Just fly a Cutter.
I regularly PvP in my trade Cutter - It can carry 384 tons of cargo, and still annihilate 99% of Pythons mk2s and FDLs
This!
Stacking HRPs/SRPs is a Problem
- Thread starter ozrix84
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hrp hull tank meme builds srp
I regularly PvP in my trade Cutter - It can carry 384 tons of cargo, and still annihilate 99% of Pythons mk2s and FDLs
This!
Especially if they are casual players and don't fly wings.Just fly a Cutter.
I regularly PvP in my trade Cutter - It can carry 384 tons of cargo, and still annihilate 99% of Pythons mk2s and FDLs
Running away but also killing ships which can't run away is the point. It's not just a binary "PvP murderboat versus everything else" - there are a substantial number of builds which can't tell the difference between my ship and one with all the internals stuffed with extra defences. So I can fly that and be assured that my worst possible PvP outcome is a draw (I escape, they don't get a kill) with a chance of a win, while still being capable of doing pretty much every PvE activity except mining and AX.
It's fundamentally broken for PvP because it's trying to do three incompatible things.
1) Have NPCs and Players using the same ships and outfitting [1]
2) Have Players able to beat NPCs in many-on-one situations without needing to be an absolute combat ace
3) Have PvP exist outside of arranged duels where relatively comparable specs can be assured
You can't do all three of those at once. The second requires that a player-built combat ship (or even a reasonably combat-focused multirole) has substantial firepower and defence advantages over an NPC, which the first then requires is a spread of capabilities which can also occur between player builds. The third requires that it doesn't. Since PvE combat is massively more commonplace than PvP combat, changes to the combat model to accommodate slightly more interesting PvP aren't going to happen.
And for PvE, the combat model is generally fine: players can generally win a lot of fights even in an underpowered ship, generally escape the ones they can't win, and with a better ship or more skill players can take on sufficient odds to feel somewhat heroic (CZs, megaship scenarios, AX, etc.). That's what the combat and outfitting model needs to do in >>99% of combat encounters.
[1] The original Elite didn't do this - your Cobra III was, even before any upgrades, massively more resilient than any NPC ship. With a full set of upgrades it was basically the equivalent of a modern G5 build but the NPCs still fly C-rated ships. This was compensated for by 6-vs-1 being a perfectly normal matchup, so being able to easily win 1-vs-1 duels wasn't all that relevant. (ED does need to set up more many-vs-1 combat encounters because they're a lot more interesting: rather than dropping an Anaconda on you as a mission enemy, drop four Vipers at once instead.)
Last edited:
If you want many vs. 1 drop into a Haz-Res with some cargo, or just go mining there and you'll soon attract some pirate wings. Plus there's wing assassination missions.
Counterpoint: artificially rising the difficulty for yourself doesn't make the game more balanced.
You're also basically admitting the game has lost its challenge and you're forcing what should be edge case scenarios for no better reward to keep yourself interested. That might be the time where you need to play another game for a while.
Sure, there are plenty of options if you go out specifically looking for a fight. Powerplay signal sources have plenty too. All sorts available if you pick the fight to suit.
I'm thinking more there of having more variety on NPC interdictions so it's not always "one heavy ship, roughly your size class" (though with SCO, NPC interdictions are obsolete anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter)
They do break things up a bit if you've done a few hauling runs. Got to admit it is nice when it's an FdL or Mamba after my Cutter, rather than the usual
Well, the sort of thing happens in the books as well. Someone can be in a hauling configured Cobra and along comes a pirate armed to the teeth with missiles and drops their defenses at the bat of an eye. The only difference here is there is piracy and there is griefing lol
Griefers at least need to get crafty and come up with some roleplay reasoning. Back during the beginning of the Thargoid war, I'd run into a griefer whose sole reasoning for attacking us was because he didn't want us in his system (I nearly killed him with 3x modified plasma chargers)...fair enough, guess, but at the same time, he'd rather have the Thargoid in his system over us?
...but? Yes...in most cases? There is just no way a non-dedicated combat build will compete with a combat build, unless the griefer/ ganker sucks.
Griefers at least need to get crafty and come up with some roleplay reasoning. Back during the beginning of the Thargoid war, I'd run into a griefer whose sole reasoning for attacking us was because he didn't want us in his system (I nearly killed him with 3x modified plasma chargers)...fair enough, guess, but at the same time, he'd rather have the Thargoid in his system over us?
...but? Yes...in most cases? There is just no way a non-dedicated combat build will compete with a combat build, unless the griefer/ ganker sucks.
Last edited:
And it shouldn't.
I would like it to be possible to level ships of the same class with the help of all sorts of HRPs/SRPs, but for some reason it does not work. Probably not thought out the mechanics of these : HRPs/SRPs
You say that as if Elite isn't one giant "pick-your-difficulty" buffet anyway. That's the game, you choose your level of engagement in all of its different features.
NPC interdictions only exist if you want a fight right now because even a Type 9 can consistently win the interdiction minigame against an NPC (and that's something that can't really be changed because players will percieve an unwinnable minigame against a computer opponent as hostile and unfair design and so quit and stop being able to pay money for ARX).
Combat exists if you want combat, if you want more serious combat do the content that has that in it (with the recognition that you do it for its own sake because it's never going to be as rewarding per unit-time as the easier stuff). If you think that's still not tough enough then target your suggestion at that.
Engineering to beat resistances would potentially open up the meta for engineering schemes in PvP combat, and giving it to NPCs in high level content would make it harder for the top end of PvE builds, but it won't ever change that some ships are going to be better for combat than others because they specialise in it.
Sure it could - make interdictions auto-succeed (as the AX ones essentially did). Then there's no minigame to feel bad about losing - though players can still avoid them by flying so the NPC can't establish the tether in the first place, especially with SCO.
Obviously this doesn't work with the "combat is always optional" nature of Elite Dangerous - but that's an unusual design of ED not shared with either the previous Elite games or with any other spaceships+weapons game.
Alternatively, they could go further along the "combat is always optional" design direction, and remove interdiction entirely - it's not really needed for PvE, and as you say the EvP use is also essentially decorative.
Only if they can hit you consistently. Multiple opponents would shift the balance on that to give a greater challenge.
Almost nothing, except speed. A Krait Phantom and Imperial Clipper will outrun any combat-fit FDL, Mamba and PII easily and are completely untouchable. An opposing player can only slow them down, but won't stop them from reaching the station. Speaking from personal experience
Case in point: doing Powerplay in my PII I put cargo rack in the class 6 slot, 4A prismatics, class 3 ops limpet controller, shield boosters in utility slots and the same Pacifier/frag weapons loadout as usual. I completely obliterated an opforce commander in a multirole/hauling Python MKI before they could jump out. A maneuverable DPS focused ship will delete a slow multirole ship even if the former has undersized defenses. Changing how shield/hull reinforcements stack won't change the fact—the target will just die a little bit faster
A small detail here- Maybe don't try outrunning a Mamba in a Krait Phantom. My fat prismatic Mamba still boosts to 594 m/s with my much lighter max boost explorer Phantom only hitting 591 m/s.
Yeah they probably could put a steeper diminishing returns on excessive module stacks, in addition to a greater decrease in mobility. This will make more modest and balanced builds more lucrative. And promote more diverse builds. Such as more use of AFMs and repair limpets, or other modules that see little use. I mean, I am already finding that this rule largely does apply to engineering. I'm starting to learn that G5 engineering is not always worth it. But for some reason many people make it the gold standard for most things. To me, the trade-offs are too great most of the time. Whether it's that thing generates too much heat, power consumption, mass, lowers other resistances too much...or reduces fire rate too much. G3 is my new favorite for most things.
Last edited:
I do like Starrlord's suggestions to address the OP's concerns.
This is a long-discussed topic raised by the OP, and I have to wonder if there is a more financial reason for this design choice.
Is it cheaper for FDEV to have the PVP meta broken, and have more people avoiding Open than participating in Open?
Is there a greater server load/bugginess/connectivity/latency etc. with more people in Open (greater P2P individuals in an instance) than fewer people in Open?
Is there a financial incentive for FDEV to keep this as it is?
I'm not suggesting that these are bad choices if they are in fact the motivating factor for FDEV - every business choice is about return optimization while preserving engagement.
I think the OP's current evaluation is reasonable, but I think the design choices may have more real-world motivations.
This is a long-discussed topic raised by the OP, and I have to wonder if there is a more financial reason for this design choice.
Is it cheaper for FDEV to have the PVP meta broken, and have more people avoiding Open than participating in Open?
Is there a greater server load/bugginess/connectivity/latency etc. with more people in Open (greater P2P individuals in an instance) than fewer people in Open?
Is there a financial incentive for FDEV to keep this as it is?
I'm not suggesting that these are bad choices if they are in fact the motivating factor for FDEV - every business choice is about return optimization while preserving engagement.
I think the OP's current evaluation is reasonable, but I think the design choices may have more real-world motivations.
Its more along the lines of upsetting people. I'm happy for a balance pass but others might not- the last time this was tried some people went crazy and FD relented.
Changes that have a significant impact on time people have already put into the game have the risk of being a quit moment.
Making things cheaper for the next lot of people (which engineering has done twice now) makes people grumble but not quit, undoing their progress by changing the underlying systems might.
Hence the more likely suggestion being to introduce a new counter to resistances, because that's adding a new thing not deleting a thing people already have.
Mostly depends whether the Mamba has factory standard lightweight or mil. grade/reactive armor fitted (or "proper combat-fit" in my vocabulary)
If the latter, it'll be mid-580-s and Phantom's cheap boost of 591 m/s will mean it can just about get away, especially considering that the interdictor will spin out-of-control for a second after dropping. But yeah, if the Mamba pilot skipped hull day, they're faster, so it's a gamble. All the more interesting 