PvE Missions in a Viper Mk3
- Thread starter Rockflint
- Start date
I'm not certain that it's unintentional--I mean the basic behavior is obviously deliberate, but I strongly suspect the net effect is less than desireable--but all ranks do it.
Personally, I think it's part of collision avoidance. Most NPC ships try very hard to avoid collisions, even if such a collision would benefit them, or would harm them far less than letting an opponent stick to their blind spot; they won't crazy ivan, and won't try to force opponents to turn away from them by getting too close themselves. Combined with an inability to leverage FA off, this makes for some very predictable patterns.
Not to derail the thread too much, but are you talking about those Thread 3 POIs where you drop in on a lone Anaconda, and as soon as you land the first hit the other eight drop in and gang up on you? I can just about do them in my engineered-from-leftovers Krait Mk.II, but sometimes almost get my behind spanked and I have to bail. Can't imagine doing those in a less protected small ship...
Would love the video.
When I focus on the conda the other ships get free shots in, which is kinda hard to tank in a viper in my experience.@myothershipisacobraiv I was looking at some more of my videos and it appears pretty much all ships of all ranks have the pattern, but it's effect, including optimal engagement range, varies wildly on ship type. I think the the AI calculates the optimal range to start turning toward a threat, based on both the pitch rate of the vessel it's flying and the rate at which it's opening up distance. High-rank FASes, one of the ship types I find almost impossible to stay out of their firing arc in a Viper, start the turn once they open of a distance of no more than ~300m. Most other ships want more of a gap, and only the ones with high boost acceleration multipliers can usually open it up.
A couple examples:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAXv3_HGu4g
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdr5f_IseIU
That was before I switched my cargo hatch to press-and-hold and moved it to a more convenient location. It does help a lot in maintaining distance (as boost can be delayed, or interrupted, and the forward component almost removed), but I never got around to using it much in a combat viper.
Making one sounds like fun, but I can't give any firm ETA.
Unless the massacre missions you're talking about have high-enough threat signal sources for all of the ships to have Engineered weapon effects, this shouldn't be an insurmountable problem, and it's much better to be shot at by a Cobra or Eagle than an Anaconda.
A viper that is mostly HRPs can take quite a beating and the small profile means it's hit a lot less than larger ships (warning Ice-T lyrics):
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CgdU6YhS2w
Even with a better weapons loadout (the above one was horrible) and a shields (which spare the hull a huge amount of damage over a protracted encounter), I don't imagine more than a few signal sources would be practical before going in for repairs, but the ship should hold up through one easily enough.
There are also other approaches...Moriarte's high speed orbiting makes it very hard for even large groups of NPCs to land enough shots to break the marginal shielding of a hybrid Viper. When we've grouped up for some system security murder, his viper always took far less damage than mine, even if my approach was faster at knocking out large ships.
A couple examples:
That was before I switched my cargo hatch to press-and-hold and moved it to a more convenient location. It does help a lot in maintaining distance (as boost can be delayed, or interrupted, and the forward component almost removed), but I never got around to using it much in a combat viper.
Would love the video.
Making one sounds like fun, but I can't give any firm ETA.
Unless the massacre missions you're talking about have high-enough threat signal sources for all of the ships to have Engineered weapon effects, this shouldn't be an insurmountable problem, and it's much better to be shot at by a Cobra or Eagle than an Anaconda.
A viper that is mostly HRPs can take quite a beating and the small profile means it's hit a lot less than larger ships (warning Ice-T lyrics):
Even with a better weapons loadout (the above one was horrible) and a shields (which spare the hull a huge amount of damage over a protracted encounter), I don't imagine more than a few signal sources would be practical before going in for repairs, but the ship should hold up through one easily enough.
There are also other approaches...Moriarte's high speed orbiting makes it very hard for even large groups of NPCs to land enough shots to break the marginal shielding of a hybrid Viper. When we've grouped up for some system security murder, his viper always took far less damage than mine, even if my approach was faster at knocking out large ships.
The shieldless Viper4 with the funny mirrored hull can survive almost anything, it's virtually immune to lasers, railguns and (to a lesser extent) multicannons.
As long as you can avoid rams, the only threat is PAs (but it's not easy to hit a well flown Viper) and seekers/packhounds (they won't kill you, only your weapons, unless you can break the lock using heatsinks or silent running, but that's not fun IMO).
Use Viper advantage and be quick.
Or dont bother at all. It's unfair encounter in the first place and unlikely to be worth the time.
Or engineer your ship to oblivion to rackle the cancer powercreep. I keep hearing it's all done in a jiffy but from my experience it's just a frusteation simulator
Which specific missions have these encounters? I slapped together a Viper that should work.
Cool! It's "massacre pirates", USS threat level is 4 or, oddly enough, 3. It's the one where you drop in and there is only a deadly conda, sometimes with one or two wingmen. Once you shoot the rest arrives. T3 also has lower-ranked versions, it's the deadly conda one you are looking for.
Looking forward to the vid!
Wing or standard mission?
Tried a bunch of threat 3-4 mission signals from a non-wing and a wing pirate massacre mission and couldn't find the right enemy wing composition. So, I just recorded the first thing I came across that seemed like it would be comparable, volume of fire wise.
Not going to be able to do this again for a few days, unless I want to hurt myself. I'm trying to use rudder pedals in a rolly office chair and I pulled off the hook & loop adhesive I had securing my HOTAS to my desk a while back to make more room for normal desk stuff. Constantly compensating for my chair, throttle, and stick sliding all over is going to destroy my wrist.
Anyway, this is what I got, so far (not sure what YouTube's deal is today; I uploaded a 4k60 video with the same settings I normally use, but YouTube doesn't seem to want to process HD resolutions for this one):
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7IVjTFszEM
Edit: now it's processing the HD versions...that will probably take a couple hours.
Didn't realize it until the end, but the hostile Viper has a frag cannon, which is why I was malfunctioning so often...malfunction checks are per hit, irrespective of damage, so things like multi-cannon and frags will trigger disproportionate numbers of them. I should probably have taken an armored PP instead of a low emissions on, and just used heatsinks when needed. If I ever get around to securing my stick again, adding a shield generator would probably be worthwhile, but with the current state of my setup, having to manage pips better would be too much work.
Short range weapons are definitely the way to go in the Viper though, even with the above difficulties, I could keep within effective range well enough to make the damage increase worthwhile. I went rails and MCs because Tod does G5 of both and I didn't want to have to fly all over, but it's a fairly potent setup.
Tactics wise, in this scenario I probably should have taken down the Cobras and Eagles first, as they are both relatively easy to outmaneuver and quick to destroy. Saving the opposing Viper for last would work better with a PP that was less prone to malfunction. In the scenario we're looking for, with the Anaconda, knocking it out first is still probably the safest bet, and should be quite quick with any comparable weapons loadout.
Not going to be able to do this again for a few days, unless I want to hurt myself. I'm trying to use rudder pedals in a rolly office chair and I pulled off the hook & loop adhesive I had securing my HOTAS to my desk a while back to make more room for normal desk stuff. Constantly compensating for my chair, throttle, and stick sliding all over is going to destroy my wrist.
Anyway, this is what I got, so far (not sure what YouTube's deal is today; I uploaded a 4k60 video with the same settings I normally use, but YouTube doesn't seem to want to process HD resolutions for this one):
Edit: now it's processing the HD versions...that will probably take a couple hours.
Didn't realize it until the end, but the hostile Viper has a frag cannon, which is why I was malfunctioning so often...malfunction checks are per hit, irrespective of damage, so things like multi-cannon and frags will trigger disproportionate numbers of them. I should probably have taken an armored PP instead of a low emissions on, and just used heatsinks when needed. If I ever get around to securing my stick again, adding a shield generator would probably be worthwhile, but with the current state of my setup, having to manage pips better would be too much work.
Short range weapons are definitely the way to go in the Viper though, even with the above difficulties, I could keep within effective range well enough to make the damage increase worthwhile. I went rails and MCs because Tod does G5 of both and I didn't want to have to fly all over, but it's a fairly potent setup.
Tactics wise, in this scenario I probably should have taken down the Cobras and Eagles first, as they are both relatively easy to outmaneuver and quick to destroy. Saving the opposing Viper for last would work better with a PP that was less prone to malfunction. In the scenario we're looking for, with the Anaconda, knocking it out first is still probably the safest bet, and should be quite quick with any comparable weapons loadout.
Higher level NPC's seem to be able to pull off...erm, unconventional manoeuvres. I like to jump into one of my several smaller ship for some PvE as it can be great fun. So, rather than my being in a relatively slow-turning barge like a Corvette, Anaconda or Type 10, I'm in a nimble Cobra Mk III or other such ship.
Last night, while in the aforementioned Cobra Mk III, I attacked a Dangerous Anaconda in a HAZ Res, so I had no assist from local security - just how I like it. Being significantly faster an more manoeuvrable I attempted to stay on his six a thus able to avoid much of his fire. It worked, for a short while each time I got behind him, but after a few seconds the Anaconda would pull off the following manoeuvre:
- Anaconda would boost away from me, momentarily gaining a little (insignificant) distance - I'm much faster - though I'd still be within 200m or so easily.
- Just after it'd boosted in a straight line approximately away from me, it would appear to maintain that velocity and vector, while slowly turning to face me. Acting almost as if it's using FA Off (which the AI can't apparently)
- During this manoeuvre, I'm still travelling along the same vector and I've sped up to compensate, so am still well under 200m away.
- No amount of vertical or horizontal strafe (my ship is fast at this) seems to be able to compensate for the target's rotation, and I cannot stay on its tail.
- In essence, the Anaconda has managed to momentarily gain some distance, but I compensate and remain close easily. He then rotates to face me while still flying along the same vector. While my own vector adjustments to stay on his tail seem to be readily compensated for, as he continues to fly away from me.
Now, when I first encountered this years ago, before I hit Elite in combat, I assumed I was just seeing improved AI behaviour due to my own increase in combat rank. I posted how I was impressed to see an AI using the exact same FA Off and flip manoeuvre that I'd used myself. However, I was told that the "AI doesn't use FA Off" so no one could really explain what I was seeing - a ship flying away from me (along the same vector) while also turning to face me, then maintain that vector and speed and shooting me.
Bottom line, it should be pretty effortless to stay on the tail of a large ship like the Anaconda, Type 10, Corvette etc. in a smaller and very nimble (engineered) ship like the Cobra Mk III. However, such ships can regularly out-turn me while maintaining the same vector and end up basically reversing while facing me. I can utilise boost turn in order to break their LoS on me, which of course I do, I don't want to be shot. This manoeuvre though doesn't seem quite legit to me unless the AI can utilise FA Off as these ships appear to be doing.
I cannot explain what's going on under the hood here, but higher-level AI-controlled larger ships seem to be able to move in a way they shouldn't be able to, without utilised FA off.
For the record, I LOVE getting up really close to my targets - I'm a fan of Frags and Efficient weapons - so it's not like I'm so far away that these ships have room to manoeuvre, I'm right on their tail.
Anyway, this is something we've (my wingmate and I) noticed as we went up in combat ranks. When he was a couple of ranks lower than me, and he initiated the instance (first to arrive) we'd not see this. If on the other hand I arrived first, we'd generally face tougher foes and see this manoeuvre being utilised. We've both long since been Elite now though, so it doesn't matter which of us arrives first.
Last night, while in the aforementioned Cobra Mk III, I attacked a Dangerous Anaconda in a HAZ Res, so I had no assist from local security - just how I like it. Being significantly faster an more manoeuvrable I attempted to stay on his six a thus able to avoid much of his fire. It worked, for a short while each time I got behind him, but after a few seconds the Anaconda would pull off the following manoeuvre:
- Anaconda would boost away from me, momentarily gaining a little (insignificant) distance - I'm much faster - though I'd still be within 200m or so easily.
- Just after it'd boosted in a straight line approximately away from me, it would appear to maintain that velocity and vector, while slowly turning to face me. Acting almost as if it's using FA Off (which the AI can't apparently)
- During this manoeuvre, I'm still travelling along the same vector and I've sped up to compensate, so am still well under 200m away.
- No amount of vertical or horizontal strafe (my ship is fast at this) seems to be able to compensate for the target's rotation, and I cannot stay on its tail.
- In essence, the Anaconda has managed to momentarily gain some distance, but I compensate and remain close easily. He then rotates to face me while still flying along the same vector. While my own vector adjustments to stay on his tail seem to be readily compensated for, as he continues to fly away from me.
Now, when I first encountered this years ago, before I hit Elite in combat, I assumed I was just seeing improved AI behaviour due to my own increase in combat rank. I posted how I was impressed to see an AI using the exact same FA Off and flip manoeuvre that I'd used myself. However, I was told that the "AI doesn't use FA Off" so no one could really explain what I was seeing - a ship flying away from me (along the same vector) while also turning to face me, then maintain that vector and speed and shooting me.
Bottom line, it should be pretty effortless to stay on the tail of a large ship like the Anaconda, Type 10, Corvette etc. in a smaller and very nimble (engineered) ship like the Cobra Mk III. However, such ships can regularly out-turn me while maintaining the same vector and end up basically reversing while facing me. I can utilise boost turn in order to break their LoS on me, which of course I do, I don't want to be shot. This manoeuvre though doesn't seem quite legit to me unless the AI can utilise FA Off as these ships appear to be doing.
I cannot explain what's going on under the hood here, but higher-level AI-controlled larger ships seem to be able to move in a way they shouldn't be able to, without utilised FA off.
For the record, I LOVE getting up really close to my targets - I'm a fan of Frags and Efficient weapons - so it's not like I'm so far away that these ships have room to manoeuvre, I'm right on their tail.
Anyway, this is something we've (my wingmate and I) noticed as we went up in combat ranks. When he was a couple of ranks lower than me, and he initiated the instance (first to arrive) we'd not see this. If on the other hand I arrived first, we'd generally face tougher foes and see this manoeuvre being utilised. We've both long since been Elite now though, so it doesn't matter which of us arrives first.
So I have something to add. After some time in a fully-engineered viper, or almost-fully, as opposed to the freighters or lightly-engineered ships including a chunky Krait Mk II I was always used to doing combat in, I see that FA/off is less important when you're in a very nimble ship and you can keep the AI from jousting you more often. They can stlil set themselves up for it fairly often, but the point is I found myself using vertical thrust with simple turning much more often over FA/off turns and boosting.
I never really felt this in the Sidewinder I suppose because it's not fast enough despite turning very well.
I never really felt this in the Sidewinder I suppose because it's not fast enough despite turning very well.
The Cobra III is not fast at this. About the only thing it has going for it, maneuverability wise, is good peak boost speed and a high pitch rate. It's acceleration is all-round mediocre and it's non-boost speed is low. It's ENG pip slope is also poor. The only small ships all-round less agile than the Cobra III are the Cobra IV and the Asp X.
Thruster use. They are boosting when you get close and boost increases rotation rate and acceleration in all vectors except direct reverse. Your Cobra is too slow to keep up without boosting itself, and has one of the lowest boost acceleration multipliers there is (comparable to large ships like the Anaconda). If you don't boost the moment they do, they'll open a gap and be able to turn into you, and if you don't arrest your boost before it finishes (with the scoop for example), you'll overshoot, which will allow them to keep turning into you.
Higher rank NPCs are also all going to have Engineered thrusters and very good pip use.
Maybe a T-10, but an Anaconda or Corvette aren't so lacking in maneuverability.
Nothing about the maneuver requires FA Off. They just thrust along the vector they want to move in, independent of their facing.
We can do this too:
That's only showing one axis each of translation and rotation, but both humans and NPCs are fully capable of combining them with the controls exposed to them and (with some practice, in the case of a human) should be able to point in any direction and track a target as it moves, while it self moving in any arbitrary direction. During such movement, even with FA On, velocity can approach a significant fraction of full forward speed via trichording (80-90% of forward while only moving ~20 degrees off direct reverse is perfectly doable)...at the cost of having to keep pips in ENG, which NPCs absolutely will do when trying to face a target.
The Viper has some of the strongest vertical/lateral thrusters in the game, but the Sidewinder isn't bad and should be able to pull off most of the same stuff, but it needs to keep pips in ENG (horrible slope), which limits it's firepower.
The Kraits are derived from the Python and share it's mediocre vertical/lateral thrust, steep blue zone curve (it loses rotation rate outside the blue zone faster than many other ships), and middle of the pack ENG pip slope (the difference between 0 and 4 pips in ENG). They mostly rely on their their ability to boost frequently for their maneuverability.
Last edited:
In some of my recent semi drunk friday night attempts to plunder deadly or elite level NPC T9s I was debating just this in my mind - are they really turning FA ON??
My piracy Python was having a hard time getting in behind them to finish the drives with a SR High Yield Shell cannon. It also has pack hounds but they also take a few seconds to lock on and won't kill the drives if the T9 is able to turn in time, which frequently it can. I was getting impatient and a few mistimed hits were whittling down the hull more than the drives, then an accidental ram killed the prey (with a 130+ tons of LTDs). Many expletives and more alcohol followed ... ;-)
An engineered Python should easily out-turn even an elite level T9, but keeping up with that boost and turn that they do, can be tricky I agree.
That is some excellent flying man, been a while since I've seen someone fly a viper like that! As for the USS: it certainly seems comparable numbers wise. However, they mostly seem expert-level here, rather than deadly, and have neither missile launchers or rails, which cause problems for shieldless builds both against external modules and internal ones.
That doesn't distract from your level of flying at all, but given how much additional challenge those ships provide and that you ended with <30% hull I am still inclined to belief not even you will be able to do those.
And nevermind the average pilot, who would not have come close to clearing your USS anyway. If you want I can pay attention next time I do massacre missions to see if I can figure out which missions trigger them?
Of course, it's far from the best at this sort of thing, but it's still a pretty manoeuvrable ship in the scheme of things, especially when Engineered. I agree that Anaconda's and Corvettes - both of which I fly - are actually (potentially) very manoeuvrable considering their size, so can pose a threat in that regard. However, keeping really close - as I do - can to a degree counter that.
I'm of course aware how boosting works, I utilise boost-turns a lot, most useful. What I cannot do though, without using FA Off, is replicate what I see the AI do. That's is boost away (legit), boost-turn faster (legit) maintain their speed going backwards (suspect), even potentially exceed their forward max speed while travelling backwards (what? lol). Aka, going backwards as fast, or faster, than they can boost forwards. When they do this combination, staying on their tail is much harder. I should have had the speed to easily fly to their rear - quick boost / flip / boost - yet their backwards speed seems excessive. This one thing is why I (ages ago) assumed I was simply seeing the AI utilise FA Off (perfectly valid manoeuvre) to drift along their original vector while turning to face me - I often do it myself when flying a larger ship - I was just surpised how fast they'd often seem to be going backwards. Side note: FA Off has changed over time, we appear to slow down more rapidly than we once did.
I do understand - and utilise myself - that it's perfectly possible for me to fly along a given vector (deviating somewhat) while pitching around with FA Still on, using thruster pulses to aid maintaining said vector. No argument there, I use this myself. It's just how well, how long and how fast the AI can sometime be seen doing it. They really are behaving more like they're using FA Off, which would largely explain things. My own Anaconda's for example, with G5 DD & Drag Drive, can flip over and maintain speed (for a short while) when using FA Off, but cannot do so with FA On, they slow down too quickly as the drives are of course as strong as they can be. Even using directional thrusters to assist in maintaining that vector alone cannot sustain the same speed FA Off allows. It's this discrepancy that gets me and we (wing group) notice it the most when we're going out in our smaller ships were positioning is more critical.
Note: for the record, as alluded to earlier, we've experienced quite extreme examples of this, which is the basis of our suspicion something isn't quite right, with ships such as Anacondas seen travelling backwards at speeds in excess of 400 m/s. We've had situations where we've had to boost in our smaller, faster and more nimble ships just to catch up with a reversing larger ship. Without knowing exactly what Engineering may or may not be on a given high-level NPC ship, it's difficult to know if some of the manoeuvres could be legitimately be performed. However, when in extreme examples we can see larger ships travelling backwards faster than the best Engineered player-flown version of that ship can go forwards, and doing it for an extended period. Well, something isn't quite right.
Thought: have you ever taken out the engines on a ship that's quite a lot slower than you, only to then struggle to catch up with it as it drifts away? Somehow, despite not being bumped, it gained extra velocity when it's engines went pop. It's sort of like that, more so than true FA Off the player uses, as the speed doesn't bleed off in the same way.
It's no big deal to me now, I accepted it long ago and just take is as the AI is doing something similar to using FA Off to be a match for the player. However, when the OP mentioned specifically that they were struggling to stay on the tail of some ships, and couldn't quite figure out why, I thought I'd share our experiences as part of the feedback given by other players. It is an interesting occurrence after all.
In essence, the manoeuvre these ships are performing is on the face of it valid with FA On, Engineered Drives and good manoeuvring thrusters control. They should largely be able to maintain that vector while turning to face me, and I'm glad they do to keep combat interesting. However, when said ships can be observed to be exceeding known reversing speed limits for that ship, it becomes a little suspicious. We've had many a discussion on this in our group and, as mentioned, initially assumed they were using FA Off due to these observations.
Note: As my wing mates and me would see this from time-to-time when flying Solo, we assumed it could not be anything to do with wonky network performance. Plus, when playing together, network wonkyness generally manifested as the classic rubber-banding, not smooth movement. I mention this as my main wing mate did for a while have pretty poor Ping, causing a variety of issues when we teamed up.
Anyway, it's all good. I've mentioned our observations in the past - I even think I have a video of a ship travelling backwards and excessive speed for an extended period, though I've likely deleted it by now - and it's often greeted with a degree of scepticism. I get it, on the face of it the AI's manoeuvres are valid for a high-level NPC in an Engineered ship. However, when you take into account the speed they can be seen to maintain - excess of their practical max regular velocity - something isn't quite right.
Missiles (short of packhounds) aren't really a problem with a PDT as long as I keep the top half of the ship facing most of the enemies, which I was, until I realized none of them had missiles. During that period, there was only one hostile ship that was ever in a position to fire a missile that would have made it to my ship, and only if I wasn't able it roll into the shot in time. Rails are also not very problematic against a ship with ~70% thermic hull resistance, which was the case here...raw damage to modules was never the problem.
There were two major issues:
The first, and lesser issue was that I was using that fragile low-emissions PP against a frag cannon. I hadn't expected to encounter one and underestimated it's penetration depth.
The more serious issue was my aforementioned control setup. I don't like blaming the tools on what I see as a sub-standard performance, but it was definitely the overriding issue here. Before I switched over to Odyssey and essentially mothballed my HOTAS a year ago, I was using more of a racing chair with fixed feet and my HOTAS was firmly attached to my desk. Currently I'm in a normal office chair and my HOTAS is just sitting on my mouse pad...I even knocked it off the desk at ~1:50 in that video, which is why you'll see several seconds of marginal/erratic rotational input as I reposition it.
Anyway, I'm confident that seekers and or rails would have resulted in less damage to the ship than frags or MCs, that my armored PP would not have hit the malfunction threshold for damage until very late in the fight, if at all, and that with a properly secured stick, I could have finished off this particular group at double the hull and PP integrity that I did.
Sure. I wouldn't mind revisiting it again at some point, once I figure out a convenient and comfortable simpit setup (gliding casters for the chair and a board or steel plate to zip tie the HOTAS to...probably not playing often enough to justify a more permanent setup).
Honestly, I probably shouldn't have agreed to attempt this until that was the case, and could have spent the time to find a closer match, as I think you've misinterpreted the nature of the threat in this encounter which is probably leading to incorrect assumptions about the other. A less experienced pilot may well have had more issues, but not due to seekers or rails...those are relatively easy to counter, and indeed are well countered by the loadout I was using. All the pilot needs to do is keep moving, keep the top of the ship pointed at the ships armed with seekers, and knock out stuff in order of it's likely threat vs. the time cost of doing so.
I haven't been doing much of any ship to ship combat since Odyssey came out, but these claims long predate that, and in ~7k hours and some ~60k NPC kills of all sorts, I have never seen a (human) NPC ship clearly do something that is not possible for a CMDR to do, with flight assist enabled, unless it was a bug that was openly acknowledged by Frontier.