[GETTING READY FOR 1.4? Dev Q&A Summary]

1 hour ago, PancakeGod said:

 

Maybe put up a fight instead of complaining about it.  Not Legion's fault you guys lost half your players due to the last spanking that was given.

Please don't bring toxicity into discussions about legitimate concerns regarding the design of the game. The main reason Lodestar stopped engaging in alien core content was because we felt it wasn't worth our time. It required 4-6 hours of our day, every other day, in large part due to NG's harassment strategy of using the combat lock mechanic to waste our time instead of giving both player groups a fun fight. We didn't want to retake Alpha if that was going to be our pvp 'content' when we owned it. This reaffirms my point - the mechanics and general design of the alien core feature is ill-suited to the type of game that DU is. Introducing more of the same while pretending that it's adding content to the game is a bad decision imo.

[GETTING READY FOR 1.4? Dev Q&A Summary]

I'm looking forward to trying the PvE and testing the new PvP changes and adding them to my guide. However I do want to mention that if nothing has been changed with alien cores, there will be no participation and so no reason to introduce three more. Very few players are willing to devote so much time and effort to take an alien core and hold it. I expect Legion will claim them unchallenged and sit on them for months.

Plasma-related objectives need to be reduced in participation scale: less time investment, less cooperation necessary(since the game doesn't really support 40v40 battles right now and since the playerbase is dwindling), and less rewards. They need to be small scale, randomly scheduled events, much like asteroids. Or similar to daily, bi-daily, or weekly events like other MMOs have. The current implementation forces way too much time investment, rewards the group with the largest player participation, and also allows continual rewards for no effort or investment after the fighting is over.

 

9 minutes ago, VarietyMMOs said:

Its important that element loss (aside from fuel/ammo) is used here. If items are damaged a fair way this could go a long way to keep the markets moving for both quanta and elements. 

Yes, even with the current element lives system, there's too little element turnover. Most players have had to replace only a few ship's worth of elements since launch. PvE could become a major driving force for element turnover, so most difficulty levels should remove element lives.

[UPDATE 1.2 ARRIVES ON DECEMBER 13TH - TACTICAL MAP, REVAMPED ASTEROIDS AND MORE]

2 hours ago, Virtualburn said:

 

I think the radar is ultimately pointless, that radar in ED is based across a lot smaller scale and this is till only 400km (2su) if you are travelling at speed you are not  going to even stop the ship in 2su let alone change course.  This would only be good for CQC / Dogfights,,, 

And you should have the ability to go radar silent - if you cut engines you are gone.  Radar should be minimum 5su with talents. 

My pvp ship can stop in 0.7 SU when traveling at 44k if it does a flip-and-burn. Tactical map will be valuable to pvpers for sure.

[UPDATE 1.2 ARRIVES ON DECEMBER 13TH - TACTICAL MAP, REVAMPED ASTEROIDS AND MORE]

The asteroid stuff seems like an improvement. But not really what I was hoping for myself when I heard that asteroid hunting was going to get a rework. I've always wanted the DSAT coordinate system to be replaced with a DSAT that works like the scanner/direction scanner tools that are used for mining. That's a neat mechanic that requires some skill and intuition, and now it's barely used. Seems like a waste. Tracking down an asteroid could work just like tracking down an ore node.

I see some pvpers think that the removal of the discovered column will make it hard to find miners and kill them. But we haven't seen how the new roid spawning will work. If the roids are continuously despawing/respawning, there might only ever be 20-30 spawned roids and it will actually be easier to find miners.

The tactical map is cool as well but I hope you guys do it better than Elite Dangerous did it. Theirs can definitely be improved.

No need for the varying distances between concentric circles. They should have even spacing every 50km so that players can properly see how far away a contact is with just a glance at the map.

The contact icons should indicate the direction of travel and facing of the contact. (markers should as well)

The plane altitude lines should be dashed when below the plane.

There should be an indication of radar range at the top/bottom of the sphere in the form of a vertical circle that shows where the limits are.

I also hope that Lua wizards will have access to the data that the tactical map uses so that they can build user-made tactical maps into their hud.

[PVP Changes, Hi NQ its me again :)]

Missiles and lasers do need some help though. Some features that define them, make them unique.

My suggestion would be that lasers take no ammo, but can overheat. This would make laser setups effectively lighter, cheaper to operate, and give them unlimited endurance in a long battle.

Missiles are good only in very niche situations for their supreme burst dps. If NQ wants to keep that as a feature of missiles, I think they should make missiles better at it, because currently cannons have almost as much burst dps as missiles but far better sustained dps. But I don't think missiles should be a space shotgun.

[PVP Changes, Hi NQ its me again :)]

It's a good thing NQ takes player feedback with a grain of salt and carefully considers what the best course might be. Because most of you guys have a shaky assessment of the meta.

S-core cannon boats are good, yes. But only when piloted well(which most players seem unable to do), and only in small scale fights. Believe it or not, they are not the ultimate meta ship. I'm not going to tell you what is though. I'll show you later.

Railguns are the best weapon in the game. Players just aren't using them right. Every rail pilot I've fought has done nothing to try to stay away from my cannons. They just blindly point at me and fire until I'm right in their face. Rails take twice as long to kill a target, yes. But they have the incredible advantage of range, which can't be overvalued - especially in high-speed S-core fights. You have to be patient and set up good situations to fire out of effective cannon range. Get more accel. Use it properly.

The range of rails also allows them to focus fire better. The more ships you have, the more potent rails become. Rails are and always will be the king of fleet fights.

[New mass:max speed/rotation curve is perfect.]

6 hours ago, Knight-Sevy said:

Put voxels on your S ships?

 

6 hours ago, Knight-Sevy said:

Your S dies too quickly? Damn: Uses voxel.

Voxel won't do anything for S ships. Shields down = S dead or disabled.

Anyway, artificially limiting elements by core size is the wrong way to go. Better to have an energy system that limits elements by forcing the builder to make trade-offs. If a S-core wants a L-shield, it can only fit a partial set of S guns. If a M-core wants a L-shield, it can only fit one set of M guns and one set of S guns - not two sets M guns, with two L radars.

 

Fit limitations based on an energy system would be much more dynamic and interesting than just shoe-horning ships into specific builds. Until we get something like that, I'd prefer it if element selection remained more free. I don't even see a reason to limit gun sizes to core size right now as well, since having L guns doesn't give an inherent advantage like it used to.

[New mass:max speed/rotation curve is perfect.]

2 hours ago, Knight-Sevy said:

And also be the one with the best armor thanks to the big shield + cross section combo...

This is where I disagree. S-cores have 1/3 of the survivability of a ship with a L-shield and some voxel armor. S-cores die very quickly when focused. They do have a lot of advantages, but they're so fragile. If they had to use S shields they would die in 30 seconds of being targeted by even a few ships. Same thing with M cores with M shield. They would die so fast.

And don't forget to list the other big disadvantage of S-cores:
Short range

 

Also, these items aren't advantages that are exclusive to S-cores:

Take advantage of better chance of hitting
Take advantage of better tracking

 

Since L and M cores can equip S weapons as well. IMO, S-cores are very easily countered just by equipping M-cores and L-cores with a backup set of S cannons. Getting attacked by S-cores that are too close to hit? Just switch to your S cannon gunner seat and drive them away easily. Any M- or L-core that doesn't have a set of S weapons just isn't complete.

[New mass:max speed/rotation curve is perfect.]

39 minutes ago, Knight-Sevy said:

It is now necessary to Remove the possibility of putting M or L shields on an S core.

I disagree entirely. M shield is the only thing keeping S-cores remotely competitive. They already have less than half of the effective hp of a L-shield M-core, even when accounting for cross section and hit chances. Limiting shield sizes to core size will just make the time-to-kill even lower. Ships already die very quickly. Limiting shield size to core size will halve the time-to-kill.

 

The voxel buffs are more than enough to make M-cores and L-cores dominant again. I think the new dominant meta ship is a 600t M-core with a L-shield. So much hp, good dps, and you can have S-weapons on a backup seat to deal with S-cores.

I think we just need XL shields for L-cores. 20M hp, about 500t.

[New mass:max speed/rotation curve is perfect.]

Good job NQ. Thanks for listening to the feedback. The new max speed changes bring M-core and L-core pvp ships into a better position compared to S-cores, and single-package mission running will be less painful. The rotation changes feel really nice as well. My M-core hauler doesn't feel stiff and annoying to fly anymore.

 

Just wanted to express my appreciation. Keep up the great work.

 

[Achievement rewards are negligible. Increase the talent point reward greatly to make them fun.]

On 8/14/2022 at 1:07 AM, Taelessael said:

Increasing the achievements' payout to make them individually significant will probably require re-working

Definitely. The whole system needs an overhaul.

[Achievement rewards are negligible. Increase the talent point reward greatly to make them fun.]

10 hours ago, Sawafa said:

So, for any level 5 achievement a player should recieve 1M of tallent points.

Ehh, that might be a bit much. Maybe for some of the really hard ones it would be okay, like for achieving Billionaire, but some of those level 5 achievements are pretty easy to complete.

[Achievement rewards are negligible. Increase the talent point reward greatly to make them fun.]

NQ, the talent point rewards for achievements are so tiny that they might as well not exist. Yet these achievements could be a fun and rewarding activity to pursue if they gave meaningful rewards. An easy way to increase player engagement and give them 'something to do' would be to increase these rewards by A LOT. It would also motivate people to learn other parts of the game that they haven't yet experienced.

Examples: 
First Blood - Destroy 1 ship of size XS: 120pts --> 5000pts (about one hour worth of training)

Master Gunner - Shoot all types, variants, and sizes of ammo: 3240pts --> 50,000pts (about ten hours worth of training)

Factory Master - Have at least 50 industry units running simultaneously: 1080pts --> 25,000pts

Speed Freak - Reach max speed for the first time: 120pts --> 5000pts

Billionaire - Reach 1B in your wallet: 9720pts --> 129,600pts (a full day of training)

Expert Miner - Extract ore from 20 different planets or moons: 9270pts --> 129,600pts

etc. etc.

 

Give us rewards that we can be excited about and achievements will be fun! It will give players lots of things to do at launch and encourage them to experience all the game has to offer.

 

[PVP Balancing with new voxels value]

On 8/4/2022 at 2:03 PM, ch3w8a said:

- nerf weapon damage by about 50%
- suppress cross section as a reference
- re-implement lock by core as it was at the beginning of beta
- keep weapon lock by core
- also lock shield by core

Some of these suggestions take things in a direction that NQ has specifically led us away from.
-----------------------------------------
- nerf weapon damage by about 50%
This would greatly increase base time to kill and draw fights out to extreme lengths. We don't want fights where two forces just shoot at each other a lot, get no kills, and leave the fight when fuel gets low. This is why NQ nerfed voxel in the first place, and then nerfed shields in Athena patch. And you think that this would make L-cores stronger, but really it will just make the S-cores unkillable as they will easily be able to run and escape death even with ten ships shooting at them.

- suppress cross section as a reference
This definitely shouldn't happen. Ship design in DU is already super simplistic. Why cast out the one mechanic that grants a little complexity? The cross section:hit chance mechanic is also good because it affects how you pilot in combat - trying to keep your narrow face towards incoming heavy fire. I know you're not talking about taking it away entirely, but it's in a good place right now. We just need a similar mechanic in opposition to it. Something like this: https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/25023-pvp-mechanic-idea-how-to-give-l-cores-more-potential-shield-stability/#comment-188567

- re-implement lock by core as it was at the beginning of beta
- keep weapon lock by core
Again, this will make small cores even stronger. At any time they'll be able to just leave the lock range of the L and M-cores and vent back up to 100%. And I don't know what lock ranges you're suggesting, but if you're talking about making it so L-cores can't lock onto small cores until they get close, the L-cores will be even weaker. L weapons have terrible tracking. It's already pretty easy for a S-core to evade L and M weapons by just staying within 10km.

- also lock shield by core
I don't think this is a good solution because again, it reduces ship design complexity and variety. Rather than lock elements to core sizes, NQ needs to implement a power system that forces ship designers to make choices about what they want the ship to be.
-----------------------------------------
I know many people want L-cores to be strong again, but NQ needs to see how the voxel changes affect balance first. They even said they're not going to make too many changes at once. The last thing we need is for the battlefield to be all L-cores again. At least we have some variety right now.

[PLANNED HONEYCOMB CHANGES - Discussion thread]

55 minutes ago, Modgud said:

Niobium has 4500 hp/m3 * average resistance 65 (1.65) = 7425 effective hp/m3

You're doing the math here wrong, my dude.
Proper way of calculating the ehp would be:
4500 divided by 0.35(the fraction of damage the voxel is actually receiving after resistances) = 12857ehp
 

 

58 minutes ago, Modgud said:

Also what is a unit mass? What are the hp of one m3 ( 4x4x4 voxel) ?

The unit mass is the kg per m3. The hp:m3 is the column labeled 'hitpoints'.

[PLANNED HONEYCOMB CHANGES - Discussion thread]

1 hour ago, W1zard said:

With linear honeycomb HP based on mass what's the reason to use lighter materials?

Yes, we absolutely need a range of hp:mass for different material types or light materials will be inferior based on having poor hp:volume values. Not to mention the fact that these mass changes are breaking existing lightweight designs. I really don't want to have to make my light low-ccs pvp ships out of wood and concrete...

Example values:
very light = 90 hp:kg (best hp:mass but worst hp:volume)

light = 60 hp:kg
heavy = 45 hp:kg

very heavy = 30 hp:kg (worst hp:mass but best hp:volume)

[PvP mechanic idea: How to give L-cores more potential. (Shield stability)]

7 hours ago, Taelessael said:

As I recall, many of those fights dragged on for absurd amounts of time because it was possible for a suitably large engineering crew to patch a ship faster than it could be killed (so long as supplies lasted)

This is why they introduced CCS. Now it doesn't matter how much you repair your elements - your CCS will still run out and you'll be cored even with plenty of voxel left, your core intact, and every element at 100%. So there's a soft limit on voxel tanking, and element tanking isn't broken. Which is good. Fights should be quick. No ship should survive for 30+ minutes with multiple enemies shooting at them.

[PvP mechanic idea: How to give L-cores more potential. (Shield stability)]

9 hours ago, Nayropux said:

More voxel HP + more element HP means you are more likely and more willing to tank on voxel, and now you need an engineer to keep your damaged elements healthy.

I don't think we should want the old school 'engineer' as a necessary role in battles. People are playing for fun, and the number of people who want to play hold-left-click whackamole will be few. So unless the way people repair elements changes, the shield tanking meta is more fun for everyone. But NQ has already hinted at the addition of a repair weapon, so I can see that being the answer to voxel tanking. If these repair weapons have variants or ammo types that can either recharge shields or restore voxel and element hp, they would do the job and be more fun.

As for incentivizing multicrew, this shield stability mechanic does do that in part. It rewards the extra mass and volume of more sets of guns. But having all these gunners on one ship still won't be an efficient use of avatars. It will still be better to divide up into separate ships. And it will stay that way until a single avatar can have an equal amount of power as part a multicrew ship as they would by being in a solo ship. The only way that will happen is by making it so that extra players can power up the shield in some way. Because there are only two ways a player can contribute a significant amount of potential to a fight - by manning a gunner seat or by carrying a shield.

[PvP mechanic idea: How to give L-cores more potential. (Shield stability)]

2 hours ago, Ashford said:

Unfortunately, I don't see in your suggestion how the multi-crew factor is taken into account properly. So for me it's going in the right direction, but it can't be the final approach.

For sure - this doesn't solve the problem of multicrew being an inefficient use of players. I'm hoping an energy system or something will solve that.
 

19 minutes ago, Nayropux said:

I don't like this because it puts all the focus of tanking on the shield. Large ships should be tanking on a combination of their voxel and venting the shield as needed. The main barrier to this is how paper thin voxels are, and how low element HP is. I don't see this suggestion making battleships stronger, but only chunky M cores stronger.

Even though shield stability is a shield-centric mechanic, it actually shifts the meta more towards voxel tanking with L-cores. It makes voxel more viable by giving bonuses for having lots of voxel, rather than having to stick to the 'nano' meta.

I see certain people wanting for L-cores to mainly voxel tank, and I agree there need to be some adjustments to voxel as armor in terms of stats and mechanics(and a complete overhaul of element hp), but I think it's never going to be desirable to rely on voxel to absorb incoming fire. It will always be a bad situation to have your shield go down, because regardless of how tough your voxel is, your exposed elements are still going to get damaged and destroyed.

[PvP mechanic idea: How to give L-cores more potential. (Shield stability)]

@NQ-Entropy
L-cores are weak in the current pvp meta. I have an idea about how to make them more powerful(but not too powerful) while also adding some neat complexity to ship design in DU, and without taking away from the viability of S and M cores.
_____________________________________________________________

PROBLEMS:
1. Right now, having a light ship is valuable in pvp. Being light not only gives you good accel, it gives you a higher max speed. Having high accel and max speed allows you to withdraw and vent, run away, catch slower targets, dictate battlefield positioning, or just travel faster. L-cores are naturally much heavier, so they suffer here.

 

2. Being small is also important. Having smaller cross section means less enemy hit chance, which makes you harder to kill. Tiny S-cores with a M-shield can tank just as well or better than big L-shield armored L-cores. So again L-cores are penalized for having naturally larger cross section.
_____________________________________________________________

SOLUTION:

My idea is that NQ add a new mechanic that rewards having higher mass and cross section: Shield stability.

Shield stability: Higher construct mass and volume would make your shield tougher - a separate damage modifier that reduces incoming damage like resistances do.

_____________________________________________________________

 

RULES:

1. The mass and volume bonuses would be on separate curves, then added into one shield stability value, listed as a base value of 100% - a damage reduction multiplier of 1.
2. High shield stability values might be 150% - a damage reduction multiplier of 0.666(33.33% damage reduction, which gives an effective hp bonus of +50%).
3. Both curves would never allow shield stability to get anywhere near 200% (damage reduction multiplier of 0.5) so that a smaller shield could never achieve the same effective hp as a shield of one size larger.
4. The mass and volume bonuses would be small at the low end of the curve.
5. The mass and volume curves would have diminishing returns at the high end so that players can't just scale their shield stability to infinity.
6. The floor of the mass bonus curve would start at the standard mass of a L-shield(125t).
7. The floor of the volume bonus curve would start at the volume of a L-shield(646m³).
8. The bonus scale would be the same for all shield sizes. L shields on heavy/voluminous ships would get good value, but standard-sized S and XS ships would get little to no value from this system, since they would have to achieve extreme masses (in the multi-kiloton range) and volumes to achieve high shield stability values.
9. Shield stability would be calculated dynamically, so it would decrease throughout a fight as fuel is burned, ammo is used, and especially as voxel is destroyed.

_____________________________________________________________

 

EXAMPLE VALUES: (obviously NQ would have to decide the proper curves and bonuses)
A ship with 5,000t mass and 3000m² x 500m² x 1500m² cross section values (a very big boi) gets a shield stability value of 147% - a shield damage reduction multiplier of 0.68. With this shield stability value, a Rare Active Shield Generator L now gets an effective hp increase from 10,000,000 to 14,700,000. So it has significantly stronger shields along with a large amount of CCS from voxel. It's now a tough nut to crack for S ships, but likely very slow and easier to hit for L and M guns.

EXAMPLE GRAPH:

 

_____________________________________________________________

NOTES:

• This mechanic would add more choice and variety to pvp ship design.
• It would allow builders to make more stylized designs that normally would be too voluminous.
• L-cores would be good at killing other L-cores since their guns would actually do better dps to large targets than smaller guns would. They would target each other in fleet fights.
• The shield stability mechanic would also make haulers naturally tougher to kill, giving them a better chance to fend off pirates and survive.
• This would also indirectly add value to voxel, as the mass of additional voxel would simultaneously increase effective shield hp. Heavy voxels especially might become more attractive.

 

CONCLUSION:
This shield stability mechanic isn't meant to make L-cores into invincible dreadnaughts, but to give them a solid bonus to survivability in the same way that small ships get bonuses - just reversed. My hope is that it would add potential to L-core multi-crew capital ships in stationary fleet fights. These tough, heavy, expensive ships would still be a liability in cost to build and operate, as they should be, but if properly supported and utilized they could measure up to the current light/fast S-core and M-core meta.

I've tried to think through many scenarios with this mechanic to try to find problems, but I'm only one brain. Does anyone see any issues?

[Athena has finally introduced some variety to pvp. But desync is a major problem that ruins the experience. It MUST be improved before release, or DU pvp will be stillborn.]

As of Mercury patch, delivered in June 2022, this problem has been FIXED. Positional desync is now very minimal. No more teleports and very little jitter.

[How to give L-cores more relevancy in the current PvP meta.]

Currently L-cores aren't an attractive option to use in pvp. This is because:

1. L-cores have less dps than M and S cores against standard cross sections. (L-cores don't exceed the dps of M-cores of the same weapon type until the target is above ~1600m² cross section)
2. L-cores have less mobility due to their weapons and ammo being heavier.
3. L-cores have less effective shield hp due to their guns being larger in cross section.
4. L-cores cost more to build, warp, and operate than smaller ships.

 I've thought of a few ideas to address some of these shortcomings.

 

1. To give L weapons more offensive clout without making them too strong, increase their alpha strike damage. Double their hit damage, but also double cycle time. This allows them to better take advantage of brief opportunities to land a hit and improves their ability to focus fire with many L-cores on a single target and attempt to eliminate it in one salvo, which would make them scary in large numbers. For example: a maxed damage exotic L railgun would do 505k damage per hit rather than the current 253k, but would fire every 19.4 seconds rather than the current 9.7 seconds. This might sound scary, but considering the low chance to hit of L weapons, the actual alpha damage would usually only be 1-2 hits of a salvo. (L ammo mass and volume values would also have to be doubled so that L-cores don't gain a ton of value in ammo efficiency and magazine size. Though maybe that might not be so bad.)
2. To increase L-core utility, give L guns the ability to knock ships around; their hits apply torque to targets. This knocks the target off course and disrupts the steadiness of their aim which could make them lose dps by exceeding optimal tracking values. These pushes shouldn't be so strong that the target can't even fly - just small bumps that shove their orientation by 1-5 degrees in a random direction. In this way L-cores would be good support fire. You couldn't ignore them. L-cannons especially, with their higher rate of fire, would continuously knock around targets.
3. Give L-cores more value from voxels. Give them a solid bonus to voxel hp and ccs - maybe +25-50%. This allows them to be tanky in a different way than smaller ships. (NOTE: I do see a problem with this - players could build on a L dynamic core and fit it with M-guns. I can't think of a way to solve that besides removing the ability to fit down-sized guns on larger cores. It makes things complicated by allowing L-cores to be too versatile - able to fit point defense S-cannons to deal with S-cores that get too close rather than having to rely on S-core support ships to drive them away, etc.)

 

I think these changes could give L-cores a niche on the battlefield without taking away from the roles of other ship sizes. L-cores would be a powerful support dps tool - one that is difficult to remove from the battlefield.

[NEW SCHEMATICS - Discussion Thread]

10 minutes ago, Midacre said:

skip schematics altogether

Because this method provides another quanta sink for the game and a cute passive income for those that train into it.

[NEW SCHEMATICS - Discussion Thread]

3 hours ago, kulkija said:

Yet another "small fee".... When combing all situations where Aphelia collects those so called "small fees" total becomes wery big.

 

1 hour ago, Grimscale said:

I'm having trouble not thinking of this as turning a working system into a yet another tedious time wasting quanta pit.

Guys, these fees and taxes are not only necessary, they're beneficial to you. The game needs quanta sinks. Without them there will be inflation and everything costs more. You lose purchasing power either way. Remember when hematite cost more than 100 q/L? This was because missions were pumping billions per day into the economy. Now missions are nerfed. People think of them as pointless - why would I want to fly 7 hours for a only 8M quanta? But after the wipe things will be different. If inflation is kept down missions remain relevant. A XL package mission might be enough to buy a M-core ship, or whole megaliter of T1 ore. But only if quanta is leaving the economy down the drain of sinks.

The players demanded cheaper territory taxes and NQ gave it to them. Now NQ has to make it up in other areas. They have metrics about the quanta coming into and leaving the game, and they know how much sink and how much faucet they need.

This system is smart because it continues to be a cost burden to industrialists for as long as they continue to play, rather than one lump sum for an expensive schematic that never needs to be replaced. In this way, the economy remains steady. No mega-industrialist who bought every schematic in the game 2 years ago and now provides 25% of the elements needed for the whole playerbase. They will have to rely on you to produce their items, buying your schematics from the market.

 

So you can recoup the costs of producing the schematics by just selling them on the market. The market value will never be below the cost to produce unless the item is just completely unwanted. So in a way, this system is actually an EASY INCOME for players. Just use your slots to produce desirable schematics and sell them on the market. Free money for you.

[Pitch/Yaw/Roll speed nerfs ruin the fun of flying]

1 hour ago, Jake Arver said:

By giving in to the crying and complaining of the PVP crowd

I don't think the PvP community asked for it. The adjustor nerf for heavy ships was an unexpected part of a multi-prong attempt by NQ to make heavy L-cores no longer the defacto meta ship. And it worked - these days M-cores and Scores are supreme. Light Scores can easily outmaneuver heavy Lcores by getting close and orbiting them, or just jousting back and forth at close range, forcing the Lcore to do 180s. This is a great way to balance ship size because it depends on player skill to execute and counter, not just stats. So I really like it. But I don't think it should affect ships in atmo.