Do we really care about ganking conditions, though? I think this is an argument from convenience. People want to protect their existing playstyles and PvP habits, and are deploying "think of the children!" style arguments. Ganking is a fringe activity that barely affects anyone; there just aren't enough gankers or enough gullible targets, with or without drag munitions, and an easy mark is always going to be an easy mark with or without drag munitions. The only thing that would contribute substantially to the ganking problem is a huge influx of new players, and we all know that ain't happening.
Patch Notes Update April Update - Patch Notes
- Thread starter Will Flanagan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- april patch.notes update
All I'm seeing is an outflux of players.
But I don't like their playstyle so this is a good thing.
A+B?
Seems like this happens every update. Last time it was mass lock, and they pretended it was a bug. Yeah? Tell me how that just breaks...
Scenario C: Someone on the team with authority is deliberately attempting to agitate the PvP playerbase because they can't handle criticism.
FDev, please pay attention. The drag munitions change is nothing short of a blunder. PVP is the endgame in E: D, and it's vibrant because of A) the high bar for skill and B) the community.
A) This "update" moves the skill from ship-handling to ship-building, which is dependent upon the much improved but still boring gameplay of farming materials, jumping, unlocking engineers and farming credits, along with minimal skill in researching a meta or using a third-party tool to develop a more unique build. This is akin to asking a bunch of circuit race drivers to switch to careers as drag race builders. It's a different thing, your update doesn't enhance it, and the update all but eliminates the fun of the original activity. Sitting around and face-tanking two big ships is BORING. You know who will win as soon as the encounter begins, because it's just a mathematical exercise. We don't play or watch sports like this, and nobody will play a game like this for long.
B) If the endgame content of the game grows stale, the community will leave. Make no mistake, EVERYONE who plays in open, "PVPer" or otherwise, benefits from the risks of being "ganked," pirated, accosted, said hello to, or otherwise interacted with. Losing the entirety of the "Dangerous" gameplay will gut the existing community quickly and make it less worthwhile for new players to try the game or stick around. Nevermind the player-led directive to go out and gank anyone we can in protest, what's worse is when the skilled player base loses interest and leaves. Sure, you'll have the various PVE oriented folks sticking around, but why drive away a vibrant draw to your game? It makes no sense if it's on purpose, so please recognize the mistake.
A) This "update" moves the skill from ship-handling to ship-building, which is dependent upon the much improved but still boring gameplay of farming materials, jumping, unlocking engineers and farming credits, along with minimal skill in researching a meta or using a third-party tool to develop a more unique build. This is akin to asking a bunch of circuit race drivers to switch to careers as drag race builders. It's a different thing, your update doesn't enhance it, and the update all but eliminates the fun of the original activity. Sitting around and face-tanking two big ships is BORING. You know who will win as soon as the encounter begins, because it's just a mathematical exercise. We don't play or watch sports like this, and nobody will play a game like this for long.
B) If the endgame content of the game grows stale, the community will leave. Make no mistake, EVERYONE who plays in open, "PVPer" or otherwise, benefits from the risks of being "ganked," pirated, accosted, said hello to, or otherwise interacted with. Losing the entirety of the "Dangerous" gameplay will gut the existing community quickly and make it less worthwhile for new players to try the game or stick around. Nevermind the player-led directive to go out and gank anyone we can in protest, what's worse is when the skilled player base loses interest and leaves. Sure, you'll have the various PVE oriented folks sticking around, but why drive away a vibrant draw to your game? It makes no sense if it's on purpose, so please recognize the mistake.
Last edited:
One thing that always stuck out for me was "always starting at the same place", why not start in a random system based on a players "starting difficulty requirements"?
Imagine a pirate could start in a anarchy system, a miner in a asteroid rich system, a trader in a system with several stations etc.
By making a starter system no matter how locked it has created a "wolves at the door" scenario as griefers will just stop the next system outside the training bubble.
Imagine a pirate could start in a anarchy system, a miner in a asteroid rich system, a trader in a system with several stations etc.
By making a starter system no matter how locked it has created a "wolves at the door" scenario as griefers will just stop the next system outside the training bubble.
Surely if you can boost backwards this should be removed as it would be the main drive engines which provide the boost not reverse thrusters?
This would kill of the reverski maneuver in one hit and make PvP interesting
You don't boost in reverse. You boost, turn fa-off, perform a 180 so you maintain your movement and are now facing backward and can shoot with the reverski weapons of your choice.
Oh man, this explains why reverski never worked for me no matter how often I tried it. Kind of like when my dad said the way to impress girls was to put a large Yukon Gold potato in my shorts. I tried it a few times but it never seemed to work, so I went back to tell Dad and ask what I was doing wrong. He said "Son, you have to put the potato in the FRONT."
Ba-dum tsss!
Last edited:
i understand the pvp community's need to have the drag munition issue sorted.. but with this post, i am not speaking on that topic, instead i will focus attention on the past years of issue fixing:
"800 bugs / issues fixed"
hrmmm..., it's lovely to see that number, with the word "fixed" next to it
/me looks at bug reports section, sees 115 pages of bug reports, still.
/me looks at the bug archive, and is saddened, greatly.
i believe some issues were fixed, but when i look at the archive, and it's massive... and when i look at the 115 pages of bug reports (that i know have not been filtered / merged yet), i see a much different picture here than the one you're trying to present to us there Fdev. I won't criticize QA overly for this, but it's getting pretty crazy devs, it's time you actually fixed things that have been issues / bugs for years.. months is one thing, but years?
Side note: being able to upvote 4 bugs, four, is kinda, um, i don't know... pretty useless? I can choose only 4 bugs to upvote, why 4? Is there some specific reason why the number is so low? I don't plan to upvote 100 bugs, but 4? I question your methodology and usefulness of the results / data you gather there with this.
You say this, but i look at that. A magician can do a misdirection and show you that there's no magic being done in one hand, that's empty... but i look at the other hand, the one doing the "magic". Why? Because i've been a magician's assistant before, i know how "magic" works, it's all misdirection, and suspension of disbelief. My point: 800 is a big number, and i am pleased, i congratulate you on fixing those issues, but 800 is not a big number when you look at 115 pages of bug reports and the archived reports.
You are helping the new players, that's okay, it's fine, it was needed. Now that that whole new player experience has been addressed and being implemented, let's get to work and fix all the things you have been archiving and ignoring, so we can get onto the content additions, like fleet carriers and atmospheric landings, cough cough, you know, those things that were supposed to be in the game LAST year? Let's fix things so there is some progress without loads and loads of delays? Thank you.
"800 bugs / issues fixed"
hrmmm..., it's lovely to see that number, with the word "fixed" next to it
/me looks at bug reports section, sees 115 pages of bug reports, still.
/me looks at the bug archive, and is saddened, greatly.
i believe some issues were fixed, but when i look at the archive, and it's massive... and when i look at the 115 pages of bug reports (that i know have not been filtered / merged yet), i see a much different picture here than the one you're trying to present to us there Fdev. I won't criticize QA overly for this, but it's getting pretty crazy devs, it's time you actually fixed things that have been issues / bugs for years.. months is one thing, but years?
Side note: being able to upvote 4 bugs, four, is kinda, um, i don't know... pretty useless? I can choose only 4 bugs to upvote, why 4? Is there some specific reason why the number is so low? I don't plan to upvote 100 bugs, but 4? I question your methodology and usefulness of the results / data you gather there with this.
You say this, but i look at that. A magician can do a misdirection and show you that there's no magic being done in one hand, that's empty... but i look at the other hand, the one doing the "magic". Why? Because i've been a magician's assistant before, i know how "magic" works, it's all misdirection, and suspension of disbelief. My point: 800 is a big number, and i am pleased, i congratulate you on fixing those issues, but 800 is not a big number when you look at 115 pages of bug reports and the archived reports.
You are helping the new players, that's okay, it's fine, it was needed. Now that that whole new player experience has been addressed and being implemented, let's get to work and fix all the things you have been archiving and ignoring, so we can get onto the content additions, like fleet carriers and atmospheric landings, cough cough, you know, those things that were supposed to be in the game LAST year? Let's fix things so there is some progress without loads and loads of delays? Thank you.
Last edited:
Greetings Will,
Yeah, about this one. I'm just throwing in my 2 cents, as many others already have. Like you need one more opinion, right?
There's no counter to drag munitions of any kind that I'm aware of. Every speed rig in the game becomes worthless. Conversely, I'd hate to imagine how many re-buys I'll have with my FGS. Further, any un-engineered new player slow boat, isn't a sitting duck.anymore. With this update, they'll be fish in a barrel. That's a really nice way to welcome and keep new players. Holy smokes! And pve bounty hunting and CZs, become cash registers. I won't even get started on C-loggers? Pfft! I'm sure you get the picture.
This one is NOT a good idea. I really hope the team reconsiders their decision about this. Hope everything else goes smoothly.
Rook o7
Edit:
I can't believe I spelled my own name wrong. Stupid insomnia.
Last edited:
You just don't know what you are talking about, the fact that you mention formation flying and are theorising about flanking is pure evidence to that fact, stop telling people who have more hours in pvp than you have in the game that they don't know what they are talking about, you are completely off the mark in regards to ECM and PD and you clearly do not know how fights play out in this game, not one actual pvper on this thread has ever seen you in open and it really shows, add to that you want to add some backhands in your replies, you are theorising about something of which you know nothing.
What this will actually lead to is people out of necessity stacking pure MJ, Long range weapons only, most likely hitscan, missile spam from every ship and people leaving fights far earlier than they used to. Not one good change.
Nah we ganked him in open for DG2. Moose got him.
Looooool
Boy you should see how much some people care about ganking hahah
Nah, easiest way to kill a fighter is just pull some distance and pop it with a rail shot, this will be unaffected
You're arguing that it won't make a difference to a ship that evaporates under any fire, yes we were all aware of this and no one was questioning that, I'm still waiting to hear your point
You don't understand. You and L'Intouchable and all the rest of us just don't know enough about circle strafing to criticize this change!
Lol. More incentive for seeker spam and confetti disabling boost, and this is somehow a nuanced and well thought out rebalance. While we're at it why don't we give the FDL 2 more utility slots and make the conda lighter with a larger FSD.
Yeah man, guy who got ganked by actual pvpers who is talking about formations and flanking in elite and has never pvp'd in his life clearly know more than people who have been doing it for 4 years
That was actually his point. He was unaware there were pilots who were neither gankers nor exclusive competitive PvP'ers who liked to fly in open and not die, and so didn't quite grasp that such pilots might not like to be immobilized by mega drag experimental the first moment a wing gank lands a frag pellet on them, leading inevitably to torps, groms, module snipes and rebuys.
I think it's all been cleared up now though.