Are you referring to PVP, PVE, or both?
Also genuine question... can you link to any suggestions on how combat could be better balanced, preferably also with details of how it's unbalanced right now?
Sure, here's a couple problems with combat. Starting with the
Hulltank VS Shieldtank Problem (and weapon loadouts to counter them).
Hulltanks are hard-countered by most weapons:
• Multicannons, which are low power/distro draw, long range, good falloff weapons that can be equipped with corrosive and shred through hull
• Missiles and its derivatives (seekers, packhounds) dealing bonus damage to hull + dealing significant module damage, disabling numerous components
• Plasma and rams, both dealing absolute damage, which are partially resisted by shields but not by hull. These are amongst the highest damage options in the game.
• Fragment Cannons, which can be equipped with corrosive and are statistically the highest DPS weapon in the entire game
• Railguns, which can accurately and somewhat easily disable any component of an unshielded ship all the way up to 6km range.
Shieldtanks, on the other hand, are countered by:
• Lasers, which have poor falloff (500~600m compared to MC's 2 kilometers), noticeable power draw and temperature gain. Best used with TC, which damages your own ship over time
• Incendiary MCs/Frags
• FC Railguns (during the short period of a cellbank)
• A god damn Thargoid
The lack of a corrosive equivalent, as well as the lack of module damage to a shielded target, just adds to this.
Overall, shield tanks are far superior to hull tanks in almost every way (the main exception being Thargoids). They are countered by less equipment, protect your modules better, and any ship trying to have an "anti-shield" loadout will have to make difficult compromises. Meanwhile, you can whip up almost anything that will wreck a hulltank, loadout wise. Including anti-shield equipment, more often than not!
Another problem is the FDL (praise). A very fun, high skill ceiling ship, that unfortunately is not handicapped in any way. Every other combat ship in the game has a flaw of some sort: Mamba has poor convergence, Krait has poor defenses and mediocre turning, Chief/Chally have exposed thrusters, FAS/FGS are hulltanks, all of the big ships are clumsy, easy to hit targets... then the FDL just slides in, no flaws. Good convergence, top tier maneuvering, thicc shields, impressive firepower, no heat problem, no nothing. Sure, it's only good for combat, but the same can be said about the Alliance/Federal series as well as the Mamba. Why is it so good? What were they thinking? It's too late now, that's for sure; If they nerf the FDL, the backlash will be grisly.
There's plenty of other problems. Shock Cannons, Packhounds and a myriad of other fun weapons, have serious ammo issues making them annoying to deal with. Some engineering blueprints have no drawbacks at all (Efficient PAs, Overcharged MCs) and therefore make other choices worse. The more you look into combat, the more you'll see that the playing field isn't fair.
Is all of this a big deal enough to quit the game over? Does it ruin my fun and enjoyment? No. Not to me, at least. I love this game. But can Frontier improve this, and therefore make the game grow overall? Oh yes, absolutely. These problems
can be fixed and the game
will improve.
But that's not everything Frontier has to work on. Realistic nebulas, event horizon shadows & accretion disks, more landable planets, better piracy system, better crime & punishment, better ways to control player-made factions, Powerplay needs a serious revision as well. Plus all the extra art stuff, cosmetics, ship interiors, etc... You can ask ten players what they think Frontier should focus on next, and you'll get ten different answers.
Wouldn't be the first power to prioritise nepotism over effectiveness and suffer for it in the long run.
![[VR] Merkir](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/141/141091.jpg?1553527154){kind=avatar}
