Jump to content

Unavailebow

Verified Tanker [SEA]
  • Content Count

    505
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Unavailebow last won the day on August 30

Unavailebow had the most liked content!

About Unavailebow

  • Rank
    Owns 500 Farms
  • Birthday January 22

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Not China
  • Interests
    No income
  • Server
    SEA

Recent Profile Visitors

7,056 profile views
  1. Oh now I see where the 0 key went Aside. HE sucks, but I seriously doubt it is a major problem aside from the obvious super-duper heavy derp. They are problems in their own league for lack of countering materials. Having HE predictive and less alpha is highly beneficial to paper thin tanks, why lose shell velocity for tiny amount of damage boost and risk of trading health with glass cannons, why not just fire AP. The inconsistent factor of HE (i.e. fun for some) is like everybody says not an important issue that would single handedly break the game, almost all guns have HE shells and not all tanks can go derp, filtering through that there are only a couple of derp tanks remain, HE is crap but it is not the core of it, instead imo those outstanding derp tanks need to be rebalanced.
  2. It is a different animal, not even from the same kingdom. Running business with statistics and number has never fail obviously from the host side of view (remember they all have an expectancy), player opinions can be strong then it all comes down to metrics to define how "strong" it is actually reflecting. How did WoT survived this long I have no idea nor my expertise to research onto, usually replacing / powercreeping existing content is generally the PvE ways to sustain. I still remember SerB commented view range nerf unnecessary predicted it would start a cycle of overpowered classes. I refrain myself saying those businesses made the wrong choice, who the potato I am to comment on a company's decision? Even Robert Space Industries work, what logic do I need to be pleased? Elite has a lot of issues, in my mind isolated, clustered issues which has almost no effect what so ever to other clusters. By far Elite has an easy to please community base (perks of PvE) so game content has way more focus than balancing or sort, I guess bottom line everybody are offered the chance to shares the same experience (again, perks of PvE). Simply put it is not simple, at all. You can go look at Warframe and see how DE delibrately pushing old players (late game players) away by nerfing items because early players that do not own them were salty about it, even they can eventually reach the same stage and own those items. My tendancy to put Japanese PvE games into comparison as they know how to keep the player base going by adding contents behind the progression then smoothen it for new players, downside, a lot stress was put on developers and designers. They don't necessarily nerf things, who would benefit from a nerf rather than those who do not possess it? PvP demand balancing which works against the idea of keeping everybody happy. Nobody has fun losing anything, it is a game afterall, fun is all that for. I stuck with official forum since the start of my playthrough, we often get hot-headed ones not too severe, Elite was never a game made for new players and players with no numbers in mind. Yet the number of absolute causal players are astoundingly high flying in their Solo Cobras and we got those in official forum. And of course, dem Brits always find a way to joke on anybody raging.
  3. No bibliography Also I have to make a point on official frontier forum is not as toxic as described, certainly no lack of cool-headed long term players.
  4. Sectoring does not stop game from being open world, you still have access to every single part of the Milky Way. Also, are there any precedents? Forced multiplayer and PvP?
  5. There is a limit to how much you can prepare based on game progress, soft cap rather. Sectoring is hard cap. Differences in ship bahaviour gave similar result of a "tier" or "categorisation" soft capped by progression, it makes no sense comparing an Eagle with a Conda. Introducing new players to face fully geared Condas? Inequity of chance, big nono. Hard capping sectors meant that you only start facing relative opponents when you have closer to the group, or at least offered chances to. Normal distribution should apply to global player progression (in any relevant metric, or more), and outliers on both ends should be taken away. Any late-progression player should suffer penalty going back to players remain progressing, or apply normalisation. Then it comes to trouble of how you define progression in Elite, I have friends hundreds of hours in still haven't made their first billion. The game nature does not flavour having a cut on this and that even with numbers, they just don't correlate with each other. Ignoring all those criteria and put it all together creates unforeseeable consequences, and majority of the investors would not risk that. It is just practicality side of things. btw. Knob should only be counted as an axle if it is has level simulating analog input, i.e. weight detection. At this point I don't really want a realistic space control, it is just buttons and fly-by-wire stuff. Also, RSI released a new ship called Origin 980 Jump luxury yacht and it cost: $1130 which you can by 18 Elite+Horizon for all your neighbours.
  6. Is that Star Citizen? Point 16 is probably not hardware inherited issue, have you ever seen a space stick? flightstick with throttle only control 5 axis whereas in space you need six. And btw. Only if starter zone made out of 10% of the Milky Way. Having a starter zone simply would not be enough to normalise progress differences, hence those MMOrpgs has level zones because otherwise you have level 2 player out of the starter zone facing level nine hundred million. Do you still remember Engineers and Horizon is DLC worth price of the base game? The difference from engineering received so many complains on it being forcing player to purchase Horizon. You should go check the incorrect metadata news. Everything on the roadmap will come as a business promise and so far Frontier has been following it, except the ETA
  7. I recall both CG and PP open-only complaints, having a shared BGS CG CZ is certainly weird, plus FD definitely cheated on some important CGs. Yet I sincerely doubt would be better started out fully multiplayer, it had a very rough start for a game as big as this, a lot of those are down to poor new player experiences, just started the game getting destroyed in Open for no particular reason, that sort of thing. A lot of things were way less structured than it is now. The game has bad player to player competitive environment, not sure how much they weigh that as part of the game, at this stage probably not much, low popularity of CQC wouldn't help making numbers even. They have definitely gone down the route of "You can't stop other people from doing their thing." It could be argued, if the galaxy has sectors to protect players through their progression, like some other MMOs you have no-kill-zone, multiplayer-only may work. Let see how will spacelegs turn out to be.
  8. Risk and reward were calibrated, not eliminated. There are still NPC pirate out ther posing a risk and as a criminal role, you can play a criminal role and harass NPCs, nothing stop that. If you ever find a stable incoming through crime than a mass-trade route, why don't most people went on being criminals instead. What is the point of building a game so players can offer a chance to delibrately harass other players no matter where they are? Build a ship with 20 less jump range solely to protect engagement that may not even happen and have to spend double the time travelling between spots, never, because it is not practical nor efficient, act upon fear in gaming, people will just not play the game instead. Risk is inherent part of the game, more sources of risk than just combat, you can get your ship destroyed in more ways than one. Exploration still poses the highest risk. What would happen if the game started out full multiplayer would be, desired progression ruined, gameplay experience ruined because few selfish bunch never understands what a "game" is for. Would you still pay $100 for a game you cannot even garauntee enjoy in the slightest? You would, I don't. If you were saying Elite Dangerous should be designed like any other typical competivie MMORPG out there, I am afraid you are look at EVE. Turning the game into multiplayer is just bumping Combat up to the roof and killing all other aspect of the game, opening all sort of negative player experiences. NPC flying Cows hav two Condas right next to them if not a complete convoy, players don't. You can get away from Exploration Trading Mining Scavenging completely but none of the roles can get rid of Combat 100% in multiplayer, surely that fixed piracy, in the end it just flipped the diagram and everybody would start complaining none of the other roles were feasible, only it is feasible we start talking about profitable. That ultimate will kill the game sooner than it is now, how were they able to add new ships if they were irrelevant for slightest of combat? How are atmosperic landing and space leg still valuable as updates? Everything has to tied to Combat resulted less equity to talk with. Players doing Combat located top of the food chain and everybody else had to suffer. Elite is not a combat driven game if it was it won't be named under Elite, main selling of Elite remains the Milky Way, not the bubble. We don't get rid of criminals but how many percent of the people are criminals? Shall we build a game to represent that percentage of people and their ideals? There are game contents out there to be played, adding too much player intervene kills it.
  9. In terms of PvE, the highest risk you can ever get is exploration. Nothing can beat the risk of holding a billion of exploration data only destroyed by a malfunctioning docking computer (it happened) and dodgy white dwarf exclusion zones. Mining poses little risk since people discover they can mine out of a res zone or even deep space mining, same goes trading. I don't know if this is intended but it seems FD gave chances for players to disengage unwanted combats regardless of game progress. It all comes down to player experiences, no risk are taken unless player are actively trying to put themselves into, so instead of you being hunted down by an Elite FdL while sitting inside a Cobra, they scales ship spawn based on players. Also high risk should not strictly means higher reward, if Piracy is at such high risk it should pay more than mass trading, either that is morally incorrect or it is fantasy of real world happenings. As a game of ESRB Teen it could hardly ever promote crime being (if not more) effective than legal ways of making credits. I haven't seen they talked about piracy being a profitable activity aside from "Trying to make every role as profitable as another." Which to a degree they did, they just didn't happen at the same moment. Legal smuggling was first, then mass manual plot trade routes, combat bonds, smuggling missions, trade missions, skimmers mission and now "gold rushes". High risk = high payout seems to easy to me, if you look at how people trade back in the early days you would rather earn fewer and go bounty hunting, risk is only one factor, all other work putting into an activities have their own values, take your time to chart exploration, repeating FSS scans and drop probe thousands of times. Not all interesting things grant you great credits, I have never done a single trade mission after I have gone Elite. Deceptive, ARX is more deceptive than gameplay changes, not to mention it broke half more than of the game. If you are not carrying cargo and harassing by continuous fire Bi-weave is all it needs by abusing shield regeneration through power distribution in between engagements. A Prismatic requires only of 1 pip into SYS capacitor to not drain it, normal shield requires 2, bi-weave requires 3. If the PD is charge/SYS engineered 2.5 pip is enough. For Cutter it is very noticable because of a massive Class 8 paired with Class 7 PD. If you want to carry cargo I wouldn't suggest getting into a res zone at all with that size, compromised nav beacon instead. The NPC didn't try to ram, they tried to vertical strafe, mostly downward circle strafe until they hit a close proximity almost 100 metres then turn around and redo, in most cases you accelerate or flip the ship up so it hits. There used to be a code where if they take damage too quickly they ran away, didn't see them doing that in recent engagements. Wing minions still run away. If they ever did the same as players Corvette can officially go rust. Look at current state of the game, how many people actually fly an Asp Scout? Did you see how people react to Mamba's ninja nerf and going back to FdL instead? This will not happen. Why? Because there are better options out there. Nobody would want to fly a Type 9 instead of a Conda unless they are forced to. In which case, forced multiplayer will force them to because no matter how you kit out a Cow it will never be able to properly protect itself to a semi-competent player. When everything has to be put onto a scatter diagram of profitability * survivability which, forced multiplayer is exactly that, because ultimately there IS a better ship, nobody would be fine sitting in their Type 9 unless they are self-claimed masochist, it will all ended up like one particular online tank game. In simpler terms, metagaming, powercreep, or I can refer as, wasting developed content. Some ship will remain very popular, flip side how many ships will be stepped on to bring those kings and queens up? Did they developed piracy? I assume not much, but did they developed 28 ships? Player Choosable progression? Enjoyable content without 100% demanding on other players? Let's just say if there is insufficient players to begin with, there can't be even PvP (piracy or whatever). PvP is secondary enjoyment, not primary things straight out of game content. You may have used to flying a more survivable build that is your preferences, or whoever shares the same preferences, does not apply to the whole playerbase. If the game turn multiplayer-only, good bye Frontier give me a refund I enjoy zero to get killed only because of my geographical location garaunteed bad internet. Only when people have their choices taken away they realise the opposite side of their ideals, in this case, I am certain some people are asking too much than respecting other players' preferences when it comes to PvP. Survivability onion, you all probably more familiar than I do, why get yourself into trouble and make yourself high-wake when you can choose to not be there at all? Multiplayer means I have no choice other than praying everybody is offline. By kitting a ship to run away fast it is almost the core level of “if you be shot at, don’t die”. More importantly, why must somebody else gameplay has to do an effect on me? So... with mining you will never run out of fuel? I have chosen to NOT step in open anymore due to a lagging scumbag Conda rammed me in a mailslot during my second hour of this game, that's is. It wasn't any disaster by 2019 standard, I managed to wreck my 600mil Cutter from an exclusion zone last week. You do not get the discomfort from dying because of your own stupidity, but you do if there is somebody else involve, particularly you have done nothing illogic in common sense. Imagine you come back from your sweaty day job login to an anarchy station a group of FdL waited outside, boom. You got sent back to the station, go out, boom. I can bet you this will happen because kids probably thinks it is great fun to lock people inside a station and those inside it will ask for a refund. Then there are those Corvettes "I will kill you Imperial sums". Don't forget aside from the money grind, there are superfaction rank grinds, material farm, engineers, tech brokers. Those who have no interest in combat will hate the game the longer they play it. Some are clearly missing the problems brought by competitiveness, telling people to build a better build is as convincing as just don't be poor. The key issue here being FD doesn't want to force a type of gameplay, profitability isn't all about Elite Dangerous yet people fell for it, once people earned enough, bought their ships and what will they do? Stay inside the bubble harassing other players? This pushes other players to progress, yet they have to progress on survival on top of their gameplay role. It is a game that player themselves set their own goals, undriven by meta-competiveness so only those who want to take part in it went into it and that is how some people like this game for.
  10. Sees a Clipper, ram it. Sees a Python, ram it. Sees a Conda, ram it. The fastest way to finish NPC is ram then all guns to powerplant. Frontier did not make a mistake including Solo and Private Group in a multiplayer game, when were Elites even multiplayer? The gameplay was certainly not made fundamentally designed for multiplayer-only, look at the latency and synchronsation, if it ever was it would have had multiple servers isolating players into regional groups, resulting players like me, impossible to play the game. Why piracy is pain, should I say, piracy is masochism because it was more of a mental thing than it actually exist in the game by simply looking at how Combat ranks are progressed, contrary to earlier development claims. Yeah sure it exist on wikia and they did improve NPC carrying more cargo and so on, but ultimately, you do not gain Combat rank from piracy as it is against Pilots Federation ruling and considered crime, neither selling stolen cargo count towards Combat rank. Exploration, Combat, Trade, that is (haha CQC). From my perspective this is a clever move, and same goes to the PvP conundrum, giving players ability to choose Open or Solo or Group makes few things way easier for Frontier and the game environment itself. Server, if you Ctrl+B and look at your internet traffic, you will find Solo demand way less data traffic due to instances. Because you don't have to receive and transmit your data (location, actions...) constantly, server doesn't have to relay those information to players in the same instances all time. AI, forced multiplayer made PvP piracy easier, so then increased crime rate where victims are players. Vicitm are highly likely to be died even before authority ship finished scanning, system with security meant nothing to chances of survival, victim has no choice over his fate to begin with. Balancing. This is crucial. We now have close to 30 ships and only passenger ships were forced to have a discrete role to a degree it is impossible to be crossed by ships by giving them unique modules. If the game only has multiplayer, first thing will occur is competitiveness and working efficiency of ships became too decisive most ships would be obsolete. when players are forced to defend themselves at any given moment guess who will be flying their Type 7 tomorrow. Forced progression and competition. As the game become multiplayer and open to all risk from other players, consider how easy it is to erase small ships from existence coupled with game's horrific learning curve and grind, everybody will sought after the biggest ship possible and bully the young. With all that, game becomes a PvP MMORPG. Forced multiplayer simply put it, every single act affects players nearby, at some point it starts to take away other player's freedom to enjoy the game. This works on free-to-play model but Elite isn't, everybody paid their bucks in order to even start the game. Nobody ever against the idea of having Piracy and Smuggling, but PvP Piracy is a different matter, rather, PvP is. Current state of the game is basically making sure everyone is safely enjoying their game and only take risk when they wanted to. As for PvP, is when both sides are equally will to take risk. I wouldn't letanybody come to my face randomly send me to rebuy then laugh at me becasue I paid $100 for my desired gaming experience. The idea of people wants to harvest other people and taking away their fun saying it is "realistic" is actually more illogic than reality. Smuggling is always there, is it efficient? No, but it is there, there are still smuggling missions, legal smuggle and piracy is basically smuggling with a few more shots. Is it feasible? Yes, go PvE, same as any other roles, they are all feasible, just not as efficient as one and other. A 400+ Cutter is viable for doing smuggling missions, none of the spawn chasers has the speed to scan you before you get away, just have to line the mailslot carefully and brake precisely.
  11. The C2 hardpoints won't align with the C3/C4 and they will miss in close range. May as well replace resistance augment with heavy duty, you are not going to get the shield above 50% anyway with prismatic. I am not sure if hull reinforcement worth it instead of shield or module reinforcement. It is a Cutter and meant to get away in 5 seconds, do everything to keep the modules. Also you are likely to run into instant toasting with that thermal load, some extra cost that you have to pay before even taking down a ship. I am not a fan of PvP nor pirating and shall never be. But my understanding told me Pris are not to go by for PvP becasue a bulkier shield meant that you have to constantly jumping away and reboot in any prolonged fight, taking down a 4,000MJ joual shield is not that hard, plus your cell bank are chaged based on MJ not percentiles, benefits of a larger capacity shield is neglected. I would say large capacity shield is less viable. For people who does quick PvP fights and fair fights, Prismatic is the only way if you assumed you will be shield rammed to death. Before they nerf shield booster's engineering a heavy-duty full prismatic Cutter can easily go up to 10,000+MJs on thermal, it was variable due to the amount of time it can stay in the battle, reboot gives you 5,000 which is better than a pack of cell banks. The other being fast-charge resistance bi-weave, very low absolute shielding but effectively touching 6,000MJs on thermal, it was cell bank friendly becasue of the low absolute shield, plus with careful power distribution and controlled engagement those things will never run out. Mix and match between the two grant you immortality in PvE conflict zones. Full bi-weave were exclusively used by pirates in their smaller, agile and fast ships (If you consider FdL is small) because they start controlling the engagement by first carefully taking down modules, most importantly, they avoid rammings.
  12. PvP is a completely opposite universe. Shield doesn’t grant you any protection should one be hit by a damn good shot torpedo. There is something about “Multipupose” that is true among them, module made out of cheese in uncovered location. Silent torps are still best way to hunt large ships. Chasing was never effective. 15 seconds it runs away, do anything to knock modules so nobody can leave. A Cutter can do 430 which is good for chasing somebody straight and pretty much it. So it all comes down to the initial blow, for that, it has KO modules, I doubt PAs are the best because slow projectile. There was an age of shield penetrating cannon, one click and it sits. I mean, people wouldn’t mind losing their ship with the cargo than giving them away so I don't really know how open pirates make a profit out of it or how they cover the ship building cost.
  13. The “wing” section was pushed back, made the body look even longer. Pirate NPC for materials and Thargoid commodities. Pirating void opal = pain trying to straight your cutter in asteroid, almost impossible because the way to fly a cutter is boost drift and boost turn, a thing non of the other ship at comparable size can do due to it sheer amount of main thrust and max speed. The lack of supercruise manoeuvrability to interdict will make your day worse trying to catch players. Cutter is more of a defensive and engagement control type of ship by shamelessly abusing that speed, shield and armour, gets away whenever it wants to with MLF. It gets toy around when it is the chaser, either it chases or it shoots, can’t do both at once.
  14. There was a spark in Cutter traffic in Arjung made people not able to dock because those large pads are full in most instances. Cutter were often refers as 747 for its white, airliner liked fuselage around its launch, also a slight mock of it not ressembling the concept art, having egg-shaped fuselage (thick neck). Although Beluga came out worse
  15. I ranked up Imperial before they nerfed courier, those are merely occasional chances created by BGS, or some interestingly refers as "exploits". Shu Babasi if that calls out any memories. Back in those days everybody didn't worry much about Federal ranks because Robigo and Sothis had a lot of headings to Federal space, not so much for Imperial rank, until they changed mission reward system and everybody went courier. Then a significant nerf, sparked a lot of discussion around FD not letting BGS to do its job freely. I recall going up Rear Admiral with courier missions took twice as long to hit Duke from respective previous ranks, it is that worse of a nerf. A lot of new players didn't know Elite was always cycles of, people discover something, regardless of it refers as "exploit" or not (a matter of morality), players benefit from it before FD nerfs it, repeat. i.e. Do it before it was cool. Every single cycle has led to conundrums of "The game should be played like this, or that..." and "FD should stop this and that..." while all the cool-headed Founders and Beta, early Gammas sit on their billions of credits laughing or just having their own game progression and care nothing. Early starters/adopters are unpunished (rightfully so), new players are infuriated for their much slower progression compare to the former, as much as we the early starters yelled to FD about lack of content, FD did better thing for the game which was spent time on new players' experience.
×
×
  • Create New...