Nerf Reverski

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

But to keep bending over backwards just to satisfy 30% of a player base (and I doubt it's even as high as 30%) is pure folly - also something will eventually break - i.e. the rest of the game for everyone else.…

Have you been in a combat zone lately? Looks like flying backwards is all most of the higher ranked ships do there.
It's not just affecting PvP, it's affecting all combat in this game. The problem is that the ships are designed for a dogfight style combat system. Throw in engineering with the new 3.0 mega-buffs and larger medium sized ships with insane pitch rates and things get ugly.

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

I just provided a detailed explanatory post in Frenotx's semi-parallel thread. As I observe within it, reverski is really one sub-facet of what I call 'pinball' (another sub-facet of which is 'jousting') which in turn is one of the two most polar opposite approaches to ED 1v1 combat.

As the post appears relevant to both threads I'll link below for any interested.

What if we had a "hold boost" mechanic, and then boost would nto eb bound to forward thrust, but nstead in any current directiont he player thsuts? would this help to make the boost being able to make the curcle strafer enable strafing and the pinballer enable pinballing when they are in boost mode? But of coruse it would also mean to limit boost not beeign possible all the time, instead needing some cooldown. or makign boost a "capacitor" drain that we cna actively control. similar to stamina based sprinting in FPS games.

 

[philngraves]

But to keep bending over backwards just to satisfy 30% of a player base (and I doubt it's even as high as 30%) is pure folly - also something will eventually break - i.e. the rest of the game for everyone else.

Also, I've said this before and I'll say it again - if you're a PvP'er and someone's annoyingly (to you) using what is a perfectly valid manoeuvre in 3D space - just walk away from the frickin' fight! There is no need to see an explosion every single time!

Yes, I am a whimsical pvp'er. Yes I leave the fights. The only way to escape the 'retrollski' is to leave the system entirely, hope for an instance out, or mode switch. If you are doing a CG, the first option is out the window.

That said, I still think it is fine as is. As a trolling tactic it is time intensive, and largely boring as hell. Not a lot of players bother relying on it as a sole tactic. The biggest issue that I think this thread is trying to address, perhaps subconciously, is the disparity Quicksilver posted above.

Laymans terms, reverski can't be countered. Even if you can catch the one 'reverski'ing' you still only get a few seconds before they can opt to adjust to a new vector and restart the reverski engagement. Short of reducing the max reverse speed ship by ship, but keeping current thrust force the same for normal flight, I don't see how to rectify it myself.

Solutions? Either leave it be, or limit all reverse speeds to 300m/s, but maintain current reverse thrust to that new maximum. In the end, I would probably just leave it alone, as it would risk causing cascading bugs down the line.

(And what is it with your obsession with assuming others obsession with explosions? I think your an explosion fetishist who lives vicariously through 'griefers...) Lol.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Yes, I am a whimsical pvp'er. Yes I leave the fights. The only way to escape the 'retrollski' is to leave the system entirely, hope for an instance out, or mode switch. If you are doing a CG, the first option is out the window.

That said, I still think it is fine as is. As a trolling tactic it is time intensive, and largely boring as hell. Not a lot of players bother relying on it as a sole tactic. The biggest issue that I think this thread is trying to address, perhaps subconciously, is the disparity Quicksilver posted above.

Laymans terms, reverski can't be countered. Even if you can catch the one 'reverski'ing' you still only get a few seconds before they can opt to adjust to a new vector and restart the reverski engagement. Short of reducing the max reverse speed ship by ship, but keeping current thrust force the same for normal flight, I don't see how to rectify it myself.

Solutions? Either leave it be, or limit all reverse speeds to 300m/s, but maintain current reverse thrust to that new maximum. In the end, I would probably just leave it alone, as it would risk causing cascading bugs down the line.

I'd really despise it if reverse speeds were limited even more - again. So looks like we're in agreement on every point

(And what is it with your obsession with assuming others obsession with explosions? I think your an explosion fetishist who lives vicariously through 'griefers...) Lol.

It is somewhat like that I'll admit. I'm a bit of a student of player motives and have been observing the more rabid players of ED over the past 4 years. I feel I have a good understanding of their motives. I can even empathise and have gotten some amusement from some of their skullduggery in the past - a guilty pleasure, so to speak

 

[Brrokk]

I still can't really see a problem with reversing. Assuming that space warships were real, they would have two ways of bringing their guns to bear on one another.
(1) Use turrets.
(2) Rotate bodily so that their guns point at the target.

Reverski is just an example of the second one; the reversing action minimises the effect of transverse movement by the target. If I'm flying a ship in open space, why shouldn't I use all available movement directions and rotations to my advantage? Actually I think it likely that such a ship would have automatic thrust control for targetting, and I would expect the algorithms for doing that to reinvent reverski for themselves.

Dogfighting can make a fun aircraft game, but it's just not reasonable behaviour for spaceships. Aircraft are forced to do it because they can't stop, can't thrust sideways (with a few exceptions) and have a minimum turning circle. Spacecraft will only dogfight if they are artificially given constraints like that, and then they just won't have the "feel" of spaceships.

FD have a tricky balancing act to try to make combat fun. I don't say they've failed, but the necessary compromises can never please everyone. Any tweaks they attempt will have effects far beyond combat and still won't make dogfighting natural in space. As has been discussed, any real change would require the removal or nerfing of FA-Off (as that's the mode in which we achieve the nearest to Newtonian behaviour) and I can't see that being popular. I think it would also require significant buffing of turretted weapons if supremacy isn't to be handed to the little ships, and that wouldn't be popular either. I don't think what OP asks for is really possible.

 

[zarrazee]

OP. Agreed. I suggest nerfed by at least 50% of max speed possible.

 

[philngraves]

I'd really despise it if reverse speeds were limited even more - again. So looks like we're in agreement on every point




It is somewhat like that I'll admit. I'm a bit of a student of player motives and have been observing the more rabid players of ED over the past 4 years. I feel I have a good understanding of their motives. I can even empathise and have gotten some amusement from some of their skullduggery in the past - a guilty pleasure, so to speak

Fair point. The human condition is one fascinating study. Take my favorite pvp activity: iEagle with 2 enforcer cannon and FSD-RPG. Bearing witness to ships such as 'condas, type-10's, gunships, and pythons all panic flying and crashing/dying without putting up a fight or even launching a fighter just because the enforcers are shaking the hell out of their hull while the computer screams about their frame shift drive being disabled. They go from 'surviving interdiction' to 'curl-into-fetal' simply due to panic.
Sad truth is their SLF could easy mulch my poor iEagle if they would just launch it. Oh, and they call me all kinds of nasty names, usually as a preface to the word 'griefer'. I should write a dissertation and go for a psycology degree at this point lol.

 

[Aashenfox]

A game should always look after the needs of its best players (I don't count myself among them, this is not a self serving post), no matter how much of a minority they are. These are the players that will push the boundaries of a game, boundaries that average players will never even encounter, and therefore they also provide the most meaningful feedback.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

A game should always look after the needs of its best players (I don't count myself among them, this is not a self serving post), no matter how much of a minority they are. These are the players that will push the boundaries of a game, boundaries that average players will never even encounter, and therefore they also provide the most meaningful feedback.

Oh god really. "Best" players.

The arrogance of that knows no bounds.

There is no end game in ED. There is no "You have won the game!" message, and then you insert coin and start again. There is more to the game than just PvP pew-pew at other player ships. Taking all these factors into account - one cannot possibly declare who are the "best" players. A player can be "the best" at PvP, sure, but that certainly does not mean they are "the best" at other aspects of the game. Not at all. Sure, to be "the best" at PvP you also need to be knowledgable in gathering materials, how to get the best out of the BGS/missions, how to properly engineer and outfit your ship and so on, in order to attain the goal of building your PvP-ready ship. But really, join the club, because all that other stuff is knowledge required in the 95% of the game which does not involve PvP.

tl;dr : PvP players aren't "the best" at the game - not by a long shot. You are "the best" in specialising in your myopic aim of "being able to beat other players in combat" - that's for sure. But having the hubris to declare yourselves "the best"? Please.

 

[rekurzion]

... so that the speed of the ship isn't the be all and end all of pvp (it was at the end of 2.4).

Speed kills. and has been used as an advantage in battle since the beginning of life.

Don't hate the player hate the physics.

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

A game should always look after the needs of its best players (I don't count myself among them, this is not a self serving post), no matter how much of a minority they are. These are the players that will push the boundaries of a game, boundaries that average players will never even encounter, and therefore they also provide the most meaningful feedback.

yeah lets cater the needs of the best players, which are probably 1%, lets just hope they all bu a LARGE amount of stuff in frontiers shop to pay the servers, because that 1% then needs to finance servers and the devlopment now.

if you cater the top 1% who know the boundaries, and balance for them, then you will basically create HUGE imbalance amongst the regular gamer because they utilise whats the most easiest and effective way to achieve something.

 

[Han_Zen]

I just provided a detailed explanatory post in Frenotx's semi-parallel thread. As I observe within it, reverski is really one sub-facet of what I call 'pinball' (another sub-facet of which is 'jousting') which in turn is one of the two most polar opposite approaches to ED 1v1 combat.

As the post appears relevant to both threads I'll link below for any interested.

Perfect explanation.

Always favored circle strafing my self. Vulture and Sidewinder gives me most fun in combat, because of their strafing ability.

It's a bit sad that the balance is steadily making it less viable in PvP(not that I do PvP much)

That being said, I do have a Clipper with long range hit scan weapons.

 

[Aashenfox]

yeah lets cater the needs of the best players, which are probably 1%, lets just hope they all bu a LARGE amount of stuff in frontiers shop to pay the servers, because that 1% then needs to finance servers and the devlopment now.

if you cater the top 1% who know the boundaries, and balance for them, then you will basically create HUGE imbalance amongst the regular gamer because they utilise whats the most easiest and effective way to achieve something.

If you don't balance to encourage people to get better, they won't. Look at WoW. You think they care if newbies in Goldshire think what they are doing is balanced? Hardcore raiders drive that game and all other successful MMOs.

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

If you don't balance to encourage people to get better, they won't. Look at WoW. You think they care if newbies in Goldshire think what they are doing is balanced? Hardcore raiders drive that game and all other successful MMOs.

Nonsense, WOW is entirely doing something else, they have hardcore dungeons those regulars never will go to, while they have their own dungeons they go to and be busy with. Thats entirely different from the way how a PvP balance in ED would work because in Ed you don't seperate those two kind of people and the moment you add "hardcore dungeon rules" they count for all dungeons and then yes WoW would be quite empty because the casual would be off and leave. The Dungeons individuality is what easily allows Blizzard to cater specific groups of gamers. But you cannot do that with the basic design of Elites open world like universe because the rules apply to everyone and everyone can meet everyone. So yes, Blizzard cares what newbies do is balanced, thats why there are dungeons of various difficulties so that everoyone can and will find something on their level of skill. and even if not, they just get carried by others.

And implying people always get better is also nonsense a lot people, especially casuals play at their given skill cap, they simply don't have the time or skill to get better.

 

[jasonbirder]

Look at WoW. You think they care if newbies in Goldshire think what they are doing is balanced? Hardcore raiders drive that game and all other successful MMOs.

ALL the WORST aspects of Elite are because it has some MMO (rather than Computer game) type mechanics...

I'd also hesitate to suggest that those MMO mechanics are what drive players to increase their SKILL level (by practice, testing, recording themselves and debriefing, picking apart small aspects of their engagements etc etc - the sign of skill-based gaming) and suggest in the majority of cases it drives players to merely "kerching" get a Corvette/G5 it up to what's considered Meta...
Take away the MMO aspects of Magic Plate Armour (G5 Engineers Shields/Shield boosters) and Enchanted Weapons (G5 Engineered Weapons, Experimental Effects) and put everyone in identical ships...and the game would drive FAR more skill-based behaviour...

 

[Sugarat]

Oh god really. "Best" players.

The arrogance of that knows no bounds.

There is no end game in ED. There is no "You have won the game!" message, and then you insert coin and start again. There is more to the game than just PvP pew-pew at other player ships. Taking all these factors into account - one cannot possibly declare who are the "best" players. A player can be "the best" at PvP, sure, but that certainly does not mean they are "the best" at other aspects of the game. Not at all. Sure, to be "the best" at PvP you also need to be knowledgable in gathering materials, how to get the best out of the BGS/missions, how to properly engineer and outfit your ship and so on, in order to attain the goal of building your PvP-ready ship. But really, join the club, because all that other stuff is knowledge required in the 95% of the game which does not involve PvP.

tl;dr : PvP players aren't "the best" at the game - not by a long shot. You are "the best" in specialising in your myopic aim of "being able to beat other players in combat" - that's for sure. But having the hubris to declare yourselves "the best"? Please.

When talking about combat I think it would be best to listen to those best at combat.. so yeah, doesn't make them "Best" at the game.. but for the purpose of this thread it seems proper.

 

[Han_Zen]

ALL the WORST aspects of Elite are because it has some MMO (rather than Computer game) type mechanics...

I'd also hesitate to suggest that those MMO mechanics are what drive players to increase their SKILL level (by practice, testing, recording themselves and debriefing, picking apart small aspects of their engagements etc etc - the sign of skill-based gaming) and suggest in the majority of cases it drives players to merely "kerching" get a Corvette/G5 it up to what's considered Meta...
Take away the MMO aspects of Magic Plate Armour (G5 Engineers Shields/Shield boosters) and Enchanted Weapons (G5 Engineered Weapons, Experimental Effects) and put everyone in identical ships...and the game would drive FAR more skill-based behaviour...

Have to agree. Anything that smells of XP, potions or drop loot is anti skill.

ED could use a good house cleaning, when it commes to this.

 

[CMDR BOSLEY]

If you nerf the reverse thrusters then it will take longer to slow down; all the ships will drift more and that won't be very enjoyable.

 

[jasonbirder]

If you nerf the reverse thrusters then it will take longer to slow down; all the ships will drift more and that won't be very enjoyable

I'm fairly sure the core of the argument has moved on BUT...
Thruster Power (Be it main thruster/reverse thruster/translational thrusters) has NO effect on maximum SPEED - because if we're talking about a "real world" physicals model...you can accelerate to any speed (till relativistic effects kick in) in a vacuum...The Current maximum Reverse Speed is a completely artificial limit put in by FDev (ostensibly a speed limiter in the ships FLCS) to ensure Ships in an instance are traveling and fighting at similar velocities...it has ZERO connection with a ships ability to decelerate...
By the current "Game Logic" FDev could merely select different (arbitary) maximum speeds/reverse speeds limited by the FLCS with NO change to the acceleration/deceleration parameters...

 

[Ch3ck]

Nonsense, WOW is entirely doing something else, they have hardcore dungeons those regulars never will go to, while they have their own dungeons they go to and be busy with. Thats entirely different from the way how a PvP balance in ED would work because in Ed you don't seperate those two kind of people and the moment you add "hardcore dungeon rules" they count for all dungeons and then yes WoW would be quite empty because the casual would be off and leave. The Dungeons individuality is what easily allows Blizzard to cater specific groups of gamers. But you cannot do that with the basic design of Elites open world like universe because the rules apply to everyone and everyone can meet everyone. So yes, Blizzard cares what newbies do is balanced, thats why there are dungeons of various difficulties so that everoyone can and will find something on their level of skill. and even if not, they just get carried by others.

And implying people always get better is also nonsense a lot people, especially casuals play at their given skill cap, they simply don't have the time or skill to get better.

^^^Bingo!!!