High class sensor buff

[Gewinnste]

Dear FD,

I would like to strongly suggest that high class sensors be immune to chaff and silent running so that big ships are finally viable in PvP again.

E.g. 8A sensors should be completely immune and lower class sensors less, accordingly. Right now, there is practically no difference between 160 t 8A's and light weight cheap class 3 sensors. How does that make sense?

Also, please remove experimental engineering effects that only favor small ships vs big ships like phasing sequence, the torpedo effects etc.

Right now, PvP is comically imbalanced in favor of small combat ships and I am starting to lose interest in the game I love since the 80's.

Best regards, Felix (CMDR Gewinnste)

 

[FuzzySpider]

No way.

Make them better at dealing with chaff maybe (perhaps have the arch at which gimbals or turrets can fire narrow considerably instead of losing focus) but not immune.

And immune to silent running? Absolutely not. People flying shieldless small ships would be torn to ribbons instantly without the stealth advantage.

 

[Gewinnste]

Thumbs up for your first suggestion, but do you really want small ships to even have a chance against monster combat ships, let alone the perverted situation right now, where small ships can even KILL big ships? That's a world upside down, can it be any more obvious?

Current PvP is totally broken because of chaff, silent running and ridiculous experimental engineer effects like "phasing sequence" that almost exclusively favor small combat ships vs big combat ships.

Please, please, please make meaningful changes to the game that's currently in a silly state regarding PvP.

Cheers, Felix

 

[Hell Razor5543]

I agree that the top end sensors currently have no advantage over lesser units. I also get why people say that the top end sensors should not be immune to silent running. However, how about a tweak to the latter (which would require the pilot of the stealthy ship to be careful)? If, during an instance, an A Rated sensor gets a lock on a silent running ship it 'learns' that ships characteristics, so that silent running will no longer fool them during THAT encounter. Once the encounter has finished and the ships have left the area the sensors then reset to a default configuration.

 

[Allchemyst]

I'd much rather see the added ability for co-pilots in large multi-crewed ships to "narrow" the sensor angle towards the gunner's aimed direction (let's say, a mouse wheel function or other), so that, if aimed properly, the sensor would get a much better reading, but only if the gunner's aim was really on point.

For an example, if a small ship were to use a HS, the gunner would need to narrow the ship's sensors so much it couldn't detect or target anything outside od the sensor "cone". And if said small ship were to go behind an asteroid and use cover, the gunner would have one hell of a time trying to get a hold of them again.

Personally, about base sensor stats, I'd much rather see increased range on high-class sensors. Why does my Cutter's A-grade sensors have a range of only 8km?

But I would be in favor of class A and B sensors giving a little more base accuracy to gimbals and turrets, and class D and e a little less accuracy. I do not believe, however, that chaff should be something gimballed weapons can ignore in any situation. De-targeting is efficient enough.

 

[Gewinnste]

De-targetting is clearly not enough. Do you succeed in targeting a small, agile combat ship with an Anaconda once it boosted away beyond 1 km, which they do right after they inflicted crippling first strike damage to your big combat ship that's supposed to destroy puny cheapo ships right away in a reasonable ED world?

 

[Allchemyst]

De-targetting is clearly not enough. Do you succeed in targeting a small, agile combat ship with an Anaconda once it boosted away beyond 1 km, which they do right after they inflicted crippling first strike damage to your big combat ship that's supposed to destroy puny cheapo ships right away in a reasonable ED world?

Few things are reasonable about large vs small ship combat right now.

For instance, barring PVP (in which I do not partake), my favorite weapon loadout of all time is dual efficient beam lasers on a Corvette. I don't care how cold a small ship is running, how much chaff it's spewing, how many family members are praying... I'm going to hit it and take it down, more slowly because of range diminishing returns... But like hell it's going to evade me. Of course, I only started getting good results after toying with mouse sensitivity and a a lot of training (cuz' I'm not precisely a genius of combat). More importantly thought, because of engineering, the sheer amount of survivability large ships have is purely bonkers. Right now, my corvette has 4k shield resistance against all damage types (meaning it can tank 4k continuous damage, without even using a SCB), and just as much hull resistance. Barring a salvo of multiple resonating torpedoes, nothing is going to give one the the "big three" a "first strike" worth a sweat.

That you'd speak of "devastating first strikes" from small ships migh imply your ship isin't fully engineered yet (seriously, I wish nobody had to engineer ships, that stuff's painful... I almost envy you), in which case... Well, sadly, the game is balanced around engineers now. I profoundly disagree with the whole engineering deal, but it must be taken in consideration. large ships, in their prime engineered state, don't go down easily at all. Many members of the PVP community are even complaining that the average fight lasts up to 20 or even 40 minutes, between two fully armed to the teeth large ships, with all the boom they bring.

Now, "in a perfect world" without engineers, where alpha strikes would still be a thing (and they were a thing before engineers), your point would have much more value. Now... I mean, I may be wrong, but big ships are just too tanky right now. Boringly so. Giving them that kind of advantage wouldn't improve the game. G5 dirty drives will make even an anaconda much more manoeverable, to the point where it will be a threat even to smaller ships. You may have a harder time killing small ships in PVP (because now the agility is used by an actual human), but they're not going to kill a large ship unless they're a lot more skilled than the large ship pilot. And, to top it all off, as larger vessels mass-lock smaller ones and not vice-versa... large ships always get to flee at will, unless someone's pledged to that Grom guy.

 

[goemon]

a-grade sensors as well as higher class sensors already push out the auto-resolve distance. maybe this effect needs to be more nuanced in times of longrange weapons etc.?

 

[Gewinnste]

"... even to smaller ships ..." ?
Of course to smaller ships! Big ships should kill smaller ships! Isn't that obvious?
Btw, since you said you you don't have experience in PvP, why are you chiming in at all? You obviously have no clue what the topic is about.

 

[Allchemyst]

"... even to smaller ships ..." ?
Of course to smaller ships! Big ships should kill smaller ships! Isn't that obvious?
Btw, since you said you you don't have experience in PvP, why are you chiming in at all? You obviously have no clue what the topic is about.

First : No. The place of smaller ships was always a very controversial one, with the rough idea being that they constitute a different playstyle altogether, but ships are not, ever, balanced with "big ships must kill small ships" in mind. If your idea of the ship roster we have right now is one of simple "progression" with larger, more expensive ships being always better at combat, you're simply in the wrong. The idea that even small ships can be a threat to larger ones makes gameplay much more interesting, actually.

Secondly... Really? Most of this game's players don't engage in PVP at all, that's something FD actually admitted. That means PVE players' opinions on the matter is just as valid. More importantly, not engaging in PVP does not mean one does not understand how the game works. Even worse, since your suggestion is one that affects all types of gameplay... Why the vexation? Why would a PVEr's opinion be meaningless?


Besides, when you look at prior threads on this subject, you see a plethora of extremely skilled players demanding that large ship survivability be toned down, because it's simply overwhelming. Large ships will have a harder time hitting small ones, that's true. That's the whole point of small ships. The notion that - instead - larger ships should be given a buff so as to better destroy smaller ships... is pretty much a dead giveaway you have no clue what's going on either.

TL;DR : Large ships are balanced to be a threat to smaller ships, but not to stomp on them. Some small ships are designed so that, with proper armament and skill, they will be a threat to larger ships. You cannot buy your way to victory just by grinding your way to a larger ship. That's how the game's always been.

 

[Gunnet]

Larger and higher grade sensors having some chaff resistance could be a good change. It makes sense that they would have some kind of benefit beyond their current negligible range increase. Not being able to rely on chaff would also place more value on having the skill to keep outside of a large ship's firing arcs.

Maybe it should scale with range? So that chaff would still be effective for smaller ships which are keeping their distance (and especially running away, since small ships should generally be able to run from what they can't fight), but leave it dangerous to approach closely. Range scaling would also increase the utility of the long range sensor mod, which comes with an incredibly high weight cost for large ships.

 

[Gewinnste]

The main reason why most players don't participate in PvP IS because it's such a mess right now and for the reasons I gave. Players work their way up to big ships just to find out they're a liability in what's supposed to be the royal discipline in ED.

And yes, big ships should stomp small ships, this is obviously logical. Instead, it's not even equal, which I could somehow live with - but it's simply turned upside down! How the hell can anyone be fine with that, except if they're too lazy to make 700 million?

 

[goemon]

The main reason why most players don't participate in PvP IS because it's such a mess right now and for the reasons I gave. Players work their way up to big ships just to find out they're a liability in what's supposed to be the royal discipline in ED.

And yes, big ships should stomp small ships, this is obviously logical. Instead, it's not even equal, which I could somehow live with - but it's simply turned upside down! How the hell can anyone be fine with that, except if they're too lazy to make 700 million?

i am one who is generally fine with it.

as you can't gain CR by pvp, especially not 700 mio, i generally think it is a good idea nit to bind the win-button in pvp to large ships.

generally i'd think, a balanced approached (small ship and huge ships being viable in pvp, with small ships being in severe risk of destruction by single mistakes, and huge ships being tough but risking huge rebuys) would make more sense.

so people can fly what they enjoy most.

as for firing arcs ... together with turrets and backpedal there isn't really a way to stay out of a firing arc in a small ship, if the huge ship uses gimbals and turrets - chaff helps with that.

 

[Gewinnste]

Don't you get that it's not about a "win button" for big ships, but instead test it shouldn't be an auto-lose button for big ships? There's a wide spectrum between those extremes and right now we're far on the latter side of of the spectrum.

Look at forum threads on which ships to use in PvP and everybody says that big ships just don't work. What more do you need to see what a misery PvP is right now?

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

Dear FD,

I would like to strongly suggest that high class sensors be immune to chaff and silent running so that big ships are finally viable in PvP again.

the issue with chaff is not that it works against any type of sensors,
the issiue is how it works - it makes the gimbal weapons swing around unrealistically.
realistically, the weapons would automatically fix themselfs if the target cannot be resolved.

E.g. 8A sensors should be completely immune and lower class sensors less, accordingly. Right now, there is practically no difference between 160 t 8A's and light weight cheap class 3 sensors. How does that make sense?

8A sensors have more then 1km more range and twice the hitpoints of a 3A sensor.

Also, please remove experimental engineering effects that only favor small ships vs big ships like phasing sequence, the torpedo effects etc.

phasing sequence favors no shipsize, only works against those who hide their weak hull behind lots of shield booster
Torpedos are anti-big ship weapons to begin with, and you can counter them with any big ship... and that easier then with small ones.

Right now, PvP is comically imbalanced in favor of small combat ships and I am starting to lose interest in the game I love since the 80's.


Best regards, Felix (CMDR Gewinnste)

it favors comically to those investing in more skill then those investing only in a big ships hull

 

[Gewinnste]

What? Which ships do have lots of shield boosters? Big ships, of course, and for a reason: They're the best and most expensive ships! That's the reason for why to buy them and I e.g. apparently have enough skill because I kill more big ships in a big ship in PvP than the other way around. But I kill almost no small ships in a big ship in PvP, instead, I get killed and that's what everybody else says, as well. Otherwise, people in forums would say that big ships aren't viable in PvP.

What more do you want in order to see that PvP is broken? How can anyone be fine with the fact that the strongest, most expensive ships keep losing against small cheapo ships in PvP?

I really hate to repeat myself but apparently this is necessary.

 

[Troy_McClure]

Haha! Top quality irony for your delectation, everyone! +1

What's that? Oh!..Oh dear! -1

 

[Gewinnste]

I didn't quite get that, but to close the topic I'd like to say that if people are fine with lightweight boxers beating heavyweight boxers, that's really sad and dumb.

Those people may say that I should just play another game, but I take issue with the game I love since 1986 going to .

 

[Gewinnste]

...hit.

 

[MBaldelli]

I didn't quite get that, but to close the topic I'd like to say that if people are fine with lightweight boxers beating heavyweight boxers, that's really sad and dumb.

Those people may say that I should just play another game, but I take issue with the game I love since 1986 going to .

You think getting the FDevs involved in on this is going to stop me from making a point? To you, Felix? I'll get to why I've returned in a moment. Let's get to the "facts" first.

This isn't a fisticuffs going on here. This is an air battle in a space setting. Your entire line of suggestions from this thread to this thread relies on technology and the concept of size == superiority. While this might work on paper it fails to take into account or consideration of the most basic achilles heel: The pilot.

Yes... PEBCAK is the problem with these requests.

Do I need to remind you that there are battles littered through history that show the lesser forces with inferior weapons was still perfectly capable of pummeling the ever living daylights out of superior numbers and superior weaponry being used against them?

You've spent what? 280,000,000+ (rough estimate) on that decked out Anaconda or 416,000,000+ (rough estimate) on that Imperial Cutter and you're still getting pummeled into a rebuy? Even with a fully engineered layout? Sounds to me like the problem is still sitting in the chair.

And you think making the Anaconda or the Imperial Cutter godlike will solve the problems your messages to the forums suggesting leveling the playing field in some way -- as they clearly imply -- will solve the problem? That, to me, spits in the face of those Finnish Forces that fought in the Winter War or the Polish forces in the Battle of Klushino just to name two off the top of my head.

It was pointed out in the prior thread that the 8A sensors are superior to those in the Vulture. If you're getting beat then I think the problem isn't the technology.. It's the pilot.

So, until you can provide unquestionable proof in a one-on-one battle with the same ships and configurations that you were the victor, this sounds to me like the problem of the self entitled and not a problem the ships or the game... As the game has been play-tested and this would've been addressed years ago.

Now back to why I returned in spite of warnings issued. I've seen people much like you making these sort of suggestions. To the DoD and their superiors because they blamed their losing the skirmish or the sparring to the equipment being the malfunction. What do you think they were told?

Read Sun Tsu.
Read Liu Bei and Sun Quan and the Battle of Red Cliff.
Read about the Battles of General Patton and General MacArthur.
Read about Erwin Rommel and why he failed.

After those readings they were told the same thing too:

No matter how good you think you are, there will always be someone better.
No matter how fast you think you are, there will always be someone faster.
No matter how comprehensive you are, there will always be someone more superior.

And until you can live with that realization and that humility, no one will listen to you.