Horizons FDev, please talk to the active PVP community.

[Blackcompany]

What's hubris is coming here lecturing PvPers on how balanced Missiles are BECAUSE YOU TESTED THEM AGAINST NPC'S.

Missiles need an enormous buff. They are widely considered useless in PVE.

And there is the crux: a large portion of the game's player base is PVE oriented.

Perhaps ships insured by the Pilots Federation (Commanders) need to include handwaved electronic countermeasures (ECM) that naturally cripple missile lock on and detonation timing. This would explain away the lack of damage to Commander ships, while also making Seekers into Dumbfires against only Players.

This way, we could still buff missile damage enormously, and max ammo a bit, for PVE use, as it is badly needed.

In the end, though, decisions affecting both pvp and PVE must favor improving PVE if a favorite is needed. Otherwise you risk driving off the larger portion of your fan base.

 

[Etherimp]

Ever consider the balance of missiles is fine and it is something else at fault instead?

In comparison to other weapons in the game that you can fit on the same slot, missiles are weak.

Missiles as they stand are probably powerful enough, overall the problem with balance in general is that it is all about trade offs. It does not matter if the opposition is PC or NPC, the concerns with balance are the same in essence.

Gimballed Multicannons -> Do decent damage to shields, fire 90 shots in a row, track enemy target, can be fit on C1 and C2 weapon slots, deal decent damage to hull, you get ~2000 shots total, ammo is inexpensive, and they produce very very very little heat, meaning you can keep 1-2 pips in weapons and fire them non-stop.

Heat Seeking Missiles -> Do virtually no damage to shields, have a limit of about 30(?) ammo, can be fit to C1 and C2 weapon slots, track enemy target, do mediocre damage to hull, ammo is expensive, they produce a lot of heat, they require a lock on period.


Why would anyone use missiles when gimballed multicannons outperform them? This is the very definition of balance. Try this.. Go get a viper, and equip it with C1 and C2 heat seeking missiles. Get a friend to outfit a ship however he wants. Attempt to destroy him with missiles. Then get the same friend in the same ship to go against your Viper with C1 Multi's and C2 Multi's, and do the same thing. Tell me which is better.

The only difference really is that certain types of player opponents tend to min-max/meta which may result in certain weapons becoming less effective against them. Perhaps it is the min-max/metas that need to be nerfed as opposed to weapons beefed up.

The last sentence here makes absolutely no sense. You can't nerf people min/maxing. You can't remove min/maxing from a game unless you make everything the exact same. Clearly you don't know what the word "META" means.

 

[lenna]

...

I know what meta means and min/max builds are a kind of meta, and specific builds can be nerfed without making everything the same builds should be a matter of trade offs not just escalating capability based on cost.
---
The seeker versions of missiles are tantamount to a trade off, the main gain is that they can intercept craft that are faster than you and have a longer effective range than direct fire weapons.
---
As I said before, missiles can be very effective but as I have tried to point out their use case is not directly comparable with direct fire weapons thus balancing them has to take into account ALL their attributes and not just their damage.
---
Perhaps their capacity should be increased in general but it is a delicate balance since they could easily become OP.
---
WRT their damage versus shields, I see no reason to increase it - I am led to believe by a friend that has used missiles more extensively than me that since Horizons the shield damage has already been increased. However, back to my point - there are other weapons that are effective against shields but nowhere near as effective against hull and it is a fair balancing decision to have missiles less effective against shields.
---
I am not surprised that the PvP crowd that are complaining about balancing have not posted the builds of least resistance in response to the developer's request a couple of pages back. It seems to me that many of that particular crowd are only interested in dictating balance rather than letting FD find a balance that they feel is most appropriate given EVERYONE's concerns (not just the PvP focused lot).

 

[dxm55]

Missiles need an enormous buff. They are widely considered useless in PVE.

And there is the crux: a large portion of the game's player base is PVE oriented.

Perhaps ships insured by the Pilots Federation (Commanders) need to include handwaved electronic countermeasures (ECM) that naturally cripple missile lock on and detonation timing. This would explain away the lack of damage to Commander ships, while also making Seekers into Dumbfires against only Players.

This way, we could still buff missile damage enormously, and max ammo a bit, for PVE use, as it is badly needed.

In the end, though, decisions affecting both pvp and PVE must favor improving PVE if a favorite is needed. Otherwise you risk driving off the larger portion of your fan base.

ECM is an optional piece of equipment. You have a choice of packing it or not.
Things can be made simple by just giving missiles back their explosive power and damage.
You can evade missiles by boosting out of range, trying to outfly it, or simply using ECM or PD to counter it.
If you can't do any of the above, you should be hit and destroyed, or take considerable damage.

What's the risk, and where's the fun of nerfing weapons?

 

[Darth Ender]

missiles shmissiles. Yes, they need a buff ...and yes, the reason why they were nerfed to begin with needs to be addressed. But who cares about missiles?

Seems to me that FD doesn't really care about pvp. They have plenty of opportunity to enrich pvp encounters without risking unnecessary targeting of new players. Instead they've seemingly gone out of their way to put any issues central to pvp on the back burner.

Still, despite that there is no alternative to Elite in open mode yet. Perhaps when there is (if ever) they'll be inclined to do more.

 

[Etherimp]

I know what meta means and min/max builds are a kind of meta, and specific builds can be nerfed without making everything the same builds should be a matter of trade offs not just escalating capability based on cost.
---
The seeker versions of missiles are tantamount to a trade off, the main gain is that they can intercept craft that are faster than you and have a longer effective range than direct fire weapons.
---
As I said before, missiles can be very effective but as I have tried to point out their use case is not directly comparable with direct fire weapons thus balancing them has to take into account ALL their attributes and not just their damage.
---
Perhaps their capacity should be increased in general but it is a delicate balance since they could easily become OP.
---
WRT their damage versus shields, I see no reason to increase it - I am led to believe by a friend that has used missiles more extensively than me that since Horizons the shield damage has already been increased. However, back to my point - there are other weapons that are effective against shields but nowhere near as effective against hull and it is a fair balancing decision to have missiles less effective against shields.
---
I am not surprised that the PvP crowd that are complaining about balancing have not posted the builds of least resistance in response to the developer's request a couple of pages back. It seems to me that many of that particular crowd are only interested in dictating balance rather than letting FD find a balance that they feel is most appropriate given EVERYONE's concerns (not just the PvP focused lot).

Alexander the Grape responded to the Dev. I didn't feel a need to respond because his post was pretty spot on. As far as missiles go, you're still missing the point. There's never a reason to go with missiles instead of Multi-cannons, unless you're going with a Torpedo build... but we're talking heat seekers, not torpedoes.

 

[lenna]

Alexander the Grape responded to the Dev. I didn't feel a need to respond because his post was pretty spot on. As far as missiles go, you're still missing the point. There's never a reason to go with missiles instead of Multi-cannons, unless you're going with a Torpedo build... but we're talking heat seekers, not torpedoes.

If people are flying around in the faster and more manoeuvrable ships such as the Diamond Back Scout for example then personally I would not recommend missiles. However, in some slower and/or less manoeuvrable ships having a couple of missile launchers in medium slots might be preferable to direct fire weapons depending on the type of opposition you expect to engage and their speed/manoeuvrability relative to you. Synthesis can help with getting around the apparent ammo limitations, but in short missiles should be used only when necessary not as a matter of course under normal circumstances. For explorers, there is a bit of an added bonus - missiles and their launchers weigh nothing (probably a drop in the ocean really on the weight stakes but it is a point).
---
From ATG's comments, it sounds like Silent running could do with a nerf so that it can not be used as a combat tactic - disabling weapons while in Silent Running mode and changing the silent running mechanic so it is not as easy to keep toggling it on/off which sounds like what at least some PvP pilots are doing. I believe that, silent running is meant to be part of the smuggling and pre/post-combat toolset rather than an in-combat tool.
---
HRPs could have their weight increased across the board which would perhaps counter the point of smaller ships running without shields since HRPs would have a greater negative effect on jump range.
---
SCBs may still need some nerfing from the sounds of things too, at least where the higher end units are concerned.
---
Overall though, it is down to FD to decide the best way to balance things not us.

 

[Etherimp]

If people are flying around in the faster and more manoeuvrable ships such as the Diamond Back Scout for example then personally I would not recommend missiles. However, in some slower and/or less manoeuvrable ships having a couple of missile launchers in medium slots might be preferable to direct fire weapons depending on the type of opposition you expect to engage and their speed/manoeuvrability relative to you. Synthesis can help with getting around the apparent ammo limitations, but in short missiles should be used only when necessary not as a matter of course under normal circumstances. For explorers, there is a bit of an added bonus - missiles and their launchers weigh nothing (probably a drop in the ocean really on the weight stakes but it is a point).

You really don't get it, do you?

Multi-cannons are always better than missiles on every ship. ALWAYS. PERIOD. There's no argument about it. 1 Multi-cannon of any size will always put out more damage than 1 missile rack of the same size. Always.

From ATG's comments, it sounds like Silent running could do with a nerf so that it can not be used as a combat tactic - disabling weapons while in Silent Running mode and changing the silent running mechanic so it is not as easy to keep toggling it on/off which sounds like what at least some PvP pilots are doing. I believe that, silent running is meant to be part of the smuggling and pre/post-combat toolset rather than an in-combat tool.

No. Silent Running does not need to be nerfed. Why would you NOT want silent running being used as a combat tactic?

Silent running DOES NOT work against NPC's! It only works in pvp!

HRPs could have their weight increased across the board which would perhaps counter the point of smaller ships running without shields since HRPs would have a greater negative effect on jump range

SCBs may still need some nerfing from the sounds of things too, at least where the higher end units are concerned.

No. And No. Small combat ships already have a horrible jump range. I've already gone over my suggestions for balance. You don't seem like you understand pvp/combat at all.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I am not surprised that the PvP crowd that are complaining about balancing have not posted the builds of least resistance in response to the developer's request a couple of pages back. It seems to me that many of that particular crowd are only interested in dictating balance rather than letting FD find a balance that they feel is most appropriate given EVERYONE's concerns (not just the PvP focused lot).

Well, you are just confirmed my suspicion of not reading the thread thoroughly. Both myself and Alex explained thoroughly, please read before throwing around baseless accusations.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Fold

You are doing a fine job convincing me you don't participate in PvP often.

 

[lenna]

Well, you are just confirmed my suspicion of not reading the thread thoroughly. Both myself and Alex explained thoroughly, please read before throwing around baseless accusations.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



You are doing a fine job convincing me you don't participate in PvP often.

And you are missing the point yet again, just because you PvP does not make you all-knowing about game balance which is what yourself and some others seem to be saying. Basically, the ghist is shut up PvE-ers you know nothing. Well, wake up call to ALL the people I am referring to - YOU DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING.
---
I am glad that FD seem to be listening to EVERYONE and not focusing on what one group or another says despite overly focused threads like this.
---
As for the builds info post, it was a wall of text and I tend to skim over those, but nothing said to date in regards to builds supports some of the more grandiose claims about certain given ships being useless IMO.

 

[lenna]

...

You don't get it do you? Views on balance are just opinions FACT.
---
Silent running should only work as an out-of-combat stealth tactic, I know the general idea of Cloaking devices tends to be popular in this genre (which is tantamount to what Stealth mode is) but to be able to engage in combat while cloaked/in-stealth is just wrong and OP IMO (regardless of the opponent). WRT stealth and NPCs, probably a bug in part especially in the "out-of-combat" use case. Cockpit line of sight though may play a part in the effectiveness of Stealth against NPCs.
---
Overall, balance is about multiple factors and TBH based on what has been posted in this thread so far I find it impossible to believe that the people complaining about the current balance actually understand (or have considered) ALL the factors in play.

 

[GluttonyFang]

And you are missing the point yet again, just because you PvP does not make you all-knowing about game balance which is what yourself and some others seem to be saying. Basically, the ghist is shut up PvE-ers you know nothing. Well, wake up call to ALL the people I am referring to - YOU DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING.

This is a PvP thread, though, and we are talking about PvP balance. Feel free to talk about PvE if you want, but if you want to talk about PvP, I don't think the suggestions you've made so far made much sense.

I am glad that FD seem to be listening to EVERYONE and not focusing on what one group or another says despite overly focused threads like this.

And they will continue to do so, but don't expect people to not point out the nonsensical suggestions that make no sense in terms of PvP. Ideally people should be concerned with both PvE and PvP, and if you truly want to criticize extremists, you might want to take a good look at yourself.

As for the builds info post, it was a wall of text and I tend to skim over those, but nothing said to date in regards to builds supports some of the more grandiose claims about certain given ships being useless IMO.

... We're discussing "cookie-cutter" builds on that topic, all ships can be considered useful in PvE, and ideally they should be suitable for both. Thus, people are pointing out why some ships are useless in PvP.

You seem to be set on opposing PvP voice being projected by using hypocritical arguments. Look at yourself before suspecting other people of being extremists. Also, if you are going to use negligence as a legitimate excuse for ignorance, I don't think you are even taking the debate seriously.

 

[lenna]

...

PvP is not some magic area where different rules apply and other than CQC it does not sit in isolation, thus any discussions regarding PvP balance should include PvE considerations.
---
When discussing balance no group should be explicitly excluded from the discussion, and it seems that some PvP extremists in this thread are trying to do exactly that. I have been pushing for an inclusive debate of the concerns which some people seem to be resisting.
---
I am no extremist, I just want a balanced discussion and at no point have I said remove PvP from the game although I will admit that I do support the idea of adding an open PvE environment (despite the fact we are pretty sure it will never happen).
---
I have yet to hear any reasoned counter points as to specifically why missiles or the imperial courier are deemed useless by some in PvP engagements.

 

[GluttonyFang]

PvP is not some magic area where different rules apply and other than CQC it does not sit in isolation, thus any discussions regarding PvP balance should include PvE considerations.

Did you see me stating anywhere that PvE doesn't matter? I don't think so.

When discussing balance no group should be explicitly excluded from the discussion, and it seems that some PvP extremists in this thread are trying to do exactly that. I have been pushing for an inclusive debate of the concerns which some people seem to be resisting.

It's because this game's balance has been leaning toward PvE, hence why PvP players are asking for a voice on the matter. When you make certain suggestions that make absolutely no sense in PvP, and people inform you of that, you tell people they are being extremists, which is inaccurate and hypocritical if anything.

I am no extremist, I just want a balanced discussion and at no point have I said remove PvP from the game although I will admit that I do support the idea of adding an open PvE environment (despite the fact we are pretty sure it will never happen).

You don't have to want PvP removed to be an extremist.

I have yet to hear any reasoned counter points as to specifically why missiles or the imperial courier are deemed useless by some in PvP engagements.

Missiles are not viable in PvP engagement, MC is much more versatile and effective. Torpedo is only useful in very extreme situations and practically no ship in PvP is slow enough to not outrun it. Hull tanking builds rely on SR, and SR disables any missile lock on capability and make general targeting less effective and nullified at a distance.

Courier isn't a bad ship, but it definitely got a lot less effective from pre 1.5/2.0

 

[lenna]

Let's cut out the extremist finger pointing and name calling shall we...

Missiles are not viable in PvP engagement, MC is much more versatile and effective. Torpedo is only useful in very extreme situations and practically no ship in PvP is slow enough to not outrun it. Hull tanking builds rely on SR, and SR disables any missile lock on capability and make general targeting less effective and nullified at a distance.

I take it you are talking about Stealth mode, which only goes to reinforce my point about Stealth being generally OP in a combat environment (be it PvP or PvE). If a particular build relies on it then there needs to be some form of rebalance to deter such builds. Stealth should be a time limited option and should have sufficient trade offs to make it not a simple go-to option but from the way you describe it this does not appear to be the case.

Courier isn't a bad ship, but it definitely got a lot less effective from pre 1.5/2.0

So it was OP before and some people don't like the fact it got hit with the nerf bat so it is not OP anymore - which is what I suspected.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I take it you are talking about Stealth mode, which only goes to reinforce my point about Stealth being generally OP in a combat environment (be it PvP or PvE). If a particular build relies on it then there needs to be some form of rebalance to deter such builds.

But SR is a vital part of the game that adds variety, which is in line of what the developers want. Adding a tag laser like I suggested can fall in line of the philosophy of the developers. However, the issue still stands, for that people can easily run from missiles in combat ships and they do little to no damage to any hull-tanking builds. Buffing missiles damage also helps PD and ECM to be relevant again, which again, goes in line with the philosophy of variance increase.

So it was OP before and some people don't like the fact it got hit with the nerf bat so it is not OP anymore - which is what I suspected.

Why would you assume it's OP? It's distributor is abysmal, and three medium hardpoints can't be used to their full potential due to it. It had low jump range, less than medicore combat speed for its class and average maneuverability. The only saving grace was its relative sturdy shield, but once the shield breaks, the hull is extremely vulnerable even with armor. Not to mention the lack of high class internal and slots to fit any meaningful SCBs.

Which again, this is why some people are questioning your knowledge in terms of the PvP scene of the game.

 

[lenna]

But SR is a vital part of the game that adds variety, which is in line of what the developers want. Adding a tag laser like I suggested can fall in line of the philosophy of the developers. However, the issue still stands, for that people can easily run from missiles in combat ships and they do little to no damage to any hull-tanking builds. Buffing missiles damage also helps PD and ECM to be relevant again, which again, goes in line with the philosophy of variance increase.

WRT running from missiles and PD, as I understand it 1.3 (Wings?) nerfed the missile damage and since then I have been on the receiving end of missiles both with and without PD. As it currently stands, PD is relevant not only as a missile counter measure but a limpet countermeasure too. As for missiles, they are currently a threat in a PvE setting and increasing their damage would make matters worse not better. Increasing the ammo capacity of existing launchers or adding higher class launchers with greater capacity is probably the only missile rebalance I think is even close to being needed. As for torpedoes, never used them personally but I gather from people I know who have used them that they do have utility. I would expect them to be useful in CZs against NPC capitals and probably some other limited but comparable bombing run situations.
---
I disagree about Stealth combat being a VITAL part of the game, but as I have pointed out I believe it needs to be nerfed rather than removed - made less effective (not a strategic level option - it removes variety as a strategic option since it would be human nature to pick it over other options) and kept as a tactical tool.

Why would you assume it's OP? It's distributor is abysmal, and three medium hardpoints can't be used to their full potential due to it. It had low jump range, less than medicore combat speed for its class and average maneuverability. The only saving grace was its relative sturdy shield, but once the shield breaks, the hull is extremely vulnerable even with armor.

I know of the old Imperial Courier ramming club that almost certainly relied on SCBs (an Imperial Courier could/can ram and destroy far larger craft courtesy of it's heavy shielding). The nerf to SCBs almost certainly stopped that little game, or at least helped to keep it under control, fair play to FD for dealing with that little issue.

 

[GluttonyFang]

WRT running from missiles and PD, as I understand it 1.3 (Wings?) nerfed the missile damage and since then I have been on the receiving end of missiles both with and without PD. As it currently stands, PD is relevant not only as a missile counter measure but a limpet countermeasure too. As for missiles, they are currently a threat in a PvE setting and increasing their damage would make matters worse not better. Increasing the ammo capacity of existing launchers or adding higher class launchers with greater capacity is probably the only missile rebalance I think is even close to being needed. As for torpedoes, never used them personally but I gather from people I know who have used them that they do have utility. I would expect them to be useful in CZs against NPC capitals and probably some other limited but comparable bombing run situations.

There is no way missiles are a threat in PvE unless people want it to be. In general it's a better idea to use shield instead of hull tanking in PvE, thus missiles are irrelevant in PvE unless one intentionally makes oneself vulnerable to it. PD's ability to shoot down limpets is only relevant to cargo hauling, its ability to intersect missiles is completely overshadowed by other utility such as chaff/scb/sb, especially in PvE.

I disagree about Stealth combat being a VITAL part of the game, but as I have pointed out I believe it needs to be nerfed rather than removed - made less effective (not a strategic level option - it removes variety as a strategic option since it would be human nature to pick it over other options) and kept as a tactical tool.

The problem is that SR already has heat consequences, so nerfing it flatly instead of introducing some counter mechanic is decreasing variety. Not to mention that SR has limited and predictable operation time based on the ship's weaponry and HSL amount.

I know of the old Imperial Courier ramming club that almost certainly relied on SCBs (an Imperial Courier could/can ram and destroy far larger craft courtesy of it's heavy shielding). The nerf to SCBs almost certainly stopped that little game, or at least helped to keep it under control, fair play to FD for dealing with that little issue.

...

Courier is one of the lightest ships, no matter how much weight it tries to put on, it doesn't compete with true large crafts. Also, ramming is a valid tactic, there is nothing wrong with it. Ships that can't maneuver out of its way don't have to worry about ramming damage as long as it's not light-weight build, ships that can maneuver don't have to worry about it to begin with. Courier isn't that maneuverable.

The balancing of SCB was done out of the complaint of lack of variety and specialization of PvP and PvE ships, ships like Courier and Python just get caught up with these changes and become less and less competitive. Courier had a place before, not anymore.

 

[Etherimp]

Anyone who thinks the Courier is a good "ramming" ship clearly doesn't know what they're talking about, and also needs a lesson in physics.

Courier has one of the lowest hull mass's in the game. It gets out-rammed by just about everything.

Eg: Courier vs Vulture, each with 4 pips into shields, Vulture wins ram battle.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Anyone who thinks the Courier is a good "ramming" ship clearly doesn't know what they're talking about, and also needs a lesson in physics.

Courier has one of the lowest hull mass's in the game. It gets out-rammed by just about everything.

Eg: Courier vs Vulture, each with 4 pips into shields, Vulture wins ram battle.

Vulture sometimes ram better than a FDL, heh.