FD utter failure: engineering brought to an excess

[Guest 161958]

Why?

If you choose to fly a weak ship, why is one shot too little*?


*I assume that's what you really mean, right?

Because it does not make for a pleasant experience in my opinion, unlike escaping after sustaining heavy damage. And people play to have fun, not to be the fun.

Also your example build is a combat explorer build, so it does not count to me.

Now before you start belittling, I can assure you I do pvp and I like the thrill. But I try to understand also those who do not by using my brain and not my guns.

 

[Guest 161958]

Hello, uber-lightweight and "careless" explorer here, I don't care about the differences between explorer and combat ships, when I make my ships I make them for a role and dealing with murder-hobos is not one of them, hence, if I were to see one I'd not expect to survive very long at all.

not very long is different than one shot.

 

[Guest 161958]

Yes, but this is not down to Frontier - they've provided the tools and resources to prevent that.

This is on the players who are playing in Open and not building ships accordingly.

I do not agree with you on this. I think apart from the builds there should be a minimum resilience for any ship which should be slightly higher than it is now. Not so much to make differences too bland between roles of course.

Keep also in mind that with squadrons and wings you take a lot of concentrated fire and after an interdiction you spawn exactly in front of the offending ship most of the time.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Because it does not make for a pleasant experience in my opinion, unlike escaping after sustaining heavy damage. And people play to have fun, not to be the fun.

Also your example build is a combat explorer build, so it does not count.

Now before you start belittling, I can assure you I do pvp and I like the thrill. But I try to understand also those who do not by using my brain and not my guns.

You're the only one belittling anyone.
Some people like flying fragile ships, that's just as valid as my build.
Some people like being chased.

They all count, not just you.

 

[Guest 161958]

You're the only one belittling anyone.
Some people like flying fragile ships, that's just as valid as my build.
Some people like being chased.

They all count, not just you.

You misunderstand me, it must be because of my english as I am not a native speaker.

I meant it does not count to me as an argument in this particular discussion. And the brain comment, that was referring to the current RP reason gankers are killing explorers.

It is not my intention to attack anyone, I am only stating my opinions.

 

[Avago Earo]

The whole engineering thing winds me up. It seems, to me, that you have to spend ages looking for things in order to get your ship combat ready to fight other people that spent ages looking for things.

I've never engineered a ship, and I'm probably wrong; I'm probably missing out, but I just don't know where to start. The idea of gathering stuff, from I don't know where, puts me off. I don't really understand how it works.

 

[Marra Morgan]

I do not agree with you on this. I think apart from the builds there should be a minimum resilience for any ship which should be slightly higher than it is now. Not so much to make differences too bland between roles of course.

We'll agree to disagree then. While shield generators, shield boosters, shield-cell boosters, hull armour, hull reinforcement packages and module reinforcement packages exist, I don't see any need to raise the minimum resilience for any ship.

Keep also in mind that with squadrons and wings you take a lot of concentrated fire and after an interdiction you spawn exactly in front of the offending ship most of the time.

I do keep that mind. That's why I pitch up/down, boost and release chaff / heat sinks immediately when interdicted. Again, it's all down to the player to furnish their ships and knowledge appropriately.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

You misunderstand me, it must be because of my english as I am not a native speaker.

I meant it does not count to me as an argument in this particular discussion. And the brain comment, that was referring to the current RP reason gankers are killing explorers.

It simply does count whether you like it or not.

Those people have to use brains too.
That's how they engineered their ships to that level.

If you don't prepare for what's out there or accept the consequences, you're the one not using your brain.

I have an ultralight 75+ LY Anaconda on my main account that would explode in one PVP salvo.

So what?
That's to be expected.
It's unreasonable to expect otherwise.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

We'll agree to disagree then. While shield generators, shield boosters, shield-cell boosters, hull armour, hull reinforcement packages and module reinforcement packages exit, I don't see any need to raise the minimum resilience for any ship.



I do keep that mind. That's why I pitch up/down, boost and release chaff / heat sinks immediately when interdicted. Again, it's all down to the player to furnish their ships and knowledge appropriately.

OP, you can also avoid interdictions entirely with situational awareness and quick thinking. See a Commander? Basic scan them and check for an interdictor. If they got one, ain't no shame in bailing into low wake and high waking out of the system.

 

[Guest 161958]

We'll agree to disagree then. While shield generators, shield boosters, shield-cell boosters, hull armour, hull reinforcement packages and module reinforcement packages exit, I don't see any need to raise the minimum resilience for any ship.



I do keep that mind. That's why I pitch up/down, boost and release chaff / heat sinks immediately when interdicted. Again, it's all down to the player to furnish their ships and knowledge appropriately.

Yes, we agree on this I said it millions of time. I still believe you will get one shotted when you are in an explorer/miner build. What you people are referring to is a combat explorer build, which is more than viable of course.

On a pure explorer/miner there's no maneuver or pitching you can do to avoid one shot. I am saying having a little more resilience might make maneuvering more important than the build. That is good balance.

 

[Guest 161958]

OP, you can also avoid interdictions entirely with situational awareness and quick thinking. See a Commander? Basic scan them and check for an interdictor. If they got one, ain't no shame in bailing into low wake and high waking out of the system.

Thank you, I knew that. But it is not the point.

 

[Guest 161958]

It simply does count whether you like it or not.

Those people have to use brains too.
That's how they engineered their ships to that level.

If you don't prepare for what's out there or accept the consequences, you're the one not using your brain.

I have an ultralight 75+ LY Anaconda on my main account that would explode in one PVP salvo.

So what?
That's to be expected.
It's unreasonable to expect otherwise.

Well, maybe it is not my english.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

On a pure explorer/miner there's no maneuver or pitching you can do to avoid one shot.

This is actually just a bad build. The community really needs to pull back from the min/max metas.

 

[Guest 161958]

This is actually just a bad build. The community really needs to pull back from the min/max metas.

You are forcing players to play your way. Another sign of bad balance.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

You are forcing players to play your way. Another sign of bad balance.

My way? You're complaining that ships can get destroyed in one shot and several seasoned Elite players have explained the tools already exist in the game to prevent one's ship from being killed in one shot.

But no, go ahead and tell me more about being 'forced' to play my way.

 

[cmdrrdmc]

You are forcing players to play your way. Another sign of bad balance.

So you want every possible iteration of a ship to be equally robust? This is nonsensical. If you "balance" every ship, module and upgrade, you end up with a bunch of samey ships, like mixing all the colors and getting brown. Not to mention you completely take all the knowledge and skill out of outfitting properly.

 

[Guest 161958]

So you want every possible iteration of a ship to be equally robust? This is nonsensical. If you "balance" every ship, module and upgrade, you end up with a bunch of samey ships, like mixing all the colors and getting brown. Not to mention you completely take all the knowledge and skill out of outfitting properly.

No! not equally robust! I think I explained myself well, I think the game should be better balanced by raising a bit the resilience of pure builds to make them a bit more viable.

 

[Guest 161958]

My way? You're complaining that ships can get destroyed in one shot and several seasoned Elite players have explained the tools already exist in the game to prevent one's ship from being killed in one shot.

But no, go ahead and tell me more about being 'forced' to play my way.

I like combat so no issue with me personally, but I have seen many players quit the game in the past years after engineering because they are forced to fight and engineer their ships and outfit them in part for combat. So this kind of player clearly is forced to blaze the competitive trail and not his personal one. Which would be understandable in a private group, but not in a public group I think.

 

[Hooplah]

Long ago players complained that combat was too easy. Frontier added engineering. The result was a much higher PvP challenge plus a good balance with new players taking on NPCs in stock ships. Two groups can play their way. The downside was players just wanting to make friends won't last long in open PvP combat areas. Enter Mobius (what 120,000 players so far in 2 PC, 1 Xbox and 1 PS4 groups? and hundreds of other private groups one can join.

The problem is players want to play in Open with a ship that cannot deal with the live player dangers. Adjustments like the 15 second delay on logout after entering combat helped a little but then the players adjusted with weapons that can drop shields immediately and then take out the FSD and power plants. C&P was increased but PvP players just adjusted while a burden was placed everyone else.

Time passes with improved NPC combat so even new players need to consider engineering to keep up. This moves the combat skill bar a little higher but a long way from Open PvP combat. Still the player begins to understand what engineering and tactics are required to be effective in Open PvP play.

So 400 threads about Open PvE needed to resolve this problem which already has solutions with private groups. They are not great but they do work. Maybe someone will eventually state exactly what Open PvE is as it seems that everyone has a different opinion about it. Meanwhile I don't see Frontier ever implementing it.

 

[Stigbob]

I like combat so no issue with me personally, but I have seen many players quit the game in the past years after engineering because they are forced to fight and engineer their ships and outfit them in part for combat. So this kind of player clearly is forced to blaze the competitive trail and not his personal one. Which would be understandable in a private group, but not in a public group I think.

Approach it from another angle. Make a ships build that can fight or survive long enough to escape, now adapt it to its chosen role.

My trade ship is a heavily shielded tanky war cutter with the HRP's switched for cargo bays.

My evacuation/rescue ship is a heavily shielded war anaconda with the HRP's switched for economy passenger cabins and a limpet controller/cargo bay.

My exploration ship is a battle tested heavily shielded DBX with a jumprange gankers can't get anywhere close to, they get one chance lasting 14 seconds and that's it. Its easily capable of whacking non-elite NPCs.

I haven't tried mining yet, when I do I'll use the anaconda and switch the passenger cabins for mining things along with as few of the smaller weps as possible. It'll still be a very capable killer ship.