This has been posted before, but it's worth repeating. Ships should not have the same thrust available in reverse. They're all obviously rear engine nose-first craft. I'm not say reverse top speed should necessarily be cut (it should be) but getting to that top speed should be slower.

Seems like one in twenty newb's post something like this and generally get shouted down.

I agree. Further, I think the same or similar should be done with the strafes.

Very true.

Maybe it should be different for different ships, instead of across the board. My concern is that an adjustment like this would make flare setups more dangerous. There have been a lot of people asking for flares to be nerfed, and this would make flares even more effective. Even though you could still reach the same speed in reverse, getting to that speed more slowly would make distance control more difficult for people playing defense and easier for people playing offense. However, maybe you could pick certain specific ships and reduce their reverse thrust. That might give some other ships that don't currently do well in PvP a better chance.

aye expanding on strats post it's almost impossible to catch up to a corvult (the first ship i could think of off the top of my head) going in full reverse the whole time. I would also like to point out in vo unlike any other combative sports or otherwise going in reverse gives a much greater advantage then being on the offensive.

My reasoning would be to reduce the reverse speed of heavies like the taur 3 that obviously shouldn't be able to reverse like they can. I agree with different rates for different ships.

Getting eaten by a string of flares that my ship isn't agile enough to dodge is my least favorite part of this game.

Nerf flares too.

Good point on the flares Strat. My concern is that too much done to 'fix' the problem of players backing up constantly in a fight, that I presume led to Impavids post (since he didn't specify), is that too much nerf is going to restrict the ships and load outs to the point that only a small range of options becomes viable for pvp combat. Specifically, the light energy fighter which many players including myself when I used to fight preferred.

Personally, though I agree with this thread, I'd rather maintain the variety of ships / load outs players can use effectively.

Why do I get the feeling that tumble was recently annoyed by a backrolling coward in a centaur?

I think reverse thrust should be maybe half what it is now. That would stop the backrolling clowns.

Leebs has it exactly. I understand the issue with flares and cutting reverse thrust will fundamentally change combat because ships won't be able to poke in and out so fast. To me it's absurd that a centaur 3 can back away so quickly that it requires sustained turbo by a light fighter to catch. This is true for all the heavy ships used during combat.

The solution to me is cutting thrust and top reverse speed on all heavy ships. Cargo ships should be cargo ships and fighters should be fighters.

i dont get it. we have swarmers that come in and swarm people for fun, we're not banning swarms, we have people who fight bomber style, but we aren't nerfing that, we have people who use F/A the whole fight, we're not deleting that ... so a pirate had a rough time killing a taur? BFD, get over it.

Why do I get the feeling that tumble was recently annoyed by a backrolling coward in a centaur?

so we should change all of VO so Impavid can kill taurs easier?
arent you the coward now, Impavid?

Armonia-

I'm sure I've killed you lots and that's why you're angry. I'm not sorry. The most recent chase of the taur was the catalyst for this post (I still killed it by the way), but not the first time and I'm not the only person who has mentioned this before. Stop being a hag. Contribute a counter argument or go bitch on RP about how "pirates are SO mean wha wah waaaaaaaa!"

While ordinarily I'd be happy to jump on the anti Tumble wagon, what is being suggested here is something to resolve an old problem that has voiced many complaints in the past.

actually, i usually pwn you, tumble, until you call all your friends in to gank me bc you cant take me 1-on-1. but in any case, i am not mad, i dont expect an apology, i am not anti pirate, i dont think they're mean, in fact i was in CLM for quite some time. if you're going to slow the reverse thrust for the centaur you might as well do it for everything. but then again, our ships would move EVEN SLOWER. not a fan of that. get better at killing or shut up.

EDIT: and what are you flying that you cant chase a taur? how come you're not bitching about backrolling Vults? you ever tried to catch a backrolling vult in a taur? now there's a challenge.

EDIT: The solution to me is cutting thrust and top reverse speed on all heavy ships. Cargo ships should be cargo ships and fighters should be fighters.

you're right, lets just totally cut out diversity, hitler.

EDIT: Happy Thanksgiving.

Cutting reverse thrust by ANY measure would seriously destroy the distance control many expert fighters have tuned over the years. Moreover, if someone keeps backrolling, then don't fight them. In fact, in the fight being mentioned here, Impavid could have backed up as well, forcing his opponent to come closer. Sure, the fight isn't as fun that way, but hell, you can't legislate fun combat.

The point is, all of our current weapons have been tuned for the current balance of forward/reverse thrust/speed, and cutting one spec that would require a serious re-evaluation of other weps to adjust for that cut. Such a change is not worth the dev's time, and therefore won't be implemented.

If you are so damned concerned over the ability of someone to backroll forever, why not come up with a more creative solution? Increase all forward thrust by 10% (or max forward speed by 5m/s), while leaving backwards thrust/speed the same. Such a change would require a lot less re-balancing, not affect DC as much as just cutting reverse thrust, and allow you to catch up with someone rolling backwards forever.

As I said above, you can't legislate fun combat (as cutting reverse thrust to 75% would be a failed attempt to do), but you can increase the odds that certain tactics are not used as much. Adding forward thrust/speed to most combat models, while keeping backwards thrust/speed at the same level, would do what you want it to do, without all the bullcrap.

Though it should be noted that the (as many of you like to call them) "unhittable" ships would be even more dangerous with either of these mods. The fact that Impavid won the fight against the backrolling taur could be considered proof of this observation.

EDIT1: @Armonia: hitler? really? oy. If anything, it's more Mao-like... :p
EDIT2: As for "cargo ships be cargo ships" etc... yah, that isn't going to go over well. Heavy ships can be very effective in combat (and are many player's sole combat choice); you really think nerfing these ships will go over well? Let's try to accomplish something realistic.

i suggest we just ignore armonia to avoid a thread lock

atice are you seriously saying adding more forward thrust is different then cutting reverse thrust? Adding forward thrust would result in the same desired effect.

the main problem is that people like you thinking constantly backing up counts as distance control. aside from camping in some fps's this is the only game where playing defense the entire time gives you a greater advantage.

...why not come up with a more creative solution? Increase all forward thrust by 10% (or max forward speed by 5m/s), while leaving backwards thrust/speed the same.

You're kidding, right?

atice are you seriously saying adding more forward thrust is different then cutting reverse thrust? Adding forward thrust would result in the same desired effect.
Same desired effect yes. Fewer of the undesired effects.

the main problem is that people like you thinking constantly backing up counts as distance control. aside from camping in some fps's this is the only game where playing defense the entire time gives you a greater advantage.
Christ. Did I ever talk about constantly backing up? I'm talking about avoid flares and the like, which at times requires some serious back-peddling (I'm not talking about constantly backing up, I'm talking about putting all thrust backwards in the few seconds -- if that -- that you have while that flare bears in on you).
Sure, the ships firing the flares could be going faster in relation to you... but I think that the end result is less disastrous than cutting back-thrust by 25%.

EDIT. @Pointsman: Honestly, I think the whole idea is bullshit, I just like the idea of increasing forward thrust/speed by a minimal amount more than cutting backwards thrust/speed by an insane amount. Not that any of this is going to happen anyways...

This whole thing got so stupid, so fast, that I'm just not going to bother.