Elite Dangerous Arena Out Now, Aims To Be “In The Mix” With Call Of Duty

Elite Dangerous: Arena is out. It’s Elite Dangerous’s existing Close Quarters Combat (CQC) mode re-packaged as a standalone game and being sold for £5/$7.50. Frontier hope that it’ll act as a new entry point for players intrigued by Elite but intimidated by its size, and David Braben says he hopes “it’ll bring a different audience to the game as well.”

“We’ve done an awful lot of shows now, and what we’ve found works best is to actually set people up in Arena around a table against each other, either in teams or as individuals,” says David Braben, Frontier’s CEO. “They get into it really quickly, even people who haven’t played the game at all.”

Although Arena has been a part of Elite Dangerous since last year, Braben says that a lot of players skip straight past it. That’s not a problem except that it can be a valuable step on the learning curve, giving players an opportunity to become accustomed to piloting ships and managing their power in a low stakes environment. For starters, if you’ve played Elite proper, you’re not bringing your hard-earned ship into the combat arena, but instead are given a choice of four of Dangerous’s combat-style ships. When you get destroyed, it simply respawns.

“It lowers the entry point,” says Braben. “There are a lot of people who wouldn’t play [Elite: Dangerous] who would go, ‘Oh I’ll play [Arena].’ And there will be some who will want to carry on to Elite: Dangerous, and we’ll have an offer where you can get your money back if you want to buy the full game.”

The other half of the appeal is that Arena offers short bursts of play. Elite: Dangerous is a game where you might need to spend an hour or two with it to accomplish what you want, and much of that time might just be spent space trucking. Arena throws you in with a group of other players in team deathmatch, deathmatch and Capture The Flag.

“If you’re thinking of having a session of Call of Duty or FIFA or an RTS or whatever, this is another alternative that you can put in the mix,” says Braben. “The main game actually has a very steep learning curve, which is actually too steep for a lot of people. Whereas this, although it has a steep learning curve, it’s not as steep.

“I think when you start to realise those levels of subtlety, as you build up through the levels – because we have explicit levels of progress, which open up certain unlocks – it let’s you realise it’s actually very rewarding the more you get into it. If you think of some of the things you do when you’re building loadouts for Call of Duty or you’re building your FIFA team, things that let you build up that richness.”

Those unlocks let you customise the loadout of your Federal Fighter, Imperial Fighter, Eagle or Sidewinder ship, but just as in Elite: Dangerous there will be microtransactions to let you add cosmetic items. Braben is adamant, of course, that there’s nothing ‘pay-to-win’ about it, though he won’t rule out charging for future maps. “We haven’t worked out the plans for maps. It’s not out of the question, but we’ll have to look at that,” he says. “We haven’t charged so far. We’ve already added two maps and we didn’t charge.” The current map roster includes four arenas, called Elevate, Cluster Compound, Asteria Point, and Ice Field.

I haven’t had a chance to play Arena yet, and the CQC didn’t appeal when it was a menu option in the main game. That’s mostly because I’m into Elite: Dangerous for the space trucking, though. If you feel differently, Arena is available now from the Frontier Store and shortly from Steam.

Here are some more screenshots:







67 Comments

  1. Capt. Bumchum McMerryweather says:

    Maybe I’m just butthurt, but I’ve gone right off frontier developments. Perhaps that’s because I paid fifty quid for a beta that never really got finished, only for them to release the ‘full game’ plus the expansion at a reduced price to customers, while then turning around to me and telling me to pay again for something that really should be in the base game. Sod off frontier.

    • aircool says:

      I’ll second that. It’s not even as if Arena will be the pick up and play game that they want it to be; it attempts to recreate realistic newtonian mechanics for space flight and then hobbles your yaw speed.

      But most of all, it’s their business model that put me right off giving them any more money.

      • BobbyDylan says:

        There’s nothing realistic about dogfighting in space. Taking an early 20th century fighting style and applying it to the 32nd century is absurd.

        But it makes for fun games… so… forget realism and just enjoy it?

        • Psychomorph says:

          I enjoy it less because of that stupid 20th century flight system/combat. I don’t ask for a hardcore simulation, but something that doesn’t scream WW2 in vacuum at me.

          You know, SC, ED, all fine and fun, but still following a horribly generic design philosophy for a space flight game, with the reasoning “it’s made so that the game is fun”, guess I don’t enjoy “fun” (or their definition of it).

          I am still waiting for something more interesting (more immersive) than what these games offer. It seems the wait won’t end anytime soon.

          • FLoJ says:

            Future space combat will not involve pilots dog-fighting, sorry to burst your bubble.

            It will involve shots being fired over incredibly large distances at incredibly high speeds and possibly with fairly wide dispersion/aoe to negate any attempt at dodging. Think space shotguns

          • Psychomorph says:

            @FLoJ:

            Read the part where I say “I don’t ask for a hardcore simulation”, because I don’t, but I still claim that WW2 dogfighting in space is lame.

          • Mctittles says:

            @FLoJ
            So in order to get past the fast powerful long range shotguns shooting at your big ship you are going to need very tiny ships that can fly in between the shotgun spread and get to the ship that is firing.

            Of course if people do that you will need to defend against these tiny ships with your own tiny ships….hence dog-fighting?

      • tatties says:

        Isn’t it actually somewhat less complicated than actual WW2 dog-fighting due to the absence of gravity? Dog-fighting is mostly about energy management, trading altitude (potential) for speed (kinetic).

        In E:D there’s just a turn radius, which is tighter if you are within a certain speed range or have the turbo button down.

    • grundus says:

      To be fair, they did say from the beginning that there would be DLC and that only core gameplay improvements would be implemented in all versions, but new features that don’t break the game (like planetary landings) would only be available to players who have the DLC.

      Personally I’m in two minds, while I did enjoy the game and got what I paid for, I don’t think I want to pay almost the same again for a bit more of the same not-quite-amazing game.

      That said, what they’re doing with Elite is exactly what I’ve always said they should do with Call of Duty and Battlefield: Add new content with big DLCs and constantly build on the base game, don’t remove content or features (as long as they don’t clash with better stuff). I don’t mind paying but the value has to be there. I don’t see Dangerous as an unfinished game, just as a pretty weak entry in a series and now the sequel, Horizons, is building on it. Just not enough to justify £40 to me.

      This seems like a good way to get people playing the PvP mode since it didn’t seem spectacularly popular, but there really are people who will buy this just because it’s £5 so that’s cool.

    • Synesthesia says:

      Same boat here. The main game is a whole lot of nothing for 110 pounds, and now they keep monetizing an unfinished game with a boring deathmatch mode, sold separately? Fuck off frontier.

      • voidmind says:

        You already got Arena / CQC in the base game. They are selling the CQC separately for people who don’t have the base game but would like to play PvP in space. It’s good for everyone.

    • spamenigma says:

      Horizons was £20 for a week last week on steam. For those with the original game Horizons was £30.

      Although I agree to a point that the original game is lacking content that does force the issue to make the game better its sort of a requirement to pay for DLC.

      I’m not too bothered that 20-30quid is really a big issue, considering they don’t ask a monthly sub or anything and are running a business with continued development and running servers..

      • iainl says:

        Horizons was sold as a £20 DLC for the base game for a week, just as it was effectively a £30 DLC before it, and now the regular price is £25.

        Which might be considered a pain for those that had just bought it, but if we start listing every game that was 33% off in a Steam sale we’ll be here all month. So I’m not that put out.

    • wyrm4701 says:

      I’m always surprised when longtime RPS commenters suddenly realize Frontier Developments aren’t even remotely concerned with it’s customers.

      Elite:Dangerous left Kickstarter with the revelation that the promised ‘offline mode’ wasn’t really explored, and then FD did everything they could to prevent people from getting refunds. Even if you had no interest in that mode, it should have been a giant warning sign, and indicative of how they were going to treat future customers.

      • Sardonic says:

        Still, it must be said that compared to OTHER kickstarted space sims, they have delivered far more of what they promised.

        • derbefrier says:

          That doesn’t excuse thier actions. SC is doing its own thing most of its backers are happy. There’s no need to drag it through the mud with frontier. Hell this is an idea directly ripped from SC anyway. Except while frontier sells it as a stand alone in SC it’s part of the full game.

          • Gorncaptain says:

            I don’t think you understand, this game mode has been in elite for free for several months now. It comes with the game, all they’re doing is making it so you don’t have to buy the full game to play CQC. You can just buy CQC separately, or you can buy the base game which lets you play CQC with no extra cost.

          • derbefrier says:

            I understand just fine. Don’t know what you are blathering about.

          • Asurmen says:

            Because “Hell this is an idea directly ripped from SC anyway. Except while frontier sells it as a stand alone in SC it’s part of the full game.” doesn’t really seem to have a point as sentences go.

        • pepperfez says:

          “Delivered more than Star Citizen” is a bar located somewhere near the Earth’s core.

    • Notelpats says:

      But.. it IS in the base game. If you own Elite you also own Arena.

    • cakeisalie says:

      I’m not sure you read the article. This is just CQC rebranded as “Arena”. It’s still included with the base game, but it can now be bought as a stand alone for people who don’t own the base game.

      • Capt. Bumchum McMerryweather says:

        I’m well aware that the CQC mode has been in the game for some time. My comment was more focused on frontier in general.

        The game (in my opinion at least) is a huge empty system with a beautiful flight model, and really nothing more. The lack of interactivity with the universe is pretty crap, where basically the only effect you have on the universe is how many credits beer costs in one station compared to the next, or who shoots you when you turn up in a given a system. There’s no fleets, mining and resource gathering means nothing other than credits, you can’t directly communicate with anyone properly, factions are hollow, and the universe really doesn’t feel living or breathing in any meaningful way whatsoever. Nothing has any presence.

        Tis a real shame really, because the infrastructure FD have built has the potential to harbour one of the most sophisticated online worlds ever created. Instead we get space truck simulator with guns, which I guess would have been fine if it had been billed as such.

    • metric day says:

      Good, I hope it never gets “finished.” I look forward to a decade of development followed by another decade of mods and weird variations once they release the server code.

    • mascarpwn says:

      I second that.

      Frontier can go screw themselves, thrice.

      I’d rather give my money to their competitor-scammers Cloud Imperium.

  2. iainl says:

    Maybe this will encourage enough people to play CQC that I’ll get a game in it promptly; I stopped playing not long after it launched because I’m too impatient.

    But then that goes pretty often for multiplayer games that insist on not starting a round until everyone’s joined.

  3. dr.denton says:

    Isn’t something like this the exact opposite of what Elite is about ? Sort of reminds me of that weird “Sole Survivor” thingy they did with C&C, where they put you in a death match with a single unit under your control ..

    • Atomica says:

      Maybe, but perhaps you could view it as combat training. I play a lot of Battlefield 4 and will often “warm-up” in team deathmatch before going onto Conquest or Rush modes. Sometimes breaking games down into simpler mechanics for practice purposes is good.

      • zarthrag says:

        Actually, the combat mechanics in CQC…er…”Arena” is better than in the base game. Namely, in the “radar” simulation. You need LOS to your target in order to lock-on and distant signatures are usually iffy. Silent-running and chaff seems quite a bit more effective, especially against newer pilots who are unwilling/unable to manual-aim.

        Being able to “shake” someone by tearing around a structure/asteroid, does SO MUCH for the combat mechanics in this game. I wish it would apply to RES (resource extraction sites) combat in the base/main universe. (Those pirates, tho.) Pull an asteroid between us, vector away, SR and put a few more asteroids between us …resume mining.

    • voidmind says:

      A game can be many thing to different people. I personally don’t care about the open world but I get a thrill out of PvP.

  4. Neutrino says:

    Didn’t get my single player space trading game with a storyline that I payed for, so not impressed with Elite Dangerous and not having anything to do with it.

    • zarthrag says:

      I didn’t kickstart this game, but did buy in later. Everyone, including you – I’m sure, knows that there are “risks” in a kickstarter. I’m still having quite a lot of fun, and it’ll be ages before I do-it-all and see-it-all (if that’s even possible). Group/Solo are more than good compromises, and for good reason.

      The trade system, discoveries, community events, “power play”, can all be done from those modes – all in your very own instance of the single-player universe.

      And DEDICATED SERVERS! Oh how we moan/cry for those in $60 games that give you PVP. I play in group and have been having a great time. Downtime has been minimal, and I enjoy the community events, also. It’s a really good community, and a decent game.

      But you didn’t get offline single-player for a game that gets substantial updates every quarter….wah.

      • pepperfez says:

        If they cut the feature you wanted and put in a bunch of things you don’t care about, it’s not going to be a satisfying trade.

      • Distec says:

        Offline singleplayer isn’t some doodad you reneg on at a whim.

        Kudos to you for being happy with the product you received.

        • TechnicalBen says:

          Name one game where they could not do this. ;)

          • TechnicalBen says:

            Ah, reading fail and no edit button.

            Sadly many developers do this. Which is why Kickstarter and online updates become really really worrysome for buyers.

  5. shrieki says:

    something strange with this space games … maybe they dont know what they want and are all getting out of focus,scattered and divided ? where are the awesome space-adventures? where is the surprise and awe of discovery? where is the stuff that i don´t expect?

    i think a space-game could be less complicated and it really does not need a steep learning curve at all.
    sometimes i feel like space-games throw obtuse and cryptic game-play in my face to cover up for lack of imagination. things to do and stories worth to follow… in space! for crying out loud !

  6. Jediben says:

    Feels like Braben is trying to spin off CQC so that he can claim that it’s a different title and that life time expansion owners like myself will be worse off and made to pay for it.

    • Gorncaptain says:

      Nobodies claiming it’s a different title, and if you already own the game you already have CQC, and you literally don’t need to buy anything. All this does is allow people to buy CQC without them having to get the base game, if you get the base game then CQC comes with it for no extra cost. The only effect it’ll have on you is that there’ll be more people playing CQC, that’s it.

  7. Zantium says:

    I rejoined E:D after Horizons released, I’m still enjoying myself as a bounty hunter.
    There’s a lot of sandbox available but it still feels light on content, even though as it stands it’s quite in keeping with the original which I played when it first came out. I think the mission system could really do with fleshing out to fulfill it’s potential and this could give people something to do if/when they don’t want to play the sandbox.

    It’s still the standout game for VR and even in a DK2 (which I haven’t played without) it shows what the future could hold.

    That said, I’ve been meaning to try CQC and haven’t yet!
    As far as kickstarter promises and delivery go, I backed early on and they have delivered everything they said they would including how the DLC/expansions would likely be with one exception – the offline mode. That was explained why and solo mode is a solid alternative given the reasoning.

  8. killmachine says:

    people skip it? no wonder. they have effectively separated it from the main game. it’s a menu item. you either play in the galaxy or the cqc. this means that you have to wait in a menu til a queue is full and a match can be created.

    don’t ask me why they didn’t put it into the galaxy directly. like how world of warcraft and pvp battlegrounds work. you can queue for a battleground from within the world. you don’t have to quit the game and queue from a menu.

    yea, whatever.

  9. Brian Paone says:

    Well, Mr. Braben, given the facts that the playerbase has broken your Band-Aid fix for an official PvE option and actively called for a player-run revolt aimed at breaking a mechanic quite a few of them have been calling for you to address for some time now (namely, Powerplay), I’m left to wonder how this is going to solve either of those issues.

    But you take your time. Mine’s occupied with Evochron Legacy. It’s the game you promised everyone.

    • Cronstintein says:

      Whoah that actually looks pretty cool, never heard of it before now.

  10. GemFire81 says:

    Another company that has a game with a nice solid , polished foundation and then does EVERYTHING else wrong :(.

  11. shagen454 says:

    I gave them $75.00 for Elite: Dangerous and I’m not giving them one more cent. It was a waste of money and I learned my lesson, lol. I don’t even have Elite installed on my new computer, I lost total interest in it which is damn shame.

    • iainl says:

      That’s the point, though, if you’ve already given them any money, you’ve got CQC already. Selling CQC stand-alone for a pittance is about getting more people into that mode, not only so they can be cannon-fodder for the rest of us who have been playing for over a year, but so they might find out that flying an Elite craft is really satisfying and upgrade to the full game.

      • metric day says:

        He “lost interest” but is going to rage about injustices that never happened ANYWAY.

  12. JimboDeany says:

    I think this may just be a case of them desperately clutching at ideas to bring in new players. The whole Horizons thing has meant that the player base they had is unwilling to spend any more money. Marketed slightly differently as DLC at a lower price they may still have a game on their hands – instead they’ve revealed that anyone wanting the finished game can either wait for it or splurge £30-40 on each iteration…..hmmm wonder what choice I’ll make.

    • iainl says:

      It’s just CQC. You can’t sell it as DLC for the main game, because it’s already in the main game “for free”.

      • JimboDeany says:

        I was referring to the Horizons add on. This one is cool, I know that you get it and that it’s designed to attract new customers. I just think it’s a final act of desperation.

  13. Hobbes says:

    Watching people still defend this steaming pile amuses me greatly. Braben is up there with Molyneux in terms of snake oil salesmen and honestly should have had the “are you a pathological liar” treatment thrown at him at the same time ol’ Pete did. Elite Dangerous took a great platform and proceeded to do virtually nothing with it, instead selling promises which have managed to con a great number of people out of a great deal of money (first on kickstarter, and then via horizons) which have kept Frontier afloat. Braben is trying to do the *exact same thing* with the Planet Coaster mess, an always online game that you’ll not be able to play despite being an ostensibly single player game in the past. All in the name of wringing out more monies for Frontier.

    When the whole thing comes crashing down, I will be stood with a bag of marshmallows and a cup of hot chocolate. Frontier deserves no less, along with 22Cents. Both of them represent the absolute worst of current dev practices. Over-promising, under-delivering, treating their consumers as disposable money presses to be bilked and having no respect for the larger gaming ecosystem.

    The faster they collapse, the better for all of us.

    • metric day says:

      It’s a lovely game and benchmark VR experience. Just because you don’t have fun doesn’t stop quite a lot of people from smirking when they fire it up.

    • silentdan says:

      Honestly, the weirdest part for me is hearing people insist that it’s a “steaming pile” over and over. I really don’t get where the hate is coming from. I’m prone to grudges and hyperbole myself, but damn, man, you’re really working yourself up over this. You might feel better if you just stopped caring about how much some of us enjoy playing Elite: Dangerous.

      • Hobbes says:

        If you have fun with it, more power to you. But it doesn’t change the fact that Frontier has a deleterious effect on the gaming ecosystem, much like 22Cans. When they die, it will by effect of their death improve the gaming ecosystem, Braben has shown on multiple occasions he’s only in it for the money and he sees everyone as money presses to be squeezed for revenue. That’s something I abhor.

        Thus I’ll be cheerfully lined up with the snacks when Frontier take a dive. They’re not Activision, and they’re not selling Call of Duty :)

        • silentdan says:

          The only major promise I’ve caught FD breaking was true offline solo mode. That irked me a little, but not enough to consider them deleterious to gaming. I don’t consider “they promised us multiple small shield generators, but now everything has just one big shield generator” to be a broken promise, but rather a reasonable adjustment to a stated design goal. Honestly, I’ve tried to see things from your perspective, but all I find are nit-pick threads listing specific minor plan/product discrepancies that every game experiences. I have no idea why this is being cast as a con with FD, and business as usual with every other dev. I mean, when you call something a con, that means there’s apparent dishonesty involved, but no one can point me at a specific act of bad faith on Frontier’s part.

          I’m not trying to be a fanboy, here. I’m not invested in defending FD. I can even like E:D and hate FD. Hell, my hatred for EA is well-documented (I am an Origin boycotter) but they’ve published many a game that I’m quite happy to pay for. I’d honestly like to know why people feel that FD has been deceptive, or dishonest, or harmful to the industry.

          Like, if someone asked me why I boycott EA, I’d probably talk about oversimplifying interesting mechanics to broaden appeal, or seeing every game as a DLC platform instead of a complete product, or emphasizing multiplayer because of the perceived impact on piracy instead of impact on gameplay, or refusing to sell digitally through non-Origin storefronts, etc. That’s what EA did to earn my ire. What did FD do to earn yours?

        • Jediben says:

          You are an absolute gimp aren’t you? The base game was being sold for 10 quid at Christmas, which is 1/3 of the original sales price. There is no dlc which boosts your performance. No way to buy ships with real life money. The cosmetics that can be purchased are actually for the benefit of everyone except the purchaser. How is this money grabbing?

        • Hobbes says:

          Please note – This is opinion and nothing below should be framed as factual statements concerning Frontier or any of Frontiers personnel. (this is a CYA because Frontier are notoriously lawyer happy, I know this from experience)

          @ Silentdan – If you read their investor reports and how Braben and co conduct themselves (and indeed how they handled the fallout of the offline mess), that’s where I have the real problem. The fact they chose to pull offline mode is not in itself a big issue, that could have been handled quite gracefully had Braben chose, it’s the fact that customers had to issue letters before action (which means they had to pretty much go to the final step before taking Frontier to court) before Frontier would come to the table to actually discuss the concept of a negotiated solution.

          At every step their development and design smacks of cynical commercial practice, designed to minimise effort on the developers part and maximise grind and monetary sinkholing on the part of the consumer. In effect, treating gamers as little more as printing presses to be bilked for cash for their next investor report (which is the absolute worst of EA’s scummy practices), it’s fascinating to witness people actually buy into it and think that Frontier, and Braben actually give a damn about them, because every single patch has shown categorically they don’t. Powerplay was a forced loyalty grind, Horizons is planetary landing on barren planets (something even Evochron Legacy, a one man project comprehensively stomps on), CQC and Arena are essentially ways of spinning the free client off in a cash grab to tide them over, zero effort and input because CQC has been barely updated since its’ inception, much like a lot of their efforts.

          Hence, Frontier and Braben represents everything that is bad about the current state of games development as they tend to show themselves to be litigious and only concerned in padding their revenue and bottom line.

          @ Jediben – Not interested in answering personal attacks.

          • silentdan says:

            Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I was completely unaware of the near-lawsuit situation (thank goodness our side ended up receiving concessions, or I would not have bought the game.)

            Regarding the EA-like customer-milking, I don’t see it in quite the same light, although I share your disgust with the practice in general. I believe that creating a solid product and reasonably expecting revenue from pleased customers is fine, because there’s nothing wrong with earning a buck by offering real value. On the other hand, leveraging economic status to force the market to accept your crap or go without, is despicable. The former feels like trying to get by in a capitalist world, while the latter feels like cheap exploitation of human frailty.

            At the end of the day, the fact that I really enjoy E:D and don’t like the current CoD crop is probably biasing my thinking, but there are other factors as well. EA influences, and tries to systematize, a vast quantity of games, while Frontier’s stable of titles is small enough that the market is only minimally impacted. Those who have not bought Horizons are at no significant disadvantage. All IAPs are purely cosmetic. There is no subscription fee. There are EA-like points of leverage that they could try to exploit, but haven’t. While their litigiousness is deeply worrisome, I’m still prepared to offer them the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

            So, I’m still onboard with E:D, but thanks again for pointing out some issues I was not aware of. :)

          • Hobbes says:

            *nods* Entirely fair, and I respect that. Thank you for taking the time to read and respond as well, I much prefer it when people actually argue on principles as opposed to trying to go for the person writing the post.

            As for me, I’ve gone with Evochron Legend, which has entirely satisfied that itch, it’s not QUITE got the graphical flair of E:D, but it more than makes up for it in so many other areas, and it’s something I can play without needing to be connected to the net. I can fire it up and tackle it at -my- pace, and not the pace of a company who calls the shots for me, that’s a big thing to me still.

            Plus I believe greatly in supporting the little guy, especially when the little guy has done so much with just ambition, persistence and vision. It makes me feel distinctly average (I just write words about games, people behind games like Solstice, Cook Serve Delicious and Evochron actually MAKE them).

    • Mr_Blastman says:

      So much hate. Elite is an awesome game.

  14. SocialJusticeLawyer says:

    As long as it has:
    – Screaming Kids
    – Screaming Adults
    – People threatning you
    – People booting you
    – People threatning and booting you
    – People with an invisible boner and a smart mouth
    – Recycled Assets / Gameplay
    ..I’m sold!

  15. silentdan says:

    Not sure the CQC thing will draw many into the full game. I haven’t tried CQC myself, as I’m not that big on PvP, but most of the time I see a screenshot on Reddit with the righthand panel in view, the stats show a high combat rating, middling trade & exploration ratings, and a flat 0% for CQC.

    Basically, I’m not sure there’s enough overlap between CQC fans and E:D fans. I will say this, though: CQC doesn’t sound like it will prepare you for E:D’s PvP.

    An Imperial Clipper interdicts you and maintains mass lock, while two Pythons and a Federal Corvette drop in and close for the coup-de-grace. Nothing can outrun an A-fit Clipper, so you’re not low-waking out of there, but maybe if you have a Fer-de-Lance, you could outrun the other three, and keep the Clipper’s weapons at minimal effectiveness with a chaff stream, buying enough time to pick a nearby star system and high-wake out the second your FSD cooldown is up. If they don’t have a frame-shift wake scanner, they’ll be left guessing as to which system you jumped to, and you might get away. The guys I faced either had that FSD wake scanner handy, or were real good at guessing, ‘cuz while I was at 12% hull strength, with systems malfunctioning all over, those fuckers followed me for two jumps, losing me on the third. I had to loop around the long way, and drop in on a docked wingman’s beacon just to avoid being interdicted and slaughtered on approach deceleration.

    Arena/CQC sounds like a 10-paces-turn-and-fire type of setup, with even teams and comparable ships. In my (admittedly limited) experience, E:D’s PvP is mostly ambush-based, with a billion credits worth of kit on one side, and less than 50 million on the other. It’s rare for both sides to choose a fair fight. The weaker side will jackrabbit if it sees the threat in time to do so, or die in seconds if successfully ambushed.

    • TechnicalBen says:

      This is how most real space combat would happen I guess.

      At least how I would write my Sci-Fi. Mutually assured destruction, social engineering, or “run away” tactics.

  16. racccoon says:

    A CONstant Rip Off from these company’s we help establish games with.
    This is why I no longer try not to donate any money too on any form of startups anymore!
    They get all the money and then change policy once rich enough form free cash n’ adding double/triple the money later!!
    Its disgusting! and should be a CRIME.

  17. gwathdring says:

    I found CQC really unimpressive and disjointed. It didn’t even work as a low-risk way to practice flying … because even the ships in CQC that are also in the base game fly differently in both game modes and are effectively different ships that look the same.

    I certainly wouldn’t pay $7.50 for CQC at all. I don’t even want to play it for free as an E:D owner!