Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LouHodo

Suggestion for PVP adjustments.

Recommended Posts

Right now people are complaining about PVP and the current meta of cubes with large radars and large railguns or large missile launchers.  So my counter to fix this issue is no major sweeping nerfs but a couple of nerfs and most a few adjustments.

 

-Tie the detection to the cross section of the craft not to the core size.  

 

- Max weapon size will be limited to the core size.  So no large weapons on a xs core.  XS weapons on a XS core.  Small and XS on a Small core.. and so on.  

 

- reduce damage on all weapons by 40% as a start.  This will give people a chance to survive the first hit.  But bad designs will still be easy to destroy.

 

- Reduce accuracy at long range.  Just because you can hit at max range doesn't mean you should.

 

I am not trying to kill pvp if anything I am trying to adjust it so it is a bit better looking and less of a block fest.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LouHodo said:

Right now people are complaining about PVP and the current meta of cubes with large radars and large railguns or large missile launchers.  So my counter to fix this issue is no major sweeping nerfs but a couple of nerfs and most a few adjustments.

 

-Tie the detection to the cross section of the craft not to the core size.  

 

- Max weapon size will be limited to the core size.  So no large weapons on a xs core.  XS weapons on a XS core.  Small and XS on a Small core.. and so on.  

 

- reduce damage on all weapons by 40% as a start.  This will give people a chance to survive the first hit.  But bad designs will still be easy to destroy.

 

- Reduce accuracy at long range.  Just because you can hit at max range doesn't mean you should.

 

I am not trying to kill pvp if anything I am trying to adjust it so it is a bit better looking and less of a block fest.  

See three other posts on topic for my opinions, think they are all on the first two pages, also just wondering have you actually experienced pvp, or just watched a video?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have experienced pvp.  Twice.  Once I lost once I won.  Both cases it was interesting.  But not exciting.  

 

It shows potential, but needs tweaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before we go all gun ho about damage applications, I'd like to know if NQ is planning for any type of shields. If they are adding shields then damage might need increased even. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, JohnnyTazer said:

Before we go all gun ho about damage applications, I'd like to know if NQ is planning for any type of shields. If they are adding shields then damage might need increased even. 

While I am against shields.  I would like to see how they do it also.  This is why hesitated on mentioning damage reduction.  But without that being known and all other factors stay the same.  Damage reduction is the only other factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LouHodo said:

I have experienced pvp.  Twice.  Once I lost once I won.  Both cases it was interesting.  But not exciting.  

 

It shows potential, but needs tweaking.

Cool that is great to know, actually gives you opinion more validity than mine in a lot of respects (I like as much pvp as possible, then avoid it lol).  Also love the tone of the message, PvP is very much a placeholder at the moment but a core part of the game moving forward, any objective opinion from people interested in improving it is always appreciated.   As long as the end result is risk vrs rewards with good opportunities for both defenders and attackers to be victorious then I am good.

Please note that the majority of people pirates meet in pvp zones are NOT experienced players , they are noobs who do not know better.  Experienced players wouldnt be in pvp zone without good reason, there is ZERO reason to go in there once you have a WD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LouHodo said:

I have experienced pvp.  Twice.  Once I lost once I won.  Both cases it was interesting.  But not exciting.  

 

It shows potential, but needs tweaking.

I wouldn't mind you elaborating on why it wasn't exciting? Maybe it was circumstances or maybe poor mechanics.  

 

I would also like to point out a recent streamer who has his video on YouTube had a 2v1 fight a few days ago. The enemy killed his friend, then he killed the enemy.  All were in xs cores. While I am in no way saying the encounter was perfect and should be how it is forever, the streamer claimed he had a heart rate monitor on and said his jumped to over 120 beats. A good resting heart rate is in the 60s. So to that streamer it seemed very exciting, and everyone seemed to be in SUPER cheap ships, so the risk even by the standards was low.

 

So I'd like your input why it wasn't exciting to you specifically If you dont mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, JohnnyTazer said:

 

 

So I'd like your input why it wasn't exciting to you specifically If you dont mind.

Here is the issue I had.  I come from a DCS background where your skill can make and your reflexes can mean the difference between winning and losing.

 

Parts of that is here ... But it is not as involved.  Now don't get me wrong I am not looking to manually aim the guns.  But it is slower paced and is more about high-speed maneuvering and course adjustments to get in range or out of range.  Not a lot of design options out there to be successful it is brick or go home.   Also I really didn't hear anything when the guns were firing... But that may have been a bug.

 

This is kind of why I suggested those things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, LouHodo said:

Here is the issue I had.  I come from a DCS background where your skill can make and your reflexes can mean the difference between winning and losing.

 

Parts of that is here ... But it is not as involved.  Now don't get me wrong I am not looking to manually aim the guns.  But it is slower paced and is more about high-speed maneuvering and course adjustments to get in range or out of range.  Not a lot of design options out there to be successful it is brick or go home.   Also I really didn't hear anything when the guns were firing... But that may have been a bug.

 

This is kind of why I suggested those things. 

I heard the guns firing in the video I watched.  So probably a bug.  And yea as to maneuver and such ite gonna be different.  Devs have explained it has to be lock and fire, only thing servers will allow to get everyone on same single shard. I guess it comes down to a lot of planning in your build and skills. Then execution of the pilot, which I would say, takes a lot of skill. Then having your gunners trained up their talents, then fire at the right time (which takes less skill admittedly).  

 

I guess in the end the excitement comes from the possibility of losing the fight, and losing the ship. That excitement can ride high when multiple people are depending on someone to perform, or execute a preconceived plan at the very least.  But it is very early in the game development of pvp. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, you need to get out there and actually get in fights before coming here and suggesting sweeping changes.  First off, large sized weapons have to be linked to large weapons seats, and they need large radars, which have some pretty long lock times.  If I fly a little XS core fighter right, I can completely avoid getting target locked by a L radar, while easily putting damage on whatever is trying to lock me with it.  Secondly, reducing damage on all weapons is going to make any armored target almost impossible to destroy.  Gold has absolutely ridiculous hitpoints, as well it should, and trying to dig through a few meters of gold with the kind of weapon damage you're suggesting will be impossible.  As for variation in design, there is incredible variation in what works, and the cubes are just one way of doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Thor Wotansen said:

Okay, you need to get out there and actually get in fights before coming here and suggesting sweeping changes.  

Normally I would agree but to be fair......

11 hours ago, LouHodo said:

I have experienced pvp.  Twice.  Once I lost once I won.  Both cases it was interesting.  But not exciting.  

 

It shows potential, but needs tweaking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Thor Wotansen said:

If I fly a little XS core fighter right, I can completely avoid getting target locked by a L radar, while easily putting damage on whatever is trying to lock me with it.

That's an interesting observation. It's great if it's not dependent on subpar performance by the railgun sled driver.

7 hours ago, Thor Wotansen said:

Gold has absolutely ridiculous hitpoints, as well it should...

No. Just no. Gold is a soft metal with bloody awful mechanical properties. It's hitpoiints relative to steel are as ridiculous as the existence of structural material made out of Fluorine. Marble is equally redonculous. Much of the "material science" in the building system is unnecessarily nonsensical. Nonsense that doesn't even achieve the goal of introducing variety and progression. It needs addressing as a basis upon which to build a plausible industrial and combat system.

I fully agree that there should be T5 materials with great hit points. But call them "Unobtanium", "Collapsium", "Neutronium", or even "Handwavium". Or find some actual tough alloy names based on actual strong substances. Don't apply misfit labels of real IUPAC chemical elements. It's science fiction; use science as the basis, not random assumptions that density=resistance to damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kezzle said:

That's an interesting observation. It's great if it's not dependent on subpar performance by the railgun sled driver.

No. Just no. Gold is a soft metal with bloody awful mechanical properties. It's hitpoiints relative to steel are as ridiculous as the existence of structural material made out of Fluorine. Marble is equally redonculous. Much of the "material science" in the building system is unnecessarily nonsensical. Nonsense that doesn't even achieve the goal of introducing variety and progression. It needs addressing as a basis upon which to build a plausible industrial and combat system.

I fully agree that there should be T5 materials with great hit points. But call them "Unobtanium", "Collapsium", "Neutronium", or even "Handwavium". Or find some actual tough alloy names based on actual strong substances. Don't apply misfit labels of real IUPAC chemical elements. It's science fiction; use science as the basis, not random assumptions that density=resistance to damage.

The "railgun sled" is wholly dependent on locking me with radar to get shots off, and a L radar locks a XS core at 40km base, and takes a good while to do it.  I can get to lock range with a small ship, lock and fire a volley or two, and skedaddle out of the L radar lock range before he can lock me, if I have good gunners.

 

As for hitpoints of various materials, they are basing it off mass per cubic meter, and basing the resistances off the tier of the material, and weather or not it's a product material or a pure.  If you want to argue for more realistic armor types, then campaign for better product honeycombs, like Stainless Steel, Inconel, or Maraging Steel.  I believe there are also CU/AL alloys that could make for compelling light weight high resistance materials, as well as using some of the higher tier plastics, since UHDPE is used as body armor IRL.  I would personally be quite happy with greater choices of product honeycomb, especially if they provided interesting resistance options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LouHodo said:

Right now people are complaining about PVP and the current meta of cubes with large radars and large railguns or large missile launchers.  So my counter to fix this issue is no major sweeping nerfs but a couple of nerfs and most a few adjustments.

 

-Tie the detection to the cross section of the craft not to the core size.  

 

- Max weapon size will be limited to the core size.  So no large weapons on a xs core.  XS weapons on a XS core.  Small and XS on a Small core.. and so on.  

 

- reduce damage on all weapons by 40% as a start.  This will give people a chance to survive the first hit.  But bad designs will still be easy to destroy.

 

- Reduce accuracy at long range.  Just because you can hit at max range doesn't mean you should.

 

I am not trying to kill pvp if anything I am trying to adjust it so it is a bit better looking and less of a block fest.  

I agree with this, but not if you want to limit putting small guns on big ships. Big ships need small guns otherwise this is becoming another eve where you cant fly alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know some of experiences others have had with PvP, such as how accuracy works for long range attacks using railguns and missile launchers. 

 

Does the game utilize any actual physics when calculating trajectories when using railguns? 

 

Are shots fired from railguns "instant hit" if within range, regardless of speed the target is moving or if the ship firing is also moving? 

 

Is counter radar or any defensive systems even available in the current iteration of what folks are calling PvP? 

 

I enjoy PvP when the systems are designed well and decently balanced (nothing is ever perfect), however it becomes a real frustration when current game mechanics essentially make current PvP experiences rather 1 sided, and when you simply cannot see where shots are coming from, or take any defensive actions to avoid or negate the hits. 

 

I haven't fired missile launchers yet, so not sure if these actually lock on to a target and become more of a "fire and forget" weapon system? 

 

Some suggestions on how to better balance PvP in the future I felt were useful, such as limiting the size of a weapon you can use to the core size of the ship. Changing how radar works and making it harder to detect ships with small cross sections is a nice idea as well.

 

Perhaps some of these things will change with the future power systems update. Time will tell how this will work itself out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like their core locking distance restrictions might have been a reason to make it so "bigger isn't better". That works in eve, but then again in eve frigates arent equipping battleships size guns. They definitely need some work on balancing radar, but I'd like to see more mechanics they are planning on introducing first. As it stands right now I'm not sure what the best course of action is. I'm more let's wait and see for a few then go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Thor Wotansen said:

Okay, you need to get out there and actually get in fights before coming here and suggesting sweeping changes.  First off, large sized weapons have to be linked to large weapons seats, and they need large radars, which have some pretty long lock times.  If I fly a little XS core fighter right, I can completely avoid getting target locked by a L radar, while easily putting damage on whatever is trying to lock me with it.  Secondly, reducing damage on all weapons is going to make any armored target almost impossible to destroy.  Gold has absolutely ridiculous hitpoints, as well it should, and trying to dig through a few meters of gold with the kind of weapon damage you're suggesting will be impossible.  As for variation in design, there is incredible variation in what works, and the cubes are just one way of doing that.

Do you know why the M1A1 Abrams doesn't use gold in it's armor?  Because gold is horrible at stopping anything stopping thermal or kinetic energy.  

 

Gold, pure gold, you can easily bend with your bare hands.  Pure gold melts at a really low temperature.  So it would be useless at stopping a cannon round or a railgun shot, even a laser would go through it like a hot knife through butter.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, shaman said:

I agree with this, but not if you want to limit putting small guns on big ships. Big ships need small guns otherwise this is becoming another eve where you cant fly alone.

I suggested a descending weapon mount system.  In further detail.

 

XS core can mount xs weapons max 

S core can mount small weapons and below.

M core can mount medium weapons and below.

L core can mount large weapons and below. 

 

So large cores can put any weapon system on it.  Giving the large core the most versatility but at a greater cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, LouHodo said:

Do you know why the M1A1 Abrams doesn't use gold in it's armor?  Because gold is horrible at stopping anything stopping thermal or kinetic energy.  

 

Gold, pure gold, you can easily bend with your bare hands.  Pure gold melts at a really low temperature.  So it would be useless at stopping a cannon round or a railgun shot, even a laser would go through it like a hot knife through butter.  

 

 

What's interesting here is that you only took umbrage with the use of gold, and had nothing to say about possible higher tier product materials.  There are many things in this game that don't make sense from a "well in real life" perspective, however, they make sense within the rules set out by the game.  In this case, if you want oodles of hitpoints, you have to take on some serious mass.  This is balance.  I expect any future high tier product materials to have really good resistances against specific damage types, and have a huge resistance hole with another type of damage.  We already see this with steel, with it's 50% damage reduction of incoming EM damage, which is the best EM damage reduction of any honeycomb in the game, including T5 pures. 

But to get back on track, you are proposing a massive damage nerf, which will do only one thing, and that is to force everyone to use only missiles and to build giant cubes of gold to counter incoming damage.  Instead of solving it, you just create a new meta.  True balance comes from changing all things, not just one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we can change the size of the build area from not being a cube it will allow for more designs. Right now to get the most of the build area for pvp we are kinda forced to make cube like ships.

 

If we get the option have a set ammount of m3 per core and set our own shape. Might solve some issues.
Also i kinda agree with gun restrictions but maybe have some leanancy, say maybe M cores can use upto L weapons, S cores can use upto M and XS and use upto S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Thor Wotansen said:

Okay, you need to get out there and actually get in fights before coming here and suggesting sweeping changes.  First off, large sized weapons have to be linked to large weapons seats, and they need large radars, which have some pretty long lock times.  If I fly a little XS core fighter right, I can completely avoid getting target locked by a L radar, while easily putting damage on whatever is trying to lock me with it.  Secondly, reducing damage on all weapons is going to make any armored target almost impossible to destroy.  Gold has absolutely ridiculous hitpoints, as well it should, and trying to dig through a few meters of gold with the kind of weapon damage you're suggesting will be impossible.  As for variation in design, there is incredible variation in what works, and the cubes are just one way of doing that.

Man it sucks they went that way, really? GOLD as a viable building material? man every single time I think a DEV team found their heads some fucked up idea shows up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Thor Wotansen said:

The "railgun sled" is wholly dependent on locking me with radar to get shots off, and a L radar locks a XS core at 40km base, and takes a good while to do it.  I can get to lock range with a small ship, lock and fire a volley or two, and skedaddle out of the L radar lock range before he can lock me, if I have good gunners.

Well, it's good to know that all there are other data points than the noisy "L railguns on XS cores are unbeatable" lobby. :)

 

It's early days yet, and a lot of people are going to be forming opinions off small sample sizes with confounding factors weighing in quite heavily, so hopefully, even the placeholder systems we have turn out not to quite be so one-dimensional as some people are making out.

10 hours ago, Thor Wotansen said:

 

As for hitpoints of various materials, they are basing it off mass per cubic meter, and basing the resistances off the tier of the material, and weather or not it's a product material or a pure.  If you want to argue for more realistic armor types, then campaign for better product honeycombs, like Stainless Steel, Inconel, or Maraging Steel.  I believe there are also CU/AL alloys that could make for compelling light weight high resistance materials, as well as using some of the higher tier plastics, since UHDPE is used as body armor IRL.  I would personally be quite happy with greater choices of product honeycomb, especially if they provided interesting resistance options.

Yeah. Last time I looked at the numbers, every material had the same base HP per kilogram, and if you measure it in voxels, that means that the densest material (gold, natch) gets the most HP per 'layer'.

 

In the end, if you want n HP between you and incoming, it'll weigh the same (before damage type modifiers) whatever it's made of, but it'll take two and a half thicknesses of steel to give you the same protection as gold currently provides.

 

There are definitely funky high-strength alloys in existence now that would make better armour than gold, :) One of the pillars of my optimism that these materials are currently placeholders is the Talent system, which has Talents for productivity in making honeycomb out of inconel, and other higher tier metals. I hope they just drop some of the Bloody Stupid voxel materials. Just make them a special finish of plastic or something if they absolutely must have sulphur, fluorine, silver, gold and the rest of the "This isn't a structural material; shit, some of it's not even a solid!" honeycombs. I suppose they could keep some of them for decorative purposes, but I die inside a little every time I see the idea of fluorine voxels. And you don't make marble. You might make marble-effect laminate... For game purposes, it might be refinable from some kinds of dirt (that usually get thrown away)...

And where's the Tungsten? And the cerametal and the plasteel and all the other scifi made-up materials to make breaking some of the laws of physics a bit less implausible?

 

The armour effectiveness matrix certainly needs work. I think there's room for lightweight high tier super-tough armour. Given that the industrial base is now pretty much at the point of automating T5 production, the "background material" has proven to be trivial to cap out on. Even if the start of beta had been "as expected", it wouldn't have lasted til the end of the year, maybe not even the end of September, before getting to the point where we need some sort of down-the-road expansion of the materials available once the technical environment for the game is bedded in. Maxed placement skills are already available...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, w1r3dh4ck3r said:

Man it sucks they went that way, really? GOLD as a viable building material? man every single time I think a DEV team found their heads some fucked up idea shows up.

Yup. Gold is best.

 

And marble is second best.

 

And you can make ship hulls out of Fluorine. But there are signs that things are going to get amended before "release" sometime. Hope you don't feel uncomfortable carrying a few litres of Lithium bits around with you to repair damage to your ship. Yeah, Lithium. That highly stable, structurally strong metal that doesn't catch fire at the slightest provocation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Kezzle said:

Hope you don't feel uncomfortable carrying a few litres of Lithium bits around with you to repair damage to your ship. Yeah, Lithium. That highly stable, structurally strong metal that doesn't catch fire at the slightest provocation...

For those who don't get the joke, lithium can be cut with a knife IRL.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...