier -> FAS -> FDL/Python -> Anaconda. Now the FAS can't hull tank and the Anaconda is outclassed in combat by the Corvette and Cutter which are locked behind massive rank grinds so those ships are both behind the curve in terms of combat. In addition the higher weapon damage with Engineers means that smaller ships like the Viper and Courier aren't as viable because of how quickly they are killed once shields are down. So for most players the progression has simply become Vulture -> FDL/Python. That's not really due to a lack of ship options however as we used to have a better balance with the existing ships we already had. The issue here is that FD intentionally pushed changes that made ships like the Viper, Courier, FAS and Anaconda less viable as combat ships in the new meta. If they would stop making unnecessary "balance" changes (i.e., gimbal nerfing nonsense), stop continually moving the goalposts for Engineers every 2-3 months and focused on the core game mechanics that are necessary to make each ship work properly in its intended role there would be plenty of variety with what we already have.

The other issue here is that FD has done quite poorly in terms of the quality of the new ships option we've gotten since 1.2. The Viper IV was a nice upgrade in terms of power plant, jump range and internals but it has low speed and maneuverability and isn't really a "new" ship. In fact they didn't even bother to update the worn-out look from the Viper III cockpit. The Cobra IV was a disaster due to the unreasonably low speed and poor manueverability and they've consistently refused to do anything to fix it despite many player complaints about its ineffectiveness in combat. I recently engineered a Cobra IV just to see if I could make it work and it's still less capable overall in combat than my Engineered Adder because it can't turn well, can't run and the small class 3 PD can't power five hardpoints without frequently needing to put 4 pips to weapons. I suppose the Cobra IV does have a "niche" as an affordable explorer or trader because an A-grade loadout is under 10 mil and it does offer good internal slots for the price but once you get an Asp there isn't any reason to fly a Cobra IV. So despite having a few new ships available FD hasn't shown any interest in balancing them properly for combat, which again limits player progression with the "competitive" combat ships.

 

[Bryan K]

With respect, Cmdr ...

I have flown a Courier since 2.1 and I have not lost one single fight to an FdL. I have made vids of myself versus FdL into the basis for well-received PvP guides.

I fought in the PvP League six times. Six times on the winning side, predominantly in FdL.

I was one of a handful of players who pioneered Adle's Armada's adoption of massed FdL's as our signature move in 2.0. We turned 8 - 12 x FdL fights into something I like to think of as space combat art. Watch our 40 - 60 rail gun insta-gib executions of enemies if you want to see what I mean.

I have been PvP-ing in a FdL since the first day of Powerplay, June 2015, when I went to Harma to fight the Archon Delaine pledgers on their own turf on arrival, 1 v 50.

... And ...

... And ...

And I still think the 2.1 / 2.2 FdL has wrecked apex PvP ship diversity because I remember when in 1.4 we were equally likely to encounter FdL, Anaconda, Clipper, Python or FAS.

No offence man you are entitled to support your chosen ship - but am I a ship racist who can't grow up?

The OP, Cmdr Alexander the Grape, is the undefeated winner of the 1v1 PvP League.

Is he a ship racist who can't grow up?

Cmdr S!lk, founder of Adle's Armada, has called for buffs to competitor ships.

So has Cmdr Oogie Boogie, sole founder of the PvP League.

Are they ship racists who can't grow up?

Pipko of SDC is possibly the most feared duellist in the game at this time.

Crimson Kaim is probably the Federation's most celebrated PvP-er.

And yes they have called for FdL rebalances.

Are they also ship racists who can't grow up?

Pretty much, yeah. Also narrow-minded if they think that the FdL is only a PvP ship. Nerfing it for the sake of one group screws over everyone else. And the last time I checked, hardcore PvP'ers are a minority.

 

[Heavenly-Hammer]

Just wanted to chime in to say: The FdL doesn't need nerfs; FDev needs to make some worthy competitors to the FdL in the $50m-$100m space. Why have only one elite-level combat ship? We have 3 big ships that are all more or less equal with pros and cons. FdL is the Anaconda of its weight class. It needs a couple of "different but equal" ships to compete with.

 

[Truesilver]

@Bryan K

Re-reading my own response to you above, for some reason I appear to have basically quoted the first part of your full sentence ...

Stop being ship-racists and grow up when you lose to a player in a different ship than you.

... when what I really objected to was the second part, namely the implication that the people I have mentioned are the game's sore PvP losers, when as I hope I set out in detail, in fact the true position is really rather the reverse.

So long as that's clear, on reflection (speaking only for myself) you can call me a ship-racist who can't grow up if you really want to ...

 

[thirstyfish]

Just wanted to chime in to say: The FdL doesn't need nerfs; FDev needs to make some worthy competitors to the FdL in the $50m-$100m space. Why have only one elite-level combat ship? We have 3 big ships that are all more or less equal with pros and cons. FdL is the Anaconda of its weight class. It needs a couple of "different but equal" ships to compete with.

I think so as well. Perhaps the FDL could be the balanced option, with one ship being more agile, but with less durability and a little less firepower, and another ship having higher firepower and durability, but being slower and less agile (kinda like a Python, but combat exclusive). That way you could choose to go tanky, speedy, or a balance of both. Maybe allow the tanky one to equip a SLF. And when I say higher or less firepower, I don't mean anything drastic, maybe the tanky one would have some size 3 harpoints where the FDL has size 2, and the fast one might trade the size 4 for a size 3. I am just spitballing here, nothing too thought out, let alone calculated.