Well it doesn't matter, at all, before the meta was niche but a ncihe workign on amny ships, now the meta is more balanced (becaue SCN's aren't that OP anymore) but the ships workign with this new shift aren't wide. That does not necessarily mean the change of the SCB's was bad. It just menas there are still other things a problem. Like general ship balance. general comparison of various ship/equipment compositions. We have now by concept a bit better system, now we need to make sure more ships are able to use that system and further improve the system.
Why do all the PVP builds I see posted not use shields?
- Thread starter erock25
- Start date
Well it doesn't matter, at all, before the meta was niche but a ncihe workign on amny ships, now the meta is more balanced (becaue SCN's aren't that OP anymore) but the ships workign with this new shift aren't wide. That does not necessarily mean the change of the SCB's was bad. It just menas there are still other things a problem. Like general ship balance. general comparison of various ship/equipment compositions. We have now by concept a bit better system, now we need to make sure more ships are able to use that system and further improve the system.
In my view this is down to the collective hive mind. Once the hive has determined what is optimum, and what is not, it is a done deal. The meta has been established. Nothing will change that. Not facts, figures or graphs. The majority of players will just take what the consensus says, and get that. Then a group will form complaining that the current meta is a problem because; reasons. The cycle turns once more.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
It just means that what is accepted as optimum has shifted. That shift is a result of changes. Changes called for by groups of players. This will necessarily continue. The cycle is revealed. Does it really matter whether it was because SCB's were nerfed, or HRP's were buffed?
If you leave the Vulture, DBS, Cobra, Courier and Viper out of your 1.5 list, you can't keep them in your 1.4 list. The gap between those ships and larger ones has narrowed, just not by enough.
Anaconda is still definitely viable
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Stop acting as if your opinion trumps my evidence. I've presented a clear case that the meta change is actually down to a specific changes to modules, and have narrowed down what they are, and you have nothing to say other than saying that players are acting under some weird collective will, rather than what works
This reminds me of the Battlefield: Bad Company 2 tracker dart.
Trying to get the thing onto a chopper was hilarious fun - you'd have 10 guys with tracker darts spawning and running around and dying (choppers were a bit OP in that game) until someone got the dart onto the chopper. Then it was like 3 seconds before it died. It was brilliant!
Last edited:
wowowo, hold your horses here Alexander the Grape. You don't consider the delay switching from shield cell bank set to the next one a nerf? Ofc it is a nerf, since before, you could change sets and use new sets instantly, while now, this 15-20 seconds (whatever) delay, makes the shielded ship MOSTLY vulnerable !!!
but I'd add again the "bug" concerning targeting in wings a silent running ship, contributing to the whole messy silent running op-ness situation.
I agree though with the rest of the points you made
The only ships that actually received a nerf to SCB effectiveness were the Clipper and Python, multipurposes that should not have been dominant in the first place.
Other ships that rely on SCBs simply have so much shield the turn on time is irrelevant. If your enemy can burst through 1000+ MJ in 20 seconds, then no amount of SCBs will save you anyway because their damage is literally faster than SCB restore per second
Last edited:
I imagine you yelling this.
The argument is based on logic here,
why should you prohibit a player from installing more than one of the same module?
It is up to the ship owner if he uses his internal space for different modules, cargo bays or even plasters
the whole interior with additional struts, plating and security lockdoors.
You can opt your ship for different roles, but you could also sacrifice cargo space as a trader.
Additionally i suggested an alternative to fixing HRP,
please do not overread that part of the post.
To my knowledge no solid proven (backed by vid) data on how HRPs perform increasing module protection or not exists.
Unless i see data on that, allowing to circumvent the whole "boost my HP balloon" crap by surgical striking,
i would not focus on tweaking HRPs.
Last edited:
I find it funny how this thread started because the OP just wanted to know why people aren't using shields anymore and it has degraded into an argument on how people should or shouldn't play the game and what the devs should or shouldn't do to it.
I'm of the same opinion as this CMDR. I was almost excited for PvP scenarios when Elite first launched, but it's just meta after meta after meta so now I just play Solo/Group PvE
If you're arguing from a lore perspective, it's pretty easy to sort out. The Orca has a number of slots that can only take certain types of modules, why no other ships?
I would like to see only a minority of internal slots being rated for combat equipment such as shields, SCBs and HRPs.
If you're arguing from a player freedom/gameplay perspective, restrictions can make for far more meaningful choices than freedom.
There's a reason you can't put class 4 weapons on a sidewinder.
This is why I support buffing small ships more than anything else. They have to be nimble enough to get in close and attack modules of these unshielded ships. Currently they're simply too slow, drifty and unable to turn to knifefight and hug their targets like they need to
Restrictions would not be in line regarding standard fittings with either Elite, or Elite: Frontier.
I don't like my freedom restricted, because that will ultimately lead to a diminished number of viable loadouts.
A lot of other games at the market did this restriction to skill systems, like in the old Sandbox "Star Wars Galaxies",
after changing the way you create the character (classes) the abundance of possibilities and sense of progression was reduced to ashes.
Restrictions in my opinion will be a step in that very direction, classing ships like the anaconda (6k hull!) as tank, FDL as DD and so on.
No thanks.
I'd rather think of the ship internals as "parcells of empty space" to fit for you with whatever you like,
just like in Space Engineers.
A suitable balancing would be allowing EVERY module retaining use,
that is currently not the case for mayn of them (ecm, turrets, missiles) and even the longtime favourite
chaff got wrecked, because of fixed/silent running maximum dps builds.
Give chaff a use, and we will again see some difference in loadouts.
I agree on the small ships though,
they need some love!
Can't stand anacondas reversing from my eagle and turning in to fire at me before
i can scratch their backs.
Last edited:
the problem with pvp is... Not big enough fights. railspam PvP builds works only because you don't have to worry about having not enough ammo to kill more than one ship. If PvP fights would involve a lot more players and restock would take lots of time stealth builds would be balanced. If after killing one enemy you're eliminated from fight for 20 mins while killed enemy will respawn and join battle again in 5 mins you're useless.
No, it works because of synthesis, and the fact that the best combat ship in the game has 4 class 2 slots
Last edited:
Silent running probably wouldn't be so rampant if the SYS capacitor did anything other than just shield regen. General ship cooling (or heating slower), sensor range, less module damage, or something to make them move pips around would get rid of the max firepower and agility all the time meta. Also switching HRPs to % and not a flat number might also help.
I've been interdicted by PvP players who run in silent, without shields. They often (in my experience) drop silent running for a few seconds and I've found the best way to beat them is target their heat sinks. The heat sinks are on the surface of the hull and only take a couple of shots to disable.
Once the heat sinks are dead, silent running is not an option & they are toast.
It's only happened a couple of times - anyone else tried this?
Once the heat sinks are dead, silent running is not an option & they are toast.
It's only happened a couple of times - anyone else tried this?
Last edited:
I did a few tests, I think it depends on target ship type/positioning of heat sink modules and positioning to accomplish that...
I'd also tried with turrets, but they wouldn't get the health of the module down. At least not always.
Thanks for the info - I was using gimbals (in a Python with 3 Lg Pulses) and the best ship I took out was a FAS. I had a clear shot at the top of the ship, and later a clear shot at the underside, so I think I may have just got lucky. Gonna have to get interdicted more
Cheers TheoZ
Last edited:
Frontier did in the past such a great job to balance all the ships and their weapons. Remember how dissapoint I was at first with the Corvette and Cutter in the game. And now even in the PvP League finals where 1x Cutter/Corvette per team was allowed, both teams decided to fly a stealth medium ship instead. I was honestly surprised how powerful the combination of a skilled pilots in their stealth FdL with syntesis Rail-Guns are. Adle's Armada proofed, that this is currently the strongest setup with devastating alpha damage! Is this a bad thing - I don't think so. But it is a waste of the 29 other ships and 123 different weapons setups, which are less worth in this extreme high level PvP competition.
This tends to be a surprise for anyone. It surprised me too. Then I just accepted it and moved on.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Because all threads do. Because people become emotional about their play style and needing validation. And then people break out excel spreadsheets because the numbers don't lie (though you can manipulate them).
So frontier get bleated at, endlessly. And then you get crap like the new FDL, and it's just five minutes of banging your head against the wall until brain trama helpfully blocks it all out.
And then it starts again.
Last edited:
Grape, you did support a change to the ship, so I am afraid you do have to accept some responsibility. It's good because the original checks design to stop it were invalidated by two changes. One because of a new feature from Frontier. The other because commanders demand it.
It's all well and good having this discussion. But it's belying how many have already forgotten how we got here. Frontier improved the ship because people screamed for it. Endlessly.
HRP have partial module protection because people were very vocal on this during beta. Basically half the busted stuff in the game is due to people demanding it.
So to me, the irony about people complaining about "meta" and what not is hilarious because it's almost all self induced.
It seems to me those most vocal about changes that are clearly needed, are those who don't understand why there is imbalance.
---
As for the OP post; PVP is primarily about minimising own risk and maximising output damage. There will always be "meta" because there will always be fringe areas where a mechanic or system can be exploited to achieve more optimal outcomes.
For a very long time stealth-dbs was the go to build; it's simply because highly agile low surface factor vehicles (ie medium or small with low heat output) work best to foil scanners and weapons.
DBS in this case has just been replaced by FDL because it can do the same thing with more and larger hardpoints.
Next time a ship is "fixed" because of endless community demands, it'll become the optimal combination.
Last edited: