Dnt worry about it, its someone who doesnt really understand the game, if you see in their sig they ahve a placquard that corvette is garbage, even as an imperial myself and it pains me to say it, but the vette is the best of the three frigates for combat.
This was nerfed...right?
- Thread starter mephisto9466
- Start date
Dnt worry about it, its someone who doesnt really understand the game, if you see in their sig they ahve a placquard that corvette is garbage, even as an imperial myself and it pains me to say it, but the vette is the best of the three frigates for combat.
All too true; the way things are going, Fdev's sailing further and further down the pandora's box/leapfrog rabbit hole of gimmicks and it's only going to get worse from here on out if we continue that way.
Difference is I'm quite stubborn and unafraid to show my criticism, and will continue to say 'No, let's stop this nonsense' for as long as Fdev continues to care for this game.
TheMegaTurnip
Banned
Ditto, but after 9 bluescreens (Yes. NINE) in my evening's session I'm really not sure I want too.
Let them keep screwing up and watch thier player base drop to nothing.
Then they might get an idea of what they are doing wrong.
That doesn't sound like a game client issue as much as some hardware problem or driver conflict.
It will only be nerfed when alot of people start to use this.
TO be more specific, fun things need to be nerfed - things that don't attract people remain has they are.
Since Flechettes are hard to use and demmands a high-enginnered and some skills to use (What means that only people that fdev likes use this *White*) so probably it will never get nerfed.
TO be more specific, fun things need to be nerfed - things that don't attract people remain has they are.
Since Flechettes are hard to use and demmands a high-enginnered and some skills to use (What means that only people that fdev likes use this *White*) so probably it will never get nerfed.
I have explained why your reasoning is the typical PvP biased rubbish and also why there is always going to be inherent differences between PvP and PvE combat balance perceptions. Ultimately, there are no PvE changes that will make players more tolerate of at least some PvP behaviours. That is a fact of life that PvPers like yourself will probably never understand - it has ZERO to do with level of difficulty per se in the majority of cases. It has pretty much nothing to do with any bias I may or may not have. As far as points being valid or not - I understand where you are coming from but you are blind to the false assumptions you are making even when the flaws are spelled out to you, this is far from uncommon amongst those that are overly focused on PvP in gaming communities in general.
If we are talking about specific engineering effects rather than specifically the weapons themselves then that is a crucial factor you left out. Engineering and tactical combat choices will also affect perceptions. At shorter engagement ranges, the Fragment cannon can be very effective but that is by intentional design - it is essentially a space shotgun. It is tactically avoidable in combat if you are prepared for longer range engagements.
Where Pack Hounds are concerned, it largely depends on the specific circumstances BUT in a 3.0 Beta Cutter with 2 PD above and 2 PD below a friend of mine found their use of Pack hound missiles countered more effectively than they expected during some ad-hoc and informal testing. I do not recall the precise ranges involved but it was not that far. As for the Pack Hounds being gimmicky, they are swarm seeker missiles which are not unprecedented in the space combat genre. Before some tweaks to the Thermal Cascade effect, the Pack Hounds were perhaps overly effective but as they currently stand their effectiveness has been toned down some. At close ranges, I know how such weapons can be effective - not from ED specifically, but from other games. That is bound to be irritating in PvP when you are on the receiving end, but at such ranges almost any missile is likely to be equally annoying.
Where torps are concerned, given the general scale of ED I have been put off from even considering using them for a variety of reasons - first and foremost being ammo levels. The addition of synthesis has not mitigated my concerns in that area. That being said, I am fully appreciative of their potential utility. In ED, they are probably as close to the original E-Bombs as we are likely to get and are not unprecedented in a general space combat context. At shorter ranges, torpedoes are bound to be quite effective but given the limited number we can carry their value is offset somewhat. In a PvP context, I can see how they may be annoying if you are on the receiving end but just be thankful FD did not include full-on E-bombs from the original Elite games.
Such weapons as these may be powerful when used appropriately BUT fundamentally there are counters to them unless perhaps when used at very close range. Insta-hit and virtually insta-hit weapons by comparison have very few counters except damage resistance or high shield/hull health points. Such weapons are the only weapons truly deserving of the "easy mode" label IME/IMO.
My point wrt the current level of AI difficulty is that it is about right for an on-line game that has to service different people of different skill levels in the context of an on-line game. Combat rank is not a viable metric to do as you would like, and it is not technically feasible to improve the AI to the degree that you seem to want for a variety of reasons. As it currently stands, the primary effect of combat level (as with most space genre games IME) is ship loadout and/or type. When it comes to missions with specific spawned opposition, level of mission difficulty seems to be typically scaled by quantity of opposition as well as type which is fair and reasonable.
It is ok that some seek a stronger challenge in PvE, but what is not ok is for such people to try to push for their sense of PvE balance to be imposed on everyone else where general NPC opposition is concerned. FD have balanced the AI combat loadouts and equipment damage levels based on feedback during the Betas. While I have not been involved with such feedback, I can not disagree with FD's general approach as they take into account a wide variety of points of view and settle on a balance they feel is right for ED as a whole. I don't agree with all the changes they do or attempt to do but that is a fact of life.
WRT general weapon balancing and availability - In a certain single player game that I have been involved with on the modding front (both as a creator and a consumer) I have noted there is a comparable split in the relevant community where combat balance is concerned. Such splits seem to be very common amongst gaming communities in general IME. Without going too much into details, the point is that the base game balance of ANY modern game is unlikely to satisfy everyone - especially those that may seek a greater degree of threat to the safety of their in-game assets. Not everyone considers challenge above a certain level "fun" and there are always going to be those that find the more balanced view towards combat not fit for them in a holistic sense (i.e. find things too easy).
Last edited:
Bringing this thread back on track with a question:
How would the Cutter Pilot have known that his PP was being sniped? I ran into an issue where the NPCs were sniping my FSD and I didn't realize it until I was too low on hull to do anything anymore, so I couldn't high-wake. Hence my question is more for me to know when my modules are bing sniped in the middle of the combat.
I think Fdev messed something up with the Human USS Threat levels.
I remember when I got my Python before 3.0 and jumped in a Threat 4 Weapons fire detected USS. No security was available and I was greeted by a wing of 3 Deadly/Elite Anacondas.
I did not even try to fight them, I only tried to low-wake and I made it with about 50% hull. For me that was a great example of an optional challenging PvE combat experience, that I avoided until I had a better combat ship and skills.
Fast-forward to 3.1, and we have Threat 5, 6, and 7, but unfortunately, they are ridiculously easy. Why? They are completely optional, why aren't they significantly more challenging than the 2.4 Threat 4? Morbad's vid is an excellent example: 1 Dangerous FDL that provides 5200 credits on destruction? This is wrong on so many levels and it's the experience I'm seeing as well.
So it looks like Human Threat 4,5,6,7 have been severely nerfed for no good reason!
High Threat USS and High Ranked combat missions are completely optional, they should provide challenging combat for those that desire it. in 2.4 Threat 4 used to spawn a wing of 3-4 Deadly/Elite Anacondas, now Threat 5 spawns a Dangerous Vulture???
I sure hope Fdev with recognize and fix the issue with Threat 4+ Human USS.
Easy fix: spawn wings of at least 3 combat engineered ships. Potentially adding more ships if they get destroyed too fast by the player.
Maybe Threat 7 shouldn't even really be possible solo.
How would the Cutter Pilot have known that his PP was being sniped? I ran into an issue where the NPCs were sniping my FSD and I didn't realize it until I was too low on hull to do anything anymore, so I couldn't high-wake. Hence my question is more for me to know when my modules are bing sniped in the middle of the combat.
I think Fdev messed something up with the Human USS Threat levels.
I remember when I got my Python before 3.0 and jumped in a Threat 4 Weapons fire detected USS. No security was available and I was greeted by a wing of 3 Deadly/Elite Anacondas.
I did not even try to fight them, I only tried to low-wake and I made it with about 50% hull. For me that was a great example of an optional challenging PvE combat experience, that I avoided until I had a better combat ship and skills.
Fast-forward to 3.1, and we have Threat 5, 6, and 7, but unfortunately, they are ridiculously easy. Why? They are completely optional, why aren't they significantly more challenging than the 2.4 Threat 4? Morbad's vid is an excellent example: 1 Dangerous FDL that provides 5200 credits on destruction? This is wrong on so many levels and it's the experience I'm seeing as well.
So it looks like Human Threat 4,5,6,7 have been severely nerfed for no good reason!
High Threat USS and High Ranked combat missions are completely optional, they should provide challenging combat for those that desire it. in 2.4 Threat 4 used to spawn a wing of 3-4 Deadly/Elite Anacondas, now Threat 5 spawns a Dangerous Vulture???
I sure hope Fdev with recognize and fix the issue with Threat 4+ Human USS.
Easy fix: spawn wings of at least 3 combat engineered ships. Potentially adding more ships if they get destroyed too fast by the player.
Maybe Threat 7 shouldn't even really be possible solo.
TheMegaTurnip
Banned
Simply put, he wouldnt unless he's seen the weapons before, which is why it's always wise to check these things out when they are released, so you know what to expect, even if thats 5 minute on youtube. Though i agree, there should be prompts in the UI when modules start to reach a certain damage threshold.
But yeah with the difficulty theing you've got it bang on.
When the most challenging USS' and assasination missions yeid both poor payouts and an overly easy fight it feels vapid and pointless, why would'nt you go look for a griefer in a comparably engineered ship and with a decent bounty instead? Or indeed, just go pewpew at people until you find someone set up to, and capable enough to fight back?
How would any unknowing pilot know what to do about being hit with some kinda hard-counter gimmick? Or *if* they were being affected by one?
Honest answer is they wouldn't know a darn thing.
Just another (big) reason why such things are a terrible, HORRID idea in the first place.
Never seen what you have describe wrt Threat 4 USSs (i.e. not 3-4 Anacondas), typically it has been a wing of 3-4 ships but generally a mix in the cases I have entered them - Anaconda+FDL+a couple of fighters with legacy high threat USSs. Exact mix may be scaled based on your combat level (Master for the mix I have mentioned) but always seemed to be roughly the same regardless of the ship you happened to be flying at the time (Asp Explorer or Federal Corvette does not seem to affect the mix).
Entered a Threat 6 in my Alliance Challenger recently as part of a ship test and noted an Anaconda with 2-3 escorts, but was not confident enough to risk the ship in a fur-ball (yet) so boosted away almost instantly to gain some range as Local Security jumped in turned around to support the local security forces and noted only the Anaconda was left on the threat board.
It would seem to me that unless these ships have engineered kit that FD may have to look more closely at their Threat Level balance code as it may be currently (3.1.1) easier than they perhaps intended.
Last edited:
If you have your RH MFD set to Modules you should notice two things:-
- Power Plant load percentage increasing
- Module integrity shown on that screen reducing
Would be nice to get alerts that particular modules are taking damage or that specific modules are passing a threshold. However, depending on total power plant loading and spare capacity (if any) you may get warnings about modules switching off.
Never been in the circumstances myself so the above is going from the way I believe it should work even if it does not at the moment.
Edit: Right on about the hard-counter gimmick!
As the Cutter's pilot, I would have been mislead by the fact that the shields held strong, and even though the hull was losing integrity slowly, it wasn't too concerning until it was too late.
I don't usually do combat with the modules panel open, yet I can easily see the specific module integrity of the opponent - not quite fair.
Also, if I see my shields and hull barely taking any damage, how is it intuitive to go and check my modules?
It's been a while, so I could be wrong, but I do remember my first ever Threat 4 USS (in 2.4) : 3 Anacondas...
I agree this is where FDev can (and should) put an optional challenge.
Last edited:
TheMegaTurnip
Banned
Im sorry WHAT? Loose you ego mate. It's starting to become a problem in your answers.
If people feel at a disadvantage, they wont do something as they know there is no point.
If the playing field is more level, there is more people taking part.
As i've already explained. IVE SEEN IT HAPPEN on the PS. With my own eyes.
So yes. You will excuse me if i think you're in denial about that.
Stick to your thick as pig-shart NPC's matey.
Not certain, but I think there are various warnings that might act as prompts.
I have noted them for Thermal Attack and some others... I think I have heard the warning shield breach attack but not 100% sure. As I already pointed out, I am not opposed to additional verbal or textual prompts being added. However, if you are taking hits and things appear to be normal it would not be unreasonable to expect the CMDR to show some common sense and check their modules.
The module screen available to us is an easy way to review our own module integrity - not objecting to alternatives but it would be unreasonable to claim we do not have the ability to do so easily.
Lets cut the personal remarks, this has nothing to do with Ego though in your case it may be a factor in my case it is not.
As I have explained (perceived) "difficulty" is not necessarily a deciding factor in why ppl in general do not participate in PvP in ED (nor specifically complain about individual incidents). It is a simple thing, and I am not the only person to have said this over the life of these forums.
Last edited:
You might find more traction if you filtered lines such as these out of what you let loose onto the forums here, just saiyan. Being tasteful never hurt anybody