In this new bold era of "nerf all the things" I am not entirely sure if this is a joke or not.
Nerf Reverski
- Thread starter Powderpanic
- Start date
Imagine the hilarity if they did try to nerf reverse, and the game bugs (as it usually does) and no one can fly forward... I would pay to play it. And watch the suffering of others of course.
It was nearly a year ago. Then someone found the Pythagoras work-around which I referred to previously. Then they broke maths as well as physics by "fixing" that too.
<Edit> Or maybe the first stage was before my time and I'm just remembering the Pythagoras one.
Last edited:
Erm, Reverski is boosting forward, turning FA off so no counter force is applied when changing directions, then turning 180 degree.
What you describe I have no idea of.
Every ship has large counter thrusters for the main rear thrusters, the Anacona for example next to the huge hardpoint.
If you have highly engineered engines every thruster gets inhanced which means high speed in every direction.
To counter reversky don't let yourself be kited. Just fly away and let the opponent come to you or simply let him escape.
Maybe. But I'm trying to see how this would work in practice. If FA-Off wasnt there, maybe it would be simpler, but as it is, I can accelerate to stop speed, FA-Off and change orientation without changing velocity. At what point would a new "maximum reverse speed" kick-in?
(Furthermore, I suspect there are no hard coded maximum velocities in the game, but that there is instead some kind of hidden coefficient of drag. It would certainly make things simpler to code)
I'm with the OP on this one, reverski is just a stupid possibility in E: D's flight model.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against newtonian. Give me ships which look less like a wing, remove the yaw nonsense, full degrees and maybe higher range, and we might just end up with a better game than E: D currently is.
But FDEV established that it wants E: D to be WWII in space. I think they might have even used that term in some promotional video years go. At the very least they definitely compared it with Star Wars (imagine the X-wings being able to do a reverski in the trench run a drill Vader a new one! lol). Hence the yaw business and speed limit and whatnot. Ok fine, your game your rules. But be consistent. Flying in reverse has no place in that setup. Like in some other cases, FDEV kicks itself in the shins with the thunder hammer and undermines its previous (and sometimes remarkable) work.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against newtonian. Give me ships which look less like a wing, remove the yaw nonsense, full degrees and maybe higher range, and we might just end up with a better game than E: D currently is.
But FDEV established that it wants E: D to be WWII in space. I think they might have even used that term in some promotional video years go. At the very least they definitely compared it with Star Wars (imagine the X-wings being able to do a reverski in the trench run a drill Vader a new one! lol). Hence the yaw business and speed limit and whatnot. Ok fine, your game your rules. But be consistent. Flying in reverse has no place in that setup. Like in some other cases, FDEV kicks itself in the shins with the thunder hammer and undermines its previous (and sometimes remarkable) work.
As one who doesn't use reverski in combat, I wouldn't have an issue with it being 'nerfed' - except for the adverse effect that would have on good plain old deceleration. I love grinding my Chieftain to a halt when needed with those massive retro-thrusters. No sir, you can't take that away from me!
As one who doesn't use reverski in combat, I wouldn't have an issue with it being 'nerfed' - except for the adverse effect that would have on good plain old deceleration. I love grinding my Chieftain to a halt when needed with those massive retro-thrusters. No sir, you can't take that away from me!
There's no need for any nerf to the top speed in reverse to affect the amount of reverse thrust you have UP TO that speed.
I can only assume based on AoA vs direction of travel, but there we go again using airborne flight characteristics in space. I'm glad I'm not the one that has to think about precisely how the implementation works.
Except that ships are already much slower in reverse than they are going full forward. By almost half. Your assertion that they are going faster in reverse than a ship boosting forward is simply false. Video or it didn't happen.
I guess it would work the same as currently when you boost and stop boosting? You decelerate to a certain speed according to your thrust setting.
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
Yeah, and combat in FE2 was vastly superior to ED's. No silly WW2 turn-fights, just proper newtonian motion.
And yet Elite's RCS (transverse) thrusters go against the WWII 'aeroplanes in space' flight model, irrespective of what David Braben said himself in an early dev video (yes, I remember him saying that too).
Oh, I remember that. It was around the time, when "Safe disengage" put us about 20km away from a station. That was fun.
lol. It's best to check your facts if you're going to act all angry.
Current reverse nerf is not anywhere near 50%. Attacking me on specific points to try to make it seem like I don't know what I'm talking about (I assure you I do) is not going to make the whole subject go away.A fast courier with long range imp hammers is a common griefing tool. It reverses faster than ANY ship without Enhanced Performance Thrusters can boost. Mine (not even re-engineered yet) reverses at over the 525ish average boost of a pvp FAS.
the trouble is, even if you were right and the difference was less, it would still be a problem. If the maximum closing speed is 50m/s, you tell me how long it will take to close the 6km gap a long range reverski user creates for themselves.
Last edited:
I try and avoid thinking about actual physics for this game as of late... It makes me overthink the flight mechanics, ballistic mechanics, and even the shielding mechanics. I mean, a modern Tomohawk with self oxidizing high explosives could not only catch, but seriously monkey stomp Elite shields. Makes you wonder what kind of explosives they use in Elite weapons lol.
My thinking was, that is there a point in talking about BVR, when nobody would be using mark 1 eyeball, well, at all. At least in modern combat that sometimes happens, so the distinction is useful.
Most of the sensors used in space would be visual anyway (cameras with strong magnifying lenses) Radars and such would be redundant, and would only add lag to detection (having to wait for the signal to both reach the target and return to the observer)
If you actually go and play CoaDE (which is not boring at all) you will see it's actually nothing like modern combat. I understand the point for these people banging on about BVR is that real space combat would happen at bigger ranges compared to something like ED. I'm not sure, though, if they quite comprehend just how enormous the ranges would be. Orbital mechanics will be an important tactical consideration. Deciding which angle to launch your missile swarm so it most effectively intercepts the target at the other side of the planet you're orbiting - when the target gets there 6 hours later.
To paraphrase a Steam review of CoaDE, it's like submarine combat, if the submarines could see each other, were orbiting a planet at thousands of kilometers per second, were tossing hundreds of hypersonic nuclear missiles at each other and were attached to gigantic, glowing radiators to dump the waste heat from their reactor and laser turrets. So, exactly like submarine combat.
Agreed, but I don't think it does much for playability in a multiplayer game. Doubt very many would play lol.
It worked because the NPCs flew nicely. For small ships it was kind of nice.
When you go the bigger lasers or PAs, it was just pixel shooting.