In power play situations when your wing defend underminers from enemy pvp wing, every time you destroy mamba shields he run away to reboot, this rremoves any territory control, opponent can just lw, drop again reboot and come back to fight like nothing happened, now iamgine cutter is doing this. It's non issue in non organic fights, in organic this mechanic is horrendous, but FD was working hard on removing territory control feature from pvp, so it "make sense" Only justification for reboot restoratino of shields is making survival in pve even more trivial, and in pvp this is just toxic
PvP Exploit or clever use of game mechanics?
Just bring a frag clipper if the Mamba runs away
No seriously, it is annoying as I wrote, but on the other hand if you're flying CAP in open with a PvP wing you're already losing the powerplay fight against the solo/PG brigade
Yeah, but even full of flaws Power play and pvp is only end game content Elite have, unless you are explorer maybeJust bring a frag clipper if the Mamba runs away
No seriously, it is annoying as I wrote, but on the other hand if you're flying CAP in open with a PvP wing you're already losing the powerplay fight against the solo/PG brigade
Trivially bypassed out of combat, which is the key point AFAICT.
So why not just make all shields restore to 50% when waking out?
Because the mechanism is to reboot?
Literally, it's "make your ship vulnerable for 30 seconds, and if you're not in an immediate combat scenario, there's extra benefits".
For me, sitting in supercruise is not a vulnerable situation where you can be attacked with no defensive response possible.
We don't see issues in rebooting in SAME instance (i.e. without waking). -> GG
Wake out, reboot, and come back in the instance... well, some "border line" behaviour from a fair-play (if any) point of view. -> may be GG
Coming back after being kaboomed (i.e. ghosting/zombie-ing and so on) falls off completely from the fair-play table.-> no GG at all
Wake out, reboot, and come back in the instance... well, some "border line" behaviour from a fair-play (if any) point of view. -> may be GG
Coming back after being kaboomed (i.e. ghosting/zombie-ing and so on) falls off completely from the fair-play table.-> no GG at all
I dont really get this.
And fair-play should not be mentioned in the same phrase with pvp, unless the pvp happens as an organized event or between player groups that have pre-arranged rules of engagement, else it's getting highly hypocritical
There's no need to arrange anything since the groups/squadrons doing PvP are not that many (at CGs, popular systems)... excluding the random gankers and lone wolves, we all know eachother and we know who ghosts and who doesn't, who comes to instances only if 12vs2, etc and so yeah we can talk about cheap tactics and fair-play.
That has me boggled as well.
Why have shield recharge and recovery at all go any further than 2min when you can just reboot/repair and skip 30min of that process on a high end shield?
In one office at FDEV, someone sat there, thought up then implemented the math and calculated recovery/recharge times for each shield size and multipliers by engineering.
While in another office at FDEV, someone sat there and designed a system to circumvent the other guys work.
Or worse... what if it was the SAME GUY doing both?
lest we forget, when rebooting we are a sitting duck…
For gameplay reasons.
And remember, this is not a pvp focused game (this might be a key reminder here)
Shields do not recharge at all while under attack
Shields recharge at their normal rates in normal space, after a certain time passed since last taking damage (like 10s? or so)
Shields recharge at double rate in supercruise
Shields can be recharged up to Recover-from-broken value (that is 50%) post a Reboot and Repair sequence IF the ship does not take damage or does not move at more than 50m/s during the repair sequence that takes about 30s to complete. To be mentioned that air reserves gets depleted during the R&R sequence.
Seems fine to me.
Maybe something did go wrong in your head. You referred to yourself as a "ganker" in your subsequent video. What's your definition of a ganker?
Someone who enjoys unrestricted, unfair, no rules, organic PvP, without consent and with the intent to kill the other player.
Honestly, what is your definition of it...?
That's the definition for the random PVP
A ganker is someone (or a group of someones) that are using excessive force to stomp over someone else.
A wing of G5 murderboats focusing a single pvp ship is ganking
You and your G5 murderboat attacking a trader/explorer/miner is ganking
It's pretty close to seal-clubbing - with the mention that seal-clubbing refers strictly to new players being stomped by vets.
The closest scenario is G5 murderboats killing noobs that barely managed to drag their 1t of Meta Alloy from Maia to Deciat, in non engineered boats, more often than not using economic route planning (because they dont know better), only to be killed by vets in G5 murderboats
If they are fast, they are probably still in the same instance, just 30-50km out and even if they are slow, you still need to get into SC before they drop out or there may well not be a low wake to follow, let alone get to before they can reboot.
Time is better spent focusing on whoever they left behind, or regrouping.
There was never really a territory control feature to PvP...a whole slew of much more basic mechanisms than getting half of one's shields back after a reboot ensures this.
Depends on player or character perspective.
The OP calling this an exploit tells me that the OP thinks this is something that, if not unintended itself, is something that clearly had unintended consequences, and thus leveraging this is bad form on part of the player.
That the OP is a ganker who's character may well engage in all sorts of underhanded in-character behavior to secure kills against hapless victims is not contradictory or hypocritical in such a context.
The fundamental disagreement is what the rules of the game are, not what should be done with them. While I hardly think this mechanism and the scenarios referenced are good example (seems pretty clear to me that the tactic is actually working as intended, even if it's not something I'd put into my ideal version of the game), the game does have all sorts of grey areas where what should be allowable is in doubt. Frontier is deliberately vague on many rules, frequently lax on enforcement, nor quick on addressing bugs, and the resulting game does not telegraph it's intent well.
Anyway, games in general and, PvP in particular, depend on player fair-play, especially if there is no authority or rule enforcement from above and there are mechanisms that are easy to abuse. More so even than networking issues or instancing design choices, organic PvP is hampered in this game by having a purely collaborative setting with vague rules and no meaningful adjudication.