Nerf Reverski

[StiTch]

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.

Glad to know you still can't make a point that isn't "DUN'T LISTEN TO THE GRIFFERS!1!! I SED GRIFFERS EVERYONE, THAT MEENS WE MUST ALL STICK OUR FINGARS IN OUR EERS AND CALL THEM GRIFFERS!1! THAT MEENS WE WIN!!"

Cheers for your time xD

 

[Han_Zen]

Yes, FA-off is a horrible sticking plaster to cover up the fact that the flight model is nothing to do with space.

The fact that boost speed slowly decays is absolutely insane given the description "Flight-Assist Off". If it's not the FA computer firing the thrusters, what is causing the speed to change?

About a year ago, some bright person figured out that they could circumvent the crazy effect by going FA-off, turning 90 degrees and boosting perpendicular to the direction of travel. The resultant velocity was then higher than the speed along the original direction would have been because Pythagoras. But this was identified as "unintended" and "fixed". That's right, "FA-off" isn't "intended" to be FA-off, in case traders get away.

FA off or FA on has nothing to do with realism. Both are equally valid as maneuvering options a pilot could chose from in a space ship. Practically it would be natural to have the choice of a FA off with rotation damping, like in Fe2 and FFE.

The thing that is unrealistic in ED is the speed limit. If for some strange reason speed was limited by law, one would expect it to be the same for all ships.

The main reason the speed limits are in place aside from playability, is that ED is a multiplayer game. We dont play in space, we play on the internet. In order to have other players displayed in approximately the correct positions, the relative speed between the ships has to be restricted. To make sure of this, we have invisible reference points in all instances and limited velocity to it.

In essence, a full Newtonian flight model would have to be single player only. If that was implemented we could have used FA off, FA on or anything in between and they would all have been equally realistic.

 

[EvoBeardy]

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.

I'm surprised this has only been brought up twice to be honest. Docking/landing computers for everyone?

Even if "reverse thrust" was dropped to 25% of what it is, this would kill smuggling, people trying to get out of a fight (oh no surprises there), it'd screw up miners and quite a vast array of things, would it not? Landing on a high G planet wouldn't really be doable, unless you wanted a 30minute descend at a super slow speed because your craft couldn't handle it otherwise.
Or we'd have to do it the "old-fashioned way" of about-turning our ships and landing butt-side-down (boy you turn me).

And doesn't the Chieftain have the biggest front-facing thrusters on a ship for its size? Chieftains for everyone? [blah]

 

[Lateralus]

The game's been out for what, 4 years? Who's still struggling with FAOFF?

My mistake.. everybody is an FAO lord now..

 

[[VR] scipio_77]

But they'd have to be travelling along the same vector with almost perfectly matched speeds. Would you just let a ship pull up behind you or along side you and open fire, no you'd take evasive action and change direction. Try the dogfighting in FE2

Certainly, to intercept in space would be incredibly difficult and at the minimum require a ship with massively more powerful engines that the victim. If not the ETA would be at astronomical time-scales.

But if you want that level of realism, then we likely wouldn't have dogfighting or encounters. And I mean, realistically you'd just put a big nuke on an engine and let 'er rip.

 

[Good Death]

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

No. If you don't like it go play a different game. Just in case you're confused this a space game. You know like space and zero gravity and there has already been a change made that was pretty stupid Imo. No just go play your airplane game.

 

[GraXXoR]

Also, Frenotx suggested removing throttle blue zone completely when reversing, which I think is a good idea.

This is the best and simplest fix IMO...

It's stupid that the blue zone was designed to dissuade CMDRs from sitting still and turretting. Yet you can go backwards which is basically just the same... Stupid.

 

[Aashenfox]

I'm surprised this has only been brought up twice to be honest. Docking/landing computers for everyone?

Even if "reverse thrust" was dropped to 25% of what it is, this would kill smuggling, people trying to get out of a fight (oh no surprises there), it'd screw up miners and quite a vast array of things, would it not? Landing on a high G planet wouldn't really be doable, unless you wanted a 30minute descend at a super slow speed because your craft couldn't handle it otherwise.
Or we'd have to do it the "old-fashioned way" of about-turning our ships and landing butt-side-down (boy you turn me).

And doesn't the Chieftain have the biggest front-facing thrusters on a ship for its size? Chieftains for everyone? [blah]

Because it is not necessary to nerf reverse THRUST in order to limit reverse SPEED.They are totally unrelated (in Elite, due to non newtonian model).

In my view if the suggestion in the OP is done right, you'd actually stop and reverse faster, just with a lower top reverse speed.

 

[Aashenfox]

No. If you don't like it go play a different game. Just in case you're confused this a space game. You know like space and zero gravity and there has already been a change made that was pretty stupid Imo. No just go play your airplane game.

I think you're confused. Do you believe that Elite's implementation of space, physics, gravity, thrust, speed and all of that stuff was EVER intended to be realistic?

If you don't see the problem with some ships being able to reverse faster than others can boost, and how that affects the INTENDED dogfight model, perhaps it's you who should consider playing a different game. We want it improved.

 

[Ziljan]

Of course, but in FA off you can use your forward thrust acceleration and just flip around. If you want to hard nerf the speed you can move in the opposite direction where your guns are pointing, something must be adjusted in the FA off flight model.

They could also increase the cool down for boost on larger ships, or maybe have increased heat for larger ships on successive boosts. Smaller ships would lose heat more rapidly due to having a larger surface area/mass ratio.

 

[CMDR Carbo]

How about instead of only nerfing reverse speed they would increase/fix the inertia of the ships?

It always felt wrong to me that a ship the size of a Cobra or above can go from full forward to full reverse in a matter of seconds. The ships don't feel heavy at all.
Anybody who ever tried to reverse a big ship IRL probably knows what I mean.
Also steering a Cobra to the landing pad feels like parking a paper plane. One microthrust to much in one direction and whoosh off she goes, feels like driving on ice.

TLDR IF the inertia of ships would be higher, it would take considerably longer to switch to reverski.

 

[Good Death]

I think you're confused. Do you believe that Elite's implementation of space, physics, gravity, thrust, speed and all of that stuff was EVER intended to be realistic?

If you don't see the problem with some ships being able to reverse faster than others can boost, and how that affects the INTENDED dogfight model, perhaps it's you who should consider playing a different game. We want it improved.

We we you got mouse in your pocket. We we like a whole 10 people maybe 20 okay whatever you say there foxy. Go play your airplane games.

 

[True Phoenix]

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

Because its a legit move that frustrates attackers and other n'er-do-wells. Yet again we have the aggressor attempting to dictate the boundaries of PvP / PvE by limiting the abilities of those that want to survive. Many players are not in ED just to pew-pew, there is a whole spectrum of players who are doing "other things" and PvP is just an event within their story. Let them play the way they want by not imposing your game on them.

How's that for a reason?

 

[philngraves]

Well this is a fun thread... before we rally the pitchforks and torches for nerf/nonerf street lynchings, perhaps the issue of hit-point inflation should be prioritized. That issue should be at the top of the first page, maybe even stickied. The absurd disparity between engineered damage output and engineered damage soak in this game boggles the mind. Without that issue, I don't think the reverski would be all to great an issue. Would it still exist? Sure. It would just be far less obnoxious for the pvp'ers, and still viable for pve'ers.

#downwithHP

 

[Brrokk]

Why be so indirect? Don't nerf speed, just nerf distance. Compute the shortest weapon range which anyone in the present instance has and make everyone's flight computer keep them always within range of each other. That will keep the fish in the barrel.

 

[Aashenfox]

We we you got mouse in your pocket. We we like a whole 10 people maybe 20 okay whatever you say there foxy. Go play your airplane games.

lol, trying and failing at belittling people does not support your position. Like I said, if you don't 'get' the flight model as intended, your opinion should be weighted duly.

By the way....whut??

"We we you got mouse in your pocket"

Google translate for the win? lol

 

[4gui4]

just read the word Nerf I lose interest in the subject because I don't want to annoy me

 

[philngraves]

just read the word Nerf I lose interest in the subject because I don't want to annoy me

You must have been bullied by the rich kids with their fancy automatic nerf guns as a child... don't worry, I was too.

 

[voidwalker]

The flight model is intended to be a compromise between Newtonian and non-Newtonian. That's why you can go sideways, up and down, and reverse, but to limited degrees. That's why we land vertically, and don't need runways. I hope you're not expecting everyone to make runway-style approaches to their pads and have to turn around and try again with reverse being nerfed.

You also stated some ships reverse faster than others can boost. Like what, an Eagle vs a Type-7? Pretty sure the T7 is already dead anyway, so what does it matter? Let's not get hyperbolic now, because if you want your opinion to matter vs those that oppose you, you're gonna need to be realistic, even if the game is not.

 

[voidwalker]

IMO, I'm not personally seeing the problem. I do see a problem with combat in general being very static with a lot of face tanking going on, but I'm also seeing supposed combat spacecraft with less agility than a fully-loaded Su-25T. So maybe what's needed here, instead of a nerf, is a massive buff across the board for all ships. Twice the speed, twice the agility, on all axes. Because my fastest spacecraft is a lightweight Viper III with 743m/s boost. That's only Mach 2.2, IN SPACE. That's not even orbital velocity. There are planes today a lot faster than that.

But your average small combat ship is going to get boost speeds between 400-500m/s with DD5. 500m/s = 1800km/h. Mach 1, the speed of sound, is 1193km/h at sea level. Average combat ships aren't even getting Mach 1. Ace Combat is literally more realistic than Elite Dangerous and a much more exciting game for aerial combat.

Additionally, I can get tighter turns with an Su-25T fully loaded for SEAD in DCS than I can with a completely stripped down Eagle. Why?

Every single ship in this game is too slow and not agile enough. Double everything at least. Hell, triple it. Buffs all around. Enough with the nerfs. Nerfs are dumb.