Break through SCBs instantly with modified railguns (Newletter 121)

[bitstorm]

Yes, in this thread, not me.

Ok sure but you pulled out that quote, I was talking to someone else not you!

Sure that's fine but calling for nerfs isn't conceptual critique nor do I think we can fairly conceptionally critique in any realistic manner until weve seen all that's on offer.

Tell all the political theorists about how they shouldn't point out the flaws in various theories and improve upon them, actually not just political theorists, all theorists.

I'm not up on political theorists, but you're telling me they routinely look at issues in isolation without taking into account the big picture? This seems problematic to me but sure if that's what they do fine, I'm sure they know best.

I honestly don't think all theorists do this though. It seems like a recipe for disaster or at least totally misinformed theories.

I'm not rejecting the idea in its entirety, I'm suggesting alternative conceptual implementation based on its conceptual existence, which is something I do with theories of all kinds in my daily life, believe it or not, I'm paid to do it.

I'm totally cool with this! I'm only posting here because of all the "nerf it now Frontier or I leave game" talk. With this patch there's a whole suite of changes coming, much of which we've not yet seen.

I would however say talking about alternative implementations is fine in a "conceptual critique" type manner (of course)! But doing so already seems to assume that this change is fundamentally game-breaking, I'd say at this time that's an assumption because we don't yet see the big picture. Frontier have already said they have concerns, they will keep an eye on it but they do want to go ahead. Point being if there is an issue then rebalancing *can* happen, be that by some nerf or even the addition of some mod that mitigates any issue. It seems like something they want to see in action before making a decision.

I don't know the specific timings but SCBs don't need that long to kick off, any counter only has to act for a reasonably short time. It's possible something is already in for this.

As I say lots of changes coming, instead of calling for preemptive nerfs you chaps really should be looking forward to seeing how meta can be defeated because there's gonna be plenty of potential tools in your toolkit, and that in itself is PvP gameplay.

Oh, how brilliant:

"Let's see... oh my opponent has a railgun, and I'm in a large ship/rely on SCB, time to flee!"

Well that was a reply to someone else doing PvE and being jumped by a railer, escape is a perfectly valid solution to unexpected PvP. Like the first quote above I was talking to someone else, you're taking it out of context.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I'm not up on political theorists, but you're telling me they routinely look at issues in isolation without taking into account the big picture? This seems problematic to me but sure if that's what they do fine, I'm sure they know best.

I'm precisely looking at the big picture. The rail gun modification makes large ships and medium shield reliant ships (FDL, Python) obsolete, and that is not okay.

I don't know the specific timings but SCBs don't need that long to kick off, any counter only has to act for a reasonably short time. It's possible something is already in for this.

And how funny it is that the larger the SCB (which large ships rely on), the longer the time it needs to fire...

As I say lots of changes coming, instead of calling for preemptive nerf you chaps really should be looking forward to seeing how meta can be defeated because there's gonna be plenty of potential tools in your toolkit, and that in itself is PvP gameplay. Not "oh nerf it".

Tell me one thing that will somehow make large ship relevant with this change in place. What "tools" can it use to its disposal to remain relevant.

 

[bitstorm]

I'm precisely looking at the big picture. The rail gun modification makes large ships and medium shield reliant ships (FDL, Python) obsolete, and that is not okay.

What?? In that case can you lists all the possible mods in 2.1 please then, or at least point me to a list. I'd love to know.

Tell me one thing that will somehow make large ship relevant with this change in place. What "tools" can it use to its disposal to remain relevant.

In PvP? Well isn't this your job?

Again that question is based on the assumption that a Feedback Cascade cannot be countered in any way, I'm questioning that underlying assumption, I'm saying we don't know that at this time.

WE may know next week though.

 

[Derath]

What?? In that case can you lists all the possible mods in 2.1 please then, or at least point me to a list. I'd love to know.

The only module that would make this ok is one that invalidates the effect, which would equally make the weapon useless

 

[Kvas]

I will add to that question.

Tell me one thing that will somehow make large ship relevant with this change in place. What "tools" can it use to its disposal to remain relevant ​That is not Horizons specific?

 

[bitstorm]

The only module that would make this ok is one that invalidates the effect, which would equally make the weapon useless

Well again I have no idea and indeed Feedback Cascade may turn out to be crazy OP.

But something that "invalidates the effect" may be direct or indirect invalidation. Indirect invalidation may involve a skill component, or it may even mean preemptively acting to prevent the firing of a Feedback Cascade in the first place.

Invalidating really can mean a whole rack of things, totally huge scope for that.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

That is not Horizons specific.

Hah! That's really good.

I don't I think I wanna open this can of worms though. [squeeeee]

 

[Derath]

you are right, they could put something like that in the game but knowing their history it is vastly more likely that it won't actually have a counter, than it will have an interesting skill based one

Like i get your point and its a good one, but its gotta be like 95/5 this is OP/actually has a counter

 

[bitstorm]

you are right, they could put something like that in the game but knowing their history it is vastly more likely that it won't actually have a counter, than it will have an interesting skill based one

Like i get your point and its a good one, but its gotta be like 95/5 this is OP/actually has a counter

Well look I think we (you lot) can comfort yourself that Frontier have already stated "yeah we know, this could be right OP" ahead of time.

Just saying it doesn't need nerfing prior to actually trying it in the wild, might need some tweaks down the line though, possibly major ones or even removing from the game if it is indeed utterly terrible.

I just hope you chaps can test it with an open mind, I just hate seeing all this pre-emptive nerf talk.

 

[Kvas]

Well, they are about to open this can of worms with this expansion, so If you don't have Horizons you are out of luck.
I don't like that, I am sure some people will call it pay to win, and I think they would be right.

 

[Derath]

Well look I think we (you lot) can comfort yourself that Frontier have already stated "yeah we know, this could be right OP" ahead of time.

Just saying it doesn't need nerfing at this point, might need some tweaks down the line though, possibly major ones or even removing from the game if it's utterly terrible.

I just hope you chaps can test it with an open mind, I just hate seeing all this pre-emptive nerf talk.

Oh I completely agree, I think it has next to no chance of lasting it'll get changed to a damage multiplier railgun that does extra when a shieldcell is winding up, because that is a genuinely fun and good idea just have to keep pointing out that as it is listed, it is extremely broken.

 

[GluttonyFang]

What?? In that case can you lists all the possible mods in 2.1 please then, or at least point me to a list. I'd love to know.

Emissive Munition:

Pro-

Heat dump

Con-

Increased heat during firing

Counter-

Spin to win, chaff.

Force Shell:

Pro-

Disorientation

Con-

???

Counter-

Spin to win, chaff.

Thermal Shock:

Pro-

Heat increase

Con-

???

Counter-

HS

Regeneration Sequence:

Pro-

Heal shield

Con-

Energy starve, need a second person's attention

Counter-

Focus fire

Feedback Cascade:

Pro-

Break shield during SCB usage

Con-

???

Counter-

None

If there is an effective counter to Cascade as a modification, FD would have publicized it already, they know the rail gun mod takes a dump in the current balance.

In PvP? Well isn't this your job?

How convenient of an argument?

"How terrible that the current bi-partisan system is and how the electoral college is ruining the chance of third party from rising."

"Well, what do you propose we do about it to help the situation?"

"Isn't that your job?"

"..."

Or

"Oh Marx, how silly you think that Communism will transcend the current conceptualization of justice where it relies on judicial principles and political institution that impose its concept of justice upon its citizens. It's clearly idealistic and a failed mechanical prediction."

"Well, what do you propose to change the way things are, then?"

"Isn't that your job?"

"..."

Seriously, don't make me laugh. Don't avoid the argument when you criticize without alternatives.

Again that question is based on the assumption that a Feedback Cascade cannot be countered in any way, I'm questioning that underlying assumption, I'm saying we don't know that at this time.

WE may know next week though.

And you may question that assumption all you wish, but right now there is sufficient evidence for people to provide feedback and complaint as to how broken the modification is. Especially considering all of the other modifications don't offend at nearly as severe of a degree as the rail gun mod does.

 

[bitstorm]

Well, they are about to open this can of worms with this expansion, so If you don't have Horizons you are out of luck.
I don't like that, I am sure some people will call it pay to win, and I think they would be right.

Inevitable isn't it to some degree?

Expansions bring new things, unless everything new is always worse than what's come before then you can cry "pay to win".

Like the CObra Mk4, lots complaining about that. If Frontier improve it it's pay to win, if they don't it's a pointless ship.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Emissive Munition:

...stuff...

If there is an effective counter to Cascade as a modification, FD would have publicized it already, they know the rail gun mod takes a dump in the current balance.

No module mods? I know of at least one not in your list.

How convenient of an argument?

"How terrible that the current bi-partisan system is and how the electoral college is ruining the chance of third party from rising."

"Well, what do you propose we do about it to help the situation?"

"Isn't that your job?"

"..."

Or

"Oh Marx, how silly you think that Communism will transcend the current conceptualization of justice where it relies on judicial principles and political institution that impose its concept of justice upon its citizens. It's clearly idealistic and a failed mechanical prediction."

"Well, what do you propose to change the way things are, then?"

"Isn't that your job?"

"..."

Seriously, don't make me laugh. Don't avoid the argument when you criticize without alternatives.

What's this irrelevant gibberish about Marx, communism and bi-partisan systems???

I said your question is based on an assumption, one that I don't agree with. The assumption being you have all the facts, you don't.

I think you should wait at least a week before putting on your "game ruined" hat.

 

[GluttonyFang]

What's this pointless gibberish about Marx and bi-partisan systems???

It's to point out how silly your argument is, when people ask you what alternatives you have to a stand you disagree with or critique, you reply that said individual should work it out himself or herself because it's their job.

Without a doubt said person will look at you weirdly and walk away.

I said your question is based on an assumption, one that I don't agree with. The assumption being you have all the facts, you don't.

That assumption you're questioning is an assumption of your own. Having all of the facts is virtually impossible. You can't deny that all we can work with is what we have currently, which is, oh wait, how science works.

What you're doing is using the unknown as a defense (assumption that the unknown will be favorable to your position), which is the lowest fruit in the theory's world. Especially in theology, this is what you call a "god of gaps" argument.

 

[bitstorm]

That assumption you're questioning is an assumption of your own. Having all of the facts is virtually impossible. You can't deny that all we can work with is what we have currently, which is, oh wait, how science works.

Eh?

Like the patch comes out next week, next week we can (probably/maybe) see everything that's in 2.1 at that point you have more facts than you did this week.

You will also have had the opportunity to actually try it out in a real actual scenario.

I'm not expressing some philosophical paradigm about whether it's possible to know everything or not, literally once 2.1 is out and all is revealed you'll see more of the picture and therefore be better informed.

What you're doing is using the unknown as a defense (assumption that the unknown will be favorable to your position), which is the lowest fruit in the theory's world. Especially in theology, this is what you call a "god of gaps" argument.

Eh??(again) I've NOT said this is not game breaking, I'm not holding a position, I'm saying before you set your position and call for nerfs try it out, see the whole picture.

Not rocket science, you're trying to make this waaay more complicated and obtuse than it needs to be.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Eh?

Like the patch comes out next week, next week we can (probably/maybe) see everything that's in 2.1 at that point you have more facts than you did this week.

You will also have had the opportunity to actually try it out in a real actual scenario.

I'm not expressing some philosophical paradigm about whether it's possible to know everything or not, literally once 2.1 is out and all is revealed you'll see more of the picture and therefore be better informed.

You're not denying my position that currently all we have to work with points to the conclusion I've drawn.

Eh??(again) I've NOT said this is not game breaking, I'm not holding a position, I'm saying before you set your position and call for nerfs try it out, see the whole picture.

Not rocket science, you're trying to make this waaay more complicated and obtuse than it needs to be.

Your position is that somehow there will be something that can alleviate the situation, which is exactly "god of gaps." If you don't hold that there will be something that can alleviate the situation, you're pretty much saying nothing productive.

 

[Marcus Tullius]

The rail gun modification continues the FSD interdictor’s stupidity. I’ve been always fascinated, how class 1E FSDI can drop from supercruise an Anaconda with class 7A FSD. It is like to derail a train with a bicycle… Some kind of FD logic may be…

 

[bitstorm]

You're not denying my position that currently all we have to work with points to the conclusion I've drawn.

Well for fear of repeating myself over and over, I feel that in single digit days we will have much more information than we do now. That that is the time for constructive debate on the topic. I feel that that point being so near and given we know we don't currently have all the information, or have actually had any "hands-on", that calling for nerfs at this time is a touch premature and potentially unhelpful.

Your position is that somehow there will be something that can alleviate the situation, which is exactly "god of gaps." If you don't hold that there will be something that can alleviate the situation, you're pretty much saying nothing productive.

"God of Gaps"? Sorry but what?

""God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence."

WE *know* there's a patch next week with a bunch of changes right? You think I'm trying to magic this up out of thin air?

I honestly think you need to come down to Earth a touch. Repeatedly trying to elevate what is actually a really simple discussion into some ridiculous philosophical debate isn't very helpful or constructive.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Well for fear of repeating myself over and over, I feel that in single digit days we will have much more information than we do now. That that is the time for constructive debate on the topic. I feel that that point being so near and given we know we don't currently have all the information, or have actually had any "hands-on", that calling for nerfs at this time is a touch premature and potentially unhelpful.

Well, that is irrelevant to my conclusion, so I'll ignore it.

"God of Gaps"? Sorry but what?

""God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence."

WE *know* there's a patch next week with a bunch of changes right? You think I'm trying to magic this up out of thin air?

I honestly think you need to come down to Earth a touch. Repeatedly trying to elevate what is actually a really simple discussion into some ridiculous philosophical debate isn't very helpful or constructive.

"God of gaps" is used by me to describe how you're utilizing something unknown to your intended use to counter something that is empirically concluded.

Your lack of ability to extrapolate the concept and apply it to this specific case seem to be what is being unconstructive at the moment.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Your lack of ability to extrapolate the concept and apply it to this specific case seem to be what is being unconstructive at the moment.

and this in the same post...

Well, that is irrelevant to my conclusion, so I'll ignore it.

Funny.

 

[Kvas]

Inevitable isn't it to some degree?

Expansions bring new things, unless everything new is always worse than what's come before then you can cry "pay to win".

Like the CObra Mk4, lots complaining about that. If Frontier improve it it's pay to win, if they don't it's a pointless ship.

And that would be correct, anything that gives people advantage in fight I would consider pay to win, mind you it's not a huge amount of money but they are splitting the community and forcing Vanila players to buy Horizons. I think this might have an effect where a bunch of people might decide that as grindy this game is its simply not worth playing it any longer and instead find a different game. Some might not even start it knowing they would have to buy expansions from the get go to be competitive.