Let's Close the Min/Max Gap a Little

[Theodrid]

Let's make sure EVERYONE has to compromise on build.

My Suggestion.

As things currently stand we have combat ships with 0.5 ly jump ranges and no cargo capacity, shieldless explorers and traders and more besides roaming the galaxy. All ships should have a minimum viable jump range, (my idea 10 ly), a minimum cargo capacity, (4t), and a minimum shield capacity, ( let's say no more than one/two slots smaller than optimal).

While this only very slightly closes the balance gap it ensures that everyone, including PVP players, has to compromise their builds. We say goodbye to the shieldless traders and explorers and create a fairer and ever so slightly more balanced game. It makes all ships viable, in some way, for all tasks and encourages commanders to consider their builds a bit more, we lose the 'lol, you deserved to die cos no shields' and the 'your combat ship couldn't jump a coke can' squabbles, we could even forfeit insurance if ships don't meet the minimum viable on any module if we must keep these silly builds, let's do it Frontier!

 

[MBaldelli]

How 'bout this counter-proposal...

You play the game your way. I play it mine.

Simple enough and nothing needs to be changed.

Problem solved.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Let's make sure EVERYONE has to compromise on build.

My Suggestion.

As things currently stand we have combat ships with 0.5 ly jump ranges and no cargo capacity, shieldless explorers and traders and more besides roaming the galaxy. All ships should have a minimum viable jump range, (my idea 10 ly), a minimum cargo capacity, (4t), and a minimum shield capacity, ( let's say no more than one/two slots smaller than optimal).

While this only very slightly closes the balance gap it ensures that everyone, including PVP players, has to compromise their builds. We say goodbye to the shieldless traders and explorers and create a fairer and ever so slightly more balanced game. It makes all ships viable, in some way, for all tasks and encourages commanders to consider their builds a bit more, we lose the 'lol, you deserved to die cos no shields' and the 'your combat ship couldn't jump a coke can' squabbles, we could even forfeit insurance if ships don't meet the minimum viable on any module if we must keep these silly builds, let's do it Frontier!

There's no need for this.

Each player currently has a choice of how to outfit their ship. Each player already has a choice of just how much compromise in X, Y, or Z they can tolerate, therefore each choice made by a player can have direct consequences on what can happen to them in-game.

If a player wishes to build a paper ship, that's their choice, but woe betide them if they encounter a rabid PvP outfitted ship. Consequences make the game.

Your suggestion posits to remove that choice, and it's a bit like beige-ifying the whole game, in my opinion.

Regards.

 

[Theodrid]

How 'bout this counter-proposal...

You play the game your way. I play it mine.

Simple enough and nothing needs to be changed.

Problem solved.

Except it isn't solved is it, why should there only be a tiny minority in open play that can run full min/max without any compromise?

There's no need for this.

Each player currently has a choice of how to outfit their ship. Each player already has a choice of just how much compromise in X, Y, or Z they can tolerate, therefore each choice made by a player can have direct consequences on what can happen to them in-game.

If a player wishes to build a paper ship, that's their choice, but woe betide them if they encounter a rabid PvP outfitted ship. Consequences make the game.

Your suggestion posits to remove that choice, and it's a bit like beige-ifying the whole game, in my opinion.

Regards.

That choice would still be there, all I'm proposing is that the min/Max Gap is narrowed slightly, everybody having to compromise is better than only some having to do so if they want to survive in open play for example.

How on earth is it fair if only miners, explorers and traders have to compromise their builds in open but PVP players do not have to at all? That is just an example, it also applies to shieldless traders and cargoless explorers in all modes.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Except it isn't solved is it, why should there only be a tiny minority in open play that can run full min/max without any compromise?



That choice would still be there, all I'm proposing is that the min/Max Gap is narrowed slightly, everybody having to compromise is better than only some having to do so if they want to survive in open play for example.

How on earth is it fair if only miners, explorers and traders have to compromise their builds in open but PVP players do not have to at all? That is just an example, it also applies to shieldless traders and cargoless explorers in all modes.

If a PvP'er has min-maxed their ship, they usually end up with a 2LY jump range because they've swapped out their big FSD for a tiny one, in order to make their ship just that little bit more manoeuvrable - so in a way, the compromise goes in both directions.

Anyway - any explorer with a paper ship travlling back to the bubble in Open, into an active star system, deserves everything coming to them - consequences. Happened to me once

 

[znôrt]

While this only very slightly closes the balance gap it ensures that everyone, including PVP players, has to compromise their builds

dude, the sweet pre engineers days are not coming back.

let's do it Frontier!

oh, you are asking those guys who brought scb stacking, uber shields, uber modifications, magic effects and magic ammunition substanced with massless magic materials? good luck!

 

[edgepixel]

We say goodbye to the shieldless traders and explorers and create a fairer and ever so slightly more balanced game

No. I mean I got butchered in my shieldless light-hull Asp by a player FDL in open, but I totally deserved it.

magic ammunition

I think the healing beams for example completely anally penetrate the lore. What's this, action-RPG?

 

[MBaldelli]

Except it isn't solved is it, why should there only be a tiny minority in open play that can run full min/max without any compromise?

Oh but it does. I don't want your suggestion to affect how I decide to play this game. Be it Open, Solo or Private Mode. Whether or not I decide to min/max my ship is entirely at my discretion. Not at yours where you think it sets better control as to how people can play.

 

[Nevian0225]

Oh but it does. I don't want your suggestion to affect how I decide to play this game. Be it Open, Solo or Private Mode. Whether or not I decide to min/max my ship is entirely at my discretion. Not at yours where you think it sets better control as to how people can play.

Me like Mr. Baldelli, him got wit.
+1 rep.

 

[Theodrid]

Oh but it does. I don't want your suggestion to affect how I decide to play this game. Be it Open, Solo or Private Mode. Whether or not I decide to min/max my ship is entirely at my discretion. Not at yours where you think it sets better control as to how people can play.

Yeah, no worries, you disagree.

 

[StiTch]

...and kneecap every player that is starting out or doesn't have the time to get their ships above 10ly jump range, or wants to use the sidey without wasting one of its multitude of four slots on cargo, or wants to build a shieldless combat build or stealth runner. Dude, many ships have less than 10 LY jump when you buy the damn things.

I appreciate you're a reasonable chap and I appreciate your concerns, but this is a frankly crap way of achieving balance. All you do is handicap players that CAN'T min/max. To the players that can min/max, the few T mass gained using a slightly higher grade of FSD is nigh on meaningless.

And frankly why do you care? If an explorer wants to go shieldless, their problem, not yours. As long as they are aware they're placing themselves at risk to create a ship that can do more extreme jumps, it's their game they're impacting, not yours. If they get shot down, they experienced the consequence of their actions. And the few T gained from a combat vessel using a higher FSD is only ever relevant between two min/maxed PvP vessels, in which case again...why do you care? Their choice if they want to have a vessel that requires transferring everywhere, or need to transfer modules everywhere to use it like that.

Don't take away the ability for players to make choices. Simply remind them their choices have consequence, which is the only part of all this that needs addressing; build a reasonably defended ship if you want to survive.

Wanna bring them nasty PvP vessels closer to you? Sort out engineers. This will hurt players that aren't swimming in cash more than it will ever hurt a PvP vessel.

 

[Theodrid]

...and kneecap every player that is starting out or doesn't have the time to get their ships above 10ly jump range, or wants to use the sidey without wasting one of its multitude of four slots on cargo, or wants to build a shieldless combat build or stealth runner. Dude, many ships have less than 10 LY jump when you buy the damn things.

I appreciate you're a reasonable chap and I appreciate your concerns, but this is a frankly crap way of achieving balance. All you do is handicap players that CAN'T min/max. To the players that can min/max, the few T mass gained using a slightly higher grade of FSD is nigh on meaningless.

And frankly why do you care? If an explorer wants to go shieldless, their problem, not yours. As long as they are aware they're placing themselves at risk to create a ship that can do more extreme jumps, it's their game they're impacting, not yours. If they get shot down, they experienced the consequence of their actions. And the few T gained from a combat vessel using a higher FSD is only ever relevant between two min/maxed PvP vessels, in which case again...why do you care? Their choice if they want to have a vessel that requires transferring everywhere, or need to transfer modules everywhere to use it like that.

Don't take away the ability for players to make choices. Simply remind them their choices have consequence.

Hey Stitch,

The small ships are definitely an issue mate and would require a rethink, (yeah, extremely unlikely to happen), in their design, to be totally honest I really hadn't considered them much, my bad.

As to why I care, well, from a logical POV I think a minimum spaceworthy benchmark is a good thing from an insurance and game lore perspective. Add to that me wanting to stop shieldless traders and explorers moaning about exploding too quickly and seeing ship loadouts that literally can't jump a snail! I don't think this relatively small change has too big an impact on choice rather a small compromise, it's not like I'm asking, for example, PVP players to lose a weapon.

 

[StiTch]

As to why I care, well, from a logical POV I think a minimum spaceworthy benchmark is a good thing from an insurance and game lore perspective. Add to that me wanting to stop shieldless traders and explorers moaning about exploding too quickly and seeing ship loadouts that literally can't jump a snail!

I appreciate that man, I really do...but to be totally honest this is the literal lifeblood of "blaze your own trail". People have taken it to mean "if something doesn't go my way complain to FD that they said i could have whatever game I want", but it's a simple indicator of choice and consequence. Want to be a criminal? Go for it, but expect punishment in ye direction. Want to build a casual exploration vessel? Do it, and give it some sustainability. Want to build a vessel that will scour the outermost edges of the galaxy for unknown things? Grab that conda and remove its shields, but do so knowing that every bump will hurt you.

The only bit "wrong" with the scenarios you outline is when people take those choices and complain about the consequence. But it's no different to blowing up noobs and expecting police not to come after you. Remind people consequence is universal and we're all fine

 

[Globusdiablo]

...no worries...

Spoiler

FOR YOUR AVATAR!

 

[mostly newish]

If a PvP'er has min-maxed their ship, they usually end up with a 2LY jump range because they've swapped out their big FSD for a tiny one, in order to make their ship just that little bit more manoeuvrable - so in a way, the compromise goes in both directions.

Anyway - any explorer with a paper ship travlling back to the bubble in Open, into an active star system, deserves everything coming to them - consequences. Happened to me once

I run a type 6 with no shields , dirty drives and upgraded doctored thrusters .... i always evade interdictions ...

 

[Theodrid]

Spoiler

FOR YOUR AVATAR!

Cheers buddy!