So FDev have no backbone....figures

[Madrax573]

I’m sorry, maybe I was misunderstood. I didn’t mean to sound like I was attacking you. The reason I asked is because you wrote about shaking up the current PvP meta. I think it’s important to know what level of experience you have with the current PvP meta. If you just state which PvP faction you fly with, it would be a little more clear how qualified you are to talk about the current PvP.

I’ll go first. I’m with Newton’s Fusiliers on Xbox and Continuum on PC.

Ah fair enough. Setting the correct tone on the interwebs can be a tricky thing. Thanks for the clarification.

At bit of background about me. I've been playing online games for decades and most of the games I've been involved in have elements of PvP or PvP as it's primary focus. My longest term game was EvE online which I played for over 13yrs and PvP was the primary activity I that game. over the years (decades) I have observed various paradigms around PvP and how surprisingly they are often mirrored across genres etc. To this I noticed a lot of issues with ED and PvP very early on. Been here since day one of release etc etc.
Personally I have only gotten into minimal PvP in ED as I find it really isn't 'built' for the type of organic PvP I prefer. I do however have lots of contacts who PvP regularly in ED and those a often very level headed people.
I've seen arguments for both sides of the changes and one thing I noticed was that while the change did seem to be very powerful it most certainly wasn't 'game breaking' or anything near. It also gave the opportunity for un-prepped feedback on something I feel is badly designed for PvP (the boost mechanics specifically) and now the opportunity to see if those thoughts have any merit has been taken away from what I see as a bunch of people who want to keep the status quo rather than shake it up a bit (despite them constantly stating otherwise) as when any change affects how they go about their business gets completely slated across the boards etc.

So yeah. Hopefully I've explained a bit better so you can at least understand why I made the OP. Whether you agree, disagree or think I'm a total numpty I'll leave up to you

 

[Jukelo]

The drag changes would have been great to fix the stupid boost meta which trivializes Fa off. Then again, just removing boost altogether would fix that too since it doesn't add anything of worth to the game.

 

[Slange Lands]

As unsavory as the 'leet' PvP crowd can be now and then, I fully support them on their analysis of PvP mechanics. These Commanders have spent thousands of hours PvPing. Although I may question their belief systems, their experience with the combat mechanics and weaponry is unparalleled. It's not only a matter of theory crafting and understanding statistics. It's the actual usage in the field that should ultimately have the last word. And many, many of them are also FA off lords like yourself.

It is regrettable that some behave prepubescently. But regardless of vehicle, I will always have respect for knowledge that is so painstakingly and dedicatedly gained.

Frankly, now that permaboosting is in the forefront, many of we PvPers will reexamine the efficiency of our maneuvers, which is always a good thing.

Even had NuDrag not been overturned. I am willing to bet that most PvPers would have refused to use them out of love of the art form of flying anyway.

o7

 

[Slange Lands]

The drag changes would have been great to fix the stupid boost meta which trivializes Fa off. Then again, just removing boost altogether would fix that too since it doesn't add anything of worth to the game.

I fly FA off and the boost meta does not trivialize it or make it easier. Boosting well is about timing and current vector speed, not about whether one uses Flight Assist or not.

o7

Edit: Flying FA off well has nothing to do with boosting. It's about knowing your ship's velocity vector and applying the correct amount and correct directional counter thrusters.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

I like ideas to be tested by an opponent that can act as a capable Devil's Advocate.

well since Ed Lewis left they lost their best and most skillled pilot.....have you SEEN the Adams or Will fly?

 

[jasonbarron]

The drag changes would have been great to fix the stupid boost meta which trivializes Fa off. Then again, just removing boost altogether would fix that too since it doesn't add anything of worth to the game.

How do you mean?

Edit: good lord, Turd, now THAT was funny

 

[Old Duck]

i read it. not going to get dragged into forum pvp.

Unless you're hit with Drag Munitions. The fixes aren't coming until next week

As for OP, FDev lacks a few things (including a product testing department, apparently), but backbone isn't one of those things IMO.

 

[Kaocraft]

i read it. not going to get dragged into forum pvp.

More of a drive-by heckler it seems.

 

[Riverside]

well since Ed Lewis left they lost their best and most skillled pilot.....have you SEEN the Adams or Will fly?

I don't think skill is the only factor, but a test pilot does play an important part in the development of a vehicle, which is one aspect of this game. To play devils advocate total ignorance on the subject can be handy too, ideally a range of experiences would be preferable, which is where the focused feedback idea worked well.

But I do agree that the worst kind of devils advocate is the one that thinks they know more than they do.

 

[Jukelo]

I fly FA off and the boost meta does not trivialize it or make it easier. Boosting well is about timing and current vector speed, not about whether one uses Flight Assist or not.

o7

Edit: Flying FA off well has nothing to do with boosting. It's about knowing your ship's velocity vector and applying the correct amount and correct directional counter thrusters.

Precisely, boosting allows you to radically change your speed vector in a couple of seconds at most, seriously reducing the amount of foresight needed. The only saving grace is that boost is a resource you have to manage, you can't just spam it... except of course the Engineers ruined that too.

 

[Starmony]

...yet would actually change the pvp meta a fair bit. A meta that is mechanically stagnant...
... let the smart players (you know the ones who adapt to change and get better) come up with different tactics...
...not designed to be competitive in a PvP sense...

You have a lot to say on this subject, as presumably one of the "smart players" who "adapt to change". Certainly your broad and deep experience in this game's PVP is what led you to these strong opinions.

Personally I have only gotten into minimal PvP in ED

Huh. This reminds me of when I hear people say they want to be a writer yet don't actually like reading and never try writing anyway. I guess they want the lifestyle? The sweaters and coffee and writing shacks and old typewriters?

I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and watched the most current video you have linked on your signature, fighting NPCs in a CZ. Just because you don't ever move your ship around and still manage to slowly kill competent Viper Mk. IV's using full gimballed weapons in an Anaconda (and even then it took a full minute and a half!) doesn't mean that this non-tactic works against real humans.

So before you go off again insulting game devs and other players for being stupid and wrong, try some self reflection instead and maybe TRY boosting the next time you do combat, okay? You might like it, and you'll be able to keep up with the expert NPC Asps that are running away from you while you keep blindly firing your multicannons well beyond their range.

 

[jasonbarron]

Precisely, boosting allows you to radically change your speed vector in a couple of seconds at most, seriously reducing the amount of foresight needed. The only saving grace is that boost is a resource you have to manage, you can't just spam it... except of course the Engineers ruined that too.

Given that, it seems more accurate to say that the current boosting capabilities of various ship are simply not to your liking and stylistic preferences. Not that it "trivializes" FA Off. 042 FA Off piloting is the very height of skill in this game.

 

[DDastardly00]

Listening and being receptive is a good thing....

However....

They obviously saw and opportunity to shake things up a bit and did so. But rather than letting to roll out a bit and see what developed from it they instead listened to the biggest crying and reverted back almost instantly... this IMO is worse than doing the change originally.

Now all they have done is set a precident to have potentially beneficial changes 'shouted down' because some people don't like it and can't adapt. It's usually an early indicator that the game is going to start down a slippery slope.

I get what you're saying, but in my experience the customer is never wrong (even when they're wrong). I can't fault FD for rolling it back to the way it was on Monday given the response.

 

[Exeider]

From what I've seen, is threads over,

• removing unneeded modules
• combining limpets into a unified controller
• making subslots a thing for certain modules
• planetary mining
• updating the bookmarking system (such as the ability to make arbitrary bookmarks and share them.)
• the ability to find unique mining locations via exploration and sell them to the mining community
• cargo storage
• remote ordering and shipping
• the occasional carrier threads
• atmospheric flight threads
• and space legs threads
• "Science" minigame threads (for astro scientists, etc.)

This is why people "whine" about the devs not listening to the community. Because they aren't addressing any of THESE things that people are actually talking about. (This is just the short list btw.)

But no, they decide to make changes to an engineering mod that NObody asked for, bloat modules even more with so-called "flight assistance" mods instead of doing the much simpler thing of adding it to the core function of the ship.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

I'm prepared to bet that drag munitions were intended to disable boost when they were first implemented, but in Fdev's inimitable fashion it was bugged. Presumably somebody there finally noticed that the code wasn't working and so implemented what they thought was a fix. Hence it got dropped into the update without anyone actually considering what the impact would be.

 

[Kubicide]

With fans like these.....who needs enemies?

Seriously, I'm not joking. FD can't win no matter what they do.

Whiners: Wah, FD never listens to us (tears). Why don't they listen to the community more? At least those other guys who make that Star Ranger Citizen Wing Battalion Commander game listen to their community.

FD: Ok we listened to community and decided to reverse the changes based on the feedback received

Whiners: LOOK! FDev has no backbone.

You can't have it both ways. I would rather have them listening and receptive to the community and being accused of not having a backbone than the alternative.

The bigger problem being overlooked here is why this thing was ever introduced to begin with. But let's all focus on the nit-picking and playing sides, shall we?

 

[Morbad]

I have had a long belief that the boost mechanics in ED is what causes the disparity within the ship class/sizes etc as they simply allow fatter/bigger ships to totally outperform the smaller so called more agile/fast ships.

An FDL will generally best a Viper and generally be bested by a Corvette, assuming competent builds and rough parity in piloting, even if none of the ships can boost.

That said, I think permaboost has been generally terrible for combat...not because it gives any ship class any particularly meaningful advantage over others (even if bigger ships tend to benefit a bit more), but because it's helped to significantly increase average engagement ranges and often replaces more subtle forms of maneuver that ships were originally balanced around (and which I personally found more enjoyable).

The changes actually had an opportunity to affect this.

Disrupting a problematic, overly boost dependent, 'meta' wouldn't make make a drag based one a net positive, IMO.

Any balance that depends on everyone running the same equipment is detrimental to variety. The irony of Engineers is that, despite the myriad of choices supposedly offered, there has generally been a steady march to sameness. Sure, there are unorthodox loadouts that can be successful, but there are fewer of these now than before Engineering. The drag changes would have contributed to this decline.

No weapon special should be such a clear advantage in so many situations as to become mandatory.

I'm prepared to bet that drag munitions were intended to disable boost when they were first implemented, but in Fdev's inimitable fashion it was bugged. Presumably somebody there finally noticed that the code wasn't working and so implemented what they thought was a fix. Hence it got dropped into the update without anyone actually considering what the impact would be.

Sounds absurd, yet entirely plausible at the same time.

 

[Krash]

There's still time to play with it. It could be 2 weeks until the next patch (or tomorrow who knows..)

 

[voidwalker]

And that has any relevance because? As they say in debating terms attack the argument not the messenger.

Oh you are one of 'those' player eh

While you're sitting there deciding who is and isn't a 'smart player', you think you have some claim on the intellectual high ground against people 'attacking the messenger, not the argument'? Mate, you're a walking contradiction. You couldn't even make your own arguments without value judgments of how people play the game. If you're so smart, and so good at adapting, then you'll have no worries adapting to the reversion, and therefore nothing to complain about.

Unless you're not as smart as you think you are?

 

[Exeider]

Sounds absurd, yet entirely plausible at the same time.

Sadly, yes, I'd have to agree. I could totally see this.