Horizons FDev, please talk to the active PVP community.

[JuicerPrime]

The problem with designing and balancing content around PvP is that there is never a bar you can pass whereby people aren't going to try to squeeze every drop of advantage they can get out of an asset. What was balanced and diverse last week has condensed this week because someone found a slightly more efficient build, and the only objective of PvP is defeating the opponent - a sense of a wider environment, or elements which do not contribute to PvP gameplay but might be more important for, say, functioning day to day in a living, breathing universe (economy, utility, covering more than one build/role in case of unforseen developments, etc.), get filtered out as extraneous. Taken to the extreme, balancing for PvP is an endless treadmill, wherein each added ship, gun or module only contributes to the balancing problem and diversity is permissable only insofar as it contributes to PvP norms. Don't even ask how much grief a shift in mechanics or meta-norms can produce.

It's become a sad reality on the MWO forums to judge the viability of new 'mech chassis before its deployment based on its profile, the positioning of its hardpoints, and how easily it can boat energy or ballistic weapons. The number of "competitive" chassis one witnesses in high-level faction warfare at the moment is unfortunately small as a result. While I'm absolutely all for ship balancing and every ship having a use, seeing something like that reproduced in Elite would be depressing. It's a very different beast to a competitive shooter or MOBA - it's supposed to reflect concerns about existing as an entity in-universe once the match is over the dust settles for one.

 

[GluttonyFang]

The problem with designing and balancing content around PvP is that there is never a bar you can pass whereby people aren't going to try to squeeze every drop of advantage they can get out of an asset. What was balanced and diverse last week has condensed this week because someone found a slightly more efficient build, and the only objective of PvP is defeating the opponent - a sense of a wider environment, or elements which do not contribute to PvP gameplay but might be more important for, say, functioning day to day in a living, breathing universe (economy, utility, covering more than one build/role in case of unforseen developments, etc.), get filtered out as extraneous. Taken to the extreme, balancing for PvP is an endless treadmill, wherein each added ship, gun or module only contributes to the balancing problem and diversity is permissable only insofar as it contributes to PvP norms. Don't even ask how much grief a shift in mechanics or meta-norms can produce.

It's become a depressing reality on the MWO forums, so much so that it's now almost a sport to judge the viability of new 'mech chassis before its deployment based on its profile, the positioning of its hardpoints, and how easily it can boat energy or ballistic weapons. The number of "competitive" chassis one witnesses in high-level faction warfare at the moment is depressingly small as a result. While I'm absolutely all for ship balancing and every ship having a use, seeing something like that reproduced in Elite would be depressing. It's a very different beast to a competitive shooter or MOBA - it's supposed to reflect concerns about existing as an entity in-universe once the match is over the dust settles for one.

I am very aware of the MWO forum shenanigans, but I won't reveal who I am on that forum

To listen only to PvP people is obviously not a great move, but I think PvP crowd can use more ears.

 

[JuicerPrime]

I am very aware of the MWO forum shenanigans, but I won't reveal who I am on that forum

Oho! A fellow 'mechwarrior eh? You cannot hide! *peers at your dogtags* @.o

(I keed Nice to meet a fellow MWO forumite at any rate )

 

[Louella]

how do you measure balance in Elite ? how do you decide if X is balanced with Y ? What is balance anyway ? Is it the reason why pre-order bonus ships such as the Cobra IV have questionable performance ?

What is balance measurement based on ? purchase costs ? 1 vs 1 ? Wing vs Wing ? Do you account for player skill ? Top pilots are not necessarily the only useful perspective.

Several PvE situations, the NPCs outnumber the players. Other situations, it is even numbers. How often in pvp situations do the defenders outnumber the aggressor ? How often is it even numbers ?


situations from history: When flown by average RAF pilots during 1940, the Spitfire was noticeably superior to the Hurricane. When flown by the veteran Free Polish and Czechslovak pilots, the Hurricane and Spitfire were even. Were they balanced ?
The Mitsubishi Zero was superior to the F4F Wildcat 1v1. But with team tactics, a flight of Wildcats could defeat a flight of Zeros. Were they balanced ?

 

[GluttonyFang]

Oho! A fellow 'mechwarrior eh? You cannot hide! *peers at your dogtags* @.o

(I keed Nice to meet a fellow MWO forumite at any rate )

You shall never discover who I am muhahahahaha (I go by a different name on that forum, and that's all the hint you'll get >:3, and yes, likewise, good to know there are some MWO fans here)

 

[Etherimp]

how do you measure balance in Elite ? how do you decide if X is balanced with Y ? What is balance anyway ? Is it the reason why pre-order bonus ships such as the Cobra IV have questionable performance ?

What is balance measurement based on ? purchase costs ? 1 vs 1 ? Wing vs Wing ? Do you account for player skill ? Top pilots are not necessarily the only useful perspective.

Several PvE situations, the NPCs outnumber the players. Other situations, it is even numbers. How often in pvp situations do the defenders outnumber the aggressor ? How often is it even numbers ?


situations from history: When flown by average RAF pilots during 1940, the Spitfire was noticeably superior to the Hurricane. When flown by the veteran Free Polish and Czechslovak pilots, the Hurricane and Spitfire were even. Were they balanced ?
The Mitsubishi Zero was superior to the F4F Wildcat 1v1. But with team tactics, a flight of Wildcats could defeat a flight of Zeros. Were they balanced ?

The best way for you to answer those questions is to engage in pvp in open play yourself.

This is why experienced voices are needed. Nobody tests the limitations of a ship or module like PvP pilots.

 

[Etherimp]

It's insane because Counter-Strike and MOBAs are game where the only meaningful way to play is PvP. That is in fact the whole point of those games - they are competitive games you play against other players.

ED is different. In ED for most player playing the game in a standard fashion (for example, say that you are a player who picks up the game and just runs with it, you aren't coming on the forums and joining PvP groups) 99% of the time you're playing you're playing PvE. PvP encounters are extremely rare for the the general playerbase.

Combat in PvE and PvP is DIFFERENT. If FDev were making a game like CS or a MOBA where the game is all about competing with other players, then it would make sense to specifically consult high-level competitive players for balance an game-design input. I play CS:GO more than I play ED. This is something I strongly agree with.

But ED is not CS. It is not trying to be CS. It is not trying to be ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY LIKE CS. ED is, for the majority of players, the vast majority of the time, a PVE game.

Understood; but you're missing the point. Firstly, CS and LoL and others (starcraft, quake, etc) actually DO (or did) consult their "pro" community. Because the "Pro" community are the players who can use weapons/skills/ships/abilities/characters/classes/champions to their fullest. If you want to see how balanced something is, you give it to the best players in your community and you ask them to break it.

Please read my post above about suggestions that *I* would personally make to FDev, and tell me how those suggestions would "RUIN PVE!"

So giving special weight to high-skilled PvP players over anyone else is, like I said, insane. That's NOT the kind of game ED is. What works well, what is fun and balanced in PvE, is wildly different from PvP. The game is 90%+ PvE, so it needs to be balanced and fun for PvE first and foremost. PvP should be considered, but it's secondary. Because ED is not a competitive game.

ED isn't a competitive game FOR YOU.. Power-play and PvP are very competitive, and they are options in this game just as much as Exploring or Trading are. Furthermore, the reason why this game doesn't attract or retain a PvP audience is because PvPers are looked down upon and treated like crap by carebears and crybabies.

Do people in this game gank newbies or traders and grief people? Absolutely; and I'm not one of those people. But if you sign up for OPEN play, you're OPENing yourself up to that possibility. I'll quote Star Control 2, "Space is a tough place where wimps eat flaming plasma death."

Don't want to die? Go play Solo/Private, or get good at PvP.

If you want that kind of game, go play something else. This is not the game for you.

Kay.. What should I go play? Please point me to the Multi-player space-dogfighting game.

Eve Online doesn't count. (It's not dogfighting.)
Star Citizen isn't out yet. (And I question whether it will ever deliver on its promises or be worth the price.)

Furthermore, are you sure you want to encourage dedicated members of this already small community to go play other games when they actually enjoy this game and only want to improve it? I paid my 120+ dollars for this game just like you did.

 

[Fendalton]

If everyone is in FDL's with 4 multicannons with reactive armour, and nothing else is being played, that's when I would predict a balancing issue.

There needs to be more PvP orientated ships. Well more ships in the game in general.

 

[Etherimp]

If everyone is in FDL's with 4 multicannons with reactive armour, and nothing else is being played, that's when I would predict a balancing issue.

There needs to be more PvP orientated ships. Well more ships in the game in general.

That's exactly my problem right now.. FAS and FdL > Everything else. There's literally no reason to pick anything else. In fact, I think the FAS may even be better than the FdL. This is not to say good pilots can't use other ships with unique builds (See: Stealth DBE/DBS/Viper, etc); just that there should be more VIABLE options.

Read my suggestions above and let me know what you think. I'd really love to see missile boats and drone/limpet ships and support ships which can do more than just "pew pew".. Having actual "roles" would be a boon for everyone, including the PVE guys..


Edit: Also, fixing Stealth mechanics so they actually work against NPC's would be a good start!

 

[HvyHauler]

To listen only to PvP people is obviously not a great move, but I think PvP crowd can use more ears.

I think that the Devs have been listening to the PVP crowd a lot. Here's a few examples.
1. Complained the Python was over powered. Devs nerfed it to the point it's barely useable in PVE and not at all in PVP.
2. Complained about shield recharge rates. Devs gave shield cells.
3. Complained about shield cell spamming. Devs nerfed the cells
4. Complained about the shield cell nerf. Devs buffed heat sinks and minor buff to shield cell.
5. Complained it was difficult to set up good PVP fights. Devs provided CQC.
I'll admit the last one needs some work. Maybe an open class where you get to build an exact copy of the ship you actually own.

My point is that the Devs have listened and provided what was asked for by the PVP community and others. Then they get another round of I want this because somebody figured out a killer build or exploit. As somebody who has spent a lifetime in the military, I can tell you changes in tactics, equipment, strategy and exploits never end. Somebody always finds an edge and everybody exploits it.
The Devs try to give player groups their due but in the end they are a business. They are going to please the majority of players. Focusing on one group over others will hurt FD and destroy the ED universe we are all passionate about.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I think that the Devs have been listening to the PVP crowd a lot. Here's a few examples.
1. Complained the Python was over powered. Devs nerfed it to the point it's barely useable in PVE and not at all in PVP.
2. Complained about shield recharge rates. Devs gave shield cells.
3. Complained about shield cell spamming. Devs nerfed the cells
4. Complained about the shield cell nerf. Devs buffed heat sinks and minor buff to shield cell.
5. Complained it was difficult to set up good PVP fights. Devs provided CQC.
I'll admit the last one needs some work. Maybe an open class where you get to build an exact copy of the ship you actually own.

My point is that the Devs have listened and provided what was asked for by the PVP community and others. Then they get another round of I want this because somebody figured out a killer build or exploit. As somebody who has spent a lifetime in the military, I can tell you changes in tactics, equipment, strategy and exploits never end. Somebody always finds an edge and everybody exploits it.
The Devs try to give player groups their due but in the end they are a business. They are going to please the majority of players. Focusing on one group over others will hurt FD and destroy the ED universe we are all passionate about.

Sure, the things you brought up have relevance to PvP, however, if we compare it to the PvE changes/additions, we both know which of the two is catered to more.

I don't want to get into a debate about this game being a PvP game or PvE game, since that's for another thread and toxic by the very thought of it. So I'm pointing out that by comparative means, there is a difference.

 

[Etherimp]

I think that the Devs have been listening to the PVP crowd a lot. Here's a few examples.

Please show me where the PvP community specifically are who suggested these changes. I have never seen a change made by FDev CONSULTING the PvP community. However, I've seen tons of changes because of people COMPLAINING about PvP. (By non-PVPers, mind you.)

1. Complained the Python was over powered. Devs nerfed it to the point it's barely useable in PVE and not at all in PVP.

The Python is still very much usable in PVP and PVE. It's not the wrecking machine it was once, but I have no problem hanging out in a HazREZ making 15-20 million in a python.

2. Complained about shield recharge rates. Devs gave shield cells.

How does this make PVE worse or less fun?

3. Complained about shield cell spamming. Devs nerfed the cells

In one example you insinuate that shield values should have remained low, and now you insinuate that nerfing shield values was bad for PVE.

4. Complained about the shield cell nerf. Devs buffed heat sinks and minor buff to shield cell.

HAHAHAHA. Really? The devs didn't listen to the PvP community on this one, I assure you. I don't know who came up with the brilliant idea to add 100% heat production to every shield cell use, but it certainly wasn't me or anyone in the PvP community I know. That change is exactly the kind of thing that would be avoided if FDev actually understood game balance. Furthermore, they HAD to improve heat sinks because they screwed up Shield Cells but insisted on going through with the horrible design decision anyway. And, EVEN SO.. How does this negatively impact PVE?

5. Complained it was difficult to set up good PVP fights. Devs provided CQC.

Setting up good PvP fights is still a problem! Instancing has only got worse. Since Horizons I've been unable to get more than 9 people in a single instance, where at the end of 1.3 I was able to get 16-20 if I worked really hard at it.

My point is that the Devs have listened and provided what was asked for by the PVP community and others. Then they get another round of I want this because somebody figured out a killer build or exploit. As somebody who has spent a lifetime in the military, I can tell you changes in tactics, equipment, strategy and exploits never end. Somebody always finds an edge and everybody exploits it.

Right. And if you were designing a military game would you consult accountants and merchants, or would you consult soldiers and generals? My point still stands - Nobody knows the limits of the game better than the PvP crowd.

I don't want to nerf this or buff that.. I want the game to be fun for everyone and I want every ship to be viable in some way. I want to see the PVP Meta come down to more than who can stack the most hull reinforcements, shield cell banks, heat sinks, or shield boosters.

The Devs try to give player groups their due but in the end they are a business. They are going to please the majority of players. Focusing on one group over others will hurt FD and destroy the ED universe we are all passionate about.

What you're saying here is that the Devs shouldn't listen to the people who understand the game the best. They should listen to the vocal minority who complain when they die, or who have more fun having a solo-experience than a community one.

If you want awesome examples of how stupidly broken this game is I encourage you to investigate the perks, bonuses, and mechanics of power-play.

Imperial Hammers vs the Mahon Tea Warming Laser.

The Pulse Disruptor vs Pack Hound MissLOLs.

200% bonus to all bounty hunting vs 90% off all ammo costs.

Clearly, FDev should consult someone on game balance, and if they're already consulting someone they should fire that person and find someone else.

As I said in another post, I would love to see them add things like Attack Limpets. This would benefit both the PVP and PVE crowd. I would love to see them add Ammo Loaders as Internal Compartments that would allow people to stock up on missile or other ammo. I would love to see ECM, Point Defense, and other *new* modules actually become viable in the game. I would love to see equal viability of SCB's AND Hull reinforcements, without either of them being too OP. I would love to be able to fly an Imperial Courier again. I'd like to be able to use Stealth builds vs NPC's! How would ANY of this "DESTROY THE FUN OF PVE!"?

 

[HvyHauler]

It's clear that you have become so single minded that you missed the intent of my post. Not once did I say at any point in this thread that PVP ruins PVE. I have never advocated one over the other. Both are import in finding balance. My last post was merely to point out times the Devs did listen solely for PVP. Most of those are just from the Ships 1.5 Beta. Check the threads.
The only thing I have ever advocated is that allowing one crowd to advocate to the developers over another is not the best way. You might as well be saying we are holier than you so you can't talk to god except through us. It puts the Devs in the place of having to choose between a small group of hardcore players over a larger group, or several other groups.
Personally, I don't care either way as I enjoy both sides. PVP and PVE. Sadly, like many in this world you clearly believe that if someone doesn't prescribe to your line of thought they must be attacked or shouted down. The real world and the universe of ED is much more enjoyable than what this thread has turned into. So I will enjoy them and leave your thread to you.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

PvP balance in a game with different sized ships would be hard to achieve. Also difficult to achieve when you can have 4 vs 1 scenarios.

Balance is only really possible when everyone has equal access to ships, loadouts, and has equal penalties. Games like Quake 3 for example has balance. There is no difference between characters and once you know a map, you know where to get the weapons, and your opponents also.

To balance PvP in ED they would have to make a lot of unpopular changes to the ships for a start. Bigger ships would either have to get nerfed or smaller ships boosted. Then the questions would start as to why people should even bother going for bigger ships. And then the higher insurance cost on bigger ships would become a more important point of contention... why pay more when its no more effective?

I don't think ED lends itself well to balanced PvP and FD can't really do much here to help.

What FD might be able to do is make PvP more enjoyable... but that's going to be highly subjective as well. We had big ships able to stock up on SCBs making PvP often a game of long term attrition, often ending with the loser simply jumping out once they had run out of SCBs. FD changed that, and people complained as well. Some people want longer drawn out fights, some people want quicker fights i suppose.

I think the actual best thing for those who want PvP to do is actually organize PvP events for their PvP fix. Set some basic rules, and set to it. As I recall, the hutton trucker event, Vipers vs Cobras was a big success. Its not hard to control, no complicated rules needed regardling loadouts etc. Set a time, place, and any restrictions, and go for it.

 

[Charles Erika von Hackbeil]

This game will never become a mainly pvp orientated game, it´s just a too small part of the whole story. But I feel there is more than enough room for each style of play.

What I think is the problem atm is that due to lack of a real reason for a battle some people get triggerhappy and start attacking players, who don´t want to be dragged into this thing -- resulting in many many threads here.

I say give the people something to fight for that makes sense, apart from comparing the size of their private parts, to which this whole thing is reduced at the moment. This is something not everyone is intersted in. You have to put in a huge amount of roleplay to justify an attack to fit the "story" of ED, but then you still have the problem that your opponent doesn´t know about it. It just cannot be expected from anyone to follow an external forum to understand why he´s being attacked. The actual situation in Orang seems to be a good example for this.

Elite is not a game like CS or Mortal Combat, it never will be. These games reduce the options to a minimum, but are very clear about them on the other side. I think you will not find anyone being surprised when killed in one of these games.

I really hope there is some content to come that focuses on pvp-aspects, like a battle for a base or stuff like that. Something that has a consequence in the end, where you can really win or lose something. The rebuy just doesn´t count when you reach a certain point in the game. It doesn´t hurt. But also the win seems lackluster, since the winner knowns, that despite of winning a fight, nothing really happened.

FD could be more creative on this topic, thats true. But there are some possibilities, they will hopefuly take.

 

[Etherimp]

PvP balance in a game with different sized ships would be hard to achieve. Also difficult to achieve when you can have 4 vs 1 scenarios.

No. It's really not. Nobody is saying a Viper should be able to destroy an Anaconda 1v1. That's not what "balance" means.

Balance is only really possible when everyone has equal access to ships, loadouts, and has equal penalties. Games like Quake 3 for example has balance. There is no difference between characters and once you know a map, you know where to get the weapons, and your opponents also.

Again, no it doesn't. Different ships should have different advantages and disadvantage. Progress (to better and better ships) should not be linear. A viper should be good for SOME situations and an Anaconda should be good for OTHER situations. Namely, an Anaconda should be big, slow, tanky, and threatening. It is those things, but it's also nearly as maneuverable as other, smaller ships. A FAS for example is basically a Vulture on Steroids. I'll say it again - Every ship should have a "role", something it's GOOD at, some reason to pick it over something else. For example, the DBE and DBS make AMAZING stealth ships. The Courier USED to be a great "small tank", with the huge shield values, horrible heat distribution, horrible hull values, and mediocre everything else. Now the Courier is effectively useless because low-end SCB's are useless and the Courier doesn't have the heat management to deal with them. So if you want to fly a Courier, what do you do? You stack it up with HRP's like every other small ship!

My point is - balance is possible, but the way FDev goes about it is completely unintuitive. For example, rather than simply buffing Hull Reinf, or limited the # of SCB's you could have per ship, or lowering the amount of SCB charges you got per module, they did a few things:

1. Increased heat on SCB's (what?!)
2. Made LOW end Hull Reinf GOOD but high end Hull Reinf BAD
3. Made HIGH end SCB's GOOD but LOW end SCB's bad.
4. Buffed heat sinks to compensate for the SCB heat nerf.. They buffed heat sinks to solve a problem they created that didn't need to be created!

SMALL ships (the ones that equipped small SCB's), were never the problem! They weren't the ships causing 20 minute long PVP encounters. You're thinking Anacondas and Pythons in 1v1... Anacondas should be most effective when escorted by a wing of smaller ships. They should not be a solo monster. That should be heavy fighters (See: FdL)

To balance PvP in ED they would have to make a lot of unpopular changes to the ships for a start. Bigger ships would either have to get nerfed or smaller ships boosted. Then the questions would start as to why people should even bother going for bigger ships. And then the higher insurance cost on bigger ships would become a more important point of contention... why pay more when its no more effective?

Again, not a problem if you have ROLES.. It's possible to make every ship VIABLE in PVP while also having some restrictions on how it *should* be used. No single ship should be able to dominate every other ship (See: The current FAS.) If you have a Rock-Paper-Scissors dynamic, it allows for counter-play.

I don't think ED lends itself well to balanced PvP and FD can't really do much here to help.

Sure it does. FDev just doesn't know how to balance a MP Game, clearly, or they would have never created the bonuses that Arissa Lavingy Duval and Zachary Hudson get, when compared to the Bonuses of, say, Patreus. They would have never thought Prismatic Shields and Imperial Hammers and Pulse Disruptors were comparable to useless modules like...a mining lance.

What FD might be able to do is make PvP more enjoyable... but that's going to be highly subjective as well. We had big ships able to stock up on SCBs making PvP often a game of long term attrition, often ending with the loser simply jumping out once they had run out of SCBs. FD changed that, and people complained as well. Some people want longer drawn out fights, some people want quicker fights i suppose.

I think the actual best thing for those who want PvP to do is actually organize PvP events for their PvP fix. Set some basic rules, and set to it. As I recall, the hutton trucker event, Vipers vs Cobras was a big success. Its not hard to control, no complicated rules needed regardling loadouts etc. Set a time, place, and any restrictions, and go for it.

Know what organized PVP events consist of? 1 hour of attempting to work around broken instancing.

Know what else happens in ALL PvP?

People shoot each other, people tank as much as they can, when their tank runs out they high-wake out to avoid a 5% or lower rebuy cost.


Know what should happen?

People should be able to employ tactics, ships, builds, and skills which can overcome one another through counter-play.


This is the fundamental problem with ED "Balance" right now.. It's not that Small ships are and big ships are awesome. (not the case). It's not that SCB's or HRP's are broken (they need balancing, but they're not broken.).. The problem isn't that SCB's create too much heat (they do) or that they should remain the way they are (they shouldn't)..

The problem is, THERE IS NO COUNTER-PLAY TO ANYTHING.

Here's how simple PVP is in this game:

1. Learn how to high-wake.
2. Stack shields/Hull Reinf/whatever defense is best for your particular ship
3. Learn to shoot with Fixed weapons and do so.
4. Interdict or get interdicted, deal as much damage as possible before you're forced to run or the enemy is forced to run.
5. ???
6. No profit.


The problem is the PvP is STALE. It's not REWARDING.. and I am not saying we need credits or merits or "in game" rewards for PvP.. I'm saying the game has an AMAZING Space-Combat engine, and it squanders it through stale game-play and jacked up balance decisions that have made it completely linear/1 dimensional.

There's no "risk/reward". There's no innovation or creativity that goes into it.

Fix that, and you have the best space combat game on the market.

Don't fix it, and Elite Dangerous remains an extremely niche market where eventually games like Star Citizen (which I do not like, mind you), take over.. Or other games (Eve) release 1st person versions and they take your player-base.. Or.. something new comes along and does well what ED does poorly.

In any case, I love the game and I hate the idea of quitting; but it's really getting to that point where I feel like the Devs make decisions that MAKE NO SENSE.

 

[Lupin]

My 10p worth on this subject.

PVP add a NEEDED element Elite, but it is down to YOUR game style as if you enjoy it.

Personally I have lost ships in PVP most in correct context (i.e. pirates or planetly blockade). But the number of times I have been kill by PVP (4 in the 13 months of play) still WAY under mistakes made in piloting or crashing SRV.

I choose how much risk and interaction with other commanders I have, with skill (Learned), simple planning in open play and common (not so common these days) sense. Like not going into powerplay area too often and keeping clear of popular areas. Which still allow me to make lots of money and enjoy ED Universe.

You can not dictate game style.

 

[Chance-]

My 10p worth on this subject.

PVP add a NEEDED element Elite, but it is down to YOUR game style as if you enjoy it.

Personally I have lost ships in PVP most in corrent context (i.e. pirates or planetly blockade). But the number of times I have been kill by PVP (4 in the 13 months of play) still WAY under mistakes made in piloting or crashing SRV.

I choose how much risk and interaction with other commanders I have, with skill (Learned), simple planning in open play and common (not so common these days) sense. Like not going into powerplay area too often and keeping clear of popular areas. Which still allow me to make lots of money and enjoy ED Universe.

You can not dictate game style.

Thank you for this. You take the risk by playing in open and accept the responsibility if something happens. Need more people to understand this.

 

[Yukon Sam]

The opinions of experienced PvP players count no more or less than those of experienced miners, traders or explorers. If a player or group of players considers themselves an expert in a particular aspect of the game, then as experts those players should have no difficulty compiling evidence and making a compelling case for their point of view. FD has hard metrics, but player input still helps interpret those metrics. An argument that the views of any particular playstyle should be given priority simply because of the perceived superiority of that playstyle is just chucking rocks at the hornets' nest.

 

[CloneWarrior85]

PvP balance in a game with different sized ships would be hard to achieve. Also difficult to achieve when you can have 4 vs 1 scenarios.

Different sized ships fit on different roles, just like on other games you have different classes which are fitted for specific roles.

And 4 vs 1 scenarios will happen, you only go solo because you want or have no one else to play with. But really, it won't matter which game it is, be it CS, be it ED, EVE, TF2, GTA5O, you go solo, you risk being ganked by a bigger group of enemies. PS: Bots won't care if you're alone or not either.

Balance is only really possible when everyone has equal access to ships, loadouts, and has equal penalties. Games like Quake 3 for example has balance. There is no difference between characters and once you know a map, you know where to get the weapons, and your opponents also.

I see alot of games with unlockables that are only accesseble after you grind for X hours, be it in kills, XP or behind paywalls, and they work out fine. (Battlefield, COD, EVE..... speaking of EVE, early ships are pretty good against later ones).

To balance PvP in ED they would have to make a lot of unpopular changes to the ships for a start. Bigger ships would either have to get nerfed or smaller ships boosted. Then the questions would start as to why people should even bother going for bigger ships. And then the higher insurance cost on bigger ships would become a more important point of contention... why pay more when its no more effective?

Balancing doesn't mean big ships become useless, perhaps they can become pretty much OP when it comes to firepower and shields/armor, but have a really hard time hitting anything due to slow turn-rate? There are a lot of ways to balance, and a full ledge of possibilities. And of course, no one likes to see their beloved ship be nerfed, but hey, if it performs above the avarange, perhaps it needs tweaking?

I don't think ED lends itself well to balanced PvP and FD can't really do much here to help.

It all goes to how much time one looses trying to listen to the community, and not only the whines from the first topics on the forum (ex: "QQ, shields OP"), which is what happened on ED.

I think the actual best thing for those who want PvP to do is actually organize PvP events for their PvP fix. Set some basic rules, and set to it. As I recall, the hutton trucker event, Vipers vs Cobras was a big success. Its not hard to control, no complicated rules needed regardling loadouts etc. Set a time, place, and any restrictions, and go for it.

One could argue to exactly the opposite: "for those who want PVE, there should be organized PVE events for their PVE fix".


PVP aspect "won't" have any impact on PVE. Well... the way you play will have to change tough, where you could tank, now you can't, or perhaps you can tank for a lot longer making you feel almost God-like, it will all go down to which ship and which balance changes it gets.

Traders and explorers won't feel it, others will have to adapt to the new changes, like you already did so far ever since the game came out to public from the very first closed alpha.