CQC already broken?

Ben Ryder · Jun 29, 2015

Hi,

I'm not much of a combatant but it seems that CQC is already broken?

Can someone confirm?

I've seen a few posts saying hull, armour upgrades and reinforcement is pointless because all you need to do is target a subsystme like the power plant and you by pass the hull from any angle. :S

EDIT - This isnt a troll thread. I just dont know much about combat.

LeetNoob · Jun 29, 2015

Ben Ryder said:
Hi,

I'm not much of a combatant but it seems that CQC is already broken?

Can someone confirm?

I've seen a few posts saying hull, armour upgrades and reinforcement is pointless because all you need to do is target a subsystme like the power plant and you by pass the hull from any angle. :S

Targeting subsystems does indeed bypass any armor. This has always been by design.
Buy a B rated power plant as these are basically 'armored' subsystems, although very heavy.

JeffRyan · Jun 29, 2015

I don't see what this has to do with CQC which is a very different enviroment.

Now if you want to say combat is broken, then we can have a discussion.

Ben Ryder · Jun 29, 2015

LeetNoob said:
Targeting subsystems does indeed bypass any armor. This has always been by design.
Buy a B rated power plant as these are basically 'armored' subsystems, although very heavy.

So that's all there is to it? All the money spent on upgrading armour and hull is a total waste in CQC? All that matters / can be done is to buy a B class module?

Monk · Jun 29, 2015

The pace of CQC might make selecting sub-targets tricky. Also, all the tight turns and obstacles would present many situations for losing lock (given CQC targeting based on sight).

Whiterose · Jun 29, 2015

Ben Ryder said:
So that's all there is to it? All the money spent on upgrading armour and hull is a total waste in CQC? All that matters / can be done is to buy a B class module?

Lol, not as confusing as you changing your avatar.....

Ben Ryder · Jun 29, 2015

JeffRyan said:
I don't see what this has to do with CQC which is a very different enviroment.

Now if you want to say combat is broken, then we can have a discussion.

I'm not really knowledgeable. Can you explain?

And yes if there is more to know about the simple assumptions people make, like armour makes a difference etc. I'd love to know to help em decide if I get in to combat or just head out exploring.

CQC seemed like a good way to get familiar with combat... if it's working as most would expect.

- - - Updated - - -

It's my birthday. I show my face once a year

Ryder35 · Jun 29, 2015

Err as far as I am aware it is not even out yet is it? If that is the case how do we know it is broken?!

Ben Ryder · Jun 29, 2015

Ryder35 said:
Err as far as I am aware it is not even out yet is it? If that is the case how do we know it is broken?!

An assumption based on the current state of combat.

Elpapo · Jun 29, 2015

B ratred modules are more durable, but not by much.

[VR] Deggial · Jun 29, 2015

As CQC is nothing but combat, this might be the opportunity for FD to have a closer look into this issue and make up their mind about a change - in CQC and the main game!

Whiterose · Jun 29, 2015

Ben Ryder said:
- - - Updated - - -

It's my birthday. I show my face once a year

Happy Birthday Ben.

CQC is the same as ordinary combat where people can target your subsystems through your hull. Its wrong, and needs fixing.

xaduha · Jun 29, 2015

LeetNoob said:
This has always been by design.

Then FDEV should change the design, why is that worth mentioning at all? It's not a fun or even logical mechanic. Who needs a paper-thin armor? The point of armor is to protect people/controls/ammo behind it, not to reduce damage or whatever people claim it does.

Stormprooter · Jun 29, 2015

Monk said:
The pace of CQC might make selecting sub-targets tricky. Also, all the tight turns and obstacles would present many situations for losing lock (given CQC targeting based on sight).

I think the whole damage model for CQC is going to be quite different to the main game - so that it is better suited to that type of gameplay, considering it's probably going to have things like power ups for shield recharge, possibly better weapons and possibly damage modifiers, speed/handling modifiers and the like. As much as I am looking forward to it for PC, I hope there is also a "hardcore" mode - where all/most of that is switched off.

Tinman · Jun 29, 2015

Deggial said:
As CQC is nothing but combat, this might be the opportunity for FD to have a closer look into this issue and make up their mind about a change - in CQC and the main game!

What!?!?

You mean that dev time put into CQC might actually be beneficial even to the main game and therefore people not directly interested in CQC itself!?

Get out of here! That's just crazytalk!

.
.

TriumphANT · Jun 29, 2015

CQC isn't due out until next month. What are we discussing here? And subsystem targetting is only really effective on larger ships and with the correct weapons. CQC will be oriented around small combat ships, so subsystems won't be so much of an issue. Any any case, shield management, running away, chaff, ship orientation etc. all play their part.

Danger Mouse · Jun 29, 2015

Stormprooter said:
probably going to have things like power ups

oh god please no.

ianw · Jun 29, 2015

Stormprooter said:
I think the whole damage model for CQC is going to be quite different to the main game - so that it is better suited to that type of gameplay, considering it's probably going to have things like power ups for shield recharge, possibly better weapons and possibly damage modifiers, speed/handling modifiers and the like. As much as I am looking forward to it for PC, I hope there is also a "hardcore" mode - where all/most of that is switched off.

Yes - I think they are planning to tweak things differently from the main game so CQC's usefulness as a training practise ground may be limited..

SteveLaw · Jun 29, 2015

Stormprooter said:
considering it's probably going to have things like power ups for shield recharge, possibly better weapons and possibly damage modifiers, speed/handling modifiers and the like.

It's definitely going to have power ups. And progression unlocks with XP...

https://community.elitedangerous.com/node/204

Did you make any additions to CQC that go beyond the features of the core game?

Jim – Yes. The four ship power-ups are a big one. We have a stealth mode, a speed boost, a damage boost and a shield boost. We think those make for really exciting moments in the battle – a surprise chance to turn the tide.

Dan – Suddenly someone gets a power-up and everyone has to reassess their priorities. It shuffles the deck mid-game. If you've lost your shields you could go through the power-up ring and get your shields back instantly.

Jim – At the same time, we wanted the skills you’ve learned in the main game can be taken to CQC and vice versa. The best pilot will win no matter how much you boost your shields! You can even crash in to the rings, so there’s a little bit of risk/reward there, too.

Dan – And we have a ranking system. We track your progress and award XP, and you’ll unlock new weapons and modules as you play. We have leaderboards where you can compare amount of kills and your stats. It’s a very pure way to fight in the Elite: Dangerous galaxy for players who care about their Kill/Death ratio!

xaduha · Jun 29, 2015

TriumphANT said:
And subsystem targetting is only really effective on larger ships and with the correct weapons. CQC will be oriented around small combat ships, so subsystems won't be so much of an issue.

That's not true. The moment you select some system to target and you start landing shots - you're mostly going to damage subsystems, it might be no the same subsystem you're trying to damage, but some subsystem will take a hit.

No one really bothers with subsystems vs small ships because they go down quickly no matter what you target. So you can say it's equally effective vs small ships, but targeting hull vs big ships in ineffective.