That's an important distinction which no-one has mentioned so far.
Nerf Reverski
- Thread starter Powderpanic
- Start date
That's an important distinction which no-one has mentioned so far.
and what do we nerf to make my shieldless eagly not blow up by a PA hit?
honestly, some ships can't handle some situations.
But basically every reverski gets beaten by the same forwardski because the later one doesn't needs as much pips in engines than the reverski and therefore has either more pew pew or more shields available to detsroy the reverski.
Stop using hammer if you wanna drill in a screw
Because no non brain dead engineer would design a ship able to not counter a small ship, and even if he did by having a bad stroke, no one would buy such a ship and even less pilots would fly it.
thats why true space battles would either be fought with lasers, or a lot spamfire and the hope of hitting somrthing because any kind of sensory at below light speed would generate very vague informations on the target to reliably hit it.
well, when a silent runnign ship flies right by my window do I hear it or not?
IF the sound is simulated I shouldn't be able to hear it, because my ship can only simulate what it actually can know is there. And if it DOES know where the silent runner is, I could also shoot it, because my targetting should work on that too.
honestly, some ships can't handle some situations.
But basically every reverski gets beaten by the same forwardski because the later one doesn't needs as much pips in engines than the reverski and therefore has either more pew pew or more shields available to detsroy the reverski.
Stop using hammer if you wanna drill in a screw
Because no non brain dead engineer would design a ship able to not counter a small ship, and even if he did by having a bad stroke, no one would buy such a ship and even less pilots would fly it.
thats why true space battles would either be fought with lasers, or a lot spamfire and the hope of hitting somrthing because any kind of sensory at below light speed would generate very vague informations on the target to reliably hit it.
well, when a silent runnign ship flies right by my window do I hear it or not?
IF the sound is simulated I shouldn't be able to hear it, because my ship can only simulate what it actually can know is there. And if it DOES know where the silent runner is, I could also shoot it, because my targetting should work on that too.
Last edited:
Except, and it is a bit odd that I need to spell this out, ED is a game, and submarines are used in real wars with real dead people. Games should be fun, wars should be won. A game should be designed so that skill is rewarded, and the best tactics require the most skill. In a war you do just do whatever it is you need doing (within some limits if people are watching). Reverski is boring. ED is a game. Games shouldnt be boring. If they are, they need to be re-designed. Its not really a complicated train of thought.
As for 'keeping your rebuy': you just boost and hi-wake. It doesnt require reverski.
Last edited:
I would have mentioned it, but I kinda thought it was a given. Consensual pvp is exactly the problem. If my only chance to beat a corvette in my chieftain is reverski, then surely, that's the tactic I should use, cheesy or not? As it happens, I don't ever reverski, I think it's dishonorable, but I have to wonder if I had a pvp fight in which I really cared, if I didn't resort to it when I felt it was my only hope... tricky one.
.
Thank you for that. I even see the point he earlier tried (but failed) to make, but the rest of the bickering around was just a waste of perfectly good electrons. Thanks for going back to topic.
.
And on the topic itself, i unfortunately also see two sides of the coin. It very much is true that currently there are some very fast reverse thrust setups with long range weapons, which can't be beaten. Waking out is the best you can do against them. Having a singular "best" configuration is bad for the health of the game.
.
Unfortunately it's also true that such a harsh nerf to reversing would probably spell doom to the big ships. My prefered combat ship up to 3.0 was the courier, now challenged by the chieftain.
.
I also have a T-10 and a Cutter in a combat setup, albeit my experience on them is limited. Neither did i re-engineer them yet, nor am i the best pilot in them. (Not that i'm a great pilot, anyway, but that's another topic. ) I only use these ships when i need a "carrier" for SLFs to play with friends. So based on all these limitations i can confirm what others already indicated: without being able to reverse at reasonable speed, these ships would not stand a chance against some of the faster and more agile ships. They'd be deathtraps.
.
So that's the really tricky part of this topic here: without a change, we have the rather boring meta of reverski long range ships. With the change, we risk killing off the big ships. Neither of them is really desireable, but at least in my eyes, the current long-range meta is more bearable than killing off the big 3.
.
A fix would be very desireable, but a strong cut in reverse speed probably would be too harsh. (If FD had the time and energy, they could make a small beta for that, but i doubt we could get this. ) So we have to find other solutions for the problem. (Removing the blue zone in reverse won't be enough, but i sure would welcome it as a start. )
.
Another excellent example of where 'fun' is more important than realism.
The FDL had to fire its thrusters at least once to get to where it is, and that's something that would be quite easy to detect. Knowing an FDL's mass it's easy to extrapolate its trajectory and calculate the position even without ever seeing it after that initial thruster burn, even if it goes absolutely cold and kills all its crew due to no longer being able to sustain life support.
I think it's time to link to Project Rho again. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#nostealth
The largest issue I see with the reverski isn't that people use it for defense, but that it is used as a deterrent by someone that is trolling.
Example (real one btw):
I was helping a couple friends during a CG.
Wanted CMDR attacked the weakest of our wing. Dropped his python's shields and did some 10% hull damage. No biggie. We turn and deliver.
Aggressor goes full reverski at ~500 (my closing speed was barely positive at 509) and starts pelting with LR cannon.
We disengage due to boredom of reverski. Jump out, move to another haz res.
Aggressor shows up and we repeat the same action.
I move them to my private group.
It is just annoying in this context, but I dont see any method to resolve it without causing a cascade of other issues. I vote leave it.
Word!
Now let us ignore Powderpanic because ED does.
My immersion! Restored!
Now let us ignore Powderpanic because ED does.
My immersion! Restored!
Lots of great points there, I am now thinking about what I do to keep range without reversing, and it's FA off orbiting. If a nerf were made only to actual reverse (reverse AoA (I don't know what else to call it) to direction of travel), fast, distant boost orbits would still be possible. This is the way I fight if I feel range is to my advantage, a very short pvp fight enlightened me to that (thanks morbad, lol).
Like I say it really is a tough one. The current situation isn't ideal, but any change would have to be very intricately designed in order to, as others have said, not ruin the flight model more.
That's interesting, I didn't think it was a given. I thought the most likely setting for what OP described was a cargo-carrying ship trying to get away from a smaller fighter. I guess I worked out the most likely way I might appear in the scenario.
And yes, the cargo ship could just boost away. However, I'd take some satisfaction in throwing down a challenge along the lines of, "Do you want to watch me go away with cargo intact, or would you like to increment my combat rank?"
Except, and it is a bit odd that I need to spell this out, ED is a game, and submarines are used in real wars with real dead people. Games should be fun, wars should be won. A game should be designed so that skill is rewarded, and the best tactics require the most skill. In a war you do just do whatever it is you need doing (within some limits if people are watching). Reverski is boring. ED is a game. Games shouldnt be boring. If they are, they need to be re-designed. Its not really a complicated train of thought.
As for 'keeping your rebuy': you just boost and hi-wake. It doesnt require reverski.
Skill isn't making unnecessarily complicated mechanics and reward it. Utilising the given mechanic of reverski is simply also a skill to understand that this works best for specific ships. Thats not a reason to nerf it.
This thread is like, the scissor wanting to nerf the stone.
Also, reverski, is not a tactic to win a battle, it is only a tactic to not lose a battle. You only win it if the one chasing doesn't knows when to stop. so the only one complainign are indeed the scissors who want the stone become paper, while they freely could choose utilising paper or a stone themselves.
As an aside to this:
I did have a build I used for when a reverski FDL was being a D. Funny how little hull they have. A heavy ship with a slew of gimballed overcharged phasing lasers is actually a bit hilarious. Poor guy lost 15% of his meager lightweight FDL before he realized what was going on... Only works once, and as a deterrent at that... still funny!
I did have a build I used for when a reverski FDL was being a D. Funny how little hull they have. A heavy ship with a slew of gimballed overcharged phasing lasers is actually a bit hilarious. Poor guy lost 15% of his meager lightweight FDL before he realized what was going on... Only works once, and as a deterrent at that... still funny!
This is more or less correct in spreadsheet terms. In two identical builds, reverski with 4-0-2 pips confers no DPE advantage over 'forwardski' with 4-0-2 pips. It also makes aiming slightly more difficult (the rotational model is slightly different, in reverse).
However, even with identical builds, reverski, by forcing a facetank (as neither party can move outside the fire target cone of the other ship) limits evasion as a tactic. It doesn't eliminate it - after all, a PA can still be made to miss, by either the reverser or the follower, using side-thrust at the correct time - but the effectiveness of evasion is reduced as both ships are almost always within the other's fire arc.
Furthermore, though, most fights are not fought between identical builds. Reverski permits whichever of the two opponents has better facetank spreadsheet damage to force a partial (not complete, as noted above, but partial) facetank.
In very broad terms, reverski is helpful towards whoever has the better sustainable DPS (via DPE) and/or most effective hit points.
At its very worst, if the reversing ship has advantages of both speed and greater damage-over-time and hit points, it can achieve something similar to both pilots switching off thrusters at an agreed distance and simply firing, rather like a realtime strategy game.
This is why many object to it - it limits (not deprives, but limits) the ability of the better pilot and/or more manoeuvrable ship to overcome 'on paper' disadvantages or even speed disadvantages via manoeuvring.
But I would repeat, as in my first post in this thread, that the problem with a simple, outright nerf to reverski is that it would make the Big Three (Four?) unable to defend themselves against well-flown medium ships, unless some other buff is provided.
If the shipyards sold only (e.g.) FdL, FAS, Chieftain and Clipper, I would have no problem with a straight nerf ... but there's more!
Maybe y'all should be playing War Thunder if you don't like 6DOF flight.
Anyone ever tell you how annoyingly well spoken (er, typed) you are?
I gave the solution on page one
Well, probably not. But:Make prolonged use of reverse thrusters increase thermal load. From very little thermal load at -25% throttle to considerable at -100%. That way, we don't have to visit the flight model.
Thanks, I'll pass. I went to the site. Sure, everything looks realistic and nice, but there was nothing there showing how much you have to do vs. how much is handled for you. There is absolutely no way that it can be harder to fly spitfire, and manage all the controls, as it is in in F-15, F-18, or F-22. Sure, you have computer assisted sights and stuff... you also have to worry about getting shot down my SAMs or other planes without ever seeing them. A realistic modern flight sim should have a manual the size of a phone book, if not larger, and use up every control/button on your HOTAS/keyboard and still want more.
Anyway, not interested in any flight sims any more... or naval sims. Though I swear if I see another modern tv show/movie using current military ships/craft with World War II tactics I'm going to scream (I'm looking right at you, "The Last Ship"). A sub vs. a destroyer and they fire torpedoes at each other that are unguided and dodge them. WTH? Why isn't your chopper using it's sonar array and/or dropping torps right on top of the sub? Where the heck is your ASROC launcher? Ugh.
We can just agree to disagree on which pilots had the greater skill/were aces. And by all means, have fun with your flight sims. At this point, *I* find them more tedious than work. Glad you enjoy them though, and thanks for letting me know of yet another one out there...
i did not know the new meta went to "i will CL on you" to "i will reverski on you"
Because if it's flying that close, it's within 500 meters, and all ships can be detected (silent running, dead in space, etc.) at that range.
Beyond that... it's a game. Also, this is their background, not mine.