Nerf Reverski

[lenna]

I really should just ignore you since I'm becoming increasingly convinced you're just a troll, but... what? Do you believe upgrading a racecar's engine is actually a "nerf" to the car because it can't drive slow anymore? As I said, it's not a matter of opinion, it's just fact. If a thing has ability 1 and 2, then it is altered such that it has ability 1, 2, and 3, then it has not been "nerfed". Something being "nerfed" means it was made less powerful, or abilities were taken away. Giving something more abilities without taking any others away is not a nerf. That's not what that word means. Giving something new abilities while allowing it to keep all its old ones is what is called a buff.

I call you out for being a troll - you are persisting with repeating your argument that I have understood but disagree with. My perspective may be different from yours but that does not make it invalid.

I have tried to use the "lets agree to disagree" tact and yet you persist - nothing you can say will actually change my opinion, so lets cut the sarcastic antagonism and just move on.

 

[lenna]

I completely agree that big ships are insufficiently differentiated, and that several problems stem from that. I would love to see flying a big ship be like playing a totally different game, when compared to flying a small ship. Less emphasis on piloting, and more emphasis on module management, strategy, and resource balancing. Think more like the captain in a star trek show, and less like luke flying an x-wing.

Big ships in ED are not actually that big in the context of ED - they are not capital class in ED terms they are actually just larger fighters or at best semi-capital craft. ED is not a "star ship bridge" simulator, and while I can actually empathise with wanting something like that IMO it is not appropriate for ED. The true ED capital craft are much larger than the largest pilotable ship, can not dock at stations (at least not internally) and almost certainly would not be involved with planetary flight.

If you want to be in charge of a capital craft, then that IMO is outside of the scope of ED.

 

[Frenotx]

Big ships in ED are not actually that big in the context of ED - they are not capital class in ED terms they are actually just larger fighters or at best semi-capital craft. ED is not a "star ship bridge" simulator, and while I can actually empathise with wanting something like that IMO it is not appropriate for ED. The true ED capital craft are much larger than the largest pilotable ship, can not dock at stations (at least not internally) and almost certainly would not be involved with planetary flight.

If you want to be in charge of a capital craft, then that IMO is outside of the scope of ED.

Consider the imperial cutter. "Cutter" generally refers to some of the smallest types of "warships". An example would be the US coast guard's ships. One of the largest ships of this class is 418' long, and is run by a crew of 113 people. The imperial cutter is ~631 feet long. Automaton could certainly reduce the amount of crew needed, but it's still EXTREMELY conceivable that a ship that size would work best with a crew of more than one. It certainly isn't a cap ship, but it's far from a fighter craft, too.

The cutter I was talking about (which is very small compared to modern cap ships, too): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Cutter

 

[E-L-Y-S-I-U-M]

You can't nerf reverski without affecting FAOFF play as going in reverse is the same as heading in any other direction... And anyone using reverski is likely to also be toggling FAOFF. Your boost speed is automatically reduced down to the max speed anyway and so reverse speed is already nerfed. If you are incapable of manoeuvring past the great big ship with the great big forward firing guns pointing at you so as to sit behind the target, then simply turn the other way and find yourself something easier to kill... You don't have to score a win with every fight, just move on because lets face it - what else is a slow turning ship with forward firing weapons going to do, just go around in circles forever chasing something more manoeuvrable?... Get real.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

A few people here need to read up on :

Moment of Force

Reaction Control Systems

And then take a look at the positions of the numerous non-main thrusters dotted around various locations on ED ships.

Especially the Anaconda. Then think about the size of these thrusters dotted around the Anaconda. I mean, they're bloody yuuuuge. And they're basically functionally equivalent to Reaction Control System Thrusters.

Then consider the various values of Moment of Force these gargantuan RCS thrusters exert around the Anaconda.

Then you will understand why the Anaconda (and other ships) can apparently rotate pretty quickly.

 

[Frenotx]

A few people here need to read up on :

Moment of Force

Reaction Control Systems

And then take a look at the positions of the numerous non-main thrusters dotted around various locations on ED ships.

Especially the Anaconda. Then think about the size of these thrusters dotted around the Anaconda. I mean, they're bloody yuuuuge. And they're basically functionally equivalent to Reaction Control System Thrusters.

Then consider the various values of Moment of Force these gargantuan RCS thrusters exert around the Anaconda.

Then you will understand why the Anaconda (and other ships) can apparently rotate pretty quickly.

The sticky wicket is not tearing the ship apart in the process, and not turning all the people inside to goo. If a long object rotates quickly, the end points of it will be hauling donkey. If something is hauling donkey in a circle, a lot of g-force gets involved.

 

[lenna]

Consider the imperial cutter. "Cutter" generally refers to some of the smallest types of "warships". An example would be the US coast guard's ships. One of the largest ships of this class is 418' long, and is run by a crew of 113 people. The imperial cutter is ~631 feet long. Automaton could certainly reduce the amount of crew needed, but it's still EXTREMELY conceivable that a ship that size would work best with a crew of more than one. It certainly isn't a cap ship, but it's far from a fighter craft, too.

The cutter I was talking about (which is very small compared to modern cap ships, too): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Cutter

The problem is people keep thinking in real world terms rather than game terms - while these craft may be "small warships" that still does not mean they are even close in terms of being comparable to real world sea-going equivalents in terms of how they operate nor specifically how they should operate.

As for operating with more than a crew of one, that is where multi-crew comes in.

In space sci-fi though, the smaller warships (comparable to Anaconda/Corvette/Cutter) are typically not the slow lumbering capital craft you seem to expect. They are typically quite agile but typically not as agile as the rank and file fighters.

Using Babylon 5 as an example, the closest equivalent would probably be a White Star which is probably agile enough to be considered comparable to a large fighter. Using Star Trek, the USS Defiant probably qualifies in the same way. These craft typically are touted as having a crew of less than 10 primary officers but it is not unknown for them to be crewed solo either.

Now where the ED universe is concerned, such ships are limited to a maximum of 3 PC crew members and while the ships do gain from operating with additional crew members they are still quite agile craft and are perfectly capable of being operated by one individual. This may not tally with individual expectations based on real world naval warships but we are not talking about real world navies - it is space sci-fi context and a context that is focused around "piloting ships" not commanding a crew/ship.

If we were to compare ED with another space flight sci-fi game series (X2/X3) the Anaconda/Corvette/Cutter would probably be considered equivalent to the M6 (Corvette) class of vessels (Dragon/Osprey/Centaur/Nemesis/Hydra) in that game and in fact the flight characteristics probably map pretty well in that context.

 

[Tel Prydain]

By properly scaling damage of weapons. Now each next step of weapons is twice as big, yet only does 50% more damage. Thus Cutter or Corvette are doing damage comparable to FdL.

More realistically would be for each next weapon size increment doing at least twice the amount of damage.

Next thing is nerfing the special effects of weapons when hitting big ships. I fly Corvette and a skilled enough Vulture with dual TLB APAs can completely deny me ability to target. While my sensors array weights whooping 160 tonnes. This is not ok. Same should go for mines, torpedoes, etc.

Finally when big ship's shields are being hit with anything but huge weapons they should take diminished damage. I'd say 50% for big weapons, 20% for medium and 5% for small. Because size matters. Because my Corvette shield generator weights 4 times more than my FdL shield generator.

I mean... they aren't capital ships...

If you wanted something like that you'd need to cut the big ship's maneuverability by two thirds (o r maybe more). Maybe limit class 1/2/3 weapons to turrets only. And make them more venerable to torpedoes. Then you could have your lumbering bohemiths....
But at the moment the corvette flies like a fighter.

 

[lenna]

But at the moment the corvette flies like a fighter.

A heavy fighter perhaps, but that is perfectly valid.

Don't touch the flight mechanics balance of my Corvette (nor the Anaconda or the Cutter).

If people want to get involved with bridge operation type gameplay let them play something more suited for it.

 

[lenna]

now i want to name my clipper the white star.... *gime the white stars nose cannon on it and..omg...lol..*

My Clipper is named in the spirit of the Millennium Falcon - a nod to the speed of the Clipper.

The Cutter is probably closest to the design of the White Star with the positioning of the Huge hard-point.

 

[CMDR Maelstrom Dragons]

thank you sir

honestly, if elite dangerous combat had no speed limits... and thrusters had the same reverse thrust power as now, combat would be much MUCH more entertaining

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

The sticky wicket is not tearing the ship apart in the process, and not turning all the people inside to goo. If a long object rotates quickly, the end points of it will be hauling donkey. If something is hauling donkey in a circle, a lot of g-force gets involved.

That's easy - very good construction techniques in terms of hull superstructure. The second point can be explained away by future genofixing (a sci-fi concept I stole from the Culture novels but why not), and/or inertial dampening (ever booped into the ground of a planet at speed or into something else in space? That'd turn you into insta-jam, but it doesn't) - or just plain old fashioned handwavium.

Honestly, dump this idea of nerfing things - it's just dumber than a bag of hammers.

Don't nerf. Buff! Buff everything! And keep buffing!

 

[Exiton]

I mean... they aren't capital ships...

If you wanted something like that you'd need to cut the big ship's maneuverability by two thirds (o r maybe more). Maybe limit class 1/2/3 weapons to turrets only. And make them more venerable to torpedoes. Then you could have your lumbering bohemiths....
But at the moment the corvette flies like a fighter.

My huge weapons are four times as big as medium weapons, yet they only do twice the amount of damage. Does this sound ok to you?

Currently huge weapons make no sense. If I had my way I'd immediately install quad mediums on my huge hardpoints (especially considering they do the same amount of damage to shields).

Also, like I said, any big ship currently can be completely owned by a couple of counter-fitted dirt-cheap ships. Or one even if the pilot is really good. You can't go more vulnerable than that. And this is not ok in my book. This is like bringing down a tank with a handgun.

I firmly believe we need dedicated huge weapons, effects, modules and essentially gameplay specifically for big ships.

 

[lenna]

My huge weapons are four times as big as medium weapons, yet they only do twice the amount of damage. Does this sound ok to you?

Quadruple the size does not necessarily mean quadruple (or higher) the power.

Currently huge weapons make no sense. If I had my way I'd immediately install quad mediums on my huge hardpoints (especially considering they do the same amount of damage to shields).

Huge weapons are far from senseless, they are plenty effective enough as is - if you are a good enough pilot to capitalise on them.

Also, like I said, any big ship currently can be completely owned by a couple of counter-fitted dirt-cheap ships. Or one even if the pilot is really good. You can't go more vulnerable than that. And this is not ok in my book. This is like bringing down a tank with a handgun.

You are drawing hyperbolic arguments IMO, the situation is not like taking a tank out with a hand gun - it is more like a fighter launching anti-armour torpedoes against a battleship - or infantry using anti-tank weapons against tanks. The more vulnerable attackers may be able to take out the harder target but the harder target can swat them like a fly if they outfit their ship appropriately.

 

[Exiton]

Quadruple the size does not necessarily mean quadruple (or higher) the power.

But it does mean I should be able to install quad mediums and get two times the kick.

Huge weapons are far from senseless, they are plenty effective enough as is - if you are a good enough pilot to capitalise on them.

I'd be far more effective capitalizing on quad medium PAs instead of one huge.

You are drawing hyperbolic arguments IMO, the situation is not like taking a tank out with a hand gun - it is more like a fighter launching anti-armour torpedoes against a battleship - or infantry using anti-tank weapons against tanks. The more vulnerable attackers may be able to take out the harder target but the harder target can swat them like a fly if they outfit their ship appropriately.

You can't "swat them like a fly" in any big ship. With the new dirty drives engineering any small/medium ship is one boost away from getting to safety. There's absolutely no way to get them (unless the ship is fitted very poorly or the pilot just doesn't care or wants to fight to the end).

 

[Frenotx]

...Also, like I said, any big ship currently can be completely owned by a couple of counter-fitted dirt-cheap ships. Or one even if the pilot is really good. You can't go more vulnerable than that. And this is not ok in my book. This is like bringing down a tank with a handgun.

Several people working together with ships specifically tailored to the situation taking down a single player in a big ship that isn't prepared for the situation? Honestly that sounds fine to me. While a single small ship can kill a big ship, there needs to be a large skill disparity, the small ship needs to not make mistakes, and the big ship needs allow themselves to die. I've been able to take down the shields of big ships in my mine-bomber Viper IV, but the only ones I've been able to kill are the ones that don't pay attention to their module health, and allow me to kill them. If a ship has a few PDTs, it makes it extremely hard to hit them with the mines. If they have a few ECM, it makes them extremely hard to hit with torpedoes. If they fly smartly, it makes them extremely hard to hit with either. Even if they fail to do any of those things, they could at any time simply go to supercruise and there'd be nothing I could do to stop them.

Using a little ship to kill a big ship (NPCs and their poor, non-engineered builds aside) is not an easy thing to do, even if you have a bit of a skill edge on your opponent. Just like killing a battleship with a lone destroyer is possible, but not easy- a lot of things need to go just right for it to happen. I would personally find it very lame and boring if big ships were just invulnerable to little ships. Flying a big ship would be a total bore vs. most targets you encounter, and flying a little ship would be too cut-and-dry: see a big ship? Just run. You can't scratch it.

You can't "swat them like a fly" in any big ship. With the new dirty drives engineering any small/medium ship is one boost away from getting to safety. There's absolutely no way to get them (unless the ship is fitted very poorly or the pilot just doesn't care or wants to fight to the end).

You can DD mod the drives of the big ship, too, so this point is kind of moot. All engineering is available to all ship sizes.

 

[Han_Zen]

thank you sir

honestly, if elite dangerous combat had no speed limits... and thrusters had the same reverse thrust power as now, combat would be much MUCH more entertaining

The speed limit is silly from a realism perspective, but it's not possible to have a multiplayer game without it.

If ED were Solo only, it wold be like it was in Fe2/FFE. Those games did not have damage fall off, on lasers and PAs. You could quite easily take out targets at 60km.

The criticism of that flight model was a bit similar to what we are starting to see in ED. You could learn to master the finesses of matching speed with and opponent, but it was always more effective to keep distance and have a big gun.

From a game play perspective the problem with unrestricted speed, is that the ship with better acceleration will always control the situation as long as weapons have restricted range. If you have unrestricted range hit scan weapons like in the old games, the bigger gun always wins.

 

[lenna]

But it does mean I should be able to install quad mediums and get two times the kick.

Nope, that is not how it works. Huge weapons seem to be primarily designed for combat between the more expensive ships, but can still be VERY effective against smaller craft - perma-boost is not required .

If you want the higher medium weapon counts there are ships designed for that.

I'd be far more effective capitalizing on quad medium PAs instead of one huge.

That is your problem though.

There are other ships that give you that (or close to it).

You can't "swat them like a fly" in any big ship. With the new dirty drives engineering any small/medium ship is one boost away from getting to safety. There's absolutely no way to get them (unless the ship is fitted very poorly or the pilot just doesn't care or wants to fight to the end).

Depends on relative builds, substantially cheaper ships (with a couple of exceptions) are weaker on balance. Certainly in PvE circumstances lower end craft do not normally last that long, but they can still be a threat in numbers. That is where situational awareness is key - if you are poor at maintaining it then you will be worse off against lower end craft. Bigger ships can be configured to both absorb and resist ALOT of damage (without being OP) and the current game mechanics are more than adequate.

 

[Frenotx]

An example of the joy of this particular flight maneuver:
[video=youtube;cdv9tVunKn0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdv9tVunKn0[/video]

 

[Bounder]

thank you sir

honestly, if elite dangerous combat had no speed limits... and thrusters had the same reverse thrust power as now, combat would be much MUCH more entertaining

I would actually start playing it.

I'd also be ranting and raving at every one else to play it too (instead of warning them off it).

The tricks you can pull in FFE are just obscene compared to the dowdy inflexible strictures of ED. Raw, raucous, riotous rip-roaring rough-riding rowdiness at its most recidivistic. Focused, twitch reflex arcade action, proper old-school style-e..

Whereas combat in ED is the arcade equivalent of elevator music.