Flight Model: Has FDev Lost Their Way?

[Truesilver]

In response to this remark, I feel obliged to point out that the Cmdr principally responsible for calling attention to perma-boost is Alexander the Grape

messing about with the flight model should not be based on PvP

On the topic of perma-boost, though, I'm not sure that it is really messing around with the flight model - more just considering the consequence of ED 3.0 +50/+50/+50 charge enhanced distributors, which (even more than in 2.1) are overwhelming a large part of the game's prior decision-taking, just as for example 3000 Mj shields on a fast medium long since overwhelmed the prior skill of keeping one's shield up during SCB use. In both cases the error margins are now so generous that much of the prior skill discipline ceases to exist - the desired outcome is near-guaranteed, with good pip management or merely middling.

I agree with you entirely about the PvP/PvE thing but as ever we come back to the other side of that coin: unless and until PvE-ers are regularly faced by NPC opponents max-specced as a PvP combat ship might be and employing apex tactics accordingly, exclusively PvE players are being exposed to a fraction only of the game's combat development, leading to artificial forum debates. Perma-boost should be something that affects the character of both sides of at least some PvE encounters ... not just one side.

I hope that Frontier will build upon their new wing missions so as to introduce a whole suite of optional PvE combat challenges that mean that balance discussions can take place with everyone having a greater degree of shared perspective and interest in the outcomes.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

On the topic of perma-boost, though, I'm not sure that it is really messing around with the flight model - more just considering the consequence of ED 3.0 +50/+50/+50 charge enhanced distributors, which (even more than in 2.1) are overwhelming a large part of the game's prior decision-taking, just as for example 3000 Mj shields on a fast medium long since overwhelmed the prior skill of keeping one's shield up during SCB use. In both cases the error margins are now so generous that much of the prior skill discipline ceases to exist - the desired outcome is near-guaranteed, with good pip management or merely middling.

I agree with you entirely about the PvP/PvE thing but as ever we come back to the other side of that coin: unless and until PvE-ers are regularly faced by NPC opponents max-specced as a PvP combat ship might be and employing apex tactics accordingly, exclusively PvE players are being exposed to a fraction only of the game's combat development, leading to artificial forum debates. Perma-boost should be something that affects the character of both sides of at least some PvE encounters ... not just one side.

I hope that Frontier will build upon their new wing missions so as to introduce a whole suite of optional PvE combat challenges that mean that balance discussions can take place with everyone having a greater degree of shared perspective and interest in the outcomes.

I engineered my Anaconda so I could go canyon-running; in a frickin' Anaconda!

The only reason this works for my Conda, is by way of being able to perma-boost, because then I can use Boost+Lateral Thrusters and/or Boost+Pitch&Yaw continuously in order to not splat into a wall or in the case of rough terrain the ground! I can make my Conda very closely follow rough terrain this way - it's a very thrilling ride when you're the one piloting the ship.

There are at least 3 threads recently added in this forum calling for the flight model to be fracked around with, in ways which would render the above impossible. Just so that the PvP-Pro-Bros can cause more explosions.

No. Thank. You.

 

[Frenotx]

On the topic of perma-boost, though, I'm not sure that it is really messing around with the flight model - more just considering the consequence of ED 3.0 +50/+50/+50 charge enhanced distributors, which (even more than in 2.1) are overwhelming a large part of the game's prior decision-taking, just as for example 3000 Mj shields on a fast medium long since overwhelmed the prior skill of keeping one's shield up during SCB use. In both cases the error margins are now so generous that much of the prior skill discipline ceases to exist - the desired outcome is near-guaranteed, with good pip management or merely middling.

I agree with you entirely about the PvP/PvE thing but as ever we come back to the other side of that coin: unless and until PvE-ers are regularly faced by NPC opponents max-specced as a PvP combat ship might be and employing apex tactics accordingly, exclusively PvE players are being exposed to a fraction only of the game's combat development, leading to artificial forum debates. Perma-boost should be something that affects the character of both sides of at least some PvE encounters ... not just one side.

I hope that Frontier will build upon their new wing missions so as to introduce a whole suite of optional PvE combat challenges that mean that balance discussions can take place with everyone having a greater degree of shared perspective and interest in the outcomes.

The disparity between PvE "ratting" and PvP "assassination" type gameplay (and the varying build pressures that come from that) is one of the most problematic things negatively affecting any hope of balance in this game. A lot of my frustration with 3.0 came from FDev making engineering even more powerful (instead of taking this opportunity to tone it down), thus even further widening that gap and segmenting the player base. Until that gap is addressed, I don't think a particularly satisfying balance can ever be reached, nor can interesting organic player-on-player interactions ever flourish.

I engineered my Anaconda so I could go canyon-running; in a frickin' Anaconda!

The only reason this works for my Conda, is by way of being able to perma-boost, because then I can use Boost+Lateral Thrusters and/or Boost+Pitch&Yaw continuously in order to not splat into a wall or in the case of rough terrain the ground! I can make my Conda very closely follow rough terrain this way - it's a very thrilling ride when you're the one piloting the ship.

There are at least 3 threads recently added in this forum calling for the flight model to be fracked around with, in ways which would render the above impossible. Just so that the PvP-Pro-Bros can cause more explosions.

No. Thank. You.

Yes, an anaconda would probably struggle to canyon run. Yes, it probably should struggle to canyon run. Losing the ability to canyon run in one specific ship isn't really losing gameplay, any more than adding a FAS clone constitutes adding gameplay. If there was some weird issue that was negatively affecting some areas of play but also by some weird consequence was making the T9 the best racing ship in the game, you bet I'd still want that issue fixed.


This whole thing makes me think of a patient with a broken leg. The doctor say he should set the leg so that it can begin to heal, but the patients say, "No, no, you can't do that! I wouldn't be able to wiggle my leg around in this one particular weird way anymore! Think of what I'd be losing!"

 

[Brrokk]

Here's an off-the-top-of my-head badly thought out recipe for how I'd sort all this out.

(1) Move more of the combat interest to supercruise. Improve the radar display to make distances more linear (but with a log curve at extreme range). Make your FSD affect your ship's supercruise speed as well as jump range. Suddenly, combat ships will have another good reason to use adequate FSDs, and stalking around in supercruise will become interesting. Since you can't reverse in supercruise, this becomes the dogfighty non-newtonian bit. Since supercruise is already non-newtonian and non-relativistic, that's no loss of scientific accuracy.

Maybe... add weapon effects which can be unleashed in supercruise. I'm not sure about the ramifications of that.

(2) Revamp the flight model in normal space to full 6DOF newtonian. But have a Flight Assist computer which continuously looks at your control inputs and tries to make the ship do what they are saying, using all available thrusters. This would make ships with more mass / smaller thrusters more drifty automatically, because of F=ma. It would imply a velocity limit, because joysticks have finite movement. Allow FA-Off as before.

The unsolved problem in my idea is, what should zero velocity (centred joystick) be relative to. Near a station or planet surface that's obvious. In a CZ or other instance, maybe it should be the centre of gravity of all objects present.

Badly thought out and not going to happen, but feel free to kick it around.

 

[Frenotx]

Here's an off-the-top-of my-head badly thought out recipe for how I'd sort all this out.

(1) Move more of the combat interest to supercruise. Improve the radar display to make distances more linear (but with a log curve at extreme range). Make your FSD affect your ship's supercruise speed as well as jump range. Suddenly, combat ships will have another good reason to use adequate FSDs, and stalking around in supercruise will become interesting. Since you can't reverse in supercruise, this becomes the dogfighty non-newtonian bit. Since supercruise is already non-newtonian and non-relativistic, that's no loss of scientific accuracy.

Maybe... add weapon effects which can be unleashed in supercruise. I'm not sure about the ramifications of that.

(2) Revamp the flight model in normal space to full 6DOF newtonian. But have a Flight Assist computer which continuously looks at your control inputs and tries to make the ship do what they are saying, using all available thrusters. This would make ships with more mass / smaller thrusters more drifty automatically, because of F=ma. It would imply a velocity limit, because joysticks have finite movement. Allow FA-Off as before.

The unsolved problem in my idea is, what should zero velocity (centred joystick) be relative to. Near a station or planet surface that's obvious. In a CZ or other instance, maybe it should be the centre of gravity of all objects present.

Badly thought out and not going to happen, but feel free to kick it around.

That's an interesting way to incorporate both a dogfighty feel, and a realistic space feel into one game. I don't think it's necessarily right for elite, but it is a cool concept.

 

[StiTch]

There are at least 3 threads recently added in this forum calling for the flight model to be fracked around with, in ways which would render the above impossible. Just so that the PvP-Pro-Bros can cause more explosions.

No. Thank. You.

You managed to ignore pretty much everything of substance in TS's post just so you can fulfill your usual PvP bashing agenda.

Take it elsewhere until you're willing to discuss matters like a grown up. Go on, there's some soft play toys in the corner.

A lot of my frustration with 3.0 came from FDev making engineering even more powerful (instead of taking this opportunity to tone it down)

This is ultimately the legacy of grandfathering. Instead of having an opportunity to provide some balance, they instead felt the need to buff not just the raw primary stats for each module, but also a number of additional stats to cover the various secondaries that were previously available.

Is it any wonder that the need to make decisions, both in outfitting and in combat, is decreasingly relevant?

Here's an off-the-top-of my-head badly thought out recipe for how I'd sort all this out.

(1) Move more of the combat interest to supercruise. Improve the radar display to make distances more linear (but with a log curve at extreme range). Make your FSD affect your ship's supercruise speed as well as jump range. Suddenly, combat ships will have another good reason to use adequate FSDs, and stalking around in supercruise will become interesting. Since you can't reverse in supercruise, this becomes the dogfighty non-newtonian bit. Since supercruise is already non-newtonian and non-relativistic, that's no loss of scientific accuracy.

Maybe... add weapon effects which can be unleashed in supercruise. I'm not sure about the ramifications of that.

I've always said ED would benefit from more involved tracking/stealth mechanics. With the new C&P and "tracker limpets" development, it's a prime opportunity to look at how we hunt people down before we pull them out of SC.

I am not entirely sure about changing SC speed (though the idea is certainly interesting) but I've been thinking about aspects such as heat being more relevant in SC visibility (much like normal space - if running cool, your blip is unresolved at some ranges) etc.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Yes, an anaconda would probably struggle to canyon run. Yes, it probably should struggle to canyon run. Losing the ability to canyon run in one specific ship isn't really losing gameplay, any more than adding a FAS clone constitutes adding gameplay. If there was some weird issue that was negatively affecting some areas of play but also by some weird consequence was making the T9 the best racing ship in the game, you bet I'd still want that issue fixed.


This whole thing makes me think of a patient with a broken leg. The doctor say he should set the leg so that it can begin to heal, but the patients say, "No, no, you can't do that! I wouldn't be able to wiggle my leg around in this one particular weird way anymore! Think of what I'd be losing!"

And this is why your ideas should be thrown in the trash where they belong.

See, Engineering enabled me to do the sorts of things I can do in my Conda - that was the whole point of going through the engineering grind in the first place!.

Your trashcan-worthy forum-meta-games are saying "please hobble the ships because engineering - which was designed to improve the ships - improves the ships and it upsets the PvP-Pro-Bro-ePeen-Brigade"

No. Thank. You.

 

[znôrt]

Until that gap is addressed, I don't think a particularly satisfying balance can ever be reached, nor can interesting organic player-on-player interactions ever flourish.

i suggested it a while ago: elite classic open mode, no engineers.

ok, i'll fetch my helmet ...

 

[StiTch]

And this is why your ideas should be thrown in the trash where they belong.

See, Engineering enabled me to do the sorts of things I can do in my Conda - that was the whole point of going through the engineering grind in the first place!.

Your trashcan-worthy forum-meta-games are saying "please hobble the ships because engineering - which was designed to improve the ships - improves the ships and it upsets the PvP-Pro-Bro-ePeen-Brigade"

No. Thank. You.

Come on mister grumpy...I have something to give you so you never run out of things to throw out the pram

There's a good little grump...*pats head*

Spoiler

 

[Frenotx]

And this is why your ideas should be thrown in the trash where they belong.

See, Engineering enabled me to do the sorts of things I can do in my Conda - that was the whole point of going through the engineering grind in the first place!.

Your trashcan-worthy forum-meta-games are saying "please hobble the ships because engineering - which was designed to improve the ships - improves the ships and it upsets the PvP-Pro-Bro-ePeen-Brigade"

No. Thank. You.

You are just convinced that I'm a primarily PvP player (and likely ganker specifically, considering your vitriol), aren't you? Is it really so inconcievable that someone that engages primarily in PvE combat would care about the game being balanced and well designed? Is it really that overwhelmingly mindblowing that someone might actually want to see challenge and variety in the game, instead of just championing changes to make the game easier for them?

 

[StiTch]

You are just convinced that I'm a primarily PvP player (and likely ganker specifically, considering your vitriol), aren't you?

He turns up on any thread he sees that discusses combat balance, engineering balance, ship balance, flight mechanics etc. and starts throwing said vitriol at everyone in sight that doesn't argue for complete and utter god mode, and pretends his "argument" is viable by attacking players for being nasty psycho griffers rather than attacking the actual substance of arguments.

He's best ignored, or given soft toys and a nappy and left to play in the corner.

 

[Frenotx]

He turns up on any thread he sees that discusses combat balance, engineering balance, ship balance, flight mechanics etc. and starts throwing said vitriol at everyone in sight that doesn't argue for complete and utter god mode, and pretends his "argument" is viable by attacking players for being nasty psycho griffers rather than attacking the actual substance of arguments.

He's best ignored, or given soft toys and a nappy and left to play in the corner.

I spend as much time as I do on the forums because I see balancing Elite and coming up with new fun and interesting mechanics as a big, complicated, and very interesting puzzle. Thinking about and discussing all the ways the game could be improved and added upon is basically a fun game in itself. I don't understand how someone could remain so motivated as to stalk the forums and shoot down all combat-related ideas when their only goal appears to be the removal of as many gameplay elements as possible, or the fanatical defense of the status quo. How does someone like that not just get bored? Where's the mental engagement? Anyway, I digress.

 

[Quantis Trap]

My assertion is not so much that it's impossible to GET on someone's tail, but rather that it's pointless because of how quickly to called-out ships can just filp over and face you again. You don't get exciting chases of one person trying to shake the other; you get the lead person just flipping over in a handful of seconds, then someone boosting past the other to avoid getting shot.

While I would mostly agree the thoughts in this thread, I don't see the problem of the ships being able to flip fast as being the problem. In space, especially with FA-off, space ships should be able to turn really really fast due to lack of resistance. I think the problem is more that engineered ships are now so tanky the battles last much longer.

 

[StiTch]

I spend as much time as I do on the forums because I see balancing Elite and coming up with new fun and interesting mechanics as a big, complicated, and very interesting puzzle. Thinking about and discussing all the ways the game could be improved and added upon is basically a fun game in itself. I don't understand how someone could remain so motivated as to stalk the forums and shoot down all combat-related ideas when their only goal appears to be the removal of as many gameplay elements as possible, or the fanatical defense of the status quo. How does someone like that not just get bored? Where's the mental engagement? Anyway, I digress.

What gets me is why we have to pretend the game cannot have any variety.

If pressing the trigger and watching an NPC blow up gives one a trouser tent, then take your 'conda or 'vette to a LowRES and destroy harmless vipers and the like. If players conversely want challenge, FD could develop tougher sites with tougher NPCs in wings behaving aggressively, and it wouldn't remove the ability for players to have personal God Mode moments against small fry.

And as TS points out we would then collectively have a far greater understanding of combat balance, because the only way to even begin to understand the limits (or lack of limits) wouldn't be solely to get into meta PvP fights.

 

[Quantis Trap]

I still hope that one days we might have the ability in the main game to challenge another player or wing to an SLF dual. This would put all the players involved into a match with small fighter which aren't very powerful and the battles would go much faster.

I suggested this feature a long while back:

How about a new SLF dual feature (aka in game CQC with consequences)!

The suggestion thread for it.

I think it would be much more fun because it wouldn't be a long jousting match and would be more based on skill.

 

[Esquisite]

Yes, I too have been both shocked and saddened by some of the remarks levelled at Frenotx. As he himself is too modest and restrained to answer them directly, let me explain:

Frenotx is predominantly a PvE combat pilot but whose near-unparalleled knowledge of this game's flight model has enabled him, almost uniquely, successfully to cross-apply his PvE skills into high achievement in occasional PvP.

In one memorable Beta, Frenotx fought arguably the best Corvette pilot in the entire game - Morbad - in the best Corvette ship in the entire game - Morbad's Corvette, with took 800 hours to make - with an SLF alongside - and Frenotx managed to break the Corvette's shields.

When both side's POV vids were uploaded, this achievement attracted even the personal praise of Sandro Sammarco, the game's Lead Designer.

Frenotx was flying a Viper IV.

In fairness to the critics, there have been a lot of negative threads on the forums recently and I understand that not everyone can know another's history.

But, in short, a number of posters in this thread are casting doubt upon the flight knowledge and flight skills of one of this forum's most valuable contributors, whose flight knowledge and flight skills are in truth beyond doubt.

Big ships are easy to break in the attrition game when using smalls.

It's just a case of most of the time unless the big ship pilot wants to stay to the death they will wake out.

I've chased many a corvette and cutter away with nothing more than a sidey or a cobra. Especially ones using turrets.

I disagree with this thread entirely, I like FAO fighting. It feels like a space battle. If I wanted to dog fight I would have bought a flight simulator.

As an fdl pilot and small ship pilot I like taking on big prey and challenging myself. Using biweaves and paper hulls tomkeep my speed up makes it even more interesting.

 

[Truesilver]

See, Engineering enabled me to do the sorts of things I can do in my Conda - that was the whole point of going through the engineering grind in the first place!

The 'diluted/removed benefit of sunk grind' issue has already affected those with an interest in combat (PvP or PvE) far more than those with an interest in original pastimes such as Conda Canyoning, though.

We have had rebalance after rebalance. I have hangars full of nerfed thermal cascade weapons, nerfed rapid fire weapons and now superseded legacy modules of every possible description. So many hangars full that I have 32 ships at Shinrarta full of the things, plus at three other stations, plus near-full storage on top. 90%+ superseded and waiting to be wiped or sold.

Whilst I did enjoy your Conda Canyoning description we come back to the fact that if the relative gain of every modification relative to all else must be preserved forever, the game would be frozen.

I still hope that one days we might have the ability in the main game to challenge another player or wing to an SLF dual.

I really like this idea.

In one memorable Beta, Frenotx fought arguably the best Corvette pilot in the entire game - Morbad - in the best Corvette ship in the entire game - Morbad's Corvette, with took 800 hours to make - with an SLF alongside - and Frenotx managed to break the Corvette's shields.

When both side's POV vids were uploaded, this achievement attracted even the personal praise of Sandro Sammarco, the game's Lead Designer.

Frenotx was flying a Viper IV.

Big ships are easy to break in the attrition game when using smalls.

It's just a case of most of the time unless the big ship pilot wants to stay to the death they will wake out.

I've chased many a corvette and cutter away with nothing more than a sidey or a cobra. Especially ones using turrets.

Lol man, you did clock the fact didn't you, that when Frentox's Viper IV broke the shields on Morbad's Vette, I made a point of stating that Frentox was up against the guy considered by many to be the best PvP Corvette pilot in the game, flying the best PvP Corvette in the game..?

Because there are Vette pilots and Vette pilots, and Vettes and Vettes, if you see what I mean.

You don't get to chase Morbad away ... he uses a unique build that even Ryan_m of SDC has credited. His shield drops, then he blows the other guy(s) away anyway.

I spend as much time as I do on the forums because I see balancing Elite and coming up with new fun and interesting mechanics as a big, complicated, and very interesting puzzle.

I would like to agree but in my heart of hearts I know that I do it because I have an occupation that gives me generous amounts of access to the internet yet doesn't actually let me play ED.

 

[Old Duck]

Yesterday I was "flying" my Conda from the rear corner of the bridge using camera mode, and I was amazed / dismayed at just how radically it rolls and pitches for such a large ship. This is the Anaconda I'm talking about, with undersized class-D thrusters! I can't even imagine what the Corvette (don't own one) is like!

Having served on a real seafaring ship, it felt unrealistic for the ship's size, as my crew would be constantly sick or suffering from blackouts and redouts from this extreme maneuvering. Try it for yourself, you'll see what I mean. I'm guessing VR folks can appreciate this even more. You really don't know how unrealistic the flight model is on these larger ships until you fly from the back seat with the entire bridge in view.

ps - this would probably wouldn't bother me if artificial gravity and inertial dampeners were part of the ED lore. After all, some of the starships of ST:TNG could whip around like a small fighter.

And my experience is with big boats, not giant jets, so perhaps that skews my sense of 'realistic'.

 

[Rafe Zetter]

What I feel is an issue is the way how engineers affect ships in an way more exponential way entirely changing the relations between the ships as they existed before.

oh look - someone finally gets it. It's only been three years since I said this would happen - I said when engineering was announced that being able to engineer a ship to a point whereby it has flight characteristics of an entirely different type of ship would be a problem.

Engineers made the different types and "supposed roles" of ships, mostly, irrelevant.

FDev clearly didn't want a situation where a pilot in Ship type A, had almost no ability to fight back against an attacker in ship type B - and I can understand that from a wider perspective - but it's just not how reality would be.

I know, I know "reality" - who needs it right? Well now it's being recognised that having a ship that supposed to be strong on agility as it's base spec out manouvered by a ship that has worse agility stats, but has now been engineered way past that, means people have no choice in whether they want to engineer or not.

Engineering is no longer a choice, but a necessity even against NPC's; and in PvP - even more so.

Told you so.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Yesterday I was "flying" my Conda from the rear corner of the bridge using camera mode, and I was amazed / dismayed at just how radically it rolls and pitches for such a large ship. This is the Anaconda I'm talking about, with undersized class-D thrusters! I can't even imagine what the Corvette (don't own one) is like!

Having served on a real seafaring ship, it felt unrealistic for the ship's size, as my crew would be constantly sick or suffering from blackouts and redouts from this extreme maneuvering. Try it for yourself, you'll see what I mean. I'm guessing VR folks can appreciate this even more. You really don't know how unrealistic the flight model is on these larger ships until you fly from the back seat with the entire bridge in view.

ps - this would probably wouldn't bother me if artificial gravity and inertial dampeners were part of the ED lore. After all, some of the starships of ST:TNG could whip around like a small fighter.

And my experience is with big boats, not giant jets, so perhaps that skews my sense of 'realistic'.

And my experience is with 8 G break turns, and Elite is seriously unrealistic. Blackouts/redouts would be common, if the game was realistic.

Artificial gravity is the only way crews could survive. Frontier fears the blowback from doing the most used handwavium in space games.