Hot take on Ship Health and TTK

Hey, so in the wake of Odyssey's trailer drop, some people have commented saying that they want to go outside of their ship and repair it. Space walk style...

It got me thinking however about the games current balance of module, shield, and hull health.

If we look at other Sci fi franchises, say Star Wars or Star Trek, ships tend to be quite survivable and repairs are not easy to come by, thus making it sometimes helpful to the plot to have the gang stop to take the time to repair. But within the bubble, ships seem to be far too sturdy and survivable to warrant any kind of emergency repairs.

A properly engineered ship, and a pilot who knows what they're doing will easily be able to bug out of a situation to lick their wounds instantly at a spaceport or carrier.

Sure there are limpets we can use in battle for repairs but often such limpets sacrifice combat performance for a marginal gain, ie, you'd probably be better off having a hull reinforcement and Module reinforcement than a cargo rack and limpet controller.

So should combat be changed to have weaker shields and ships? Where engagement times are shorter and more lethal?

If we look at the expanse, ship to ship combat is far more destructive. And probably preferable to giving a proper space Sci fi feel to Elite dangerous.

The problem is, balancing. If smaller ships are weak enough to pose this kind of thrill seeking risky combat, then ideally, the large ships would also be more vulnerable, but fundamentally I struggle to find myself drawn to playing in anything other than my large Federal Corvette. Not only does it have a rapid time to kill, but my Corvette is also incredibly survivable. I almost never lose shields and my costs to participate in combat are minimal rearm and repair costs.

Fundamentally what I'm getting at here is the frustration of having to go through exceptionally thick shields. Both as an aggressor and defender.

While I get the appeal of super heavy shield tanks, I think it takes a lot of the danger of flying in Elite. And at least for PvE, it takes a lot of appeal away from smaller more vulnerable ships where time spent in a combat zone is minimal and total payout decreases. Why bother trying to farm the Sirius community goals in a Federal Gunship or Federal assault ship when a Corvette or Cutter simply remains indestructible while the medium ships get torn to shreds repeatedly. Lethality needs to be increased while making larger ships draw more fire so that preference of ship size is given more to players and less on optimizing the grind.
 
I tend to agree with your sentiment. So many weapons seem comically ineffectual on combat targets. The risk in pve with even a half decent medium build is pretty small. Large ships, you could probably put 4 pips to shields and go afk for an hour or more without the npcs killing you. If ttk were dramatically reduced across the board though, the game would become much more skill dependent and less gear dependent. Pilot ability to evade and aim would be critical to success. For players like us, that would be a dream come true. Unfortunately its not in keeping with the 'time served' ethos the game is based on where grind is king. Much of the player base like this model because it helps feel powerful in the game and they can avoid reconciling with their poor skills.
 
It's been discussed plenty of times, and FD repeatedly said they feel shields are way OP. They proposed a thing or two, but everything that might result in the removal of GodMode pve ships lead to a howl of rage and fury from people who want this risk-free experience.
very much this.

also, I'll add, the current implementation barriers from a lot of content. all the smoke, alarms going off, dealing with module malfunctions and such. ...

anyway, as i hope for EVA repairs at some point in the future, i envision it's usefullness where repair limpets and such do play a role - in exploration. A shout-out to the Hull Seals!
 
It's been discussed plenty of times, and FD repeatedly said they feel shields are way OP. They proposed a thing or two, but everything that might result in the removal of GodMode pve ships lead to a howl of rage and fury from people who want this risk-free experience.
I just build my ships to have fun in, they certainly aren't invulnerable - but, naturally, 'the community' doesn't approve of not filling every slot and utility with reinforcements... 🤷‍♂️
 
Has been like that since engineers. You can shield stack tremendous amount of hitpoints but your total DPS can only be increased by almost 100%, so "only" twice as much damage. But when looking at defenses, two single A rated shield boosters will already increase your hitpoints by 100%.
And since you are not limited to only two boosters, you know where the train's gonna go.
However, Fronier actually attempted to baalnce the shield stacking atleast some years ago by adding deminishing returns to HD booster stackling, similar to how resistances work. But thanks to massive cryouts from lots of players that just couldn't face any kind of consequence or the inability to outtank a whole CZ, they abandoned it and today call it "a healthy state".
 
As others mentioned, it has been discussed to death already. There has been thousands of pretty good suggestions with breakdowns how to go about it so thing would be balanced. But as Ian Skippy said, there will be plenty of rage from people who got used to play in god-mode. Current (lack of) balance isn't only bad for PVE, making it extremely boring and stale, but also hurts PVP.

By the way, issue isn't only in how shields or hulls work, but in big part with weapon systems and utilities as well. Things definitely need a shakeup, but I honestly don't think it will happen until FDev is in full control here. Developers being cautious and not risking to upset certain slice of playerbase, which is understandable. Although another part of that playerbase, and objectively, game in general, is hurting for it...
 
game in general, is hurting for it...
Really? I never noticed...
All down to interpretation really as my game doesn't appear to be hurting for any of the so-called issues that get pointed out... Perhaps I should take the game seriously?

ETA: Just because one 'can' make an incredibly tough to destroy ship is not making it a compulsory act - just another option.
 
Last edited:
Really? I never noticed...
All down to interpretation really as my game doesn't appear to be hurting for any of the so-called issues that get pointed out... Perhaps I should take the game seriously?

ETA: Just because one 'can' make an incredibly tough to destroy ship is not making it a compulsory act - just another option.
Currently combat builds are extremely streamlined, there's very little actual variance possible. Anything you do that deviates too hard from the meta will simply force you to spend a LOT more time than you normally would have, but will not, in any way, make things more challenging for you. I get that some people prefer most hands-free and easy approach as possible, but there are several good possibilities to please both camps and make things a little bit more challenging for the rest of us. Dogfighting in this game is a chore. There's not even rock-paper-scissors balance presented, bigger means better in pretty much every aspect. That's not good, really.
 
Currently combat builds are extremely streamlined, there's very little actual variance possible. Anything you do that deviates too hard from the meta will simply force you to spend a LOT more time than you normally would have, but will not, in any way, make things more challenging for you. I get that some people prefer most hands-free and easy approach as possible, but there are several good possibilities to please both camps and make things a little bit more challenging for the rest of us. Dogfighting in this game is a chore. There's not even rock-paper-scissors balance presented, bigger means better in pretty much every aspect. That's not good, really.
I do understand the point you are making - for anyone interested in blowing up another player (why not? we play our own game and have no 'right' to decry someone else's enjoyment) it is not going to be a 'brief encounter' - but the skill level of PvP players in flight / combat far exceeds that of the 'average Joe' and by a very large margin of those not particularly interested in combat for fun. Naturally each of us will build to 'survive' encounters we expect, my ships bear little resemblance to yours, no doubt, they would survive long enough to evade (probably) but not to engage as a serious contender. Yours, with a dfifferent 'interest' have to be the best possible.

Understandably, this difference in play dictates my perception of 'balance' as for those times I 'need' better ships I can build for extended survival in PvE 'high risk' encounters. Which benefits me, and my level of skill, immensely.

Sadly, when players reach the zenith of skill in this game it is the 'scrubs' like me that are making life hard for you, as we still need the excessive hand-hold of big shields and their reinforcements, along with plenty of armour to permit us to enjoy the 'challenges' we encounter - said challenge not existing for one such as yourself as you have transcended such poor AI behaviour.

So my arguments are biased toward those of similar or lesser skills than myself - as yours, understandably, will be equally biased to your perception - not just for for the sake of arguing.

Apologies for the 'wall of text'
 
If there is a problem, I don't think it's with shields. I have a 2 booster 550mj biweave FdL (with a class 4 fuel scoop most of the time) that only loses shields when I make a mistake in a 1v3, or similar. My iEagle will take down medium and large ships, although that's against pirates and similar. I could always do some wing assassinations or visit some pirate signal sources.

Point being, a lack of shields and hull in PvE can easily be balanced out by not being hit in the first place. FDev could nerf shields if they want but likely it won't impact me and many others like me at all.
 
If there is a problem, I don't think it's with shields. I have a 2 booster 550mj biweave FdL (with a class 4 fuel scoop most of the time) that only loses shields when I make a mistake in a 1v3, or similar. My iEagle will take down medium and large ships. Although that's against pirates and similar. I could always do some wing assassinations or visit some pirate signal sources.

Point being, a lack of shields and hull in PvE can easily be balanced out by not being hit in the first place. FDev could nerf shields if they want but likely it won't impact me and many others like me at all.
Indeed, which was the point I was making...
 
my quarrel is more with survivability, once shields are down, and my ship is taking damage. i enjoyed the times when you could or "had to" battle on with malfunctions and smoke and such, while now that means (in CZ - it's most of where my pve in for exampel my dbe or eagle happens): disengage, maybe jump out. imho a problem of the whole thingie of npc loadouts trying to somehow match inflated shield values.

with that i'm missing a lot of content i enjoyed back in those times, when pve hulltanking was still a very good option.

anyway, back to OP: i don't see EVAing out for repairs during combat in any way an option for ED as it currently is. It would require a much longer ttk of hull, with shields coming down more often. i also don't think, that non-atmospheric flight is really the sorrounding for 20 minutes dogfighting, until you finally hit once or twice. i love the expanse, especially the books, but the timeframes of combat there (i think at some points in the book they have the problem of ammo being fired weeks ago to outfly) isn't great for gaming. and why i'm hoping for EVA is for exampel to repair something on my ship after a neutronujump, or a faulty landing on a high g world and such.
 
Indeed, which was the point I was making...
I suppose it comes down to whether FDev want players to constantly feel challenged or if they want them to feel there's a level they can sit at and feel comfortable and just enjoy the game. With my business head on I'd be going for the latter.
 
I do understand the point you are making - for anyone interested in blowing up another player (why not? we play our own game and have no 'right' to decry someone else's enjoyment) it is not going to be a 'brief encounter' - but the skill level of PvP players in flight / combat far exceeds that of the 'average Joe' and by a very large margin of those not particularly interested in combat for fun. Naturally each of us will build to 'survive' encounters we expect, my ships bear little resemblance to yours, no doubt, they would survive long enough to evade (probably) but not to engage as a serious contender. Yours, with a dfifferent 'interest' have to be the best possible.

Understandably, this difference in play dictates my perception of 'balance' as for those times I 'need' better ships I can build for extended survival in PvE 'high risk' encounters. Which benefits me, and my level of skill, immensely.

Sadly, when players reach the zenith of skill in this game it is the 'scrubs' like me that are making life hard for you, as we still need the excessive hand-hold of big shields and their reinforcements, along with plenty of armour to permit us to enjoy the 'challenges' we encounter - said challenge not existing for one such as yourself as you have transcended such poor AI behaviour.

So my arguments are biased toward those of similar or lesser skills than myself - as yours, understandably, will be equally biased to your perception - not just for for the sake of arguing.

Apologies for the 'wall of text'
No problem with reading long texts on my part, at least yet, thankfully... However, I mean no offence, although it feels like you're missing full picture. Balancing proposals, actually comprehensive ones, that are good (objectively) and could be utilized by developers to be introduced in this game means that it's not gonna be plain: let's just cut TTK HARD and make stuff explode!!!

It's gonna be a lot more complex approach, hitting different angles and touching on each combat related aspect, hopefully in a positive way. There are mechanisms to tune up AI based on CMDR combat rank, for example, serving as flexible difficulty slider in an online game, why not take advantage of it? Also good balancing wouldn't mean that, f.e., Corvettes will instantly become wet paper. But it is both hilarious and silly that when you build FDL, right now it conceptually is just like Vette... but flies faster.

Real balancing would mean that each and every weapon system would have multitude of usages, unlike now, where some are universally good and best choice either for PVP, PVE or AX hands down and others are either extremely niche or outright useless. Where you will have different options on how to protect your ship, with better utilities, not only flight maneuvers, which are limited on bigger ships, and not by mindless stacking boosters only. Where hulltanks could have a place along shield tanks, maybe stealth builds. All craft sizes having distinct role and robust usage in most combat scenarios, etc. It's really not that hard to achieve, just needs some effort and less resistance from community.

I do realize that considering past disasters with tuning like that, some people are just plain terrified by any changes, but letting things rot as they are... I'm just not sure it is better alternative.
 
I suppose it comes down to whether FDev want players to constantly feel challenged or if they want them to feel there's a level they can sit at and feel comfortable and just enjoy the game. With my business head on I'd be going for the latter.
Once players begin to exceed the expected ceiling of ability there is little that can be done to introduce 'challenge' at their level, even the 'opt-in' challenges are insufficient, or too unattractive, for players of higher skill.

For the anonymous 'average' player (or lower) there is plenty of challenge to be had - I should know, I'm one of those average Joe's... The highest challenge is other players, but, of course - as they wish to 'win' too - the encounters are going to be boring as they have no wish to be the loser... Should the game, in your opinion, be made at a level to challenge such high skill and deter those of lower skill from playing?
 
Once players begin to exceed the expected ceiling of ability there is little that can be done to introduce 'challenge' at their level, even the 'opt-in' challenges are insufficient, or too unattractive, for players of higher skill.

For the anonymous 'average' player (or lower) there is plenty of challenge to be had - I should know, I'm one of those average Joe's... The highest challenge is other players, but, of course - as they wish to 'win' too - the encounters are going to be boring as they have no wish to be the loser... Should the game, in your opinion, be made at a level to challenge such high skill and deter those of lower skill from playing?
that would be an interesting idea ... a type of installation scenario or similar, where you can't go shielded and no seekers around ... a kind of emp-field. i would love that.
 
A benefit of being able to walk on planets is doing stuff that would otherwise require an SRV. So if your buggy pops or you just didn't bring one with odyssey you'll still be able to shoot rocks & scan stuff, just not as efficiently.

So if we could spacewalk it makes sense that we gain a way to repair modules manually without an AFMU on board, and to do hull repairs without a repair limpet controller equipped. Just more slowly.

What I don't see is any reason why any of this is the fault of players, it's a design decision by FDev with pros & cons, a compromise that can change with new features if they are ever added :)
 
No problem with reading long texts on my part, at least yet, thankfully... However, I mean no offence, although it feels like you're missing full picture. Balancing proposals, actually comprehensive ones, that are good (objectively) and could be utilized by developers to be introduced in this game means that it's not gonna be plain: let's just cut TTK HARD and make stuff explode!!!

It's gonna be a lot more complex approach, hitting different angles and touching on each combat related aspect, hopefully in a positive way. There are mechanisms to tune up AI based on CMDR combat rank, for example, serving as flexible difficulty slider in an online game, why not take advantage of it? Also good balancing wouldn't mean that, f.e., Corvettes will instantly become wet paper. But it is both hilarious and silly that when you build FDL, right now it conceptually is just like Vette... but flies faster.

Real balancing would mean that each and every weapon system would have multitude of usages, unlike now, where some are universally good and best choice either for PVP, PVE or AX hands down and others are either extremely niche or outright useless. Where you will have different options on how to protect your ship, with better utilities, not only flight maneuvers, which are limited on bigger ships, and not by mindless stacking boosters only. Where hulltanks could have a place along shield tanks, maybe stealth builds. All craft sizes having distinct role and robust usage in most combat scenarios, etc. It's really not that hard to achieve, just needs some effort and less resistance from community.

I do realize that considering past disasters with tuning like that, some people are just plain terrified by any changes, but letting things rot as they are... I'm just not sure it is better alternative.
An excellent, well thought out response, thank you.

Fly in the ointment, me, reached elite combat by blowing up the right number of ships over a few years - but it is the highest rank in the game (same as trade and exploration, just meet the number and the award is made) and should indicate the pinnacle of skill in combat - I trust you see where I'm going - so the 'toughest' challenge, sufficient for a true 'elite' combat CMDR, would probably be very hard, disparaging, work to beat, assuming I did, and serve to take any fun from the game for me. Similar to your PvP encounters being frustrating, I'd guess.

A difficult task to get right as any 'worthwhile' changes for the true combat elite would disadvantage the crawlers like me.

But, I do agree that your explanation is excellent and that implementing such changes in a way that accommodates every level of player would be excellent, but incredibly hard to get right.
 
Has been like that since engineers.
tbh, it has been like that since almost forever. there was a time long before engineers when the python was the go-to ship for combat, both pve and pvp, simply because her ability to fully stack both shield cells and shield boosters, and keep them all powered.

engineers has been a disaster and has pushed some already alarming numbers to ridiculous levels, but the basic problem was already there. the core of this problem has already been identified in this thread and i concur: wanting to please all, including the no-risk sofa dwellers who are (methinks) a significant majority.
 
Back
Top Bottom