Flight Model: Has FDev Lost Their Way?

[Frenotx]

The point of the thread is that initially, the focus during flight lied primarily on struggling to control your ship and to bring it into the position you want it to be, and secondarily on operating your ship systems, and those two priorities have switched places. I used to believe the original flight model was FDEV's way of differentiating their product on the market, but if this difference is intentionally being removed by the developer himself, then tell me why I shouldn't just go play some other game with a similar approach to combat, but with other far better MMO features than E: D could ever hope to have.

Thank you. I feel like Elite's flight model is losing what made it unique and fun, for the sake of... what? Giving people that think pitch is everything in combat what they want? Combat isn't all about pitch. Again, look at the example in the OP: cobra vs. viper. The viper, the combat ship, actually has slightly lower blue zone pitch than the cobra. FDev understood (past tense, apparently) then that while pitch is important, things like position control, good weapon grouping, and speed are all extremely important to combat, too. Hell, the cobra has more armour too, but the viper has slightly better shield. Makes both ships have comperable health, but with the viper's in a renewable source (allowing for more fights per sortie, and to take advantage of good evasion) and the cobra's is not (leading it to have a fair shake in a fight, but not being as efficient in long multi-fight sorties). BALANCE! WOO! Now days, it seems that if they want to make a "combat ship", their approach is to just jack up the pitch until you have to apply 0 effort to keep something in your sights, then give the ship enough durability to face tank the opponent. Positioning? Who cares! If I relentlessly point enough firepower at my enemy and have enough shield / armour to ignore theirs, why bother?!

 

[Codger]

I’m not skilled enough to tell, honestly. The flight model has always seemed good to me. Or at least it’s always made sense to me.

 

[RamirezKurita]

On the topic of engineering, I feel that there's a couple of notable issues that it has brought up with regards to ship maneuverability.

Firstly is the almost no downside aspects of it all. Permaboosting has been mentioned already due to the increases in PD capability, but in general both dirty drives and clean drives offer massive increases to ship performance with only very minor drawbacks in terms of thermal load and power draw. If thruster modifications increased the PD draw for boosting, as well as more applicable increases to power and thermal loads, then we wouldn't see people permaboosting in combat as they would either run out of PD or simply fry themselves.

Secondly, there's the simplicity of how they calculate thruster performance leading to nothing actually being able to be tweaked or offering and choices in how a ship maneuvers. Everything for a thruster is dictated by that optimal mass and optimal multiplier, which basically translates into Thruster 1 > Thruster 2 under all circumstances for a given ship if the mass and multipliers work out properly, including pitch rate, acceleration, maximum forward speed, maximum lateral speed - every possibly axis of motion of the 6 we have. There's no room to favour turn rate over straight line speed, or increase acceleration at the cost of maximum speed, they are all tied into the exact same parameters so any increase for one of them also increases all of the others. I wouldn't mind the high turn rates so much if there was an alternative choice available, rather than maximising turn rates also giving the maximum possible acceleration and maximum top speeds. Separating the variables would force players into adopting a variety of fighting styles based on their own ship's performance, rather than all ships behaving the same; a high maximum speed ship would favour jousting to avoid the pitfalls in it's own acceleration and turn rates while a high turn rate ship would adopt the flying turret strategy while sacrificing it's own speed and acceleration, while ships with very good acceleration would be forced into trying to remain behind its opponents in knife-fighting range.

 

[Frenotx]

Secondly, there's the simplicity of how they calculate thruster performance leading to nothing actually being able to be tweaked or offering and choices in how a ship maneuvers. Everything for a thruster is dictated by that optimal mass and optimal multiplier, which basically translates into Thruster 1 > Thruster 2 under all circumstances for a given ship if the mass and multipliers work out properly, including pitch rate, acceleration, maximum forward speed, maximum lateral speed - every possibly axis of motion of the 6 we have. There's no room to favour turn rate over straight line speed, or increase acceleration at the cost of maximum speed, they are all tied into the exact same parameters so any increase for one of them also increases all of the others. I wouldn't mind the high turn rates so much if there was an alternative choice available, rather than maximising turn rates also giving the maximum possible acceleration and maximum top speeds. Separating the variables would force players into adopting a variety of fighting styles based on their own ship's performance, rather than all ships behaving the same; a high maximum speed ship would favour jousting to avoid the pitfalls in it's own acceleration and turn rates while a high turn rate ship would adopt the flying turret strategy while sacrificing it's own speed and acceleration, while ships with very good acceleration would be forced into trying to remain behind its opponents in knife-fighting range.

You're not entirely correct, here. Thrusters actually do have separate variables for speed, acceleration, and rotation. All normal thrusters use the same value for all three stats, but performance enhanced thrusters don't. Their speed variable is much higher than the acceleration or rotation ones. This dev post explains it (though you may find all the dev posts in that thread interesting: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...efine-please?p=4203045&viewfull=1#post4203045

What we're lacking is any other thrusters with asymetric variables, or engineering that affects said variables non-uniformly.

 

[[VR] Enexemander]

On the topic of engineering, I feel that there's a couple of notable issues that it has brought up with regards to ship maneuverability.

Firstly is the almost no downside aspects of it all. Permaboosting has been mentioned already due to the increases in PD capability, but in general both dirty drives and clean drives offer massive increases to ship performance with only very minor drawbacks in terms of thermal load and power draw. If thruster modifications increased the PD draw for boosting, as well as more applicable increases to power and thermal loads, then we wouldn't see people permaboosting in combat as they would either run out of PD or simply fry themselves.

Secondly, there's the simplicity of how they calculate thruster performance leading to nothing actually being able to be tweaked or offering and choices in how a ship maneuvers. Everything for a thruster is dictated by that optimal mass and optimal multiplier, which basically translates into Thruster 1 > Thruster 2 under all circumstances for a given ship if the mass and multipliers work out properly, including pitch rate, acceleration, maximum forward speed, maximum lateral speed - every possibly axis of motion of the 6 we have. There's no room to favour turn rate over straight line speed, or increase acceleration at the cost of maximum speed, they are all tied into the exact same parameters so any increase for one of them also increases all of the others. I wouldn't mind the high turn rates so much if there was an alternative choice available, rather than maximising turn rates also giving the maximum possible acceleration and maximum top speeds. Separating the variables would force players into adopting a variety of fighting styles based on their own ship's performance, rather than all ships behaving the same; a high maximum speed ship would favour jousting to avoid the pitfalls in it's own acceleration and turn rates while a high turn rate ship would adopt the flying turret strategy while sacrificing it's own speed and acceleration, while ships with very good acceleration would be forced into trying to remain behind its opponents in knife-fighting range.

I don't think what you theoretically want is too far off from reality.

An FDL will always favor jousting, because they have bad turning rates at speed. Yes, they can permaboost (though it does have a timer), but that destroys their ability to turn tight maneuvers, and the ship drifts like nothing else outside the bluezone. Most PvP videos of FDLs with skilled pilots will show them either straight jousting or trying to set that up.

An FAS will always favor circle strafing. They have the maneuverability to do it, and their pitch isn't quite as married to the blue zone. But they are not optimally "turrets in space" because they have low shield values and naked hulls open up lots of vulnerabilities even with HRPs and MRPS. Optimally they are circle strafers, trying to avoid at all times their opponent's fire.

The other thing to mention is that the blue zone is not just about pitch. For an FA OFF pilot like myself, it's not even the most important factor. That blue zone speed is the point at which your vessel can smoothly change vector with minimal drift. Super important for FAS style fighting.

In regards to knife fighting, the turn fighters are always going to want to be close. The more agile you are, the more you can exploit your advantage. The further you get from your opponent, the less they have to pitch to get you in their sights.

Many complaints I see about the flight model stem from poor applications of it. For instance, the 1v1 video where one guy just runs with long range weapons for an hour (literally). There is no reason for his opponent to put up with that. He allows himself to play into it.

Complaints about NPCs being turrets in space is simply poor understanding of their capabilities and your own ship's. If an Anaconda is turning on you while you pilot an FAS or Chieftain, then you are doing it wrong. This does not happen to me unless I make an obvious mistake. When it comes to more agile ships like a high level NPC FAS, of course they will get time to fire on you. It's one the most maneuverable ships in the game. What do you expect? If you're a judo master, don't try to punch the professional boxer all match. Play to your strengths, and try to limit theirs.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Do you guys, as the player base, feel FDev is drifting away from their original design for their flight model? Several design descisions were made in the beginning to avoid combat devolving into high-speed jousting and "turrets in space"... yet that's where I feel we've ended up. Ships like the FDL, FAS, and Chieftain can flip 180 degrees far faster than any ship, including themselves, could possibly hope to match with movement. "Getting on someone's tail" has lost pretty much all meaning because of this. There are still exciting fights to be had against some ships, but then I get into a fight with an NPC FAS and just get irritated. Constantly drifting in reverse, flipping over quickly enough to have no chance of avoiding their guns... it just turns any fight with them into a face-tanking slug fest. Fighting players in the aformentioned ships is even worse, as they know how to utilize the strengths of the ship (and faults of the flight model) even more. Fights feel like they're becoming more and more about just comparing DPS vs. health stats, and less and less about good piloting. The chieftain being released as it is makes me concerned that FDev doesn't even realize this problem. Hell, in the beta, the chieftain's acceleration was even worse than it is now, yet it was still billed as being able to "avoid damage". Am I a dinosaur, or has FDev just lost their way?

I made this request in the suggestions forum, that goes into more detail:

Fretnox, the words you are looking for are "power creep". So, we get late WW 2 air combat, with aircraft that can fly in reverse, and still use all weapons.

Boom And Zoom, replace Turn And Burn. It's 1945, not early 1940. Sorry, but there is no cure.

 

[lenna]

What you're basically saying is that, hypothetically, the ship manufacturer chose such a configuration, in terms of thruster position and power, because of some arbitrary reason, but later on was forced to come up with additional constraints (the blue zone), to prevent his own design from breaking apart in flight? Ok... but why not design a ship based on the way you intend to fly it in the first place? The whole thing sounds like catch 22 to me.

Not really, it is not unprecedented in (at least Sci-Fi) military circles. The point of designing equipment like that would notionally be to do with balancing capability, durability, and cost. Sometimes it is not feasible to make a craft with the both the desired maximum capability and durability. Prime Sci-Fi example is the USS Defiant in Star Trek which (IIRC) has engines too powerful for it's relative hull strength. Further more, using Star Trek as an example - the maximum speed of the USS Enterprise D could be pushed higher than notional recommended design limits - c/f occasions when they have pushed the ship beyond Warp 9.

In the real world, there are at least some cases of equipment being designed with "deliberate" flaws and/or the ability to push the equipment beyond recommended limits (notionally not for extended periods though). Given this context, the principles in general are far from unprecedented nor unrealistic.

Look, I have no problem with technobabble being made up to explain why things are the way they are in a video game - in fact I do things like this myself quite often. But calling it realistic is taking it a bit too far imho. Besides, technobabble doesn't even have to be realistic, it just has to be consistent.

As for being consistent, it is IMO.

I don't see why this has to be brought into the discussion, it derails it from its original purpose to some grade 5 bathroom measuring contest.

Certain quadrants of this community keep throwing the "git gud" term around when people complain about certain game mechanics - I meant it at least mostly tongue in cheek. Often the complaints about "flight mechanics" originate from people being caught on the sharp end of them. Given the introduction of the Chieftain, I would not be surprised if this is one of those threads.

The point of the thread is that initially, the focus during flight lied primarily on struggling to control your ship and to bring it into the position you want it to be, and secondarily on operating your ship systems, and those two priorities have switched places. I used to believe the original flight model was FDEV's way of differentiating their product on the market, but if this difference is intentionally being removed by the developer himself, then tell me why I shouldn't just go play some other game with a similar approach to combat, but with other far better MMO features than E: D could ever hope to have.

I disagree - it has NEVER been like that IME/IMO. FA/Off has been in ED since at least V1.3 (when I started playing ED) and while engineering has allowed ships to become more manoeuvrable and more powerful nothing has substantially changed about the flight mechanics nor really the fundamental nature of combat (at least from a PvE perspective).

If we are talking about the effect on PvP combat then perhaps my slightly tongue in cheek "git gud" comment earlier perhaps is perhaps closer to the hard truth than I intended it to be.

From my perspective, the operation of ship's systems, positioning in combat, and situational awareness in general is roughly balanced equally - or at least balanced as I would have expected in ANY space flight game. ED's distinctiveness comes from it's lore and the size/accuracy of the galaxy model.

If you know of a game better suited for MMO Space-flight PvP then I suggest you go play it. ED is not and has never been focused on that aspect and IMO it should never go down that route either.

 

[Frenotx]

Certain quadrants of this community keep throwing the "git gud" term around when people complain about certain game mechanics - I meant it at least mostly tongue in cheek. Often the complaints about "flight mechanics" originate from people being caught on the sharp end of them. Given the introduction of the Chieftain, I would not be surprised if this is one of those threads.

I assure you that's not the case. I've been playing this game for about as long as one could have, and am no stranger to combat. Combat is also my main income source. I do fine in combat. This isn't about me, though- it's about the game as a whole. I'm not so much interested in tailoring the game to optimize my personal experience. I simply want the game to be the best it can be, and for it to maintain its own soul.

If anything, what I want would make the game harder. Making a mistake and letting an NPC get on my tail would be far more of a problem than it is now. In general, mistakes would be more severely punished. On the plus side, that means I also have the opportunity to more severely punish the mistakes of others. Hooray skill based outcomes!

 

[[VR] Enexemander]

I assure you that's not the case. I've been playing this game for about as long as one could have, and am no stranger to combat. Combat is also my main income source. I do fine in combat. This isn't about me, though- it's about the game as a whole. I'm not so much interested in tailoring the game to optimize my personal experience. I simply want the game to be the best it can be, and for it to maintain its own soul.

If anything, what I want would make the game harder. Making a mistake and letting an NPC get on my tail would be far more of a problem than it is now. In general, mistakes would be more severely punished. On the plus side, that means I also have the opportunity to more severely punish the mistakes of others. Hooray skill based outcomes!

I agree 100%. But I think the solution there is to tackle hitpoint inflation first and foremost.

 

[Frenotx]

I agree 100%. But I think the solution there is to tackle hitpoint inflation first and foremost.

I agree that hitpoint inflation is a major high-priority issue- especially in regards to shields. I don't believe that all other points of balance should wait until FDev have fixed that one. I don't want to see YET ANOTHER ship / mechanic getting added in the interim that further exacerbates the problems with the flight model.

 

[lenna]

I assure you that's not the case. I've been playing this game for about as long as one could have, and am no stranger to combat. Combat is also my main income source. I do fine in combat. This isn't about me, though- it's about the game as a whole. I'm not so much interested in tailoring the game to optimize my personal experience. I simply want the game to be the best it can be, and for it to maintain its own soul.

As far as I am concerned, the flight model and game balance in a general sense is fine as is. There are some well known issues with certain meta-builds being OP but FD seem to have the matter in hand and appear to be addressing the underlying problems with increased diversity.

If anything, what I want would make the game harder. Making a mistake and letting an NPC get on my tail would be far more of a problem than it is now. In general, mistakes would be more severely punished. On the plus side, that means I also have the opportunity to more severely punish the mistakes of others. Hooray skill based outcomes!

So you want a harder experience and more focused around dog-fighting in a WW1/WW2 sense - IMO that is not what ANY space flight combat game should be about and IME ED has never been about that and should never become about that.

Overall, I think the flight model and general ship balance is fine as-is but certain meta-builds maybe ruining the game for at least some PvPers.

 

[RamirezKurita]

I don't think what you theoretically want is too far off from reality.

An FDL will always favor jousting, because they have bad turning rates at speed. Yes, they can permaboost (though it does have a timer), but that destroys their ability to turn tight maneuvers, and the ship drifts like nothing else outside the bluezone. Most PvP videos of FDLs with skilled pilots will show them either straight jousting or trying to set that up.

An FAS will always favor circle strafing. They have the maneuverability to do it, and their pitch isn't quite as married to the blue zone. But they are not optimally "turrets in space" because they have low shield values and naked hulls open up lots of vulnerabilities even with HRPs and MRPS. Optimally they are circle strafers, trying to avoid at all times their opponent's fire.

The other thing to mention is that the blue zone is not just about pitch. For an FA OFF pilot like myself, it's not even the most important factor. That blue zone speed is the point at which your vessel can smoothly change vector with minimal drift. Super important for FAS style fighting.

In regards to knife fighting, the turn fighters are always going to want to be close. The more agile you are, the more you can exploit your advantage. The further you get from your opponent, the less they have to pitch to get you in their sights.

Many complaints I see about the flight model stem from poor applications of it. For instance, the 1v1 video where one guy just runs with long range weapons for an hour (literally). There is no reason for his opponent to put up with that. He allows himself to play into it.

Complaints about NPCs being turrets in space is simply poor understanding of their capabilities and your own ship's. If an Anaconda is turning on you while you pilot an FAS or Chieftain, then you are doing it wrong. This does not happen to me unless I make an obvious mistake. When it comes to more agile ships like a high level NPC FAS, of course they will get time to fire on you. It's one the most maneuverable ships in the game. What do you expect? If you're a judo master, don't try to punch the professional boxer all match. Play to your strengths, and try to limit theirs.

There are aspects of that in game, however the main point I was getting at was the variables on the thrusters, in particular the engineering mods for thrusters. Yes, some ships are intrinsically better at certain styles than others, but engineering simply makes them better at their preferred style in addition to reducing their weaknesses in other types of maneuvering. An FDL is good at jousting; but a G5 DD FDL is not only even better at jousting, but is also pretty good at maneuvering like an oversized viper or turreting in space. There's no choice, no flexibility, only the steady removal of a ship's weaknesses in engineering as every single aspect of a ship's maneuverability is increased across the entire board.

 

[Ddraig]

Are you a vocal minority? Or a majority of the player base with these issues?
Have the feeling FD would be swinging your way if you were in the later.

 

[Frenotx]

Are you a vocal minority? Or a majority of the player base with these issues?
Have the feeling FD would be swinging your way if you were in the later.

One thing I've found with game design is that if you give most players exactly what they want, you end up with a very bad game. Most people are concerned with trying to improve their personal position. "I do a lot of activity X. I want activity X to pay more money" or "I want big ship Y. It should be cheaper." Lo and behold, though, if you give players everything they want, they gripe the game is too easy, get bored, and stop playing. Obviously not everyone is like that. There are people that genuinely want the game to be balanced and fun. My point is that just going with the majority is rarely a good idea.

 

[jasonbirder]

So you want a harder experience and more focused around dog-fighting in a WW1/WW2 sense - IMO that is not what ANY space flight combat game should be about

But essentially you have two ends of the spectrum when it comes to combat...maneuver based (ostensibly skill based) or Weapon/Defence Based (essentially based around DPS vs Shield Strength) which is merely based on build/engineering...
If you're rejecting "dogfighting" (not necessarily in the WW1/WW2 sense but maneuvering using all axis) and the game has already negated any necessity for tactics/situational awareness by giving us 360 degree sensors and limited engagement ranges then all that's left really is the difference between ship builds

 

[Ddraig]

One thing I've found with game design is that if you give most players exactly what they want, you end up with a very bad game. Most people are concerned with trying to improve their personal position. "I do a lot of activity X. I want activity X to pay more money" or "I want big ship Y. It should be cheaper." Lo and behold, though, if you give players everything they want, they gripe the game is too easy, get bored, and stop playing. Obviously not everyone is like that. There are people that genuinely want the game to be balanced and fun. My point is that just going with the majority is rarely a good idea.

Are you a game designer?

In my personal opinion (No more no less), its true that catering to any majority or minority about something usually results in watered down product results. But at the end of the day you want to make a business that returns profit, that means you do not do what you want or what your inner circle wants but what the majority wants.
Probably it means the product will not have an everlasting life, but will maximize profit in a rather short time span. Then you do something else, repeat the formula, make profit, rinse and repeat. That's the business model working right now in everything, which is why when anyone says "this is a 10 years venture" it's pure . Currently people attention span is short, you cant expect them to be hooked to what you said or promised in 2014 and still be relevant in 2018, it will change and twist itself showing the best possible side to the fickle audience as long as it can. You don't like that and I can understand, even side with you to be honest, but you (and I) are the minority, not the majority. FD will try to keep you content, but to an extent. Happens in everything else.

And no. I am not being conformist. But honestly I consider these "FD lost their way" kind of posts and discussions a solid waste of energy.
Probably if the title was something less pretentious in a way, then maybe I wouldn't be at odds with these 4 pages of nothing.

Funny, that I am being guilty of that as well... shows what I know.

 

[SushiCW]

Are you a game designer?

In my personal opinion (No more no less), its true that catering to any majority or minority about something usually results in watered down product results. But at the end of the day you want to make a business that returns profit, that means you do not do what you want or what your inner circle wants but what the majority wants.
Probably it means the product will not have an everlasting life, but will maximize profit in a rather short time span. Then you do something else, repeat the formula, make profit, rinse and repeat. That's the business model working right now in everything, which is why when anyone says "this is a 10 years venture" it's pure . Currently people attention span is short, you cant expect them to be hooked to what you said or promised in 2014 and still be relevant in 2018, it will change and twist itself showing the best possible side to the fickle audience as long as it can. You don't like that and I can understand, even side with you to be honest, but you (and I) are the minority, not the majority. FD will try to keep you content, but to an extent. Happens in everything else.

And no. I am not being conformist. But honestly I consider these "FD lost their way" kind of posts and discussions a solid waste of energy.
Probably if the title was something less pretentious in a way, then maybe I wouldn't be at odds with these 4 pages of nothing.

Funny, that I am being guilty of that as well... shows what I know.

Can't argue that the strategy Frontier is taking has been, if nothing else, very commercially successful. They've created a game that while far from perfect appeals to an extremely wide slice of potential players.

That does come at the cost of a tighter design. But when you're in a niche genre to begin with, emphasizing broad appeal and accessibility is a smart move for getting people to buy the game.

 

[Good Death]

Its totally beyond me how WW2 dog fighting even got put on the table in space game portrayed in the years of 3300. I know whats coming the game play reply but we're four years into this thing and I'm having fun in every battle. Hell I even lost my last pvp encounter but I still had fun. Bottom line, this is a space game it will never be a WW2 dog fighting game.

 

[jasonbirder]

Bottom line, this is a space game it will never be a WW2 dog fighting game.

But WHAT exactly do you mean by this...obviously you're saying you don't want Forward vectors and roll/pitch to change movement axis to be the dominant factor in combat...but WHAT DO you want to dominate instead...
Thruster based translations? Stealth/Sensor Mechanics? Turreting? A stats based DPS vs Shield based attritional grind?
Whats your preferred alternative?

 

[NeilF]

Do you guys, as the player base, feel FDev is drifting away from their original design for their flight model? Several design descisions were made in the beginning to avoid combat devolving into high-speed jousting and "turrets in space"... yet that's where I feel we've ended up. Ships like the FDL, FAS, and Chieftain can flip 180 degrees far faster than any ship, including themselves, could possibly hope to match with movement. "Getting on someone's tail" has lost pretty much all meaning because of this. There are still exciting fights to be had against some ships, but then I get into a fight with an NPC FAS and just get irritated. Constantly drifting in reverse, flipping over quickly enough to have no chance of avoiding their guns... it just turns any fight with them into a face-tanking slug fest. Fighting players in the aformentioned ships is even worse, as they know how to utilize the strengths of the ship (and faults of the flight model) even more. Fights feel like they're becoming more and more about just comparing DPS vs. health stats, and less and less about good piloting. The chieftain being released as it is makes me concerned that FDev doesn't even realize this problem. Hell, in the beta, the chieftain's acceleration was even worse than it is now, yet it was still billed as being able to "avoid damage". Am I a dinosaur, or has FDev just lost their way?

I made this request in the suggestions forum, that goes into more detail:

Haven't we also got Engineering meaning far more frequent boosting too?