His personal one. This is literally the definition of solo. Your own personal galaxy.
You are saying open should be everyone's own personal trail to do as they please. The opposite of actual open play.
FD utter failure: engineering brought to an excess
- Thread starter Guest 161958
- Start date
-
- Tags
- balance dw2 engineering pvp
His personal one. This is literally the definition of solo. Your own personal galaxy.
You are saying open should be everyone's own personal trail to do as they please. The opposite of actual open play.
Seems to me that the nuance of the OP is not about gitting gud, it's about PvP being an activity gated behind specialized builds. And I don't like that either.
Sure, there are solutions to the current imbalance of PvP. "Press J to escape". "Outfit enough to outstand the first alpha". "Hide in Solo". But that doesn't change the fact that PvP combat is one of the very few activities (in my opinion the only one complex enough to be called as such), where players actually get to directly interact with one another. For a game with multiplayer focus, to gate it behind specialized RNGineeers builds is simply a mistake.
Wouldn't the game be better if all ships, regardless of their internals, would stand a chance to win in a PvP combat encounter? I certainly think it would. More player interaction, more opportunities for those seeking out PvP combat, more diverse play sessions for those envolved in other careers, less players inclined to leave Open. Outfitting for combat should not be a requirement to stand a chance to win, it should be about longer combat sorties or the ability to quickly refit after losing a fight. Combat, or better put the ability to win in combat, should be a secondary function all ships in the Elite universe should posses, because this is how the universe is thought-out (the equivalent of the seven seas in the 34th century). And it's not the only one btw (being able to repair or assist other ships for example - the current limpet gameplay - comes to mind).
Sure, there are solutions to the current imbalance of PvP. "Press J to escape". "Outfit enough to outstand the first alpha". "Hide in Solo". But that doesn't change the fact that PvP combat is one of the very few activities (in my opinion the only one complex enough to be called as such), where players actually get to directly interact with one another. For a game with multiplayer focus, to gate it behind specialized RNGineeers builds is simply a mistake.
Wouldn't the game be better if all ships, regardless of their internals, would stand a chance to win in a PvP combat encounter? I certainly think it would. More player interaction, more opportunities for those seeking out PvP combat, more diverse play sessions for those envolved in other careers, less players inclined to leave Open. Outfitting for combat should not be a requirement to stand a chance to win, it should be about longer combat sorties or the ability to quickly refit after losing a fight. Combat, or better put the ability to win in combat, should be a secondary function all ships in the Elite universe should posses, because this is how the universe is thought-out (the equivalent of the seven seas in the 34th century). And it's not the only one btw (being able to repair or assist other ships for example - the current limpet gameplay - comes to mind).
Last edited:
This isn't even an Engineering problem, is it?
7 frags gunship, no engineering, initial burst DPS around 1000 if all the shots connect at point-blank range. So for "you can't kill in one shot" to be always and absolutely true even without engineering, a basic unshielded Hauler - currently the least tough ship in the game - would need well over 1000 hull. [1] (or over 50 times more than it currently has)
Engineering the frags at best adds about 75% to their initial burst damage.
So:
- amount of problem caused by weapons existing: 50x
- amount of problem caused by engineering existing: 1.75x
- consequence of increasing all ships hull strength (and module integrity) by ~100x: takes a week to kill an NPC Anaconda
(or you could do it additively rather than multiplicatively and just give 1000 extra base hull to every ship, which would lead to a T-10 only being twice as tough as a Hauler)
- ...and after all this our unshielded Hauler only survives a few more seconds. Is that enough time for you, or do we need to increase the hull even more?
What about the PvE bounty hunters who want to "blaze their own trail" by killing NPC pirates (which are not flying minimum-strength builds)? Or would it only be player ships which got 100x extra hull, for "reasons".
[1] Actually slightly less, because even versus a perfectly stationary Hauler it's impossible every single frag pellet would connect from every single hardpoint on the gunship, but it'll be about that much. This is why I used the gunship and not the Corvette or similar.
7 frags gunship, no engineering, initial burst DPS around 1000 if all the shots connect at point-blank range. So for "you can't kill in one shot" to be always and absolutely true even without engineering, a basic unshielded Hauler - currently the least tough ship in the game - would need well over 1000 hull. [1] (or over 50 times more than it currently has)
Engineering the frags at best adds about 75% to their initial burst damage.
So:
- amount of problem caused by weapons existing: 50x
- amount of problem caused by engineering existing: 1.75x
- consequence of increasing all ships hull strength (and module integrity) by ~100x: takes a week to kill an NPC Anaconda
(or you could do it additively rather than multiplicatively and just give 1000 extra base hull to every ship, which would lead to a T-10 only being twice as tough as a Hauler)
- ...and after all this our unshielded Hauler only survives a few more seconds. Is that enough time for you, or do we need to increase the hull even more?
What about the PvE bounty hunters who want to "blaze their own trail" by killing NPC pirates (which are not flying minimum-strength builds)? Or would it only be player ships which got 100x extra hull, for "reasons".
[1] Actually slightly less, because even versus a perfectly stationary Hauler it's impossible every single frag pellet would connect from every single hardpoint on the gunship, but it'll be about that much. This is why I used the gunship and not the Corvette or similar.
I think it would be difficult to do this and still have the combat gameplay or ships resemble Elite very much. You'd need much less variation in ship size and firepower - even in the seven seas, a coastal fishing boat was never going to take on a naval frigate no matter how well crewed it was - and probably a move towards owning capital-class rather than fighter-class ships primarily so that TTKs and outfitting variations are in the right ranges.
That might well be a better game - if someone makes a Freespace-style cap-ships executive control + possess your fighters game with an Elite-like open persistent universe ... well, I'd certainly give it a look to see what it was like. But I don't think you can get to there from here, and I'm not even sure it would be a plausible "Elite V" either.
In real life a battleship will sink a cargo ship or an exploration vessel with ease. Thats just the way it is. You don't go exploring or transporting containers in the Bismark. All the advice, to arm up is utterly meaningless. Put up by the pvp crowd, maybe to add 2 or 3 secs to their pew pew. Its just the Battle of the Atlantic. If they wanted to give lightweight explorers a chance, they'd be flying OEM ships. Not meta ones. But then, if you could why wouldn't you? Life isn't fair. When and if fleet carriers arrive, things will get even more interesting.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
As I pointed out earlier, the direct benefit to offense is max +80%.
On a Chieftain, a simple reinforced/hicap modded 5A shield gen with 2 Hd/supercap boosters gets an engineering benefit of +160% by contrast.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
No, I think that would be a terrible idea.
Ship variety keeps things more interesting and realistic.
I'm not opposed to more balance, but not in the direction of more defensive hit points.
The "players leaving open" thing is nothing more than a bad trope.
Case in point, there are still more people in open right now, at DW2/WP2, than in the PG.
Last edited:
So you are saying that min / max engineering to create a huge jump range explorer is ok but min / max combat engineering needs to be changed to suit your explorer ship?
Guest 161958
G
No, I am saying give a better chance to pure utility ships instead of making them one shottable the moment they leave supercruise. How many times do I have to write paraphrases to make myself understood in this forum
p.s. The ship I fly has nothing to do with this thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
This has nothing to do with whether or not the game is balanced. You're talking about a ship built for combat vs one built for exploration. The simple fact is, even without engineering, there is only ever one winner in such an engagement. I build my exploration ships to escape, not to fight, and escape they do.
Why should there be 'balance' in a fight between a PVP ship vs an exploration ship? They are built for specific purposes, which means in any fight between such ships, there should only ever be one winner, the PVP ship. In the event that it doesn't go down this way, it's because the PVP pilot is bad, and/or the exploration pilot is very good.
The answer to your problem essentially boils down to the answer to this question: why can't the NOAAS Ronald H. Brown beat the USS Independence in a fight?
The problem is not that nobody's understanding what you are saying... the problem is nobody's agreeing with you.
No, one shot kill (head shot) is fine.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
But you're just making up arbitrary definitions and boundaries.
"It's not fun for me."
We know.
I don't think engineering is going anywhere however, and as you agree it actually benefits defense more than offense, despite the thread title.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Blasted engineers!
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
There's also this sort of vessel in real life:
Guest 161958
G
Very well. I will take my leave then if you are incapable of respecting my opinion. Have a good day.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh those brave BRAVE gankers killing largely undefended ships that aren't expecting attack.
The are all SO BRAVE. Someone please give them medals for BRAVERY. They are heroes. Because they are so BRAVE to take on un-armed and un-armoured vessels that are not even expecting combat, in a private group where they believe they were safe. Safe from little schoolboys who still live at home with mum because they haven't learned how to microwave chicken tendies yet but are very angry at the world for not loving them, just because they are unsociable little creeps . BUT THEY ARE SO BRAVE. SO VERY BRAVE.
Please give the gankers medals FD? Please? They have been so brave and done such a good thing.
The are all SO BRAVE. Someone please give them medals for BRAVERY. They are heroes. Because they are so BRAVE to take on un-armed and un-armoured vessels that are not even expecting combat, in a private group where they believe they were safe. Safe from little schoolboys who still live at home with mum because they haven't learned how to microwave chicken tendies yet but are very angry at the world for not loving them, just because they are unsociable little creeps . BUT THEY ARE SO BRAVE. SO VERY BRAVE.
Please give the gankers medals FD? Please? They have been so brave and done such a good thing.
er, you've come to the wrong spot; it's near as bad as the reddit. Try Discord for some sense; most of the CMDRs there act like they are older than 11.
In all of that sarcasm, condescension, and judgement, did you think you were achieving anything?
I dunno what Elite discord you belong to, but all the ones I've seen would mock someone whining about ganks, and be much less civil about it to boot.