Second one to mention Crime and Punishment. Why do you think they're mutually exclusive? Even if we do reduce their milslots, does that then give them the right to go around murdering others, just cos the playing field is a bit more level now than it was a month ago? No, of course not. We need what I'm proposing AND crime and punishment, they are neither mutually exclusive nor at odds as concepts.
Second one to mention Crime and Punishment. Why do you think they're mutually exclusive? Even if we do reduce their milslots, does that then give them the right to go around murdering others, just cos the playing field is a bit more level now than it was a month ago? No, of course not. We need what I'm proposing AND crime and punishment, they are neither mutually exclusive nor at odds as concepts.
I agree with OP's basic point that the power gap between a combat-optimized ship and literally anything else is far too wide.
I would probably say "no" to hard-limiting the number of combat slots you can stack, though. Too arbitrary and restrictive.
What I would like to see is much sharper diminishing returns for stacking defensive modules (as well as the engineering you can do on them). Right now it's pretty linear.
A combination of diminishing returns on defensive modules and harsher tradeoffs for engineered weapons would go a long way towards making PvP interactions more fun and accessible.
I would probably say "no" to hard-limiting the number of combat slots you can stack, though. Too arbitrary and restrictive.
What I would like to see is much sharper diminishing returns for stacking defensive modules (as well as the engineering you can do on them). Right now it's pretty linear.
A combination of diminishing returns on defensive modules and harsher tradeoffs for engineered weapons would go a long way towards making PvP interactions more fun and accessible.
Last edited:
Interesting...a bit left field for some maybe...
I could definitely work with that. Nice idea.
That's a much smaller advantage, but a point well made. I never said I had all the answersSkill could make that gap where it mattered. There's still Solo.
Skill won't help anybody when I'm turning behind them at 60 deg/sec with zero pips to engines cos my ship is so light. Or when they can't run away cos I'm 50 km/s faster than them.
By the way I really like your idea - I'd play in open if it was put in place.
I had any idea a couple weeks ago along those lines. Make fines and bounties proportional to your net worth (or your current credit balance, take your pick). A 50k bounty is nothing to someone with a balance of 1 billion. A 10 million bounty on the other hand... General reaction was along the lines of "Pish posh and nonsense!" I still think it's a good idea though. That's how they compute fines for driving infractions in places like Finland from what I understand.
Last edited:
*dons helmet*
Well, nice honest try, but it cannae work.
a) This is only as good as the number and size of slots in the ship. It would cripple many smaller ships to lose a slot. It would barely bother an iCutter to lose a single slot. Most people don't even use every slot on a combat iCourier to start with
b) It runs off the assumption you need a military item in every slot to start with. My PvP FGS has an AFMU, for instance.
c) For your own sake, you would get mobbed by PvE players complaining the game is being harmed for the sake of PvP.
But no disrespect bro.
Traders, miners, and explorers need to have the ability to install really good defences, while generally having little or no offensive capabilities.
Combat ships should either have really really good defensive capabilities, really good offensive capabilities, or a balance of the two.
Currently, traders (and whatnot) can't actually do a great do if they gear up their ship to have the best defences.
And combat ships can be really good at both, compounding the problem further.
If, and a big if, I had to go back to the drawing board,
All defensive and offensive modules would occupy the same external slots.
But you'd have plenty more than now, some bigger than others.
Then, if you want that near-invincible shield tank, you can. But you'll be sacrificing all of your offensive capabilities.
If you want to take out that near-invincible shield tank ship, you can, but you'll be more or less a glass cannon.
If you want a good balance, you can too, but don't expect to be invincible or ganker.
But it won't happen. Lol
CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
Combat ships should either have really really good defensive capabilities, really good offensive capabilities, or a balance of the two.
Currently, traders (and whatnot) can't actually do a great do if they gear up their ship to have the best defences.
And combat ships can be really good at both, compounding the problem further.
If, and a big if, I had to go back to the drawing board,
All defensive and offensive modules would occupy the same external slots.
But you'd have plenty more than now, some bigger than others.
Then, if you want that near-invincible shield tank, you can. But you'll be sacrificing all of your offensive capabilities.
If you want to take out that near-invincible shield tank ship, you can, but you'll be more or less a glass cannon.
If you want a good balance, you can too, but don't expect to be invincible or ganker.
But it won't happen. Lol
CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
To be fair specialisation is part of a game with customisation/upgrades. If you can't specialise a build for combat, how are you "blazing your own trail"? It seems awks that people (not pointing fingers at you) have taken "play my way" as the right to demand the game is developed in their vision, but in reality it's advertising you ability to play whatever role you want in the style you want.
You are however correct that the gap is too large, but I'd focus on the engineering part than anything else. I've said it before: we should revisit a fundamental part of mods to tone them down. My personal suggestion is remove secondary effects, severely mitigating the gulf between "average" modded ships and "god roll" modded ships. By proxy it reduces the ability for players to gain huge advantage by having huge amounts of time and forces mods to do only the job they say on the tin.
It's a huge boon to PvEers, who are worried about being murdered by overpowered death lords, and a huge boon to PvPers, because to get into PvP properly atm requires immense dedication.
Last edited:
Well, actually, the Type 7 (after the buff), the Python and the Cutter can all be very tanky and still have some nice cargo capacity. And these seem to be the most popular med-tier and high-tier trading ships.
Only the Type 9 is a let down. It has almost the same tank as the Type 7 while being super easy to hit with huge weapons, being much slower and less agile. And putting any armor on it makes the horrible jump range even worse.
Only the Type 9 is a let down. It has almost the same tank as the Type 7 while being super easy to hit with huge weapons, being much slower and less agile. And putting any armor on it makes the horrible jump range even worse.
Last edited:
I think the secondary effects add some cool variety and color... but I think the key is making sure that:
1. They stay *secondary* (so they don't overlap with the primary effects)
2. They stay very minor. (e.g. apparently you can get something like 60% reduction in thermal load for railguns on a secondary effect to the long-range mod. That's hideous. Keep it 5-10% max.)
Unfortunately the ship has sailed, and there's no comfortable way to rebalance engineering without making people who invested a lot of time into it very understandably upset. Same problem with my "diminishing returns" thoughts. I don't know how to sell a major rebalance of any kind to the community.
Last edited:
Ok, I get the little RP pirate thing.
Also, if this wouldn't affect ganking, then what exactly are we trying to accomplish here?
Maybe I'm using the term gank incorrectly. But I was referring to something like a PvP FDL interdicting a mining T7. There's no amount of balancing that will bring them anywhere close (nor should it).
I'm just not seeing what this nerf to combat ships would do to help anything without having more negative effects than positive.
What we're trying to accomplish is some careful balancing of module restrictions, and/or a heavy increase to diminishing returns on both resistances and armor from milslots, batteries, etc.
Yeh, this won't change a T9 getting slaughtered by an FDL, and as you say, nor should it. So again, why would pirates have an issue?
Negative effects? The only one I can think of is griefers crying on the forum that they've been nerfed because they could never fly in the first place. Pirates in Cutters I have absolutely no sympathy for. Again, that's just a thief.
What I would love to see is Asps, Vultures, FASes, FDLs, Pythons, all being viable for pvp with 1 cargo rack, 1 disco scanner and 1 fuel scoop on board.
You're going to have to give me concrete examples for all of those.
1. Nobody's losing a slot...?
2. Come on.
You know exactly what I mean, the fact that you use one slot for an AFMU means nothing. Especially on a battle barge.3. Let;s see shall we, I don't agree. They can stay in Solo where they ARE now. If just some of them come to open and join the game, positive effect, no?
No disrespect taken, but I just repeated myself.
Engineering needs attention too, but let's not blur the lines, this is really about how many resist enchants you can stack, not how strong they are.
Im against lowering the bar in this game to helping players who can't keep up or won't. The point of a game is Risk vs Reward. Danger allows for a layer of threat and excitment which elevates a game beyond a simple act of muscle memory. removing the different advantages and disadvantages that different sizes, masses, classes and ship designs offer just makes the game boring. No thought is required before setting out because I KNOW my ship can out handle a combat ship despite my weight being over 1000 tons, because people complained and stuff got made simple in response.
One thing i love about Elite is that its very skill based. Its not a matter of leveling up and unlocking skills which i put in an action bar and press with my index finger while eating my hot pockets. You first need to learn how to fly and if you are invested then learn how to use the game mechanics to further your advantage in a cut throat galaxy. Some people will always be unskilled and uninvested and these players are typically the ones who demand the bar be lowered for them (im not suggesting you are amoung them). When a bar is lowered those at the top who are invested are left with a game that offers them no excitment or challenge. That isnt fair. Elite is not only about the flying skills, its about game world knowledge and investment in understanding that world which is a skill unto itself, dumbing down the latter will not stop unbridled PvP.
At the moment ED has no crime and punishment system and so we have a state where belligerent players or people who just wake up on the wrong side of the bed decide to go pick on some random commander for the lolz and there really is nothing to stop them. Money in ED is so easy to aquire that ship loss for the aggressor is a nothing thought and there is litterally no long term or real consequence for the murder, so why not.
There will always be bad players and good players.. Player with good intentions and players with bad intentions and simplifying the game will not change that. What is needed is a game ballancing mechanics that is pan Galactic, which hems in the radacles, protects the slow players, but does not limit any one particular play style.. It in fact provides new layers of gameplay for both sides of the fence while at the same time enforces fairness and ballance.
The game doesnt need to be simplified or dumbed down. It needs to be policed.
Last edited:
I'd like to test your theory in my current ship one day, thanks for your input cmdr. o7
Dude, I love you, I really do, I think you're a forum champion, the very last thing I want to do is offend you, you're a fellow trekker, but this thread isn't about crime and punishment. Cheers.
What system? What rule? Yes, no amount of nerf is going to stop a skilled warrior from killing me, nor would I want it to, at least if the playing field is a little more level I won't feel cheated. Please can you be more coherent so we can discuss? I am not a fool and capable of understanding when I'm wrong if someone can explain it in terms I understand. Cheers.
Last edited:
I don't think this would really stop any pvp or stop the amount of commanders who run missions in squishy ships getting blown to bits to be honest. If you totally removed engineers you would still have players flying around in wet paper bags being shot out of the sky by experienced pvpers. it's an inescapable consequence of risk/reward oriented ship configuration.
I think it might help even if the only change was for the police force to respond much faster than they currently do, and have them respond in large enough force with ships actually equipped to deal with the threat.
Currently, I often feel the police response is a woefully inadequate afterthought. A pirate can waste your trading ship twice over by the time the cops drop in.
And then the cops drag their feet by scanning you while you're getting your canopy blown open! [noob]
Currently, I often feel the police response is a woefully inadequate afterthought. A pirate can waste your trading ship twice over by the time the cops drop in.
And then the cops drag their feet by scanning you while you're getting your canopy blown open! [noob]
Last edited:
Yeh i know and i respect that. The C&P threads are typically long winded anger storms.
I was just answering your response to my response (in a round about way), that i personally feel C&P is all we need and not the changing/dumbing down of core mechanics.
Specifically the conversation thread my comments are attached to in this Thread are in relation to the linking of Mass to performance (posted on page one). A mechanic i happen to like.
Last edited: