PvP FDL and why it needs serious attention.

The Replicated Man

Formerly 'Replicant'
I bet you also weren't running emissive+hounds :)

How are people (not referring to you Morbad) even debating this. Hulltanks have vulnerabilities that are ridiculously easy to use and their only counters are wasteful and barely effective (multiple ECM) or much harder to use than the vulnerability (SR toggle + top notch evasion). There is really no (reasonable) debate on this.

Sure fly hulltanks for fun, but might as well just wake from SC if you see hounds or even just a lot of seekers in the opponent's loadout.
Reeeing intensifies

Emissive seeker reeeeeee
 
Last week i unlocked hounds, i knew they were OP fighting them, but God, something prompted me to check DPS, not damage per shoot, and i see 60! 400% more than seekers, with rapid fire mod it will get to something like 800%. I could imagine what reaction would be if APA or imperial hammers have 400% more DPS than vanilla versions, yet some folks don't see problem with current anti seekers defence unbalance, and you don't really even need hounds, just 2 small seekers launchers do the job. But FD need to give those toys to npc's along with engineering to get attention from bigger crowd.
 
Yea, nice dps on hounds and a great opportunity to fry your ship
tbh i find seekers better
For hounds it's not about DPS it's about the huge area of effect rapidly causing damage to just about every external module. Goodbye hardpoints.

That said, seekers can often do the trick too, just need more of them.
 
In the context of this thread, Packhounds are moot vs shield tank FDL, unless you count blinding your opponent as gaining advantage.
 
In the context of this thread, Packhounds are moot vs shield tank FDL, unless you count blinding your opponent as gaining advantage.
I agree packhounds are moot vs. prismatic FdL. Yet another advantage of the FdL over competing medium ships (e.g. hybrid chief) which have to be very wary of packhounds. So moot to the FdL itself, but not moot to the discussion of reasons why the FdL needs serious attention.

Re context... more specifically Morbad noted his Mamba (same as FdL for shield purposes) was beaten by a hulltank FAS. I replied to this that Morbad probably wasn't running emissive+packhounds. Then I was accused of ree'ing for reasons I dont' quite understand, since it's a simple fact Morbad would have crushed anyone flying a hulltank FAS if Morbad had emissive+hounds/seekers on his mamba.
 
I agree packhounds are moot vs. prismatic FdL. Yet another advantage of the FdL over competing medium ships (e.g. hybrid chief) which have to be very wary of packhounds. So moot to the FdL itself, but not moot to the discussion of reasons why the FdL needs serious attention.

Re context... more specifically Morbad noted his Mamba (same as FdL for shield purposes) was beaten by a hulltank FAS. I replied to this that Morbad probably wasn't running emissive+packhounds. Then I was accused of ree'ing for reasons I dont' quite understand, since it's a simple fact Morbad would have crushed anyone flying a hulltank FAS if Morbad had emissive+hounds/seekers on his mamba.
As a famed Gunship pilot I suspect Replicant was mostly joking. The mention of missiles and emissives is probably a bit, "Not today, Satan!"
 
Last week i unlocked hounds, i knew they were OP fighting them, but God, something prompted me to check DPS, not damage per shoot, and i see 60! 400% more than seekers, with rapid fire mod it will get to something like 800%. I could imagine what reaction would be if APA or imperial hammers have 400% more DPS than vanilla versions, yet some folks don't see problem with current anti seekers defence unbalance, and you don't really even need hounds, just 2 small seekers launchers do the job. But FD need to give those toys to npc's along with engineering to get attention from bigger crowd.
Packhounds can indeed be impressive in some circumstances, but those DPS figures can be highly misleading, especially relative to seekers.

Because of the number of munitions fired simultaneously they have a much greater tendency to catch each other in their own splash damage, resulting in sympathetic detonations that result in most of the blast being wasted, espectially against smaller targets. The big advantage of packhounds is that this same volume of fire makes PDTs less effective, but in the absence of countermeasures, seeker racks can probably deliver just as much damage in a given period of time.

In some preliminary testing I did, it took as many as nine volleys of packhounds to down a GU-97, for example, because of how many were missing or getting blow up outside of the damage radius of the SLF.
 
I bet you also weren't running emissive+hounds :)

How are people (not referring to you Morbad) even debating this. Hulltanks have vulnerabilities that are ridiculously easy to use and their only counters are wasteful and barely effective (multiple ECM) or much harder to use than the vulnerability (SR toggle + top notch evasion). There is really no (reasonable) debate on this.

Sure fly hulltanks for fun, but might as well just wake from SC if you see hounds or even just a lot of seekers in the opponent's loadout.
We're coming around to what the real problem is. It's not the FdL being OP, it's shield tanks in general being OP. So instead calling for a nerf of a ship that's just a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself, tackle the problem instead ?

That is just patently absurd. If I downgrade my FDL's PP to class 5 and do some PvE, will you accept you were wrong and change your mind? Or is your primary argument simply "I like my OP FDL"? Which is fine, but then just say that...
If you had bothered not just to pick out that line and read further down, you'd have seen that I admitted that I went overboard with that.
 
Last edited:
I love my OP fdl, would you all please dissappear before FD reads those cries for balancing. Yes, I want it even stronger! And other ships - made stronger and faster. And more ships added, in general, to compete with fdl’s strengths. Nothing more sad than sit here sawing wings off fdl’s because someone can’t handle it’s awesomeness. Shoo. :)
 
We're coming around to what the real problem is. It's not the FdL being OP, it's shield tanks in general being OP. So instead calling for a nerf of a ship that's just a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself, tackle the problem instead ?
The FDL's retains the bulk of it's advantages even if reasonable limitations to shield stacking are implemented and it was imbalanced before the majority of these problems existed.

I love my OP fdl, would you all please dissappear before FD reads those cries for balancing. Yes, I want it even stronger! And other ships - made stronger and faster. And more ships added, in general, to compete with fdl’s strengths. Nothing more sad than sit here sawing wings off fdl’s because someone can’t handle it’s awesomeness. Shoo. :)
The problem isn't simply the FDL's relative position and the issues with the FDL and combat in general cannot be fixed via further inflation. Indeed, Frontier's unwillingness to take away, even if that was the correct solution, is the crux of essentially all issues with combat balance (as well as balance in many other areas), IMO.

The game's network and flight models are already having difficulty coping with the velocities that are achievable. Look at how much greater average engagement distances are, how boost dependent combat has become, and the decreased opportunities for maneuver this trend is responsible for. On top of that, many mechanisms just behave oddly in ED at closing velocities that regularly approach or exceed 1km/s. Small latencies that were easy to hide at lower speeds now result in many situations that are very nearly asynchronous, with every participant seeing things happen differently. This in turn makes combat slightly abstract when it should be objective and real-time, further reducing the subtly possible, as well as obfuscating what's actually happening. It's hard to tell precisely how far away opponents actually are (resulting in things like ghost rams) or how they are actually facing (which makes trying to outflank someone, or stay out of their cone of fire, even more uncertain than the increased ranges and rotational rates would indicate).

When it comes to things like TTKs and the current imbalance between offense and defense, further inflation (this time in damage) will result in even larger gaps between fully optimized and baseline vessels, or lone vessels and groups. This also will not restore prior balance, due in no small part to the increases in effective combat range many weapon mods have made possible, as the time spent within that range will greater for more opponents. Changes that do not involve reducing the effectiveness of certain mechanisms, only that augment others, might be able to bring 1v1 TTKs to a reasonable level...but would be so synergistic with multiple ships that virtually inescapable focus fire would down vessels faster than ever before.

Ships are too fast, too tough, and weapons reach too far, for the limitations intrinsic to the game we have.
 
Not a problem of the ships though, but the game itself. And I still hope that the 2020 Update will not only add new features, but adresses these things too.
 
That is just patently absurd. If I downgrade my FDL's PP to class 5 and do some PvE, will you accept you were wrong and change your mind? Or is your primary argument simply "I like my OP FDL"? Which is fine, but then just say that...
I'll do ya one better. PvP fit FDL with an armored C4 plant. 1100 mj shields, 2100 armor, boosts 583. I flew this in wing fights and it was very effective.
 
Top Bottom