Pack FSD Disruptors you Big Dummies

RELSPI

RELSPI
I was flying in a garbage Corvette build in Fong Wang(parts were en-route from the Pleiades) with an unengineered 7A shield and with only two of my shield/skill boosters - in short, I had the equivalent not of a slightly wet paper towel, but a slightly wet sheet of cardboard. The Corvette was not fitted for combat, I was running a few cargo missions in it.

I was interdicted unawares by not one, but two commanders from the 51th - a Fer-de-Lance and an Alliance Challenger! 'Uh-oh,' I thought, 'this is the end of me. I'm garbage at PvP and this ship won't last for more than half a minute. May as well try and high-wake.'
To my utter dismay, despite my errors in both a) not moving at all while I selected a high-wake destination, b) scrolling downwards through the huge list of asteroid clusters and planets instead of just scrolling backwards, and c) having no pips to SYS, I was quite lazily able to just point myself at the destination, charge my drive and jump away. I was left on very low shielding, but considering the level of shielding we're talking about that's not really saying much. This isn't even a testament to my skill, as I did no evasive maneuvering whatsoever.

I would've been toast if they'd packed the one thing you'd expect a ganker to pack when interdicting a big tanky boi like the Corvette - something to keep it nailed down while you chip away at its frankly upsetting shields. I wasn't even carrying point-defenses, I wasn't moving, and I certainly didn't see any missed shots - they were hammering my limp, frail form with everything they had and I just casually waltzed away (and returned immediately afterwards).

Is this indicative of a poor build choice on their part considering their target (i.e. no FSD disruption for a big warship) or is MJ inflation really that big? (considering, of course, the fact I had two G2 resistance-focused SBs on the ship).
 

Dillon Fallon

Dillon Fallon
Well, against my frag Clipper, Coriolis says that for a 7A shielded Corvette with two g2 resistance SBs your shields would be down in 8 seconds. Obviously that's an 'on paper' estimate, but if you're not even moving chances are this could even be on the slow side. I wonder if they were seeing what damage they could do in unengineered ships.
 

RELSPI

RELSPI
Morbad said:
So how was the second date?



Yes.
Click to expand...
implying I date non-Thargoids
Click to expand...
does my gimmick posting teach you nothing

Deejayeff145 said:
Well, against my frag Clipper, Coriolis says that for a 7A shielded Corvette with two g2 resistance SBs your shields would be down in 8 seconds. Obviously that's an 'on paper' estimate, but if you're not even moving chances are this could even be on the slow side. I wonder if they were seeing what damage they could do in unengineered ships.
Click to expand...
They were definitely engineered - I suffered minor phasing damage from some PA hits.
I think this is really just a 'big shields' moment. The whole ordeal was over in like 12 seconds, and my shields were already almost dead (bearing in mind 0 SYS pips) so this really just says a lot about the Corvette's base shields. Would probably have popped in anything weaker, although even in the Vette I was fully module-protected with about 3K hull.
 

Dillon Fallon

Dillon Fallon
RELSPI said:
does my gimmick posting teach you nothing


They were definitely engineered - I suffered minor phasing damage from some PA hits.
I think this is really just a 'big shields' moment. The whole ordeal was over in like 12 seconds, and my shields were already almost dead (bearing in mind 0 SYS pips) so this really just says a lot about the Corvette's base shields. Would probably have popped in anything weaker, although even in the Vette I was fully module-protected with about 3K hull.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is that by making some kind of an attempt at putting reasonable defences together that this should stop ganks ending in a rebuy? Then, because most ganks aren't actually that much of a threat we can all stop calling them horrible names?

It'll never catch on.
 

Wargfoot

Wargfoot
Many years ago, shortly after your mother and I met, and way back before the abomination known as 'color TV', a ganker would have you dead, stripped, and parted out long before you would have had time to arrange your pips. FDev needs to put the 'GANK' back in 'Ganker' and give these guys the tools they need to instantly delete an opponent. This whole story is disgusting.
 

cmdr Ramius007

C
Old Duck said:
Regarding OP, I've got a noob question. FSD disruptors only work once, correct? One reset per encounter IIRC. What's the reset time? Is it the same as if you lose an interdiction?
Click to expand...
FSD interrupt cooldown favours attacked ship even if one doesn't have fast boot FSD, personally changes to this so you need fast boot to overcome and cooldown favouring attacker is on one of top places of my pvp changes wishlist. It's usually non issue for most players because underbuilds die even before groms are needed, but it become issue when you see wing of cutters with healing beams that not die in another 100y. IMO there should be opportunity cost for deploying 35ly jump 10k mj indestructible behemoth, but i m one of those pvp minimaxers who want to have everything balanced.
 

Wargfoot

Wargfoot
cmdr Ramius007 said:
FSD interrupt cooldown favours attacked ship even if one doesn't have fast boot FSD, personally changes to this so you need fast boot to overcome and cooldown favouring attacker is on one of top places of my pvp changes wishlist.
Click to expand...

Cool down favoring attacker would mean that every explorer ship in the galaxy would need fast boot FSD or be dead.
This would cut the jump range for these ships to a pittance - which is why I don't care for your idea.

I've hated slow/stun/mess effects in every game I've played.
 

EUS

EUS
I can't read this topic without hearing this.
69c89a7e9bae6bdfa31a0e38f13cb63d.jpg

which always makes me think of this
giphy.gif
 

cmdr Ramius007

C
Wargfoot said:
Cool down favoring attacker would mean that every explorer ship in the galaxy would need fast boot FSD or be dead.
This would cut the jump range for these ships to a pittance - which is why I don't care for your idea.

I've hated slow/stun/mess effects in every game I've played.
Click to expand...
Those real explorers ships with d rated shields and no armour are more survivable if attacker have groms, because in this case he have 1 less plasma or frag, and explorers probably go to solo when returning to bubble anyway. Game offers several layers of easy mode pvp in general:1 submission after interdiction to hi wake very fast 2. no traces of low drops 3.no cooldown after low wake, 4.blocking, 5.instancing, and groms are not any wonder weapon, they are slow, hard to aim and can be shoot down reliably by point defence, it just force big ship to have less shields to be more survivable if they end being in losing side, it's called tradeof, and imo it improve social element in game, haulers in open would be more dependent winging up for protection, it would also indirectly lead to creation of serious C&P system, but it's long dream.
 

Wargfoot

Wargfoot
cmdr Ramius007 said:
Those real explorers ships with d rated shields and no armour are more survivable if attacker have groms, because in this case he have 1 less plasma or frag, and explorers probably go to solo when returning to bubble anyway.
Click to expand...
Oh come on man, you said you wanted the FSD cooldowns to favor the attacker and yet in the very first sentence of this latest post I'm supposed to believe you've been packing groms even though they make you less effective at killing explorers?

cmdr Ramius007 said:
...it's called tradeof, and imo it improve social element in game, haulers in open would be more dependent winging up for protection, it would also indirectly lead to creation of serious C&P system, but it's long dream.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is a bad vision for PvP; however, I object to forcing haulers to group up in open.
Not that the idea is bad but how much fun would that be for the wingmen who are doing the protecting?
They don't even have a way to get paid in this game. <---- This is a big problem.

How about gankers team up so they have the firepower they need to destroy a ship before it wakes out?

I'm with you when it comes to improving PvP - so I'm not bagging on you for having ideas.
It's just in my 20 years of online gaming I've seen the 'social element', as a prescription for other players, tossed out there as an idea under the guise of making PvP better and it is usually offered up by gankers who want to be able to kill 9/10 interdictions (or the like) and has nothing to do with improving the social aspect of the game.

If you wonder why I'm skeptical just ask yourself this question: "Would I want to spend an evening of play being a guard for a hauler?"
I know I wouldn't. :D
 

Morbad

Morbad
Any ship more maneuverable than a cutter or T-10 with a single PDT isn't even going to be hit by most FSD disruptors fired.

Throw silent running/heatsinks or more manuverable ships into the mix and the limits of dumbfire anything become quite evident. Now you need emissive and/or a more agile similarly ship to deliver the attack at point blank range with a good degree of success...or just a clueless target, which would probably make the FSD distruptor redundant, as others have pointed out.

Wargfoot said:
If you wonder why I'm skeptical just ask yourself this question: "Would I want to spend an evening of play being a guard for a hauler?"
I know I wouldn't. :D
Click to expand...

In Elite: Dangerous the hauler either knows how to take care of themselves, in which case they are virtually invincible, or they don't, in which case no amount of support is going to help them.

This is a fundamental problem with encounter distances that as existed as long as the game has had multiplayer and is not going to be changed much by tweaking Engineering or PP effects.

The only real way for escorts to screen a ship in SC is scouting and preemptive interdictions. If that fails and an interdiction occurs, the interdictor and the interdicted are placed almost on top of eachother; if that interdictor is a combat vessel, it will be able to shrug off massed fire from several other combat vessels for a significant period of time before being forced to flee...a period of time almost certainly longer than required for the hauler to escape via it's own means.

In ED a post-interdiction encounter range is ~2km, sensor ranges are ~8km, weapon ranges are ~6km, and masslock ranges are typically 3-5km.

Now compare that to multiplayer titles where escorts were more viable, say Jumpgate or Freelancer. These didn't really have interdictions (well, aside from gate camping in the former and cruise disruptors in the latter), so, barring advanced stealth techniques that usually relied upon static features, maximum encounter range was the same as sensor range, which was five to twenty times maximum weapons range. You either did something risky, like fly through an area well suited for ambushes, or you had time for evasive action in normal space, and time for your escorts to intercept hostiles.

Every fight in ED that starts with an interdiction is effectively a close quarter battle, because it places the opposed parties in close quarters and because escape is virtually automatic outside of this range. This leaves very little time for either the attackers or defenders, and dramatically limits the utility of escorts.
 

Screemonster

Screemonster
RELSPI said:
It... wasn't me, was it? I distinctly remember wanting to see what interdicting another player was like and feeling super guilty because I hadn't asked permission.
Click to expand...
Nah, it was some guy in a mamba flying around in Sol. I'd finally decided to go grab the tourist beacons and check out the voyager probes. But because I was flying in open in hotspots, I was flying my combat-fit DBS to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom