Forums » Suggestions
Others have asserted in recent posts that piracy is largely pointless now since there are so many tridents that hauling in a single XC is no longer necessary. Whether this is fully true or only partially true, it is absolutely true that a person flying a trident has almost zero risk. There are two primary reasons for this:
1. Tridents can sector hop like every other ship, which means it is only a matter of time before a jump puts the trident out of the 1000m range.
2. No single loadout can currently pose any risk to a shielded trident. Even if an attacker is flying a rag with jacks, suns, and a blaster, and drops the shields, the rag is too heavy to evade incoming fire while continuing to attack the trident. If the attacker changes ships, the trident has enough time to get away before the attacker returns.
It can be argued that the above will be partially mitigated by a group attack, but the current game population of players capable of coordinating and carrying out such an attack is too low to pose any actual risk unless the trident captain wants to engage in combat.
I propose the following two suggestions to be implemented together, which will restore a small amount of risk to a trident pilot flying through grey space.
1. Make trident shields have a grid power requirement which necessitates a trident power cell to have shields on a trident.
2. Give the PCB an additional shield drain effect which will drop a trident's shields with a long enough duration of sustained fire.
The above two changes will allow a single attacker to pose a threat to a trident that chooses to use an FC battery for sector hopping, or for a shielded trident. They will also create additional ship loadouts which are capable of posing a threat to a trident that a hostile player would actually be willing to fly on a regular basis. The PCB can always be tweaked later to maintain balance if the population actually increases to the point that trident hunting groups become a practical game activity.
1. Tridents can sector hop like every other ship, which means it is only a matter of time before a jump puts the trident out of the 1000m range.
2. No single loadout can currently pose any risk to a shielded trident. Even if an attacker is flying a rag with jacks, suns, and a blaster, and drops the shields, the rag is too heavy to evade incoming fire while continuing to attack the trident. If the attacker changes ships, the trident has enough time to get away before the attacker returns.
It can be argued that the above will be partially mitigated by a group attack, but the current game population of players capable of coordinating and carrying out such an attack is too low to pose any actual risk unless the trident captain wants to engage in combat.
I propose the following two suggestions to be implemented together, which will restore a small amount of risk to a trident pilot flying through grey space.
1. Make trident shields have a grid power requirement which necessitates a trident power cell to have shields on a trident.
2. Give the PCB an additional shield drain effect which will drop a trident's shields with a long enough duration of sustained fire.
The above two changes will allow a single attacker to pose a threat to a trident that chooses to use an FC battery for sector hopping, or for a shielded trident. They will also create additional ship loadouts which are capable of posing a threat to a trident that a hostile player would actually be willing to fly on a regular basis. The PCB can always be tweaked later to maintain balance if the population actually increases to the point that trident hunting groups become a practical game activity.
2. Give the PCB an additional shield drain effect which will drop a trident's shields with a long enough duration of sustained fire.
?
You mean make the PCB cause damage? Or some kind of special shield-only damage? What about the effect on queens and leviathans?
While I understand your reasons, Trident's shouldn't be made more susceptible to a single player because the game population is low. We do need better Trident fighting mechanisms -- primarily tracking. But it's a goddamn capital ship -- it shouldn't be nerfed into something less.
The battery question is a valid one. I mean, for gods sake, we make a nuclear reactor for the Trident, and then we need to also equip a battery? But making a specific change to enable easier soloing of a player trident isn't the right move.
I'm sorry to say: -1
?
You mean make the PCB cause damage? Or some kind of special shield-only damage? What about the effect on queens and leviathans?
While I understand your reasons, Trident's shouldn't be made more susceptible to a single player because the game population is low. We do need better Trident fighting mechanisms -- primarily tracking. But it's a goddamn capital ship -- it shouldn't be nerfed into something less.
The battery question is a valid one. I mean, for gods sake, we make a nuclear reactor for the Trident, and then we need to also equip a battery? But making a specific change to enable easier soloing of a player trident isn't the right move.
I'm sorry to say: -1
Yes, I mean a special shield-only damage. As it stands, the only reason to use a PCB is to slow a trident, and this is only useful if you have someone available to come drop the shields. But you won't be able to coordinate such an attack using normal game mechanics (without plugins) while you are trying to maintain fire and prevent the trident from sector hopping.
Neither of the proposed changes actually create such a risk that a competent trident captain is unable to escape. They only create an opportunity for a solo player to actually pose a risk to a traveling trident.
The queen/levi question is a good one, and I'm not sure if it would be possible to have any variation of effect on different types of ships/shields. The above change wouldn't pose much risk to a levi due to the extreme shielding. If the effect could be reduced by 50% for queens and levis, this would actually open up a good opportunity for players to group together for a queen hunt. Alternatively, it could be argued that queen shields should actually be buffed to actually require 2 people to deshield a queen. The game lacks enough activities that require coordination and groups.
As to whether making it easier to solo a player trident is the right move, I disagree. The thing that makes the game fun is risk. If the current player population is such that there is no risk to a traveling trident, then the game should be balanced to create a a small amount of risk until the population supports such risk natively.
Neither of the proposed changes actually create such a risk that a competent trident captain is unable to escape. They only create an opportunity for a solo player to actually pose a risk to a traveling trident.
The queen/levi question is a good one, and I'm not sure if it would be possible to have any variation of effect on different types of ships/shields. The above change wouldn't pose much risk to a levi due to the extreme shielding. If the effect could be reduced by 50% for queens and levis, this would actually open up a good opportunity for players to group together for a queen hunt. Alternatively, it could be argued that queen shields should actually be buffed to actually require 2 people to deshield a queen. The game lacks enough activities that require coordination and groups.
As to whether making it easier to solo a player trident is the right move, I disagree. The thing that makes the game fun is risk. If the current player population is such that there is no risk to a traveling trident, then the game should be balanced to create a a small amount of risk until the population supports such risk natively.
Yeah, I'm not sure making tridents more easily solo-able is a good call...and I'm one of those players who basically just hunts traders with his in-game time.
Assuming a PCB still works through shields, I wouldn't say it needs an extra shield-sapping effect on top of that. If they don't work through shields anymore, they should definitely suck out shield energy at a prodigious rate before switching to PC drain function after shields drop.
But the reason I don't know WTF a PCB does to a shielded trident is that the whole 'tridents are immune to attack absent a dedicated 2+ person team actively out hunting tridents' thing is 100% correct. No other ship really requires a PCB, and there's no point in hunting a trident solo. So I just ignore them.
I would rather make tridents less like connies than make them easily soloable. The idea that a trident should be able to carry a mess of loaded XCs needs to be revisited by the Devs - XCs and other moth variants should be deemed too massive to dock more than one at a time in a trident - period.
1. Make trident shields have a grid power requirement which necessitates a trident power cell to have shields on a trident.
This, however, makes a ton of sense. +100
Assuming a PCB still works through shields, I wouldn't say it needs an extra shield-sapping effect on top of that. If they don't work through shields anymore, they should definitely suck out shield energy at a prodigious rate before switching to PC drain function after shields drop.
But the reason I don't know WTF a PCB does to a shielded trident is that the whole 'tridents are immune to attack absent a dedicated 2+ person team actively out hunting tridents' thing is 100% correct. No other ship really requires a PCB, and there's no point in hunting a trident solo. So I just ignore them.
I would rather make tridents less like connies than make them easily soloable. The idea that a trident should be able to carry a mess of loaded XCs needs to be revisited by the Devs - XCs and other moth variants should be deemed too massive to dock more than one at a time in a trident - period.
1. Make trident shields have a grid power requirement which necessitates a trident power cell to have shields on a trident.
This, however, makes a ton of sense. +100
The other problem here is that making Tridents easier to kill will make them even less used in battle or without an escort, ultimately having a net-zero effect on your potential for catching a trident unawares. This is why ship tracking is a good idea -- it doesn't make Tridents easier to kill, but it dramatically increases the ability (i.e. window of time) to hunt one regardless of the battery used.
There's two conflicting ideologies here that need to be rationalized.
1.) Capital ships should be hard to destroy and be able to easily destroy smaller ships
2.) Smaller ships should be able to harass and destroy larger ships when employed with skill and numbers.
Right now we have an imbalance between these two ideologies.
Capital ships aren't really hard to destroy so much as they are annoying to destroy. They don't have the fire power to defend themselves properly against smaller aggressors.
Smaller ships are able to harass and destroy larger ships, but it doesn't require as much skill as it probably should, and capital ships are able to fairly easily flee combat making it harder to destroy them.
I'm not saying that tridents as they currently exist should have turret placements adjusted to make it easier for them to kill smaller ships. I'm saying that they need stronger weapons capable of killing another trident in a 1v1 trident battle.
I like the idea of the PCB being able to cause damage to shields and energy, but without balancing the other aspects, things are once again just going to tilt another direction.
Perhaps a better intermediate step would be to make it more difficult for a trident to jump away by making Capital ships as large objects.
1.) Capital ships should be hard to destroy and be able to easily destroy smaller ships
2.) Smaller ships should be able to harass and destroy larger ships when employed with skill and numbers.
Right now we have an imbalance between these two ideologies.
Capital ships aren't really hard to destroy so much as they are annoying to destroy. They don't have the fire power to defend themselves properly against smaller aggressors.
Smaller ships are able to harass and destroy larger ships, but it doesn't require as much skill as it probably should, and capital ships are able to fairly easily flee combat making it harder to destroy them.
I'm not saying that tridents as they currently exist should have turret placements adjusted to make it easier for them to kill smaller ships. I'm saying that they need stronger weapons capable of killing another trident in a 1v1 trident battle.
I like the idea of the PCB being able to cause damage to shields and energy, but without balancing the other aspects, things are once again just going to tilt another direction.
Perhaps a better intermediate step would be to make it more difficult for a trident to jump away by making Capital ships as large objects.
Even with the proposed changes, the trident is still an extremely resilient and powerful advantage. It's just no longer completely invulnerable to risk by a single attacker. The attacker would still have to be using a PCB to successfully threaten a shielded trident. Additionally, a trident with a FC would still be able to sector hop, which is going to escape before a lone attacker can successfully deplete its armor. The difference is that the trident captain would actually have to react to the attacker.
To suggest that someone wouldn't fly a trident because of such a small amount of risk isn't an honest argument. For the PCB to be effective in deshielding a trident as proposed, it would require a sustained stream of fire which would leave an attacker vulnerable to counter attack in a group combat scenario. Building a trident should provide advantages, but as the smallest and weakest capital ship it should not be an invulnerable tank that doesn't have to fear any solo threat.
Ship tracking is a separate discussion, and would help group hunts, but it would not create enough additional risk as it would still be necessary for a single attacker to switch ships before successfully attacking a deshielded trident which would give the fleeing trident enough time to either jump to a safe sector and turbo off into the void or flee to protected space such as a conquerable station or nation space. It would also still require that a trident hunter fly a jack/sun rag constantly while hunting tridents, which isn't really a viable loadout for somebody actively hunting other players as it leaves the hunter too vulnerable to small maneuverable craft or infiniturbo ships like the greyhound.
To suggest that someone wouldn't fly a trident because of such a small amount of risk isn't an honest argument. For the PCB to be effective in deshielding a trident as proposed, it would require a sustained stream of fire which would leave an attacker vulnerable to counter attack in a group combat scenario. Building a trident should provide advantages, but as the smallest and weakest capital ship it should not be an invulnerable tank that doesn't have to fear any solo threat.
Ship tracking is a separate discussion, and would help group hunts, but it would not create enough additional risk as it would still be necessary for a single attacker to switch ships before successfully attacking a deshielded trident which would give the fleeing trident enough time to either jump to a safe sector and turbo off into the void or flee to protected space such as a conquerable station or nation space. It would also still require that a trident hunter fly a jack/sun rag constantly while hunting tridents, which isn't really a viable loadout for somebody actively hunting other players as it leaves the hunter too vulnerable to small maneuverable craft or infiniturbo ships like the greyhound.
Not all conflicts are 'pirates hunting a trader', we also use them in group combat. People like to park them in b8 and play a variation of 'king of the hill'. It's currently easy to drive them out of a sector. Nerf them and they'll be useless and will just collect virtual dust while parked in stations.
If its so easy to drive them out of the sector Harpo why can't Itan manage it?
@savet
It's just no longer completely invulnerable to risk by a single attacker.
Let's get something straight. It's dishonest to assert that a single attacker cannot currently kill a trident on their own. Under the right circumstances it's entirely possible. Under the wrong circumstances, it's not. You are suggesting to tip the balance to make it so there are more right circumstances available to people in game. In a general sense, I have no objection. However, your particular suggestion is one dimensional in the sense that you think solely adding greater risk to Trident utilization is enough to improve the chances of downing one, particularly in a solo attempt. That, and "not enough people are playing to help me kill a trident" is just a lazy excuse.
My assertion that people won't fly Tridents as much (or with much more caution) if there is a greater risk they will be caught and destroyed is based on years of observations of Trident use (both as a captain and a pursuer) and generally in regards to VO gameplay. When word gets out that Tridents are more (or less) susceptible to whatever new measures are introduced people change their behaviors accordingly. It happened with Trident shields, it happened with the Trident shield boost, it happened with PCBs, it happened with power draining seekers, it happens consistently with groups of people (guilds, particularly) showing knowledge and ability (or lack thereof) to kill tridents, and it will continue to happen....
As it currently stands, MOST people with the proclivity to use their tridents in combat situations avoid such use unless they know they have an escape plan (see Harpo's comment). Most people who use their tridents for exclusively trade-related endeavors have a similar mindset, especially if they are carrying very important cargo (like capship parts).
If Incarnate decides to introduce something that makes it more difficult to escape a threatening situation in a Trident without offering an alternative evasive measure (either by function or addon or...whatever), there will be both reduction in use and much greater care given to the uses that continue to be employed, and, therefore, a reduction in opportunities for people to hunt Tridents. It's simply common sense. Sure you might bag a trident here or there in the beginning, but sooner than later people will smarten up to it and whatever advantage you thought you had disappears as Trident captains adapt.
The best solution would be one that increases Trident hunting capability without dis-incentivizing Trident use. This proposal does not achieve that. Moreover, I'm still strongly of the position that it should be damn near impossible to kill a trident on your own except under very unique and fortunate circumstances, both because greater is the achievement, and because of the amount of effort required to build a Trident.
It's just no longer completely invulnerable to risk by a single attacker.
Let's get something straight. It's dishonest to assert that a single attacker cannot currently kill a trident on their own. Under the right circumstances it's entirely possible. Under the wrong circumstances, it's not. You are suggesting to tip the balance to make it so there are more right circumstances available to people in game. In a general sense, I have no objection. However, your particular suggestion is one dimensional in the sense that you think solely adding greater risk to Trident utilization is enough to improve the chances of downing one, particularly in a solo attempt. That, and "not enough people are playing to help me kill a trident" is just a lazy excuse.
My assertion that people won't fly Tridents as much (or with much more caution) if there is a greater risk they will be caught and destroyed is based on years of observations of Trident use (both as a captain and a pursuer) and generally in regards to VO gameplay. When word gets out that Tridents are more (or less) susceptible to whatever new measures are introduced people change their behaviors accordingly. It happened with Trident shields, it happened with the Trident shield boost, it happened with PCBs, it happened with power draining seekers, it happens consistently with groups of people (guilds, particularly) showing knowledge and ability (or lack thereof) to kill tridents, and it will continue to happen....
As it currently stands, MOST people with the proclivity to use their tridents in combat situations avoid such use unless they know they have an escape plan (see Harpo's comment). Most people who use their tridents for exclusively trade-related endeavors have a similar mindset, especially if they are carrying very important cargo (like capship parts).
If Incarnate decides to introduce something that makes it more difficult to escape a threatening situation in a Trident without offering an alternative evasive measure (either by function or addon or...whatever), there will be both reduction in use and much greater care given to the uses that continue to be employed, and, therefore, a reduction in opportunities for people to hunt Tridents. It's simply common sense. Sure you might bag a trident here or there in the beginning, but sooner than later people will smarten up to it and whatever advantage you thought you had disappears as Trident captains adapt.
The best solution would be one that increases Trident hunting capability without dis-incentivizing Trident use. This proposal does not achieve that. Moreover, I'm still strongly of the position that it should be damn near impossible to kill a trident on your own except under very unique and fortunate circumstances, both because greater is the achievement, and because of the amount of effort required to build a Trident.
The best solution would be one that increases Trident hunting capability without dis-incentivizing Trident use.
Well, if the best proposal to stop tridents (and other ships, wooo bonus!) from escaping and not to give special powers or introduce new mechanics, then we should use the existing mechanics to introduce something that under the right circumstances can halt a trident, and doesn't specifically discourage their use/nerf them.
Something like the Aeolus Power Disruption Field (PDF) which uses the existing L-mine and Power drain mechanics!
Its really a crime that the PATHETIC power cell blaster and the shitty mines-that-nobody-can-buy-except-newbie-serco-who-can't-afford-or-use-them is the ONLY USE CASE of the power drain mechanics. Seriously? How boring can we be? I dare you to be more boring.
Well, if the best proposal to stop tridents (and other ships, wooo bonus!) from escaping and not to give special powers or introduce new mechanics, then we should use the existing mechanics to introduce something that under the right circumstances can halt a trident, and doesn't specifically discourage their use/nerf them.
Something like the Aeolus Power Disruption Field (PDF) which uses the existing L-mine and Power drain mechanics!
Its really a crime that the PATHETIC power cell blaster and the shitty mines-that-nobody-can-buy-except-newbie-serco-who-can't-afford-or-use-them is the ONLY USE CASE of the power drain mechanics. Seriously? How boring can we be? I dare you to be more boring.
You dare us eh, ok, let the game do all the piloting for everything and all we have to do is target the stuff we want it to shoot at.
</dared>
</dared>
It's a fucking capital ship, not some OP trader vessel. You speak of nerfing as if it was something every single trader on the universe has.
It is kind of both a capital ship and an op trade vessel. It's simply the only capital class vessel we have at the moment. When they rolled out, they were under powered. We fixed that by giving them shields and weapons and letting pilots leave the ship. But that doesn't mean they should never be balanced and should be invincible while traveling. Again, neither of the suggestions I made creates anything more than a very small amount of additional opportunity to pose a threat. Anyone acting like this would be the great trident nerf of 2016 is blowing it out of proportion.
If its so easy to drive them out of the sector Harpo why can't Itan manage it?
Last time I tried the defenders decided to blow it up themselves.
The time before that we drove 5 out of b8 even when outnumbered. I de-shielded 5 in 8 bombing runs, then they all left.
But you knew I wasn't talking about that. My point was when it's an even battle, if they are nerfed they won't get used.
Try to keep your RP in the RP forum.
Last time I tried the defenders decided to blow it up themselves.
The time before that we drove 5 out of b8 even when outnumbered. I de-shielded 5 in 8 bombing runs, then they all left.
But you knew I wasn't talking about that. My point was when it's an even battle, if they are nerfed they won't get used.
Try to keep your RP in the RP forum.
Drain mines can be purchased in all nations. But yes, they are not useful in any way.
Savet, I agree that it's not a major change that you are proposing.
Savet, I agree that it's not a major change that you are proposing.
It would also still require that a trident hunter fly a jack/sun rag constantly while hunting tridents, which isn't really a viable loadout for somebody actively hunting other players as it leaves the hunter too vulnerable to small maneuverable craft or infiniturbo ships like the greyhound.
So you want to make dents more vulnerable, but want to keep ypur rag safe from hounds???
-1
So you want to make dents more vulnerable, but want to keep ypur rag safe from hounds???
-1
Catman, no, I want people to have a choice of ships and loadouts so they can fly a ship useful for more than just an extreme edge case.
I'm afraid I have to nullify your rebuttal because you don't actually understand the argument.
I'm afraid I have to nullify your rebuttal because you don't actually understand the argument.
I don't have a problem with part 1 - shields require grid power as long as the battery lvl does not affect the shield strength.
-1 to part 2 | shields are already to easy to drop to add shield drain to PCBs
-1 to part 2 | shields are already to easy to drop to add shield drain to PCBs
Thanks Savet, I do understand.
Agree with Wash
Agree with Wash