Hello commanders, my name is Crimson Kaim and I play ED now since its official release. While this isn't a long time, I've already spent around 200+ hours into the game (whic his MASSIVE considering this tiny amount of time I usually have available, hehe).
Yes, I also love ED and blah blah but we all know that ED is far from 'good enough' to keep its players long term. It has its struggles like every game and I want to add my spice to it, helping to improve.
While I could write whole novels about what could be improved, I want to focus on combat for now.
First, definition. What is considered as combat? The first thing that comes into your mind is this:You are sitting in your warm cockpit and have hardpoints deployed, pew-pewing your enemies into space dust. Ofcourse, this is considered as combat, however, this is just a little part of the whole picture.
Combat means for me competing and this also takes palce in PowerPlay for example. You don't necceesarily have to pew-pew to be able to fight. You also do combat stuff when you are hauling secret information into a system with the intention to expand.
So combat includes every kind of force that is effective against an individual or a certain group.
Now, how does combat in ED work at the moment? Well, pew-pew works but only in a very basic form. I'd like to begin here, with the basics.
We have thermal weapons against shields and kinetic weapons for ... what exactly? Damaging modules is the only reason to use a kinetic weapon because lasers also deal a very good amount of hull damage. And here is the first problem.
Disclaimer: Lasers are not OP!
But the problem is that kinetics are UP, if not this, worthless. Who of you uses heat seeking missiles, topedos or shotguns today? Only a minority I suppose. While lasers have a high energy consumption, using a kinetic weapon isn't that energy saving (compared to pulse and burst lasers). A missile rack can consume more power than a laser but deals significantly lower damage plus the limited shooting availability (ammo).
And, do not forget, lasers are 'hitscan' (instant damage, no projectiles) which means that smaller hitbox ships are easier to hit comapred to cannons or shotguns.
Now we see here a difference in viability.
To balance this I suggest the following:
- Offer ammo types:
How about enegized rounds that are effective against shields but not against hull (ofcourse they do a little bit more damage). Or sharp projectiles for extra armor penetration to damage modules, oh, why not having explosive ammo for extra damage against hull but less against modules? The ammo types can be available for Cannons, torpedos, multicannons, shotguns, etc. and vary in price and have influence on the weapon's behavior like fire rate, heat produced, projectile speed etc.
- Make lasers less effective against hull:
Lasers do a tremendous amount of damage, removing the need for projectile weapons.
Because I don't want to nerf lasers, I suggest to add laser types (just like ammo types). For example a laser that deals less damage to shields but more to hull (while the worst kinetic weapon damage against hull should still be better than the best laser damage against hull) and stuff like that.
But in general, lasers should not be used primary for damaging the hull.
- Advanced Hull customization:
With better weapons, we need better hull (and shields) as well. We already have military bulks and this EXPENSIVE stuff which reduce incoming damage by a certain percentage I think (not sure, though). But instead to fill interior space with concrete, making it harder and heavier, I suggest to module armor as well. You can protect each of your modules but pay with significantly higher weight, changing the behavior of the ship. So protecting every module in your eagle will result in behaving like a meteor rather than an agile fighter.
This feature would also help traders against hostile opponents. Trades can protect their modules because manouverbility isn't exactly what you need in a freighter, right?
So being able to add armor plates to each individual module icnreases defensive capabilities for those who need it and for those who can afford it (tanky dropship ftw!).
For shields I would suggest to add shield types, pretty basic and not out-of-the-row. Just like the weapon types, add shield types (better against thermic -> higher power draw for example, be creative FD
)
- Mass lock overhaul:
Simply: The current mass plays the main role. That means a tanky dropship will be able to mass lock a tanky shield Anaconda. To just add fixed numbers is poor and does only confuse the new palyers (like it did to me).
Calculate the surrounding mass (e.g. 10 Vipers with a mass of 100T add up to a total amss of 1000T. Only of the mass of your ship is higher, you can jump out like always.) and do not instantly 'disable' the FSD by a set factor. Instead, if the surrounding mass adds up to 1500T in total with your 1000T ship, your FSD will charge 50% slower. Else, if your ship has only 100T of mass and 1000T mass surrounds you, your FSD will charge 1000% slower. This also includes high wake FSD jumps (hyperjumps).
Before you tell me "A sidey will never be able to escape!" I also thought about this:
FSD interdictor modules can be used in normal space. It has two uses: First, if a target is selected, it increases the effectiveness of your mass lock (only your own ship's mass, not the other surrounding ones) by a set percentage depending on the rating, seize and energy consumption of your FSD interdictor. When the fire mechanism is triggered, energy will be consumed (like a beam laser) to keep your target in normal space.
This allows smaller ships to be a little bit mroe efficient against bigger ones.
The second use can be seen as a little boost. When your FSD is charging, it will decrease the effectiveness of all masses surrounding your ship. Depending on seize, rating and power.
Yes, it will make the whole thing more complex but complexity is good as long as it is not complicated. Complexity means depth in other words and this is what we all want, or not?
- Adjustments to manouverbility:
I have no single idea why your ship has to be at 50% of its total speed to get the best manouverbility out of it.
While it is a little bit reasonable at high speed due to less fuel available for manouvering thrusters, I do not understand why I am so slow when I am not moving. We are in space, there is no aerodynamic.
That's it for now, I may add more points later but first, what do you think?
Greetings
PS: Ima correct typos later too!
Yes, I also love ED and blah blah but we all know that ED is far from 'good enough' to keep its players long term. It has its struggles like every game and I want to add my spice to it, helping to improve.
While I could write whole novels about what could be improved, I want to focus on combat for now.
First, definition. What is considered as combat? The first thing that comes into your mind is this:You are sitting in your warm cockpit and have hardpoints deployed, pew-pewing your enemies into space dust. Ofcourse, this is considered as combat, however, this is just a little part of the whole picture.
Combat means for me competing and this also takes palce in PowerPlay for example. You don't necceesarily have to pew-pew to be able to fight. You also do combat stuff when you are hauling secret information into a system with the intention to expand.
So combat includes every kind of force that is effective against an individual or a certain group.
Now, how does combat in ED work at the moment? Well, pew-pew works but only in a very basic form. I'd like to begin here, with the basics.
We have thermal weapons against shields and kinetic weapons for ... what exactly? Damaging modules is the only reason to use a kinetic weapon because lasers also deal a very good amount of hull damage. And here is the first problem.
Disclaimer: Lasers are not OP!
But the problem is that kinetics are UP, if not this, worthless. Who of you uses heat seeking missiles, topedos or shotguns today? Only a minority I suppose. While lasers have a high energy consumption, using a kinetic weapon isn't that energy saving (compared to pulse and burst lasers). A missile rack can consume more power than a laser but deals significantly lower damage plus the limited shooting availability (ammo).
And, do not forget, lasers are 'hitscan' (instant damage, no projectiles) which means that smaller hitbox ships are easier to hit comapred to cannons or shotguns.
Now we see here a difference in viability.
To balance this I suggest the following:
- Offer ammo types:
How about enegized rounds that are effective against shields but not against hull (ofcourse they do a little bit more damage). Or sharp projectiles for extra armor penetration to damage modules, oh, why not having explosive ammo for extra damage against hull but less against modules? The ammo types can be available for Cannons, torpedos, multicannons, shotguns, etc. and vary in price and have influence on the weapon's behavior like fire rate, heat produced, projectile speed etc.
- Make lasers less effective against hull:
Lasers do a tremendous amount of damage, removing the need for projectile weapons.
Because I don't want to nerf lasers, I suggest to add laser types (just like ammo types). For example a laser that deals less damage to shields but more to hull (while the worst kinetic weapon damage against hull should still be better than the best laser damage against hull) and stuff like that.
But in general, lasers should not be used primary for damaging the hull.
- Advanced Hull customization:
With better weapons, we need better hull (and shields) as well. We already have military bulks and this EXPENSIVE stuff which reduce incoming damage by a certain percentage I think (not sure, though). But instead to fill interior space with concrete, making it harder and heavier, I suggest to module armor as well. You can protect each of your modules but pay with significantly higher weight, changing the behavior of the ship. So protecting every module in your eagle will result in behaving like a meteor rather than an agile fighter.
This feature would also help traders against hostile opponents. Trades can protect their modules because manouverbility isn't exactly what you need in a freighter, right?
So being able to add armor plates to each individual module icnreases defensive capabilities for those who need it and for those who can afford it (tanky dropship ftw!).
For shields I would suggest to add shield types, pretty basic and not out-of-the-row. Just like the weapon types, add shield types (better against thermic -> higher power draw for example, be creative FD
)- Mass lock overhaul:
Simply: The current mass plays the main role. That means a tanky dropship will be able to mass lock a tanky shield Anaconda. To just add fixed numbers is poor and does only confuse the new palyers (like it did to me).
Calculate the surrounding mass (e.g. 10 Vipers with a mass of 100T add up to a total amss of 1000T. Only of the mass of your ship is higher, you can jump out like always.) and do not instantly 'disable' the FSD by a set factor. Instead, if the surrounding mass adds up to 1500T in total with your 1000T ship, your FSD will charge 50% slower. Else, if your ship has only 100T of mass and 1000T mass surrounds you, your FSD will charge 1000% slower. This also includes high wake FSD jumps (hyperjumps).
Before you tell me "A sidey will never be able to escape!" I also thought about this:
FSD interdictor modules can be used in normal space. It has two uses: First, if a target is selected, it increases the effectiveness of your mass lock (only your own ship's mass, not the other surrounding ones) by a set percentage depending on the rating, seize and energy consumption of your FSD interdictor. When the fire mechanism is triggered, energy will be consumed (like a beam laser) to keep your target in normal space.
This allows smaller ships to be a little bit mroe efficient against bigger ones.
The second use can be seen as a little boost. When your FSD is charging, it will decrease the effectiveness of all masses surrounding your ship. Depending on seize, rating and power.
Yes, it will make the whole thing more complex but complexity is good as long as it is not complicated. Complexity means depth in other words and this is what we all want, or not?
- Adjustments to manouverbility:
I have no single idea why your ship has to be at 50% of its total speed to get the best manouverbility out of it.
While it is a little bit reasonable at high speed due to less fuel available for manouvering thrusters, I do not understand why I am so slow when I am not moving. We are in space, there is no aerodynamic.
That's it for now, I may add more points later but first, what do you think?
Greetings
PS: Ima correct typos later too!
Last edited: