PVE Ship Impact of Initial "Rebalancing" = Nothing Good As Expected

[thorn-]

They assume you're all somehow exploiting various loopholes to get money, or that piracy against players pays *cough* well *cough*.

Hahahah!

Yeah, spending 5 minutes scooping up 10 tons of gold, or fruit, or cow manure really is a profit windfall. Almost covers the cost of my ammo.

It doesn't dawn on them that PvPers tend to be efficient at PvE to the point of being able to do it with their eye closed and still do it quicker than your average PvE player can.

Yep.

If you can't kill every lone NPC you encounter, flying in a combat ship of your own (assuming you're not already nearly dead when the NPC appears), you're really doing something wrong.

 

[PetroVitallini]

I can`t understand why FDev is trying to shoe horn big ships into small ship/fighter combat, be it PvE or PvP. Why on earth would you not want to diversify gameplay across ship classes instead? I currently have an aspx for exploring, fdl for combat and a python for everything else. Was thinking of getting an anaconda and making it a turret fortress, because I wanted to experience another flavor of gameplay. As it seems now this does not seem very viable as you loose out on major damage potential. Also it would leave me at a big disadvantage because as I understand it most people in pvp run dual chaffs. Does this mean I would have to build my hypothetical anaconda as I would a fighter with regards to hardpoints? If so the anaconda provides nothing new or different from what I already have. We have space as our playground, still the most effective combat range for our weapons are between 0 to 1500 meters in most cases loosing out to jitter or damage drop off beyond that. I truly enjoy elite dangerous, but it seems to me that combat could be expanded in many more differentiating ways than what is currently being done.

 

[Bieltan]

I can`t understand why FDev is trying to shoe horn big ships into small ship/fighter combat, be it PvE or PvP. Why on earth would you not want to diversify gameplay across ship classes instead? I currently have an aspx for exploring, fdl for combat and a python for everything else. Was thinking of getting an anaconda and making it a turret fortress, because I wanted to experience another flavor of gameplay. As it seems now this does not seem very viable as you loose out on major damage potential. Also it would leave me at a big disadvantage because as I understand it most people in pvp run dual chaffs. Does this mean I would have to build my hypothetical anaconda as I would a fighter with regards to hardpoints? If so the anaconda provides nothing new or different from what I already have. We have space as our playground, still the most effective combat range for our weapons are between 0 to 1500 meters in most cases loosing out to jitter or damage drop off beyond that. I truly enjoy elite dangerous, but it seems to me that combat could be expanded in many more differentiating ways than what is currently being done.

Turrets are best used against NPCs. They dont tend to chain-chaff. One has to wonder with the upcoming Gimbal-nerf, will chaff be viewed as less of a necessity in PvP?

 

[thorn-]

I can`t understand why FDev is trying to shoe horn big ships into small ship/fighter combat, be it PvE or PvP. Why on earth would you not want to diversify gameplay across ship classes instead?

When has this game EVER really had a large diversity in ship classes?

Other than the T-series (or the cheap starter ships), I can't think of much.

Since Day One, people have trying to grind into a Conda or Python that could both trade and fight. Before the FDL and FAS came along, EVERYTHING bigger than a Vulture was multi. Before the Vulture, it was everything larger than a Viper.

The game would be far more interesting if there was more delineation than there currently is. But Frontier won't do that, because then all the Cutter/Vette owners would whine about "my expensive ship doesn't do XYZ as well as a cheaper ship".

 

[CMDR Corlas]

Op seems to be trying to present thing as if this is what the average casual player will see, but it sounds like he's running a heavily engineered ship that's been specifically min-maxed to take advantage of specific overpowered engineer-based builds.

The average player will see nothing like this level of change.

All of my ships are getting buffs, be it via cannons, fixed weapons, burst lasers, or beam lasers. Frag cannons too, but I have nothing using those currently.

The only moral here is "If you rely on every overpowered effect you can find, when FD does a balance pass, you'll feel it more".

 

[Earth Ultimatum IV.]

I can`t understand why FDev is trying to shoe horn big ships into small ship/fighter combat, be it PvE or PvP. Why on earth would you not want to diversify gameplay across ship classes instead? I currently have an aspx for exploring, fdl for combat and a python for everything else. Was thinking of getting an anaconda and making it a turret fortress, because I wanted to experience another flavor of gameplay. As it seems now this does not seem very viable as you loose out on major damage potential. Also it would leave me at a big disadvantage because as I understand it most people in pvp run dual chaffs. Does this mean I would have to build my hypothetical anaconda as I would a fighter with regards to hardpoints? If so the anaconda provides nothing new or different from what I already have. We have space as our playground, still the most effective combat range for our weapons are between 0 to 1500 meters in most cases loosing out to jitter or damage drop off beyond that. I truly enjoy elite dangerous, but it seems to me that combat could be expanded in many more differentiating ways than what is currently being done.

Because they're not big ships, they're actually medium. Conda, Cutter and Corvette, all of those are Corvette-sized ships. I run full fixed on Conda all the time, currently with Cannons for farming combat rank and mats, completly viable.
Farragut and Interdictor, those are the only big ships in the game, currently.

 

[GunnerBill]

Learn to use fixed then and stop crying. This update for once promotes skill, and skill should be rewarded. To hell with gimbal lords.

And stop pretending that fixed weapons are only for PVPers. I do 95% PVE and 5% PVP, fixed weapons all the time. Besides, you CANNOT do PVP without PVEing, you must hoard money, rebuys, ships and ranks, and engineer modifications first. PVPers are also PVEers at the same time. This isn't a balance patch for PVPers, this is a balance patch for skilled players regardless of their playstyle.

Well if you PvPers/PvErs whatever are already in the top bracket of ED awesomeness why do you need your fixed weapons buffed?

Looks like a skill crutch to me.

In any respect I really didn't feel like I needed a hand from ED or the fixed community to up my skills to whatever level you've decided they should be at.

 

[ShadowWolf Kell]

Well if you PvPers/PvErs whatever are already in the top bracket of ED awesomeness why do you need your fixed weapons buffed?

Looks like a skill crutch to me.

In any respect I really didn't feel like I needed a hand from ED or the fixed community to up my skills to whatever level you've decided they should be at.

I don't recall the PvP crowd lobbying for a gimble nerf per se. It was the devs who decided since over 80% of the playerbase used gimbles exclusively that they needed to be adjusted. If anything, the PvE crowd brought that one on themselves.

 

[Cypher2139]

Learn to use fixed then and stop crying. This update for once promotes skill, and skill should be rewarded. To hell with gimbal lords.

And stop pretending that fixed weapons are only for PVPers. I do 95% PVE and 5% PVP, fixed weapons all the time. Besides, you CANNOT do PVP without PVEing, you must hoard money, rebuys, ships and ranks, and engineer modifications first. PVPers are also PVEers at the same time. This isn't a balance patch for PVPers, this is a balance patch for skilled players regardless of their playstyle.

It's not about learning to used fixed. It's the fact that not all ships can be used effectively with fixed.

It's fine in a modified FDL or a Cobra, but what about those people who rely on gimballed for their Anaconda?

 

[GunnerBill]

I don't recall the PvP crowd lobbying for a gimble nerf per se. It was the devs who decided since over 80% of the playerbase used gimbles exclusively that they needed to be adjusted. If anything, the PvE crowd brought that one on themselves.

Well maybe but how so?
The effect remains the same - widening the gap between fixed users who are already proficient with that meta and gimballed users who are not.

 

[KWAiRT]

Well if you PvPers/PvErs whatever are already in the top bracket of ED awesomeness why do you need your fixed weapons buffed?

Looks like a skill crutch to me.

In any respect I really didn't feel like I needed a hand from ED or the fixed community to up my skills to whatever level you've decided they should be at.

Couldn't agree more. Fixed already beats gimbals so what's with all the crying? Next we will have transversal velocity for smaller faster moving ships and different tracking speeds oh wait that's already happening. Just a move from FDEV to put more focus back on the smaller ships because mostly everyone has exploited enough money to own a fleet of corvettes and cutters. Sad thing is all these ships are actually really small. Turrets need improvements badly. Gimbals were fine. We need another weapon group at least and a whole new firing control setup for turrets not to mention proper target de-selection not gimbal nerfs. Also NPC do chain spam already so yeah. See need proper target de-selection. More time enhancing the game then bending over to the vocal PvP minority would be nice. Game is already hard enough for the new players with engineering and AI enhancements plus trolling features.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

I don't recall the PvP crowd lobbying for a gimble nerf per se. It was the devs who decided since over 80% of the playerbase used gimbles exclusively that they needed to be adjusted. If anything, the PvE crowd brought that one on themselves.

Agreed, in overall point, if not quite in delivery.

Gimbals were too good. The original idea of "fixed is higher DPS, but gimbals have more time-on-target" Wasn't really playing out that way in reality often enough, even with good flying. The changes are a good step.

 

[Bieltan]

It's not about learning to used fixed. It's the fact that not all ships can be used effectively with fixed.

It's fine in a modified FDL or a Cobra, but what about those people who rely on gimballed for their Anaconda?

They may as well switch to Turrets.

 

[thorn-]

It's fine in a modified FDL or a Cobra, but what about those people who rely on gimballed for their Anaconda?

The tradeoff is that the Cobra can't mount 3x Large Hardpoints and 1x Huge Hardpoints in addition to the 2 Med/Smalls. The Conda can. So keep your gimbals on your Conda, but you're losing some of your aimbot advantage.

 

[Crash1099]

I don't recall the PvP crowd lobbying for a gimble nerf per se. It was the devs who decided since over 80% of the playerbase used gimbles exclusively that they needed to be adjusted. If anything, the PvE crowd brought that one on themselves.

So you are telling me we need to buff turrets because not enough people are using them?

 

[Argus Leadhead]

Lot's of tears here.

Adapt and overcome.

 

[Kubicide]

Op seems to be trying to present thing as if this is what the average casual player will see, but it sounds like he's running a heavily engineered ship that's been specifically min-maxed to take advantage of specific overpowered engineer-based builds.

The average player will see nothing like this level of change.

All of my ships are getting buffs, be it via cannons, fixed weapons, burst lasers, or beam lasers. Frag cannons too, but I have nothing using those currently.

The only moral here is "If you rely on every overpowered effect you can find, when FD does a balance pass, you'll feel it more".

Well, as the OP and an average player, it's true this ship is RNGineered mainly for it to survive against RNGineered NPCs! It is the DropShip we're talking about here. [big grin] Are you saying that the majority of players shouldn't use any RNGineered equipment so they won't be affected by any rebalancing? I'm confused. But changes to the gimbals applies to all.

Point is still that these changes offered nothing more than negative consequences for how I play today. If you're having a hard time understanding this then I'm not sure how else to describe it. This thread topic is simply an example of one ship being played today in live versus the same ship in beta, and what changed. It got worse for no reason other than the devs wanted to make these changes.

 

[lenna]

From the "current" (at time of posting) patch notes in the Beta discussion area the implications do not seem too bad but have yet to try the Beta myself yet.

It sounds like they have buffed more than they have nerfed, tying in Gimballed accuracy/range to ship sensors seems a fair change.

Hard numbers do not tell the whole story about the end effect of rebalancing.

 

[thorn-]

So you are telling me we need to buff turrets because not enough people are using them?

No, but I'd happily see turrets removed from the game entirely.

 

[Kubicide]

Lot's of tears here.

Adapt and overcome.

The only tears will likely be from FDev's shareholders and accountants in 2017 when they see the effect of things like this! [wink]