What combat balances are proposed?

[Cmdr Snuffler]

The issue of 2v1 or 4v1 doesn't just apply to Medium vs large ships.
I pack of well engineered Viper Mk3s/Vultures would wipe the floor with most ships out there.
You can't shield or hull tank forever.

 

[o2thaZ]

Payout thats it!
Everything else will bring more bugs and unbalance.
Best to git gud in your fav ship.
Or face the fact that ships will outclass eachother in different roles.

 

[CMDR Jayce MacLeod]

I think it's just going to change combat payouts. I think people are looking way to deep into this. I dont think there will be any changes to the mechanics.

That being said, I hope bounty hunting, Combat Zones, Power Play payouts and AX combat all get a good bump in pay outs.

 

[Elliot Coleman]

Balancing payouts while ignoring glaringly obvious issues to ship/module balance is like putting a bandaid on a sucking chest wound.

 

[Kastor]

My biggest beef with how things are currently balanced is with armor. Once shields are down, it becomes almost a free for all in terms of taking out modules. Armor is almost worthless in this situation. Practically speaking, a good many modules, most notably the power plant, the power distributor and possibly the frame shift drive (not quite sure how a frame shift drive is actually set up on ships though so I might be wrong on this one) should be buried deep within a ship and be totally protected from incoming fire by the ship's armor. That armor should have to be stripped or at least severely damaged in order to reach those inner modules. This means armor tanking is nowhere near as good a thing as shield tanking. I think it would make combat much more interesting if armor were to actually have proper value in terms of defense.

This, Power plants at the very least should be near imposibble to destroy when a ship is above 50% health

 

[Qualityoflife]

Is the damage model actually cordoned off into zones or is there trickery afoot!

 

[galahad2069]

My biggest beef with how things are currently balanced is with armor. Once shields are down, it becomes almost a free for all in terms of taking out modules. Armor is almost worthless in this situation. Practically speaking, a good many modules, most notably the power plant, the power distributor and possibly the frame shift drive (not quite sure how a frame shift drive is actually set up on ships though so I might be wrong on this one) should be buried deep within a ship and be totally protected from incoming fire by the ship's armor. That armor should have to be stripped or at least severely damaged in order to reach those inner modules. This means armor tanking is nowhere near as good a thing as shield tanking. I think it would make combat much more interesting if armor were to actually have proper value in terms of defense.

Module sniping is less of a problem, the real curse of hulltanks is the vulnerabilty of external modules (including weapons) to missiles, the corrosive effect and especially rams (the damage of which is very inconsistent and subject to desync).

 

[CaptainPugwash]

I agree that missiles, especially pack hounds, could be considered too powerful against hull tanks, but I would like to understand better how players are fighting (I'm no PvP ace). For example, how many players use ECM effectively, and how many use the reinforced mod on their weapons? Regarding rams: they are fun gameplay, but oh so unrealistic, no idea what the solution could be there.

 

[Kenneth McGrew]

Will these be limited to payouts and missions boards, or will we see some weapons looked at again?

Personally, I would like to see big ships capable of holding their own better when facing squads of FDL gankers. A single railgun on one of these ships can nullify your chance of regaining shield and the base shield itself doesn't stand a chance of holding up too long against a barrage of plasma from a pack of these ships. I'd like to see railguns with cascade effect changed to only reducing half of the scb's worth per cell. And that is the maximum I would allow, personally. The size of the hit box, especially in a Cutter, makes it near impossible to avoid being struck by these. And although I'm fully engineered, it really doesn't feel that safe out there when facing these kinds of foe.

What are your thoughts on this? I know that fighting 1v1 against a big ship, the railguns were supposed to benefit these players. But in my opinion, they are a bit OP against shield cell banks and need toning down.

with FDev it will be this

followed by this once we know / test it

 

[galahad2069]

how many players use ECM effectively, and how many use the reinforced mod on their weapons?

None (that I know of).

Since shield boosters, chaff and heatsink launchers (and even point defences) are more useful utilities in most cases, it's simply not worth it to waste a utility slot to prepare for such a niche situation.

As for the sturdy weapon mod, it's pretty much the same thing: you'd sacrifice too much dps for virtually zero gain (except for edge cases).

 

[CaptainPugwash]

None (that I know of).

Since shield boosters, chaff and heatsink launchers (and even point defences) are more useful utilities in most cases, it's simply not worth it to waste a utility slot to prepare for such a niche situation.

As for the sturdy weapon mod, it's pretty much the same thing: you'd sacrifice too much dps for virtually zero gain (except for edge cases).

Well I use ECM on my bigger slower ships after several recent encounters with reverb torps as they are dangerous if launched at the right time, and the reinforced PDTs are useful as well.

 

[Kastor]

Explosive damage is pretty brutal, I don't think it's ever been tuned in right because it's so weak vs shields it's hard to justify and balance. If people lost shields more often the inbalance would be so blatant that FD would have to do something about it. I liked the old day's where the only thing explosive did was utterly DESTROY hull. Slaming dumbfire vollies into the side of a Elite Anaconda was SO satisfying. Better to recive as well, sure you'd loose health faster but you wouldn't be crippled in the same way. IMO quick destruction is preferable to being crippled and slowly killed.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Explosive damage is pretty brutal, I don't think it's ever been tuned in right because it's so weak vs shields it's hard to justify and balance. If people lost shields more often the inbalance would be so blatant that FD would have to do something about it. I liked the old day's where the only thing explosive did was utterly DESTROY hull. Slaming dumbfire vollies into the side of a Elite Anaconda was SO satisfying. Better to recive as well, sure you'd loose health faster but you wouldn't be crippled in the same way. IMO quick destruction is preferable to being crippled and slowly killed.

However my pirate cmdr would like an effective means to disable a ship without destroying the hull lol. The best weapon for this atm is the seeker missile, and the rail gun is strangely bad at disabling thrusters.

 

[Kastor]

However my pirate cmdr would like an effective means to disable a ship without destroying the hull lol. The best weapon for this atm is the seeker missile, and the rail gun is strangely bad at disabling thrusters.

Oh oh I know this one, that's because they drastically improved thruster health to compensate for explosive damage and now explosives are the ONLY good way to destroy thrusters.

I remeber that during launch I could easily kill drives using Multicannons. I did it to players a few times, pirating while everyone was still in their haulers.

 

[Kastor]

Fdev seem to misunderstand game design principles of balance at a basic level.

They are often very heavy handed on the symptom, ignoring the cause.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Oh oh I know this one, that's because they drastically improved thruster health to compensate for explosive damage and now explosives are the ONLY good way to destroy thrusters.

I remeber that during launch I could easily kill drives using Multicannons. I did it to players a few times, pirating while everyone was still in their haulers.

I have also tried with the flecchette launcher, but I was running out of ammo before I could disable the thrusters of a T9.

 

[Kastor]

I have also tried with the flecchette launcher, but I was running out of ammo before I could disable the thrusters of a T9.

Yep that's to be expected. flecchett launchers are balanced to be useful against internals, they do badly against the aforementioned bloated health pools of drives.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Fdev seem to misunderstand game design principles of balance at a basic level.

They are often very heavy handed on the symptom, ignoring the cause.

Yeah, they do appear to have got themselves into one of those situations in which the only viable alternatives won't please many:
1) leave it as it is,
2) start from scratch

 

[den1ezy]

For some reason, most people who hate FDL and want to nerf it don't know how to fly it.

 

[Kastor]

Yeah, they do appear to have got themselves into one of those situations in which the only viable alternatives won't please many:
1) leave it as it is,
2) start from scratch

Yeah... a lot of elites balance has gone down this path. They've consitantly made pandering buff focused balanced choices that have made the whole situation worse and worse. Good multiplayer game balance requires a stone heart, the right choice is often the one that causes the most butt-hurt as many players will invest into the flavor-off-the-week OP build.