[removed]
Last edited:
Well, does "organic" just mean "people who didn't want to take part and weren't expecting to"? Maybe this is the real problem?Tournaments aren't the problem, they are already regulated. It's the organic PvP that's annoying.
And honor codes like "never use prems" work out sooo well. sigh
Bigmaec and I were discussing possible rules in a PvP tournament. Were you speed-reading?And now what? You saw that the ganker in front of you has 8 boosters, so what?
If the idea is to better counter shields with missiles, the right answer is probably to allow the Reverb effect on them. Or add other effects that allow partial shield bypass. Although I actually quite like the idea of gradually plinking away a stacked Cutter's shield gen using reverb dumbfires.Yes, you can buff missiles. But the cutter, corvette, and anaconda can survive more than 47500, (52000 with less resists to thermal) 90000, and 92000 explosive damage each. Buffing the missiles enough to damage this pretty much gives all other ships no place in the meta, since being able to kill something with 92000 health in a reasonable time would guarantee everything else in the game with sub 14000 shields die instantly to missiles.
Its not that the loadout is better, it is that the PVP is just not fun. Sort of like encountering a player using premiums, you have to use premiums or be at a slight disadvantage. When everyone uses premiums, PVP becomes less fun.'Organic PvP' means taking the chance that your loadout may be better than the other player, doesn't it?
A calculated risk...
So, PvP players are as risk-averse as the other groups of players they so fondly take the mickey from, then?
Yeah my bad. Sorry. Edited out what I saidBigmaec and I were discussing possible rules in a PvP tournament. Were you speed-reading?
In a perfect world, there would be several viable loadouts and the skill would be deciding.'Organic PvP' means taking the chance that your loadout may be better than the other player, doesn't it?
A calculated risk...
So, PvP players are as risk-averse as the other groups of players they so fondly take the mickey from, then?
Yeah, but like I said, even with 200 mostly absolute DPS, the Cutter still takes 30 minutes at the very least of pure shooting to kill it.Don't think anything needs to be changed here. Large ships have good shield and hull strength but lack manoeuvrability, medium and small ships have worse shield and hull strength but are much faster and can easily outrun and outmanoeuvre a large ship. This allows for two different playstyles and makes combat more interesting.
To compensate for its shield tanking potential, the Cutter has the worst firepower of the big three, and considering that it can also be outmanoeuvred by smaller ships, one or two average PvP builds can easily take it down, provided that their pilots aren't lazy gankers who expect all their victims to not have decent defences.
honestly, all lasers should have the ability to slightly damage shield boosters. Give them a reason and purpose in PVP. If we want to buff beams, give them like 20-30% better damage to the boosters.I have another idea. An experimental effect for pvps worst weapon, the beam laser. I call it "Ionic Vibration". Successful strikes from this weapon transfer some of the incoming damage to a shield boosters integrity. The more boosters are active, the stronger the effect. Like regular damage, this effect scales with weapon size and modification.
Organic is not prearranged.Well, does "organic" just mean "people who didn't want to take part and weren't expecting to"? Maybe this is the real problem?
My only PvP experience in recent months was when hauling in my Cutter and I noticed another player manoeuvring to get behind me. I throttled down and pitched over to face him and scan. He vanished before my scan completed. I guess he'd seen my A-rated shield, SCBs and all the boosters. In other words: on that occasion having enough boosters was fundamental to my playstyle.
Hands off my playstyle.
Still, purely off boosters, I get 600% better shields than regular people without them. Even more considering the 6x boost is onto my base shields, which is also extremely high already. Banks can be cancelled with railgun cascade, shield tanking cannot.I think Boosters are fine. The reason you have 23 minutes of shields is the Cell Banks. Personally I would much rather get rid of the “magic get my shields back” button, which at least would then allow you to make a realistic assessment during the battle of whether your shields are going to outlast your opponents based on DPS dealt so far.
Banks are terrible but can at least be countered somewhat. You can't counter a 6 booster FdL, when every other medium (except the clone FdL) has only 4, and ships like the FAS which are meantvas hybrid/hull tanks need some utility to not totally get rekt by module sniping with multis (chaff) or packhound mission kill (ecm/pd).I think Boosters are fine. The reason you have 23 minutes of shields is the Cell Banks. Personally I would much rather get rid of the “magic get my shields back” button, which at least would then allow you to make a realistic assessment during the battle of whether your shields are going to outlast your opponents based on DPS dealt so far.
So, you are essentially suggesting that something you want to do isn't fun, so the game should be changed just to make your fun?Its not that the loadout is better, it is that the PVP is just not fun. Sort of like encountering a player using premiums, you have to use premiums or be at a slight disadvantage. When everyone uses premiums, PVP becomes less fun.
Now that’s simply not true.The joke in this whole situation is, a Corvette with 60% resistances and 2000 mj of shield strength would still be amply sufficient to kill (nearly) everything in PvE. Toning down of HD boosters would cost the PvEr nothing.
Come on Ratty, don't troll.So, you are essentially suggesting that something you want to do isn't fun, so the game should be changed just to make your fun?
Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't it? You are not having fun...
Outside of when I am leaving an AX CZ, not once, not ever, have gankers tried to interdict me while I was piloting a combat outfit ship. I don't engage gankers with the intent to kill them because outfitting a ship actually capable of that would compromise the purpose of my trade, mining, exploration, passenger, ships too much to keep them truly fit for purpose. What I do is engineer my shields, stack boosters, and run, because I never really had a chance to kill them in the first place. Not unless they were totally incompetent anyway.I mean this will make it so said gankers who run 8x shield boosters be killed easier. Or do you want to fly in your 8x shield cutter killing noobs and npcs without any sort of challenge? Honestly you would not even need to refit your shield boosters, an approximately 200% shield increase with 8 boosters is still substantial. You say this benefits gankers, while I say that the people most likely to run low amounts of shield boosters are the gankees.
The reason for this, is I feel so many old-timers want to keep their murderboats with 6x better shields so that people like you can keep ganking and killing people with a massive advantage onto your side.
You said it yourself. Some people in this game have the irritant notion that they are the top dogs and everything should be possible for them alone, even stuff that is meant for wings. This should die in a dumpster fire. Get yourself a wing if you can't kill a threat9 uss alone. It's multiplayer content.Now that’s simply not true.
I have a Corvette with 2000MJ BiWeaves and 60% resists. I agree, that is largely all you need but it’s by no means impervious ... jump in to a pirate mission USS populated by 9 ships that instantly turn hostile and those shields will evaporate VERY quickly.
Now, I don’t have an issue with that ... those are vastly overwhelming numbers and it is perhaps reasonable that - outside of a wing - I should have to flee sometimes. But the only reason I have those shields is because I’m running multiple boosters (and GSRMs) so reducing the impact those have WOULD absolutely impact me as a PvE player.
I could get on board with that idea.honestly, all lasers should have the ability to slightly damage shield boosters. Give them a reason and purpose in PVP. If we want to buff beams, give them like 20-30% better damage to the boosters.
Indeed! Planetary systems form quicker than a 9k prismatic shield setup recharges...Relying on regeneration on prismatics doesn't work.
NO! The Fed'Vette is already OP as frack, with mamba type agility, class 8 distro and powerplant and 2x C4 hardpoints and convergence to die for, I mean you can drive a corvett between the outer hardpoints on a clipper or a cutter.Give federal corvette more boom for my buck it. Reds more firepower
Therein lies your answer, gimp the HD blueprint, not the stacking.Heavy duty shield boosters is the only reason why gankers have their current 6x-8x better shields