Any Improvements on Engineering / Combat Balance?

@Rat Catcher

Yeah exactly! The game's already too easy. It's just a bit grindy. Well at least it seems to be a feeling we both share (sorry I'm not perfectly fluent yet). That's why I suddenly started to use "we" not that I mean to talk for others, just felt like using it. I think open could be a fantastic place to matchmake mission generated hard/intense content, sometimes implying teamming up and a good enough coop would allow you to get the reward. On the other hand, 2 factions hired a spy (player) each with a painted eagle. They find out and they both ask the spies to kill each other. Stuff like this. If tutorials exist, that kind of content could exist as well imho.
 
Of course not, but responding "you are not forced to",...let's say, leaves a lot to be desired.
.. and intimating that one might be a moron doesn't?

Because there a XX assets in a game that are beneficial, does it mean that every one has to be used at the same time?
Thank you for your considered response, we do apparently approach the matter from opposite viewpoints, understandably, so best to just go along believing in ourselves.

ETA: You and I, or any of the other PvP players and I could meet in identical "NPC Godmode" ships and mine would have a 99% chance of being destroyed... Is that imbalanced?
 
Last edited:
.. and intimating that one might be a moron doesn't?
The wording seemed to be carefully chosen to prove a point, yours did not have one, I am afraid. Also this whole discussion is probably a old as Elite, so it gets a bit tiresome, maybe, to always read the 'but it's optional' reasoning, that might prove something actually is wrong with a game.

Because there a XX assets in a game that are beneficial, does it mean that every one has to be used at the same time?
No, but they need to have a purpose. As for example, you would not design a special dice for a board game, without any purpose for it. I mean you could, but you were better off not expecting any awards for your game. ;-)
Thank you for your considered response, we do apparently approach the matter from opposite viewpoints, understandably, so best to just go along believing in ourselves.
Maybe. My point of view is from the best possible, viable outcome.

Edit:
ETA: You and I, or any of the other PvP players and I could meet in identical "NPC Godmode" ships and mine would have a 99% chance of being destroyed... Is that imbalanced?
No, the game provides identical circumstances for us. I think I am missing the point. As with cars, there can be a setup that requires a high amount of skill or effort, but could lead to good results. But there can also be setups, that are more easy to use, with a similar result. ED rewards and requires a certain amount of skill, no doubt about that. But that does not mean balance is not required.
As for your example, any of us would leave the fight at our discretion due to the high ttk.
 
Last edited:
....

ETA: You and I, or any of the other PvP players and I could meet in identical "NPC Godmode" ships and mine would have a 99% chance of being destroyed... Is that imbalanced?

Not neccessarily. It could be just skill. I'd rather say it is an underlying design misconception that PvP and PvE players mingle without friction. I rather think it is detrimental to the overall MP game experience.
 
Not neccessarily. It could be just skill. I'd rather say it is an underlying design misconception that PvP and PvE players mingle without friction. I rather think it is detrimental to the overall MP game experience.
That is the point I was making - I would stand equal chance of a 99% win against a player who has not spent time 'gittin gud' as my skill is 'reasonable' but against one who has made the effort to be 'expert' at combat would weigh the odd heavily against me.

The dispute over 'balance' appears, in the main, to be supported by those who have made a concious effort to be 'well above average' and find the range of toys we have to play with wanting for whatever reason they perceive. Of course 'Average Joanne' or "Novice Joe", in general, don't perceive the 'balance' as incorrect as every beneficial asset (even the assets disliked as pointless too possibly) is considered exactly that, an asset.
 
That is the point I was making - I would stand equal chance of a 99% win against a player who has not spent time 'gittin gud' as my skill is 'reasonable' but against one who has made the effort to be 'expert' at combat would weigh the odd heavily against me.

The dispute over 'balance' appears, in the main, to be supported by those who have made a concious effort to be 'well above average' and find the range of toys we have to play with wanting for whatever reason they perceive. Of course 'Average Joanne' or "Novice Joe", in general, don't perceive the 'balance' as incorrect as every beneficial asset (even the assets disliked as pointless too possibly) is considered exactly that, an asset.

I can tell you from mere NPC combat experience that the balance is out of whack. I might be not the normal case of progression but I don't think I was a rare case when they introduced engineers. I'm advanced combat rank and experienced significantly increased enemy HP to the point it just became tedious to fight NPC. It's been a significant change to the vanilla experience and the main reason I rant so much about engineers.
PvP I can just ignore. PvE combat not really.
 
I'm advanced combat rank and experienced significantly increased enemy HP to the point it just became tedious to fight NPC.
I won't argue that - even I have seen the changes in NPC health pools over the last 3 years - most noticable, for me, in CZ's - it is far to easy to exhaust kinetic weapons in a High CZ than previously, some of the Pirate Assasination targets are a 'bit tough' these days too. But, I'm quite happy to confess my inadequacies in combat as I don't have a particular drive to excel so could probably be much more efficient!
 
The current state of engineering and combat creates commanders like mine that learn to work within its rules and use them optimally to achieve specific goals. If I didn't like it, I would play something else.
 
I won't argue that - even I have seen the changes in NPC health pools over the last 3 years - most noticable, for me, in CZ's - it is far to easy to exhaust kinetic weapons in a High CZ than previously, some of the Pirate Assasination targets are a 'bit tough' these days too. But, I'm quite happy to confess my inadequacies in combat as I don't have a particular drive to excel so could probably be much more efficient!
I don't think it's inadequacies. It's just HP inflation to justify the steep portential in powercreep. And it is so steep that it can't account for proper matchups anymore because the delta between scrubmeister equipment (vanilla gear) and G5 engineered is so big that it isn't funny anymore. Why there had to be this outlandish difference I don't know. I doubt it was the grandfathering - that just pushed it further. It was already ridiculous before.
But there is a thing that irritated me even more and that is that just stacking vanilla gear is enough to make it a tedious experience. Word is that engineering was introduced step by step and after engineers released it wasn't actually engineered ships that made them bullet sponges but a change in the equipment table for NPC that allowed stacking of defensive gear.
It means that the whole thing was bound to be an unfun experience from the start with HP inflation as consequence. I might have known earlier from the PvP discussions, but that wasn't really my interest in ED. I played mainly PvE. And I expected tougher fights in PvP naturally, but not the kind of peashooting contest it devolved into.
Kill times were OK before 2.1 - after they went out of hand.
 
You obvioulsy aren't forced to do so... It is entirely by choice, surely?

Of course I am. The other 'option' is to play a character that deliberately puts himself in situations--that are supposed to represent existential threats, or, at the very least, seriously unpleasant inconveniences--without having this character do everything in their power to mitigate those risks. Characters that do this are apathetic to their own fates, insane, or stupid. I do not want to have to play such a character to be challenged as a player. I want to play the smartest, most ruthlessly efficient, SOB I can manage, and still have a chance to fail...but I am not given that choice.

I can and do still have fun wandering around the galaxy with nigh absolute impunity...untouchable by anyone or anything that it's reasonably possible to organically encounter...but I'd certainly prefer some excitement that didn't involve having my CMDR do things tantamount to climbing Everest while barefoot.

You and I, or any of the other PvP players and I could meet in identical "NPC Godmode" ships and mine would have a 99% chance of being destroyed... Is that imbalanced?

Your CMDR wouldn't be destroyed in such a scenario unless they stuck around long after it became clear they were losing. Even with a profound skill descrepancy, one still has to choose failure to come out of such an encounter appreciably worse off than their opponent. Outside of pitched battles with all sorts of contrivances, it's an occasion of wondrous rarity when a well built ship goes down without the pilot running her into the ground or just giving up and handing Jesus the controls in a panic.

Anyway, the imbalance shows in dichotomy between hypothetical options and what is actually used in practice. There is a huge and varied list of equipment possibilities in this game...but most of it goes unused because it's either patently inferior to other options, or so niche in it's utility that it may as well not exist. On top of that, all the 'instant action' and 'QoL' type changes, as well as the opt-in nature of any and all risks, have increasingly encouraged hyperspecialized loadouts, where such specialization should be problematic.

it should be risky to run a combat ship that cannot high-wake or that can only make two jumps before running out of fuel. It's not.

it should be risky to explore in a stripped down max jump loadout, because there should be a variety of hazards and uncertainties to heading out into the black for protracted periods. There aren't.

Word is that engineering was introduced step by step and after engineers released it wasn't actually engineered ships that made them bullet sponges but a change in the equipment table for NPC that allowed stacking of defensive gear.
It means that the whole thing was bound to be an unfun experience from the start with HP inflation as consequence.

This is true. Engineering was problematic, but the bulk of sponginess encountered among NPCs has nothing to do with it.

Any rational pure combat vessel is going to be a solid brick of HRPs, MRPs, and SCBs. A warship in a CZ does not need, and should not have, cargo racks, refineries, limpet controllers, surface scanners, SRVs, or anything else that does not serve to increase the time it can endure combat and deliver punishment to foes.

I might have known earlier from the PvP discussions, but that wasn't really my interest in ED. I played mainly PvE.

PvP illustrates what's possible. Expecting PvE to never leverage the systems that are already in place is a serious gamble. This is why combat needs to be balanced around PvP, as those represent the best/worst case scenarios...outliers that if allowed to persist will become the norm. If imbalances are possible, they will show up sooner or later. Frontier's content changes come at a glacial pace, with has forestalled some of these changes far longer than I would have expected, but every time they touch NPCs they get a little bit closer to making sense in the system we have. Unfortunately, that system isn't a very good one.
 
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.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for putting this whole thing about shield vs hull tanking more concisely than I ever could. My own opinion about this matter is that when you make one form of defense THE form of defense, you pretty much make combat fairly simplistic. Wouldn't it be nice if hull tanks were on par with shield tanks? Wouldn't it be far more interesting if the opponents you were facing, whether they be NPCs or PCs, could be using either form of defense and you couldn't be absolutely sure before getting close enough to check them out? Wouldn't it be nice if you had to make hard choices about the weapons you use, because no one weapon would be a "beat all defenses" without having SERIOUS drawbacks? Just sayin.
 
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for putting this whole thing about shield vs hull tanking more concisely than I ever could. My own opinion about this matter is that when you make one form of defense THE form of defense, you pretty much make combat fairly simplistic. Wouldn't it be nice if hull tanks were on par with shield tanks? Wouldn't it be far more interesting if the opponents you were facing, whether they be NPCs or PCs, could be using either form of defense and you couldn't be absolutely sure before getting close enough to check them out? Wouldn't it be nice if you had to make hard choices about the weapons you use, because no one weapon would be a "beat all defenses" without having SERIOUS drawbacks? Just sayin.

Hull tanking:
Don't have to manage pips, ever.
Can focus Distributor entirely on weps and eng
Hull mods use like zero power, so builds are far far easier with less compromises/choices compared to shield tanks
Other advantages I can't think of offhand, but I'm sure there are more.

So yeah it's no wonder hull tanking was knocked down. If it was just as viable as shield tanking....why would anyone EVER shield tank ever again??? It requires more power management and strategy, more investment in mods and engineering, bla bla bla you get the point. You think it's fun waiting around for shields to charge? Or losing 25-50% shield strength because you have to put pips elsewhere? Nope.

You would just shift the meta from one to the other without fixing anything.
 
Hull tanking:
Don't have to manage pips, ever.
Can focus Distributor entirely on weps and eng
Hull mods use like zero power, so builds are far far easier with less compromises/choices compared to shield tanks
Other advantages I can't think of offhand, but I'm sure there are more.

So yeah it's no wonder hull tanking was knocked down. If it was just as viable as shield tanking....why would anyone EVER shield tank ever again??? It requires more power management and strategy, more investment in mods and engineering, bla bla bla you get the point. You think it's fun waiting around for shields to charge? Or losing 25-50% shield strength because you have to put pips elsewhere? Nope.

You would just shift the meta from one to the other without fixing anything.
So why do most people shield tank then? There must be an imbalance somewhere.
 
So why do most people shield tank then? There must be an imbalance somewhere.

I don't think you read my post. Hull tanking isn't viable, it's not a thing anymore. Because there's no way to make it balanced for all reasons I listed and more. If it exists in a viable form, it will automatically be overpowered.

It's a dumb idea anyway. In a future where shields are available, you would use shields. Because letting weapons just hit your hull sounds really really dumb.
 
I don't think you read my post. Hull tanking isn't viable, it's not a thing anymore. Because there's no way to make it balanced for all reasons I listed and more. If it exists in a viable form, it will automatically be overpowered.

It's a dumb idea anyway. In a future where shields are available, you would use shields. Because letting weapons just hit your hull sounds really really dumb.
I dont think you really have experience about what you talk about. It's all correct and tjat what you point out. I thought the same once. Then I tried it and turned out useless. Without the engineer grind work of course. So I dont know if you can protect your unshielded thrusters properly with module buffs. I kinda doubt it. Losing thrust in combat is like a death sentence. Especially in group combat. That's why hull tank mostly suck. Maybe fine still for 1v1. Vs group and horde it aint.
 
Back
Top Bottom