Beta Closing Statement
- Thread starter Sandro Sammarco
- Start date
If sensors were to effect gimbals i expect the same for turrets.
Thank you very much for your post (and thanks to all Fd team)
I have appreciated it.
So basically you held off nerfing gimballed weapons because people whined. What a shame.
I think an ground-up adjustment to sensors is called for, especially if you're hoping to tie the effectiveness of gimbals and auto-tracking turrets to sensor quality.
There was a write up on this many moons ago, though I can't find the link to the specific one I'm referring to. I may do a full 'suggestion' write up on it in the future. Overall, you want to make higher rated sensors more appealing, as they aren't right now. Not to mention, the utility hardpoints are highly prized and the cost is too dear to defence and usability to incorporate active scanners.
The idea is to combine active and passive scanning into the same core module, by allowing for the internal Sensor module to be a la carte upgradable.
Each Sensor module will have 'internal slots' increasing with Rating as well as their range, mass, and power requirements. Every Rating improvement should also allow for an increase in resolving cold targets (I think this already happens or at least it used to in one patch), and improving gimbal and turret auto-tracking.
- Rating E - 1 internal module slot, stock fit with basic discovery scanner.
- Rating D - 2 internal modules, first sensor module that allows the surface scan including target's internal modules
- Rating C - 3 internal modules
- Rating B - 4 internal modules, first sensor module capable of accommodating Advanced Discovery Scanner's increased range
- Rating A - 5 internal modules
"Internal modules" refers to the active scanners and their enhancement, like the DSS. Currently, we have 5 types of active scanning modules: Discovery scanner, DSS, KWS, FSWS, manifest scanner. So if you use an A-rated scanner module, not only do you have improved auto-turret and gimbal tracking, improved resolution when targets go silent, but the capability to mount all types of active scanners. The power requirements for doing that should be massive, but maybe those requirements will go a long way to justify the current power requirements of the A-Rated Sensor modules.
Yes, this is a ground up revisiting of sensor modules, but it shouldn't actually change any of the scanning or sensor mechanics.
As for the re-balance when removing the need for active scanners to take utility hardpoints? That made sense when chaff and heatsinks were the only useful utilities, but now ECMs, point defence, and shield boosters are all very useful and integral to a ship's load out. Right now, there is very little reason for players to equip any of the active scanners, which in turn makes most pirates into murderers who won't scan targets. The proposed system also keeps the D-Rated Sensor module the perfect module for explorers, while freeing up internal compartments for more useful kit, such as PVH, AFM, passenger cabins, or refinery modules.
(Another suggestion to tangent for exploration: how about a science lab? Rather than have scientists travel in passenger cabins like tourists, give them a separate science lab, or rather, increase the reward for transporting them with a fully functional lab. You can even include missions like the current Synuefe ruins missions by having half of the planet-based prospecting materials be delivered to the lab. They'll run tests and re-package the samples as you go. It would be similar to the non-existent planetary mining, only you'll need scientist passengers to facilitate it.)
Last edited:
Ah well. The two changes that I wanted to see - nerfing booster stacking (seriously guys - 1 per ship. Ditto SCBs. Problem sorted! Ignore the screaming of the pvp crowd!) and linking gimbals (and turrets hopefully) to sensor class don't make it. I agree that sensors are just way too heavy for what they actually are - but grade of sensors linked to weapons capability makes perfect sense to me (e.g. 3rd and 4th-gen fighters on Earth may not have vastly different airframe kinematic capabilities, but rather sensor differences can make a step-change in effective capabilities).
Still, lots of nice changed did make it in.
Still, lots of nice changed did make it in.
Dear Sandro,
thanks for at least clarifying as to why the update
is so diverse to what was assumed would be the
outcome of beta.
This statement however, should have been published
at the exact same time, as the update went live.
Imagine how the people who invested their time
to test in the beta and help you get feedback have received the changes.
A very sour apple to swallow.
When there was so much contrary discussion going on
regarding ship transfer, you guys decided to put up an official
poll to finalize the decision.
Why has that not happened this time aswell?
I surely hope you revisit the whole defense mechanics,
as the current module set, available to the player brings a lot of disparity
between combat pure breds and other roles.
Is it likely to see those modules removed completely,
to see if the features that have been added from 1.2 on
have created a way to keep all roles viable through special
modules (SLFs)?
I surely hope at least in a beta environment there will be time to test
the game without the defensive modules, as they only further disparity
between playstyles to the point where fighting back is a waste of time,
as multiple thousand shield hp or "potions" are a thing.
Please let us test and showcase, the non-existant need for
shield boosters, hull reinforcements and shield cell banks.
thanks for at least clarifying as to why the update
is so diverse to what was assumed would be the
outcome of beta.
This statement however, should have been published
at the exact same time, as the update went live.
Imagine how the people who invested their time
to test in the beta and help you get feedback have received the changes.
A very sour apple to swallow.
When there was so much contrary discussion going on
regarding ship transfer, you guys decided to put up an official
poll to finalize the decision.
Why has that not happened this time aswell?
I surely hope you revisit the whole defense mechanics,
as the current module set, available to the player brings a lot of disparity
between combat pure breds and other roles.
Is it likely to see those modules removed completely,
to see if the features that have been added from 1.2 on
have created a way to keep all roles viable through special
modules (SLFs)?
I surely hope at least in a beta environment there will be time to test
the game without the defensive modules, as they only further disparity
between playstyles to the point where fighting back is a waste of time,
as multiple thousand shield hp or "potions" are a thing.
Please let us test and showcase, the non-existant need for
shield boosters, hull reinforcements and shield cell banks.
Last edited:
Alright:
- Shield booster stacking: That had better come back!
- Hull hardness changes: I'm actually happier this is gone, all it did was make the Big 3 ships tougher than they already are compared to everything else, from what I could tell...if changes to hardness do happen again, I think the Federal Drop/Assault/Gun ships could use a buff, but that's it.
- Linking gimbals to sensors: I want this back, too. Perhaps you could sweeten the deal by applying the "powerplant weight" treatment to sensors as well (less weight overall)? And introducing more engineer blueprints for sensors (such as one reducing the power draw, or a lightweight mod)?
Last edited:
Thank you Sandro! As for the shield nerf, I bet if you polled the ENTIRE playerbase, you'd find that most of us are against any nerf to booster stacking. The majority of the playerbase is, afterall, PVE not PVP. As Spock once said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)".
As Spock once said, "Insufficient facts always invite danger" and "In critical moments men sometimes see exactly what they wish to see."
The correlation of PvE players being against booster stacking penalties and PvP players favouring them is completely unfounded.
As a PvE only player, I remember lenghty discussions full of wing-PvPers advocating for the introduction of absurdly overpowered shields because they complained about not being able to tank two full player wings focusing fire on them.
As a result, we got shields rendering PvE a semi-AFK activity in anything upwards from a Courier.
However you can't really hold PvPers responsible for both - shield buffs and nerfs.
In the end the confounding factor is people wanting god mode (i.e. some PvE players making billions in bounties whilst watching TV or gankers engaging Asps in fully engineered FdL wings) vs. those looking for challenging gameplay.
Last edited:
Nerfing the shield boosters would ruin the game for me. I always pick ships I can have the most shields with. Armor tanking a ship seems silly to me as this is a space game and I think shields should be the way one protects the ship primarily with hull being only for last second escape if one screws up and lets the shields go down. Fighting relying on hull shouldn't be a option except for the insane IMO. Also I think all ships should have better Shields like the FAS. I might consider using that ship but the shields are too weak. I only like medium and small ships so my options are Vulture/Imperial Courier right now.
I'm not opposed to having sensors effect gimbals but you should make gimbals be at least equal to fixed if one were to use a A grade sensor. If one chooses a D grade sensor there should be no change from what it is now. I mean this is 3300 so having gimbal weapons than can track perfectly is totally realistic, in fact one could argue that gimbals should out perform even the most seasoned pilot with fixed other than dealing with chaff.
Other things:
Interdiction: It's still way too hard. I realize some say it's easy for them and I believe it. Something must be funky here depending on joystick/connection/etc. I have a thrustmaster hotas and a great comcast connection. I have a I7 and great graphics card in my PC. I'm also using a static IP and port forward. I've been gaming for years but can't interdict any NPC's. Interdicting a human seems about right, but NPC's I can't do it. My suggestion is to scrap the interdiction mini game all together and just make interdiction automatic when one is in range to interdict. Lets face it, almost all humans submit/boost anyway so why have the minigame? It only prevents us with the 'interdiction issues' from interdicting NPC's. One could still attempt to avoid interdiction by staying out of range in super cruise. If keeping the mini game is a must then I suggest selling a 'special intridictor' for pirates/bounty hunters that avoids the mini game and causes instant interdiction from longer ranges. HOWEVER, make this come with a high cost, that cost being reduced insurance. Maybe reduce insurance by 50%. This would force most non super rich people to bounty hunt/pirate in only small inexpensive ships which means they have lower cargo slots so pirates can't steal too much. Trying to pirate or bounty hunt in a 150 million ship with 50% insurance would be a real gamble.
Long trip autopilot: We need a very simple auto pilot for long trips. One that will alarm and discontinue if interdiction occurs. There is no reason to make someone sit at the joystick for a 1000 ly trip only to align and re-jump. One should be forced to stay in the room and monitor the trip but not actually sit and preform the boring task of aligning and jumping. Before anyone starts yelling about automating trading etc. that's not what I'm saying, just a simple auto pilot for the jumping when one is going on a long trip. This would be optional and would have no negative impact on the game and allow one to take a or get a drink during travel, and help with carpal tunnel.
Insurance: I'm not a trader but I think insurance is the way to bring traders back from open. Some sort of system that allows the trader to cover 100% of what they are hauling. Maybe a option for a very small fee to purchase additional insurance when buying goods that will cover them 100%. Also allow all trade ships to be covered 100% by a special traders policy, T6, T9, etc. This way a traders only risk is the profit stood to be made by delivering the goods. Also gives traders 'pirate insurance' so any goods lost to a pirate are covered as well. This would make traders choose to give up what the pirate wants rather than run/fight. These are just general ideas but something needs to be done to get traders back in open and allow piracy to work as well. Maybe only the hauler/T6/T9 get the special 100% coverage policy, all other ships continue with the current insurance system since they are not total trade ships. If I were selling insurance I wouldn't give a 100% policy to a Python because I would figure they might engage in combat sometimes which makes them higher risk. But a trade ship would be safer since I would doubt they would be bounty hunting or hitting a CZ.
I'm not opposed to having sensors effect gimbals but you should make gimbals be at least equal to fixed if one were to use a A grade sensor. If one chooses a D grade sensor there should be no change from what it is now. I mean this is 3300 so having gimbal weapons than can track perfectly is totally realistic, in fact one could argue that gimbals should out perform even the most seasoned pilot with fixed other than dealing with chaff.
Other things:
Interdiction: It's still way too hard. I realize some say it's easy for them and I believe it. Something must be funky here depending on joystick/connection/etc. I have a thrustmaster hotas and a great comcast connection. I have a I7 and great graphics card in my PC. I'm also using a static IP and port forward. I've been gaming for years but can't interdict any NPC's. Interdicting a human seems about right, but NPC's I can't do it. My suggestion is to scrap the interdiction mini game all together and just make interdiction automatic when one is in range to interdict. Lets face it, almost all humans submit/boost anyway so why have the minigame? It only prevents us with the 'interdiction issues' from interdicting NPC's. One could still attempt to avoid interdiction by staying out of range in super cruise. If keeping the mini game is a must then I suggest selling a 'special intridictor' for pirates/bounty hunters that avoids the mini game and causes instant interdiction from longer ranges. HOWEVER, make this come with a high cost, that cost being reduced insurance. Maybe reduce insurance by 50%. This would force most non super rich people to bounty hunt/pirate in only small inexpensive ships which means they have lower cargo slots so pirates can't steal too much. Trying to pirate or bounty hunt in a 150 million ship with 50% insurance would be a real gamble.
Long trip autopilot: We need a very simple auto pilot for long trips. One that will alarm and discontinue if interdiction occurs. There is no reason to make someone sit at the joystick for a 1000 ly trip only to align and re-jump. One should be forced to stay in the room and monitor the trip but not actually sit and preform the boring task of aligning and jumping. Before anyone starts yelling about automating trading etc. that's not what I'm saying, just a simple auto pilot for the jumping when one is going on a long trip. This would be optional and would have no negative impact on the game and allow one to take a or get a drink during travel, and help with carpal tunnel.
Insurance: I'm not a trader but I think insurance is the way to bring traders back from open. Some sort of system that allows the trader to cover 100% of what they are hauling. Maybe a option for a very small fee to purchase additional insurance when buying goods that will cover them 100%. Also allow all trade ships to be covered 100% by a special traders policy, T6, T9, etc. This way a traders only risk is the profit stood to be made by delivering the goods. Also gives traders 'pirate insurance' so any goods lost to a pirate are covered as well. This would make traders choose to give up what the pirate wants rather than run/fight. These are just general ideas but something needs to be done to get traders back in open and allow piracy to work as well. Maybe only the hauler/T6/T9 get the special 100% coverage policy, all other ships continue with the current insurance system since they are not total trade ships. If I were selling insurance I wouldn't give a 100% policy to a Python because I would figure they might engage in combat sometimes which makes them higher risk. But a trade ship would be safer since I would doubt they would be bounty hunting or hitting a CZ.
If you want challenging gameplay, then remove your shield boosters. As the game is now, PVE ease through using shield boosters falls into the "don't like, don't use" category. It is a conscious choice made by the PVE player as to how "safe" they want PVE combat to be. It's their right to choose. The nerf takes that choice away from them.
- - - Updated - - -
This.
That's about as logical as suggesting to self destruct if you want to face a threat. If you want it to be safe, go to a low intensity RES, not a hazardous one in your booster-stacked Corvette. There: Choice.
As it stands I already do what you suggested and use Couriers, Vipers and Eagles for haz res because PVE doesn't offer any challenge beyond that and even then it's perfectly safe.
lol @ Mood - good one, I'd add automated combat logging vs NPCs to the list
.lol @ Mood - good one, I'd add automated combat logging vs NPCs to the list
No that would be bad. It would be nice to travel 500 ly on auto pilot while I help my kid with homework, clean up the room, etc. Again I'd have to be close to the computer in case of interdiction. Some people have less time, giving them a option to auto pilot the long distant travel would actually give them more 'game time' since they could do other things while traveling. I am NOT suggesting any other form of automation, in fact they can take the docking computer out of the game for all I care. This is about time and being forced to do the same thing over and over for extended periods of time. I understand we need time requirements for travel for realism and I don't want that to change, just auto pilot the trivial task of scoop/align/jump. I might actually embark on a journey to Colonia if I had a auto pilot. I'd still be in the room, standing in front of fire place, having a cold one, ready to take action if need be...Just watching the screen while my auto pilot scoop/align/jump for me on the route I plotted. But right now there is no way I'd ever travel 21000ly being forced to sit in a rigid position for that long, night after night. No way...It makes my neck, arms, and back hurt. No big deal, I'm gonna play without it but it would be a nice option for some people who would like to explore but don't want to sit for so long doing nothing basically.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's about as logical as suggesting to self destruct if you want to face a threat. If you want it to be safe, go to a low intensity RES, not a hazardous one in your booster-stacked Corvette. There: Choice.
As it stands I already do what you suggested and use Couriers, Vipers and Eagles for haz res because PVE doesn't offer any challenge beyond that and even then it's perfectly safe.
lol @ Mood - good one, I'd add automated combat logging vs NPCs to the list
If people want to be invulnerable in a HAZ RES then that's their choice. If they want to fly into a HAZ REZ with no shield boosters and E-grade shielding and basic armor, then that is their choice as well. Right now the game can be as easy or as difficult as people want it to be. Taking people's choices away from them never goes well.