Nerf Reverski

[Bortas]

so I wouldn't mind a reversing nerf if turrets get buffed to be similar to gimballed weapons at the same time.

Yes, it would require a nerf to chaff, though, as this currently makes turrets completeley useless.

But let's face it... some players simply don't like big ships and are only flying small, maneuverable ones themselves. So they are crying for nerfs against big ships, so they can easily defeat them. If FD nerfed reverski and made turrets useful instead, they would still be unhappy and call for a turret nerf. They will never stop, until big ships are turned into useless clay pidgeons.

 

[Lanceor]

Reverski is effective but boring as hell. That should be enough of a reason not to use it.

Then again, we're talking about people who do the same thing over and over for fifty hours straight just to get their ships sooner... er... yes, let's nerf it!

 

[the source 0179]

Having ships fly backward faster than some can boost forward is just stupid.

For immersion AND gameplay.

Not really. Lets say just for argument sake. A ship can go 400 forwards. Lets say it can do 200 backwards thats 50%. Another ship might not be able to do 200.
Different ships different designs different engines.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

This game has legit physics? :|

It actually has legit physics!

It's just that the flight computer program installed in every ship has been made UTTERLY in a lame attempt at having Star Wars-style battles in space.

 

[Brrokk]

Why would an Anaconda need to counter everything there is? Bigger size shouldn't mean "can't touch this" in the first place.

It wouldn't need to. IMO the right answer for a big ship faced with a tiny but annoying ship should be turreted weapons. And they should be as big as fixed weapons: naval guns don't get smaller just because they are in turrets.

The real problem is the flight model though. I play ED for the feeling of being a space pilot, and the flight model is the most significant thing which always sticks a pin in that balloon.

 

[Aashenfox]

Sure thing - let's ignore physics for the sake of additional arcade pew-pew.

I wish FD would make this game newtonian, just for you. The rest of us can play the fun version, you can play your 'realistic' version.

Infinite acceleration, just imagine how awesome the game would be! lol.

 

[Brrokk]

Reverski is effective but boring as hell. ...

That's why I use it. I want to survive combat, not provide attackers with entertainment.

 

[StiTch]

It actually has legit physics!

It's just that the flight computer program installed in every ship has been made UTTERLY in a lame attempt at having Star Wars-style battles in space.

I used to be on board with this but let's face it - ED is about as polar an opposite from "realistic" as it gets. I laugh internally every time I hear "simulator" mentioned.

FD wanted epic dogfighting style combat, and that very early on ruled out realistic physics and mechanics. Instead of paying attention to orbits and taking jousting shots at each other once every few minutes they nurfed physics so hard we are forced to fight within a couple of km of each other...weapons can't handle it despite that projectiles shouldn't lose any noticeable velocity in space, and ships can't travel fast enough to force it into jousting.

I'm personally quite wary of calling for nerfs, especially to fundamental physics, but this has been backed by many good players in the past with good reason. Anyone can employ it with minimal skill, PvE players included, and it turns a fight into a foolproof victory by allowing you to completely negate agility and forcing long range engagements; due to your ability to pitch while reversing, you can even force it against ships that are barely slower than you.

In effect, it removes many of the limitations FD imposed to ensure space battles would be the exciting dogfights they intended, while forcing the victim to remain hampered by the limitations.

I see no reason it needs to remain in-game other than to appease "I love enabling god mode" players in big ships. If you have a legitimate argument against it, please - pray tell. If the most you have to offer otherwise is "dun't listen to dem nasty PvPers" then thankyou for your time

 

[Truesilver]

Sorry, not read the whole thread but as ever it comes back to the 'Big Ship PvP Problem'...

... HD booster stacking is OP on mediums but if it gets a straight nerf, without some other help, Big Ships are dead ...

... reverski is OP on mediums but if it gets a straight nerf, without some other help, Big Ships are dead ...

Anyone amongst the player-base or the Devs who wants a straight nerf of either of the two things above needs to come up with a coherent rescue plan to Save the Big Ships, or they are dead.

(I haven't flown a Big Ship outside of Betas since 2015, but I don't want them to be become extinct. Two years in Courier. Currently making FdL. But I'm just trying to be fair, here.)

 

[Vorxian]

Lets try not to get too logical.

Just look at sensors to feel the handwavium.

Class 1A sensor: 1.3 tonnes, range 6km.

Class 8A sensor: 160 tonnes, range 8km.

160 tonnes for 8km?

Sensors scan the surrounding area for other ships and objects, and displays the data on the ships scanner.


In comparison, AWACS sensor array weighs 3.6 tonnes range 650km

Nerf real life in 21st century.

 

[fsdraconis]

I'm just going to point out a problem with all of this.

If what you suggest got implemented then you would also lose ALL stopping power.

The bigger flaw here is that people get baited into pursuing the person whom is participating in the act of "Reverski". You counter it, by not chasing them. Even more, reverski away from them and you will laugh as they then have to do the opposite of what they wanted to do.

If this was actually a reality Sim of Space. We would be able to go backwards and NEVER slow down even a little until we either 'hit something' or tell the ship to act differently.

Just shooting canons would propel the ship. Turrets would be way more accurate and would hurt the same amount as a non turreted weapon.

 

[V'larr]

I think the "reverski" issue is a result caused by *many* different factors, which makes it complicated, to say the least.

Firstly are the rather unique flight mechanics, which I don't think should be changed significantly - small tweaks to ship performance, perhaps.

Secondly is the fact that just about every weapon in E.D. has *harsh* damage drop-off penalties with range, to the point that if they are not modded with Long Range blueprints from the Engineers, they are only really useful at the spaceship-equivalent of knife-fighting range. (With the exception of seeker missiles, which have no damage dropoff AFAIK) Engineers, rather than being just a bandaid to the underlying baseline issue (which should be remedied as such, and not via blueprint), takes it out to the other extreme, such that 'reverski' both only works well with Long Range weapons and can only really be countered by Long Range weapons.

Third is that Engineers has made every ship in the game capable of performing at about, what, 166%-200% of its baseline maneuvering stats? And the Enhanced Thrusters/minimal weight builds take this out to especially insane extremes. So that's definitely a contributing factor here.

Fourth is that it's a natural tactic in a three-dimensional space, that a smaller, faster, lighter foe would wish to stay out of line of fire while shooting as much as possible itself. I mean, that's basic combat 101 there: hit the enemy while not getting hit yourself. Orbiting the target, as opposed to reverski, isn't possible without a massive lateral thrust capability relative to your target, which would be imbalanced as hell if it weren't only possible in the most extreme of possibilities, so I think that's out. You can somewhat do it closer-up, but then there's turrets - and that also is the range where weapons finally start doing full damage without Long Range modding, for when your target does get a bead on you (remember they can reverski too), so that's undesirable as well. The only other options are to joust (which I think is supremely annoying, gimmicky, and tiresome, due directly to having SO MUCH damn hitpoint inflation), run away, or get blown up.


My conclusion is that this is NOT an issue that should, nor can be, tackled head-on, and can only ever be mitigated by focusing upon these key causes: Baseline imbalances (including but not limited to weapon damage drop-off & hitpoint overinflation) and bogus Engineering.

 

[Ziljan]

Word!

Reverski makes pew pew in ED just a bit silly.

Now let us ignore physics because ED does.

Ships are given a set forward speed and this forward speed is given by the visually large engines and the wonderful boost.

Most directions for the ship are controlled by the smaller thrusters.

I don't see a backwards facing thruster on any of the ships, so why can they fly backwards so fast?

My immersion! Destroyed!

Now I am not saying ships cannot reverse, the reverse just needs to be nerfed a little.
It was nerfed once before, early days. So there is precident.

This would make for far more dynamic pew pew!

Big ships would have to FAO and use turrets to counter their new loss of backwards tanking.

Skillless pilots with long range weapons, couldnt just fly backwards. Staying out of their targets normal weapon range.

Death to the big reverski!

https://media.giphy.com/media/11oauh2CqGIy88/giphy.gif

I want to rep your post but because your conclusions are 100% correct, however you made it impossible by picking a forum icon of a soggy leather bag filled with rotting pumpkins and hate.

 

[Brrokk]

I'm just going to point out a problem with all of this.

If what you suggest got implemented then you would also lose ALL stopping power.
...

Yes, don't forget the boosting into the station and not hitting the back wall thing.

 

[Han_Zen]

Nerfing reverski may be a good idea to make combat more fun, but if comes with side effects.

It would require a big change to how FA-off work or a even a complete removal of it.

Turrets would have to be fixed for big ships. With the current defenses of medium ships, the big guns would also have to come in turret version. In multi crew, when manually operated, turrets should get fixed weapon stats.

 

[CMDR Dreamstate]

Unless they give turrets the same DPS as Gimbals, then no, fa-off is one of the most important maneuvers for Large ships because it is the only way they can maneuver.

Turrets should be buffed anyway in my opinion, if Frontier want to make multicrew viable for turret operator.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

I wish FD would make this game newtonian, just for you. The rest of us can play the fun version, you can play your 'realistic' version.

Infinite acceleration, just imagine how awesome the game would be! lol.

Hmmm you must be new he*checks your profile* yeah.

Been through all this before, sonny Got the scars to prove it, too

Bottom line is the flight model was decided on more than 4 years ago and FA Off was a concession to us Newtonian-lovers, but even Fa-Off is actually still with some dumb speed limit.

In fact - you used to be able to FA-Off and Boost and your ship would fly away at that boost speed, which again annoyed the PvP snowflakes because then ships could just escape from their clutches and they were denied that addictive explosion they all crave. So Frontier caved in for the sake of gameplay (i.e. "Let's give these children more explosions") and further lobotmised FA-Off to have - wait for it! - your ship actively decay its velocity!

And now here we are, years later and a new group of PvP snowflakes are crying for further nerfs to FA-Off because others are using what should be considered a perfectly valid manoeuvre in ANY space battle, and they don't want to cope with it, instead asking Frontier to even further turn the game into 3D Space Invaders Arcade Crap.

Well, boo-frickin-hoo! If your opponent is using a manoeuvre you don't like, call the fight off and walk away from it. Don't go crying to Frontier about it just because it might deprive you of your ̶c̶r̶a̶c̶k̶ ̶ explosion.

 

[Ziljan]

Nerfing reverski may be a good idea to make combat more fun, but if comes with side effects.

It would require a big change to how FA-off work or a even a complete removal of it.

Turrets would have to be fixed for big ships. With the current defenses of medium ships, the big guns would also have to come in turret version. In multi crew, when manually operated, turrets should get fixed weapon stats.

They don't need to change the way FA off works, they just need to severely limit the acceleration of reverse thrusters. It's currently way too high most ships. Should be based on the type of ship of course. The ships with forward facing vents (ie all Lakon ships) should have higher (unchanged) reverse acceleration.

 

[Captain N]

I wish FD would make this game newtonian,

Infinite acceleration, just imagine how awesome the game would be!

+1 to this. I don't understand the rest of the post so I'll ignore it.

What does this "reverse" mean anyway? Just choose another frame of reference, see, the velocity vector is now in front of you.

 

[V'larr]

Sorry, not read the whole thread but as ever it comes back to the 'Big Ship PvP Problem'...

... HD booster stacking is OP on mediums but if it gets a straight nerf, without some other help, Big Ships are dead ...

... reverski is OP on mediums but if it gets a straight nerf, without some other help, Big Ships are dead ...

Anyone amongst the player-base or the Devs who wants a straight nerf of either of the two things above needs to come up with a coherent rescue plan to Save the Big Ships, or they are dead.

(I haven't flown a Big Ship outside of Betas since 2015, but I don't want them to be become extinct. Two years in Courier. Currently making FdL. But I'm just trying to be fair, here.)

My answer to that is remove "jitter" from turrets. Chaff seems more than sufficient on its own to counter turret effectiveness without Jitter artificially limiting the range of turreted/gimballed weapons.

Ideally, in my own personal nirvana version of Elite, I'd get rid of Chaff too. Make smaller ships find other, creative ways of evading turret fire...like Silent Running, or only ever working in packs. (as in, being able to wing up with NPCs to make up for when other players aren't around)

I mean, the reason a bigger ship is meaner is that...it can carry more guns. But there's largely no point when these guns, with placements all over these 'big ships', can't hit the side of a barn beyond 1.2 km - you may as well go all fixed because you'll be brawling anyway to make those things useful. (And then can't hit much at all so long as Chaff is active.)