should 3 pips be more relevant?

[n4p0l3on]

this is something that may have not been discussed before, as many of you aware there is a huge gap in performance between 3 pips and 4 pips on the energy distribution system, while by comparison the difference between 2 and 3 is only marginal at best...

but why? why should it be like that? is there any of you who deliberately used (or uses) 3 pips? if yes, why, if not, why, and thus more importantly, should 3 pips strength be increased to provide a better balance between 2 to 4?

let's entertain this idea and discuss it.

 

[NascentChemist]

I'm fairly sure there is only a huge jump between 3 and 4 pips with shields, not the other systems. Unless I'm mistaken in this, I believe that the other systems should get some similar mechanic.

 

[thirstyfish]

I'm fairly sure there is only a huge jump between 3 and 4 pips with shields, not the other systems. Unless I'm mistaken in this, I believe that the other systems should get some similar mechanic.

Same goes for engines for the most part. just watch your top speed. Weapons is bit harder to quantify as it deals with how often you can fire.

 

[Mohrgan]

I would like the Pips to be more than just 4 or nothing. A more linear trend to the top would be better. I wouldn't want the mechanism to become a set-and-forget mechanism. The way it is it makes me shift them often, I like that but, my shifts always comes down to which column I put the 4 pips in.

I have been toying with a set of conditions that could make Pips relevant in Super Cruise. Where pips to: Sys = a pinch more heat resistance, Eng = an increase in acceleration/deceleration, and Wep = a boost to sensor range. All buffs to be small in the overall, and universal to all ships. This would add to all of SC activity, and put a little pinash in the exploring experience.

 

[n4p0l3on]

Same goes for engines for the most part. just watch your top speed. Weapons is bit harder to quantify as it deals with how often you can fire.

The same with weapons, you can fire beam lasers much longer with 4 pips than 3...

The way pips system is now, there is almost zero incentive to use 3 pips, and if fdev reduced the number of pips to 6 and make 3 pips the maximum (replacing 4, it won't change anything in gameplay, that's how worthless 3 pips is.

 

[thirstyfish]

The same with weapons, you can fire beam lasers much longer with 4 pips than 3...

The way pips system is now, there is almost zero incentive to use 3 pips, and if fdev reduced the number of pips to 6 and make 3 pips the maximum (replacing 4, it won't change anything in gameplay, that's how worthless 3 pips is.

I just said that. Beam lasers are basically continuous fire. by having more pips in weps you can fire beam lasers more.

I do find that, for PvE purposes, I can generally get away with 3 pips in sys and 3 in weps when in combat. Sometimes I have to put 4 in sys if the target warrants it, but I do find a use for 3 pips every now and then. Just wish it did a bit more.

 

[DNYI]

I would like the Pips to be more than just 4 or nothing. A more linear trend to the top would be better. I wouldn't want the mechanism to become a set-and-forget mechanism. The way it is it makes me shift them often, I like that but, my shifts always comes down to which column I put the 4 pips in.

I have been toying with a set of conditions that could make Pips relevant in Super Cruise. Where pips to: Sys = a pinch more heat resistance, Eng = an increase in acceleration/deceleration, and Wep = a boost to sensor range. All buffs to be small in the overall, and universal to all ships. This would add to all of SC activity, and put a little pinash in the exploring experience.

I like this idea

 

[Deleted member 115407]

this is something that may have not been discussed before, as many of you aware there is a huge gap in performance between 3 pips and 4 pips on the energy distribution system, while by comparison the difference between 2 and 3 is only marginal at best...

but why? why should it be like that? is there any of you who deliberately used (or uses) 3 pips? if yes, why, if not, why, and thus more importantly, should 3 pips strength be increased to provide a better balance between 2 to 4?

let's entertain this idea and discuss it.

I run two pips to shields all the time when I'm not actually taking fire. Sometimes I run no pips if I need speed and weapons to finish off a target. When stuff starts to pop off my shields I switch to four and respond accordingly.

It's all a balance game - where do you need your power? Shields? Thrusters? Sometimes you have to sacrifice protection for maneuverability, sometimes you have to sacrifce maneuverability for weapons capacity. I haven't sat down and crunched the numbers or anything, but if pip bonus were linear then wouldn't it make pip management much less important?

*edit*

I realize this post doesn't make much sense in regards to the OP. Sure, there have been times where 3 pips is the sweet spot for something or other. Giving me just enough of this or that to get the job done. In generally, I stay with combinations of 0-2-4

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Same goes for engines for the most part. just watch your top speed. Weapons is bit harder to quantify as it deals with how often you can fire.

There is also a heat mechanic, i.e. the more you drain your WEP, the less heat efficient it becomes, or so I've been told.

 

[Alex Brentnall]

Given the addition of up to 2 powerpips in 2.3 from multicrew I voted no.

I quite like the choice between shield/eng/wep that I have to continually make. With 2.3 instead of "which one do I need?" it will turn into "which one do I not need?". If we make 3 pips more powerful we'll end up with a lot of people making their builds equal 3/3/2 across the board and never moving them.


Oh and yes, wep capacitor high gives better heat management.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

OP - you really should have put numbers here to help people evaluate which way to vote. Otherwise people will just vote based off their gut instinct without doing research, especially when your OP states something without backing up that statement.

Basically you have posted 3 pips suck, should it be made better? Good way to bias the results of a poll that, but not very useful for the community or FD.

If you could update the OP with numbers for all systems showing the differences, then it would be super.

 

[Scoopy Doopy]

For me, the current pip system is an extremely clever mechanic.

It is so simple and yet means that everything you do requires constant decisions about where those pip should be, especially in a balanced combat situation. The really great thing about it is that there aren't quite enough pips do you want you really want to do and therefore you need to compromise and make up the difference by other means if possible.

Increasing the value of the third pip would make these compromises less important and de-value the pip system in my view.

 

[Hitsuke]

In general it's not even up for debate in all honesty. The difference between running 3 and 4 pips is HUGE, and the entire system should be a lot more linear.

1 pip = 25%
2 pips = 50%
3 pips = 75%
4 pips = 100%

Whereas at the moment it's more like:

1 pip = 12.5%
2 pips = 25%
3 pips = 50%
4 pips = 100%

Of course, I'm pulling these stats out of thin air, but that's how it feels and I'd suggest they're not far wrong.

 

[Trafalgar Law]

At the moment I feel that there needs to be more benefit to the different power settings. Currently it's very much an all or nothing affair, which reduces it to three settings - all power shields, all power engines or all power weapons depending on what you're doing in the fight - the other two pips often feel superfluous. A more linear grading to the bonuses would help make the game more interesting as I'd be constantly trying to find the optimal power settings for a given engagement.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

In general it's not even up for debate in all honesty. The difference between running 3 and 4 pips is HUGE, and the entire system should be a lot more linear.

1 pip = 25%
2 pips = 50%
3 pips = 75%
4 pips = 100%

Whereas at the moment it's more like:

1 pip = 12.5%
2 pips = 25%
3 pips = 50%
4 pips = 100%

Of course, I'm pulling these stats out of thin air, but that's how it feels and I'd suggest they're not far wrong.

Nnnggghh.... don't compound what the OP did.

Can't anyone provide actual stats? I'm sure there used to be a thread with this info.

Ok, ok, i'll figure out one of them using edshipyard.

Cobra Mk 3 with 2 gimballed pulses.

Burst durations as follows:

0 pips = 4.1s
1 pip = 4.6s
2 pips = 5.3s
3 pips = 6.3s
4 pips = 7.8s

This gives us this chart

Hmm... doesn't look too bad.

What about engines?

So, we see a linear correlation between pips and speed here, and a decreasing benefit from putting more pips in from boost.

Well, not convinced so far.

Found this regarding shields, and while its not official, and based off user testing: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=138536

That looks like a very nice curve to me.

So, everyone who voted yes on this poll, now presented with more info, might want to reconsider their vote.

OP might want to reconsider their stance as well.

 

[StiTch]

Nnnggghh.... don't compound what the OP did.

Can't anyone provide actual stats? I'm sure there used to be a thread with this info.

Ok, ok, i'll figure out one of them using edshipyard.

Cobra Mk 3 with 2 gimballed pulses.

Burst durations as follows:

0 pips = 4.1s
1 pip = 4.6s
2 pips = 5.3s
3 pips = 6.3s
4 pips = 7.8s

This gives us this chart

http://i.imgur.com/pu7nrJB.png

Hmm... doesn't look too bad.

What about engines?

http://i.imgur.com/4VVJEah.png

So, we see a linear correlation between pips and speed here, and a decreasing benefit from putting more pips in from boost.

Well, not convinced so far.

Found this regarding shields, and while its not official, and based off user testing: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=138536

http://i.imgur.com/rMJcQDh.png

That looks like a very nice curve to me.

So, everyone who voted yes on this poll, now presented with more info, might want to reconsider their vote.

OP might want to reconsider their stance as well.

When someone brings in the mighty "reasoning hammer" and proceeds to justly smite the crowd-riling fiends.

We're good. Something tells me this is OPs way of looking for viable defenses whilst retaining another pip for elsewhere on the ship. But the real issue here is caused by - shock horror - flight mechanics/FA Off, for allowing even the largest ships to keep anything in sight in PvP.

PvE, there IS no distributor issue. It's all like farming wheat anyway.

 

[Codger]

People love their pips. And we're getting extra ones with multi-crew, apparently.

Personally, I'm the odd guy out who would prefer they were removed entirely. But that's just me.

 

[StiTch]

People love their pips. And we're getting extra ones with multi-crew, apparently.

Personally, I'm the odd guy out who would prefer they were removed entirely. But that's just me.

Nah, they're a nice unique touch to the skill aspect of this game. But the passive pips coming with multi-crew is - if you ask me - the most "flat out stupid" idea FD have ever had.

 

[Smykes]

I would like the Pips to be more than just 4 or nothing. A more linear trend to the top would be better. I wouldn't want the mechanism to become a set-and-forget mechanism. The way it is it makes me shift them often, I like that but, my shifts always comes down to which column I put the 4 pips in.

I have been toying with a set of conditions that could make Pips relevant in Super Cruise. Where pips to: Sys = a pinch more heat resistance, Eng = an increase in acceleration/deceleration, and Wep = a boost to sensor range. All buffs to be small in the overall, and universal to all ships. This would add to all of SC activity, and put a little pinash in the exploring experience.

I like this idea..+rep @Mohrgan

 

[Riverside]

In general I'm in favour of rules which level the playing field rather than widen it.

If the shield pips gave diminishing returns rather than increasing, 4 pips would still be maximum & so putting full power to shields would still be the meta, but would bring extra options into play where 3 pips is nearly as good as 4 etc. I remember starting out & thinking the extra shield boost with pips was a little counter intuitive because going from 1 to 2 or even 2 to 3 made no noticeable difference to shield strength. Right now it feels a bit all or nothing.

However, if we introduce a mechanism where the player isn't so reliant on good pip management it encourages complacency & that I'm not so keen on.

So I'd be happy to see a straightening of the curve to make it easier to work out what effect the pips are having, but as with many areas in the game, a big change would bring several downsides with it.