Any Improvements on Engineering / Combat Balance?

[Frenotx]

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?

I don't have the energy to go into it right now with my typical depth. You must be new-ish to not have run into any of my, I guess years, of critique, complaint, and suggestions regarding combat balance.

In a nutshell though:
1) Engineering is currently a giant cliff of vertical progression, yet exists in an open multiplayer world. This leads to myriad issues when it comes to making PvE content an appropriate difficulty level, obvious issues in any sort of PvP combat, and further issues still with the feel of progression.
2) The amount of defense afforded by engineering vastly outstrips the amount of defense afforded by same.
3) Shields are ridiculously powerful by design due to their generally impenetrable nature, and when you consider #2, engineered ships turn into absolute bullet sponges.
4) And finally, the core problem that 1-3 amplify to an obscene degree: defense modules fit into regular internal slots and utility mounts, and can just be piled on to your heart's content. I'm talking about shield boosters, shield cell banks, (the two biggest offenders), hull reinforcement packages, and module reinforcement packages. Having modules that are effectively just [MORE HEALTH] compete for space with modules that allow you to engage with various game systems is just not a good idea in a game like this. Balancing of PvE difficulty becomes a mess, PvP combat balance between a ganker and a ship that's fit to play the rest of the game completely goes out the window (and as such, so does the likelihood of organic, exciting PvP while going about your business), and making any sort of interesting combat-related modules that aren't health (or any interesting combat mechanics that use new modules) becomes a balance nightmare.

Basic suggestions:
1) Make shield boosters and shield cell banks sub-components of the shield generator, like how SRVs and SLFs are subcomponents of their respective hanger modules. Shield health is now a factor of the ship's base shield value and the size of the generator, instead of "how many SBs and SCBs can I cram in it?" Make hull and module reinforcement packages go in armor subcomponent slots as well. Give each ship a number of armor subcomponent slots commensurate with how "tanky" its hull is supposed to be. As with shields, this removes how many internal slots a ship has as a factor determining how durable it is. You can now have ships that have a lot of internal slots not automatically be super tanky in fights, and at the same time, you can have good combat ships with very limited internal slot space. Like magic, FDev can now balance combat ability and utility independently again, instead of them being so intrinsically linked as they are now.
-Alternatively-
For a simpler approach, give all slots a number of military slots commensurate with how "tanky" FDev wants them to be in a fight. All ships will have some, but combat focused ships will have more. Allow defense internals to ONLY be able to be mounted in these military slots, freeing up standard internals for everything else. Shield boosters would still need to be made shield subcomponents (or significantly changed in some other way) though, since otherwise "how many shield boosters can I cram on it" will remain an enormous factor on tankiness.

2) Rebalance engineering to actually be a give and take, rather than a massive direct upgrade. It should be about specialization and alternatives, rather than just getting wildly stronger. Choosing to keep a module vanilla should be a valid "generalist" choice, or at least be relatively close to being on par with engineered gear. G5 stuff should be extremely specialized, with considerable drawbacks. G1-4 should all be valid choices to stop at (giving you a spectrum of specialization), rather than annoying and expensive stepping stones to get to "the good stuff". This would put engineered and vanilla ships in at least the same ballpark when it comes overall combat power, making combat balance (both PvE and PvP), you know, actually possible. Opens up the possibility for interesting organic encounters with other players, allows FDev to make some PvE content hard without making them outright impossible for vanilla ship (or needing to resort to an entirely separate set of modules and sub-game, ala anti-thargoid stuff), and makes engineering overall an optional thing you can do to make a ship really "yours", rather than this massive to-do list that you're presented with any time you get a new ship / want to experiment with different builds, etc.

This by no means touches on all the issues or includes all-comprehensive suggestions for solutions, but it should at least get you an idea.

 

[Morbad]

I agree with almost everything Frentox has said, with the notable exception of trying to balance combat and non-combat utility by making the non-combat utility non-fungible on some ships. This doesn't make any sense to me, and I'd rather make traditionally non-combat activities be more strategically and tactically relevant than arbitrarily prevent swapping non-combat equipment for more armor or whatever.

Atleast this game has more to offer than just PvP which doesn't put it at the same risk Hawken was facing in 2014 (you should remember this game) whic hcaused it to die, ultimately, on PC.

I liked Hawken a lot during it's earlier betas, but increasing TTKs (almost always a bad move, IMO) and then moving it to Steam killed it for me well before they actually shut it down.

10%?? For all the collecting and traveling and rolling things a GILLION times over and over again to get to G5? Going to Colonia!? 10%? Please, that's SO not even worth the effort.

If it were 1%, people would still be maxing out those G5 rolls anytime they thought they'd be in a situation where not doing so might handicap them in even the slimmest way.

I don't even consider not maxing out a module, unless I'm carefully trying to optimize projectile velocities, range vs. damage, power vs. thermal efficiency, or mass vs. integrity. A tiny fraction of a percent advantage is worth any cost because the costs are so low and the modules are forever (until they change the rules to make something else better and I sell them to simplify inventory management).

The main reason Engineering is so inflationary is because Frontier wasn't willing to forcibly convert or remove legacy modules, thus had to generally out do them in the revised system to prevent grandfathering in overly potent and now unobtainable equipment. I strongly feel this was a mistake.

I'm not claiming the game is perfect, but it is the players themselves who choose imbalance, because - as in many games - they can, then the game / Developers are blamed for permitting it...

Imbalanced mechanisms shouldn't be a choice in a multiplayer game. Any time it is a choice, the better options effectively become the only options, which dramatically curtails meaningful variety. It's entirely on Frontier for depreciating huge swaths of gameplay by making the mechanisms or equipment associated with it substandard or redundant (often by needlessly inflating other aspects).

Gameplay should be simultaneously entertaining, challenging, efficient, and conducive to the representation of believable characters. Having to make trade offs in these areas is highly undesirable from my perspective as a player. I do not want to have to play a moron to be personally challenged. I do not want to have to adopt a narrow 'meta' to be competitive.

It'd be nice if instances would be scalable to the average of the PCs spawning into it.

I am not a fan of arbitrary difficulty scaling.

In general, I think that what's there should be there for a rational reason. If a given high priority installation needs security patrols, the potency of the vessels and their pilots should be based on the value of what their are defending, the means of the faction fielding them, and the potential opposition they are expecting. They aren't going to want to give their enemies a fair fight, and I don't think the game should be pulling any punches either. If it feels like the setting revolves around my character, without my character having earned such weighty influence, something is wrong.

Organic scaling does makes sense in proactive and reactive situations where a character would be a specific target of an ad hoc operation, but not as static defenses or independent forces that would have no rational cause to be specifically taking the character into account. Bounty hunters, assassins, and the like that are in specific pursuit of a CMDR should be tailored to that CMDR's abilities just as much as to the means of the opposing party.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I don't have the energy to go into it right now with my typical depth. You must be new-ish to not have run into any of my, I guess years, of critique, complaint, and suggestions regarding combat balance.

In a nutshell though:
1) Engineering is currently a giant cliff of vertical progression, yet exists in an open multiplayer world. This leads to myriad issues when it comes to making PvE content an appropriate difficulty level, obvious issues in any sort of PvP combat, and further issues still with the feel of progression.
2) The amount of defense afforded by engineering vastly outstrips the amount of defense afforded by same.
3) Shields are ridiculously powerful by design due to their generally impenetrable nature, and when you consider #2, engineered ships turn into absolute bullet sponges.
4) And finally, the core problem that 1-3 amplify to an obscene degree: defense modules fit into regular internal slots and utility mounts, and can just be piled on to your heart's content. I'm talking about shield boosters, shield cell banks, (the two biggest offenders), hull reinforcement packages, and module reinforcement packages. Having modules that are effectively just [MORE HEALTH] compete for space with modules that allow you to engage with various game systems is just not a good idea in a game like this. Balancing of PvE difficulty becomes a mess, PvP combat balance between a ganker and a ship that's fit to play the rest of the game completely goes out the window (and as such, so does the likelihood of organic, exciting PvP while going about your business), and making any sort of interesting combat-related modules that aren't health (or any interesting combat mechanics that use new modules) becomes a balance nightmare.

Basic suggestions:
1) Make shield boosters and shield cell banks sub-components of the shield generator, like how SRVs and SLFs are subcomponents of their respective hanger modules. Shield health is now a factor of the ship's base shield value and the size of the generator, instead of "how many SBs and SCBs can I cram in it?" Make hull and module reinforcement packages go in armor subcomponent slots as well. Give each ship a number of armor subcomponent slots commensurate with how "tanky" its hull is supposed to be. As with shields, this removes how many internal slots a ship has as a factor determining how durable it is. You can now have ships that have a lot of internal slots not automatically be super tanky in fights, and at the same time, you can have good combat ships with very limited internal slot space. Like magic, FDev can now balance combat ability and utility independently again, instead of them being so intrinsically linked as they are now.
-Alternatively-
For a simpler approach, give all slots a number of military slots commensurate with how "tanky" FDev wants them to be in a fight. All ships will have some, but combat focused ships will have more. Allow defense internals to ONLY be able to be mounted in these military slots, freeing up standard internals for everything else. Shield boosters would still need to be made shield subcomponents (or significantly changed in some other way) though, since otherwise "how many shield boosters can I cram on it" will remain an enormous factor on tankiness.

2) Rebalance engineering to actually be a give and take, rather than a massive direct upgrade. It should be about specialization and alternatives, rather than just getting wildly stronger. Choosing to keep a module vanilla should be a valid "generalist" choice, or at least be relatively close to being on par with engineered gear. G5 stuff should be extremely specialized, with considerable drawbacks. G1-4 should all be valid choices to stop at (giving you a spectrum of specialization), rather than annoying and expensive stepping stones to get to "the good stuff". This would put engineered and vanilla ships in at least the same ballpark when it comes overall combat power, making combat balance (both PvE and PvP), you know, actually possible. Opens up the possibility for interesting organic encounters with other players, allows FDev to make some PvE content hard without making them outright impossible for vanilla ship (or needing to resort to an entirely separate set of modules and sub-game, ala anti-thargoid stuff), and makes engineering overall an optional thing you can do to make a ship really "yours", rather than this massive to-do list that you're presented with any time you get a new ship / want to experiment with different builds, etc.

This by no means touches on all the issues or includes all-comprehensive suggestions for solutions, but it should at least get you an idea.

There is still hope when soneone reveals to have a clue.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

Eeyy, thanks. Always fun to see familiar faces.



Wow. I legitimately physically felt that. Oof. They've certainy implied that's the case, but them outright saying it is rough. I'm glad I'm not as emotionally invested in the game right now as I used to be, because that would be extremely depressing to read. So I guess they still haven't figured out that combat balance isn't "just a PvP problem", and in fact has a huge impact on every part of the game that touches combat, PvE included. Ugh... That's bleak. Thanks for the heads up, though. I guess I'll just continue to wait, and hope they pull their heads out of the sand.



Of course I remember Hawken! That was some of my favorite gaming of all time. On that note, there's an upcoming mech game called Galahad 3093 that's different than Hawken, but has some similar vibes. Might want to take a look!

Heh, such a shame you ain't planning to come back. There's still much fun to have despire all the imbalances. Especially when you've found ways to deal with these imbalances at a disadvantage.

Also, digged out the exact quote:

Q: Will there be updates to ship and SRV combat, as well as ground combat?
Ship combat and SRV combat is in a healthy place right now, our focus is on ground combat for Odyssey, and ensuring that it is balanced well against vehicles. We will be looking closely at balancing in the upcoming Alpha.

FDev is actually communicating with its community for once and the answers are mostly statisfying. Atleast they state clear "Yes" and "No" on a few important questions such as the balanacing one.
They used to just not communicate at all during the past 2 years or so.

And that new mech game sure looks promising, thanks for the intel

 

[Crimson Kaim]

I liked Hawken a lot during it's earlier betas, but increasing TTKs (almost always a bad move, IMO) and then moving it to Steam killed it for me well before they actually shut it down.

Yup, the Hawken Ascension update inflated the hitpoints/TTK the same way Elite's engineering update did. It got too easy to get away with a whole chain of mistakes done by players as eating 3 TOW missiles just wasn't enough damage to kill a squishy A class (for people that don't know the game: A class was a very fast but squishy mech, B was a medium all rounder and C was a heavy but slow tank).
Likewise, in Elite we have inflated hitpoints/TTK that just allow for so many mistakes, I can't count them during a single engagement. With the meta build of slapping as many HD boosters on a prismo stack as possible you can basically tank multiple burst shots of frags and plasma, hit asteorids multiple times in a row while forgetting to have pips in SYS and still have shields unbroken because there is just not enough damage around.
Comparing it to the pre-engineer times, having a 1k MJ shield was considered much and could tank only a hand full of said volleys and/or collisions with asteorids or other ships.

So ultimately, an encounter's outcome is pretty clear when one party has a health disadvantage (current and total) meaning that one party has only ~50% of hitpoints left while the other has 100% left, there probability to turn around the odds is very, very low. Pre engineers, this wasn't the case since the TTK was lower and hitting a few volleys while not getting shot yourself would quickly turn around the odds.
But thanks to a high TTK, even when the winning aprty with 100% hitpoints would now do lots of mistakes, the hitpoints would most likely still be sufficient to win the encounter as there are just so many of them, they can be considered disposable or (back to the original statement) inflated.

And it's literally the same story with Hawken. Hitpoints have been inflated which caused the meta to shift towards who has the biggest healthpool (stats) rather than who has the best strategy (skill). Hawken died mostly due to that since its only offered product was a match based PvP experience. Whereas Elite still offers PvE or a great deal of non-combat oriented activities that remain relatively unaffected by the combat balancing issues. Still not completely unaffected (especially looking at NPCs vs player power and non-combat oriented builds vs combat oriented builds) as there still may be an encounter but these are rare and hence don't get as much attention as other, potentionally even organized encounters.
So at the end of the day, Hawken died because it couldn't offer any alternatives whereas Elite still thrives because it has much more to offer besides imbalanced combat.

It would, however, still be a wise decision to not ignore the combat part of the game as it is still a very popular activity in this game ... reflected by the never ending discussions about game balancing around it.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

....


FDev is actually communicating with its community for once and the answers are mostly statisfying. Atleast they state clear "Yes" and "No" on a few important questions such as the balanacing one.
They used to just not communicate at all during the past 2 years or so.

And that new mech game sure looks promising, thanks for the intel

Nollocks, they "communicated" for Horizons, too and it turned out they told a lot of tosh about it.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I do not want to have to play a moron to be personally challenged.

You obvioulsy aren't forced to do so... It is entirely by choice, surely?

 

[Crimson Kaim]

Nollocks, they "communicated" for Horizons, too and it turned out they told a lot of tosh about it.

I'm not saying anything about the quality of the content they communicate, merely stating the fact that they communicate right now in contrast to the void times before.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I'm not saying anything about the quality of the content they communicate, merely stating the fact that they communicate right now in contrast to the void times before.

Point taken.

 

[B1rdy]

You obvioulsy aren't forced to do so... It is entirely by choice, surely?

Haven't you realized 'not being forced to do something' is not actually an agument? Are you believing such an argument will lead to a healthy discussion, because ultimately you aren't constrained by anything besides physics. I'd think actually discussing changes in a productive way can lead to some benefit, even if its only players deliberating themselves. Just compare at the explanations from Fren and Morbad to those of the "I don't care /realize" crowd. Who is making the better argument here?

 

[Rat Catcher]

Haven't you realized 'not being forced to do something' is not actually an agument? Are you believing such an argument will lead to a healthy discussion, because ultimately you aren't constrained by anything besides physics. I'd think actually discussing changes in a productive way can lead to some benefit, even if its only players deliberating themselves. Just compare at the explanations from Fren and Morbad to those of the "I don't care /realize" crowd. Who is making the better argument here?

No - why should such a comment lead to a healthy discussion when it is diametrically opposite to the 'normal' perception?

Read the reactions given to suggesting that a player is actually able to tailor their build to meet the 'challenge' expected - it hovers around the intimation that one would need to be a 'moron' to not over-engineer everything.

I have no objection to the dislike of my reasoning - it is the individual player's choice how they play after all - I just elect to make my point that I don't consider the game imbalanced, if only because I'm able to be restrained in my choices, even when they would permit me to mitigate NPC threat very effectively, so why should I give my support to a proposition by another that disagrees with my perceptions?

I do read, quite carefully, the cases presented by others - do I have to support them because I don't agree that the game is flawed in the manner they believe?

 

[C54560]

How to fix engineering and Open/CQC at the same time?

Give players lvl 3+ engineered modules/weapons as rewards in some OPEN missions/tasks (coop or not) or even by winning X amount of CQC matches.
Solo offline players antisocials get to keep access to these modules through engineering.

So it would remain an option, the game would still work but there would be something to bring players to open and CQC mode keeping the game alive.
And carebears can't complain, nothing is taken from them. If they want high risk, high reward they come to the open mode.

And couldn't agree more with frenotx...
A shield is a shield. It's a protection layer, something that should be burstable. Look at the time to kill now... Look how CQC combats are fun. Look how Open 4v1 prismatic ganking is just another form of carebare that has evolved from solo mode.

 

[Rat Catcher]

How to fix engineering and Open/CQC at the same time?

Give players lvl 3+ engineered modules/weapons as rewards in some OPEN missions/tasks (coop or not) or even by winning X amount of CQC matches.
Solo offline players antisocials get to keep access to these modules through engineering.

So it would remain an option, the game would still work but there would be something to bring players to open and CQC mode keeping the game alive.
And carebears can't complain, nothing is taken from them. If they want high risk, high reward they get their bum to the open mode.

Well, CQC is great fun, but apparently loathed by many... I'm not even sure that offering modules as a 'carrot' would be particularly effective, but who knows - perhaps it may
Are missions in OPEN (I assume the capitalisation is for dramatic effect) hard then? (I've never noticed any particular difficulty, but then have not compared them to other modes)

 

[Fenwe]

Not sure if mentioned, but Horizon was folded into everyone's account for free, which means that everyone now has access to engineering.

It doesn't help the specifics of what you, the op, believes is the issue, but it is a change that has occurred recently.

FYI,

 

[C54560]

I wrote in that way simply because that's where it's important. Why would you play with others and be challenged when you can do the exact same thing, get the exact same reward with a sense of safety. We need harder missions that require help, cooperation between players or expose the player to a PVP risk. Diving into a "dangerous" game mode should save you some grind. You want to feel safe, you get to grind.

Why not having two players or teams manning the exact same ship contesting each other for a specific reward during a mission. Could even be a decal, nothing gamebreaking. The game needs to bring players that feeling of progression, but when it comes to competition David vs. Goliath is just frustrating for David 9 times out of 10.

During a team vs. (hostage rescue mission for instance, or your average gank PVP) good luck facing others from a sidewinder.
We have a rank system use that to divide ELO during the VS missions. We're just using it as a trophy to show off we're elite.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I wrote in that way simply because that's where it's important. Why would you play with others and be challenged when you can do the exact same thing, get the exact same reward with a sense of safety. We need harder missions that require help, cooperation between players or expose the player to a PVP risk. Diving into a "dangerous" game mode should save you some grind. You want to feel safe, you get to grind.

Why not having two players or teams manning the exact same ship contesting each other for a specific reward during a mission. Could even be a decal, nothing gamebreaking. The game needs to bring players that feeling of progression, but when it comes to competition David vs. Goliath is just frustrating for David 9 times out of 10.

During a team vs. (hostage rescue mission for instance, or your average gank PVP) good luck facing others from a sidewinder.
We have a rank system use that to divide ELO during the VS missions. We're just using it as a trophy to show off we're elite.

It eludes me how punishing a player and straight out telling them how much they suck would entice anyone but hardcore audience to play your game.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I wrote in that way simply because that's where it's important. Why would you play with others and be challenged when you can do the exact same thing, get the exact same reward with a sense of safety. We need harder missions that require help, cooperation between players or expose the player to a PVP risk.

We? Which "We" is that, a generic "We" or specific? (sorry, I digress)

The point, as was made recently in another thread with similar 'caveats' to your own suggestion, is that, in the main open is no more 'challenging' than solo and it is incredibly easy to trade, run missions and work BGS in many systems and never see another player... The number of systems which are almost certainly going to contain players is miniscule, in comparison to the 30,000+ inhabited systems in the bubble - although Colonia, by virtue of its smaller size, meeting other players is much more likely - but not guaranteed.

The 'fallover' for such suggestions is that they are easy to reap the 'reward' while being virtually certain that meeting another player (let alone a PvP player) is unlikely - co-op play is equally easily arranged to fit the same situation.

Not criticising, just pointing out that to ensure 'challenge' would be presented would be difficult to achieve as there are no 'choke' points in the game to force players to congregate, hence presenting potential risk, without making missions available only in a tiny (in bubble terms) number of systems.

 

[dwengo]

As someone that took a long break from ED and came back just before Christmas, there is a noticeable buff to npcs in elite. Namely that most of them are engineered, even in low res. It makes pve combat not fun atall and I'm not inclined to grind engineering to fix it. (having to grind engineering just to be able to compete with low res npcs!?!?).

There is a definate gap that needs plugging, whether ED adds a tier lower then has res/low intensity combat or whether the lowest tear sites are tweaked for less engineered npcs IDK. What is most frightening. Is ED said in their recent QA that ship combat is "in a good place right now".

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

As someone that took a long break from ED and came back just before Christmas, there is a noticeable buff to npcs in elite. Namely that most of them are engineered, even in low res. It makes pve combat not fun atall and I'm not inclined to grind engineering to fix it. (having to grind engineering just to be able to compete with low res npcs!?!?).

There is a definate gap that needs plugging, whether ED adds a tier lower then has res/low intensity combat or whether the lowest tear sites are tweaked for less engineered npcs IDK. What is most frightening. Is ED said in their recent QA that ship combat is "in a good place right now".

Enmies were buffed shortly after 2.1. That isnt a new thing and they didnt even need to give them engineering. Unlocking shield booster and HRP was already enough to make it a despicable bullet sponge party.

 

[B1rdy]

No - why should such a comment lead to a healthy discussion when it is diametrically opposite to the 'normal' perception?

What does this have to do with 'normal perception' (whatever that is)? A valid argument needs proof and explanation, otherwise it is but a mere claim.

Read the reactions given to suggesting that a player is actually able to tailor their build to meet the 'challenge' expected - it hovers around the intimation that one would need to be a 'moron' to not over-engineer everything.

I have no objection to the dislike of my reasoning - it is the individual player's choice how they play after all - I just elect to make my point that I don't consider the game imbalanced, if only because I'm able to be restrained in my choices, even when they would permit me to mitigate NPC threat very effectively, so why should I give my support to a proposition by another that disagrees with my perceptions?

What you try to explain here, is so fundamentally against what game designers learn and usually try to archive. Your approach (I am not saying it should be impossible or completely invalid) makes whole systems, mechanics and assetts questionable. Why would you waste hundrets of hours into that, if there is no reason for a player to interact with it? Wouldn't it be better for a game to provide a reason and some kind of reward to the player for usings it's mechanics as they are designed? Why add 30 weapons to a game, when 29 are objectively worse? Why provide players with the means to improve their ships, without giving them something to do with these upgraded ships, while at the same risking to unbalance big parts of the game?

I do read, quite carefully, the cases presented by others - do I have to support them because I don't agree that the game is flawed in the manner they believe?

Of course not, but responding "you are not forced to",...let's say, leaves a lot to be desired.