I've always enjoyed flying with armor instead of SCBs. With a Prismatic it's so fun to switch things up after shields fail.
PvP The death of the FAS\FDS? A outsiders observation into post 3.0 PvP
- Thread starter CMDR Plexus Ironrot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pvp
I've always enjoyed flying with armor instead of SCBs. With a Prismatic it's so fun to switch things up after shields fail.
It's pretty outlandish. Sensors on a vette weigh more than the heaviest bulkheads and thrusters combined. That's silly.
The analogy to current day security cameras certainly fails to hold; it's a field I've worked in and their weight/size is always a tiny fraction of the structure/area of they are covering.
The press kit for the Hubble telescope is here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940015719.pdf and contains a rough breakdown of mass on page 8 (well, weight not mass to be precise, but the point stands).
Even on that craft - a dedicated sensor without any support for non orbital motion, combat, cargo or crew - the vast majority of the mass is in the structure and engines (173k lb of 209k lb).
I don't really care - ED science is largely hocus pocus so anything goes. So sure - let's pretend Li Yong Rui's granduncle invented some super badass sensor tech, but it's heavy. Whatevs.
The most likely explanation to me is someone on the team felt they just needed a place to stick some mass on crafts for gameplay balance and sensors seemed to be the best choice to that person(s).
Last edited:
The analogy had nothing to do with the mass of cameras, but the fact that you need more cameras or hydrophones or whatever sensors to get the same level of coverage of a larger and more complex exterior than a smaller one.
The relative difference between the mass of the sensor array on a viper vs. the corvette was the point, not how much an actual camera or microphone or multiple km of wiring weighs, either in absolute terms, or relative to non-sensor components...that's all irrelevant.
If you need n amount of sensors (and wiring, conduits, isolation material, and processing) and for complete coverage of x amount of surface area, it's not at all outlandish to need some significant multiple of n to cover some significant multiple of x.
The criticism was that the corvette's sensors are many times as massive as the sensors on a viper, but this is entirely plausible for short range passive sensor devices spread over a much larger object. How many security cameras do you need to cover all angles to an outhouse? How many for a shopping mall? That's the difference I'm talking about, and in this analogy it doesn't mater if the 'cameras' are a gram or a tonne.
If we want to justify the actual mass figures, I can certainly think of sensor technologies that would be quite a bit heavier than the cameras you're thinking of...arrays of cryogenically (probably liquid helium) cooled infrared sensors, for example...which would make perfect sense if one was trying to detect objects only slightly warmer than the background of open space (IR sensors cannot directly image anything colder than they are). How much mass do you think the heatpumps, heat exchangers, compressors, and tens of thousands of meters of insulated coolant loops would amount to?
Of course, the absolute mass wasn't the issue.
Also not in dispute.
And I can think of ones that are lighter. It's all imaginationland when it comes to ED. Either of us is bright enough to justify one position or the other. As far as your specific example of IR sensors, presumably the sensor elements themselves would be as well isolated from warmer parts of the ship and thus tend to be not much warmer than open space to start with. I don't think there would need to be tens of thousands of meters of coolant loops, but neither of us can know with any certainty.
Without knowing the relationship of n to x - in particular does coverage scale linearly or not - for these theoretical ED sensors it seems useless to speculate. So I'm just going by typical mass distributions in vessels up to this point in history. They're generally dominated by structure, propulsion & fuel, etc. I can think of no craft where sensors are a significant weight component compared to those other components. I'm sure there are a few I'm unaware of but expect those to be edge cases, not the sorts of general purpose, cargo and/or combat vessels we see in ED.
So the notion that the sensors would weigh as much or more than the propulsion system on a vessel that can travel from one end of the galaxy to the other just seems silly at a glance to me. Especially sensors that fall off at less then 20km. Likewise that they'd weight twice as much as heavily armored bulkheads built to withstand combat. Of course you're welcome to disagree and I respect your technical observations.
They would need to be actively cooled otherwise they'd be unusable any time they were exposed to significant irradiance. Being anywhere near a star and not kept on the dark side of the ship for long enough to cool down would effectively blind them. Even their own power consumption could do that if they were isolated from the rest of the ship, because they couldn't benefit from the ship's radiators...without expansive and delicate radiators of their own, that could be shielded from incoming solar irradiance, they'd overheat themselves. It's hard to passively cool things in a vacuum.
Which is silly in and of itself.
Real vessels up until this point in history are mostly chemical rockets with enormous fuel fractions and extremely poor specific impulse. Modern spaceflight is dominated by limitations to delta-v imposed by such constraints.
Ships in Elite, are predicated on this power/impulse limitation being virtually absent. We can power ships for protracted periods of time and run engines with enormous thrust that require trivial reaction mass. That sort of paradigm shift in power and propulsion would make vessels that bore significant resemblance in mass proportions to our current spacecraft unthinkable.
There have been similar shifts in other propulsion technologies in the real world that can be used as an example.
Imagine going back to the late 19th century or early 20th century and telling shipbuilders or naval strategists, who are used to the most efficient warships of the era burning 10-20% of their mass in coal every couple of weeks that, in less than 70 years, there will be ships that can, with under 0.1% of their mass devoted to fuel, steam at full power for a decade straight. It would sound ludicrous, and it would allow for equally inconceivable sorts of vessels. It's also exactly what happened when nuclear power was applied to naval propulsion.
I don't disagree with this, never did.
I'm just saying that this was never the point, because neither I nor Ramius were comparing sensors to anything else. We were comparing sensors on one ship to sensors on a vastly larger ship.
I never had any problem with this. Shield emitters are part of the vessel itself, not the shield generator. Diferences in configuration and efficiency of those emitters, combined with different shapes and volumes that need to be enclosed in a shield bubble, make different shield strengths between different ships with the same generator about the least implausible aspect of shielding.
Afterall, no one expects the same amplifier to result in the same sound or signal or whatever when attached to different speakers, radio antennae, etc.
Another thread thats off topic now to get everyone to forget about the intial point was.
Funny the way this forum works innit.
Funny the way this forum works innit.
Off topic, but no warning from Moderators..... Perhaps because the hypothetical weight of sensors on future vehicles is socially acceptable in this particular venue. It is "scientific" after all, and was cogently argued and even educational. Now, if I started talking about how unfortunate it is that most people do not appreciate or have even heard of Giacomo Puccini, I would more likely be moderated.
Hmmmm... I'll just outright lie and say he is the father of Italian space ship design......
Not entirely, discussing the 'death' of a ship class brings up a broad range of subsuming issues that illustrate and demonstrate the mechanics and context.
Let it roll,
Let it roll,
I agree up to a point, but as has been pointed out ad infinitum at this point that the reason for the death of said ship class is mostly down to the disparity between avalible defences.
Though I will also add, that aside from the Gunship, there is often a disparity in htting power too at this point. The FAS has objectivey less firepower now than agruably it has at an point when compared to the FDL, or indeed the Alliance pair. (Crusader is dead to me). The FDS, though it can hit hard, is basically a boat with caster wheels and is outturned by more or less everything else.
Then there is the peircing values on weapons that more or less nullify anything small, whilst simaltaeneously ensuring that they can be swatted like flies unless you have an exceptional amount of experience behind the stick with them.
Peircing values are a problem for not only small weapons VS larger hulls, but they are also a rather ridiculous stat due to the whole concept being circumvented by SLFs as they have unlimited peircing values on thier weapons resulting in them dealing full damage to everything despite having considerably smaller hardpoints than even the Eagle/'Winder.
I can't say that the weight involved in any of these ships modules however have much play in the equation unless we are talking about ship class which actually have small tolerances that must be closely watched for optimum performance, IE: Only the small ones. Everything else sits close, or way under, thier optimal weight for thier thrusters to such a degree that you can add more or less whatever you like to them and suffer no major drop in overall performance. Compare for example, what you can get into an FDL and still have it handle well, and still be relatively fast, when compared to say an iCourier. Add weight to that and you instantly nerf its boost speed and its overall manuverability.
I think the only reason a mod would need to step in urgently is if derails into flaming.
Regardless, I find the discussion of sensor weight and shield differences entirely within the overaching discusion of PVP. These things are pertinent to things like ship speed and shield strength which are important in pvp. I guess thats how I'd justify it at least XD
I get what youre saying and it makes a lot of sense, but comparing an FDL to a Python? There's hardly that much difference in weight and shape? I just love the Python, it's so amazing and needs a bit more ooof in my opinion. It feels crazy to have 3 large and 2 medium hardpoints on a vessel and have it be quite weak.
Regardless, I find the discussion of sensor weight and shield differences entirely within the overaching discusion of PVP. These things are pertinent to things like ship speed and shield strength which are important in pvp. I guess thats how I'd justify it at least XD
I get what youre saying and it makes a lot of sense, but comparing an FDL to a Python? There's hardly that much difference in weight and shape? I just love the Python, it's so amazing and needs a bit more ooof in my opinion. It feels crazy to have 3 large and 2 medium hardpoints on a vessel and have it be quite weak.
Last edited:
Except PAs and railguns.
The main problem I see with percing values is that they over emphasize the use of PAs and rails to the exclusion of most other weapons in small and medium hardpoints. It was silly to increase the percing values of these weapons, which makes them some of the the only viable damage dealers against high hull ratings that one can put in those hardpoints. It also rendered sturdy and focused mounts less appealing than they otherwise would be.
Small weapons/vessels, including SLFs, are generally too effective against the hulls of larger ones and PAs/rails are overly popular, partially because they have no real APV considerations.
Part of the reason ships like the vulture and FAS were potent big ship killers is because they had weapons large enough to do full damage to almost everything. After that railgun buff, every ship can have hitscan weapons that can do this.
Long range weapons and the rotational performance advantages of Engineering have reduced the impact of mass on most vessels. I used to feel uncomfortable in an FDL that was over 430 tons or so, because it became prone to stalls past minimum mass and back when damage drop off was still relevant and boosting still costly, even a 5-10m/s speed, and small acceleration/rotational, advantage was significant. Now I don't hesitate to run a 500+ ton FDL because the sacrifices required for even another ~30m/s are flatly not worth it.
The FDL is a heavily combat oriented vessel and maximizing shielding on it was likely a prime goal of it's design. Shields are more of an afterthought on the python; it's a trade focused multi-purpose vessel.
The Python is one of the most used ships in the game and excels in many roles. It's not as combat oriented as the FDL, but it's far from weak. Built for combat, there is scarcely a medium ship that can match the python in damage output or staying power. Only the gunship and krait Mk have comparable firepower and essentially no medium is more durable. Only it's relatively low speed and lack of maneuverability keep if from out doing the combat-oriented mediums in combat.
Again I see your point. I consider the Python to be the Elites version of a car modders dream because of the felxability.
But honestly, a 6A on a python has less shielding that a 5C on an FDL. I think we're probably going to draw a line in the sand on this one. Combat ship or not I think thats way off. I mean sure, you can say if both could only house 5A gens then fair enough. But when your a whole class higher or by 7 upgrades? And it's not like the FDL needs it with though 6 juicy utility slots.
The thing that keeps the Python moving is overall hitpoint stacking, same as an FDL, only that can dodge incoming fire. However the python can run three sets of banks, and a 6a prismatic/6c Bi Weave making it able to outdo a single ships entire ammo pool, or near enough. When synth is mandatory against those kind of opponents you know there is a serious issue with hitpoint overinflation. This also includes large vessels and Prismo FDL's.
Whilst it is somewhat justifyable for big ships to have enourmous shielding, it is not for something in lower weight classes.
However one thing that could be done to address this problem is half the amount of increase gained from 4 pips to shields. Whilst halving the recharge delay on Bi weaves and doubling the regeneration.
This would go a ways to promote higher skill builds whilst effectively nerfing the prismatic/HD buffs and with the added benifit of making reverski prismo builds dead in the water.
Sturdy is weak blueprint, it should work similar to efficient, but with different benefits, perhaps small gains to DPS, penetration, clip size and ammo, focused OTOH is victim of long range mod, just making both have same falloff range make them equally viable.
i think people overemphasis the "powercreep" between alliance ships and federals one (we don't speak about crusader which is a ship that don't exist). A chief sure can have good utilities and still hardpoints for damage, but you can't go for 4 PA like a FAS , which mean less firepower than a FAS. Better shield but less speed ... What I want to say is that both of those ships are hull tanks / hybrids and are under the threat of being elite polar bears. Don't shoot in our own feet. (yes, it's very chieftain player biased).
Here we go for one of the main problem imo. This have lead to the corrosive effect. (1c1 weapon that makes all your wep +20 AP and +25% dmg against hull). While it had completely miss his point (surprise, med and big ships shield stack so the effect don't help small against them), it had contributed a lot to make ships relying on hull subparts with shield stacking ships. Hull hardness was suposed to be "hull system pips" and this effect completely nullify it. C3 kinetics weapons benefiting from it are just too devastating for med ships hulls.
If FD really want people to move from shield tanking removing 25% dmg bonus from corrosive is good start, on c3+ multi it leave only 2 solid options, autoloader and incendiary, but its fine, on smaller hardpoints single corrosive just for better AP will still be good, as on all frags.
It affect all your weapons when the effect is applied to a ship, so just put it on a c1/2 weapon will not change anything at all. Your c3 will stil benefit from it (even PA take those + 25%) Imo the answer would be to restrict the effect to the weapon it's on and that all.
The problem is that you can have "double shot screening sheel corrosive c3 frags"/ OC autoloader corrosive MC" (ie).
Last edited:
I would rather remove 25% bonus damage entirely, why multis and frags have it while cannons don't, if anything need 25% damage bonus, those should be lasers.