Balancing combat internals with the Orca

[Aewarin Jameson]

It feels overpowered against anything but other players with pure "PvP" build.
I wish a traders could have a chance to fight other players looking for a good fight.

That, whilst true, is an illogical wish - traders are not there to fight but move cargo; they also build their ships for cargo carrying capabilities whereas PvP ships are build for combat.

EDIT:
All up for a weapon/ship component/ship hull rebalance but not necessarily for module restrictions.

 

[geoffrey.hdt]

That, whilst true, is an illogical wish - traders are not there to fight but move cargo; they also build their ships for cargo carrying capabilities whereas PvP ships are build for combat

We talk about a game, not real life.
A game is meant to be fun. A lot of things are not realistic/logical in this game, but if they would, the game would be simply unbalanced, not fun or even unplayable.

Pure fighters should be at an advantage against traders, I agree. But currently, the gap between pure "PvP" builds and anything else is just too big.

 

[Jypson]

Collision mechanics IMO are borked - ramming a ship really should be instant (or near) death for both concerned.

That said, again, everyone's skill is different - I hear what you're saying, I accept that for you combat is easy mode in a vulture, however my argument is that for me NPCs are tricky.

EDIT: That is why I am suggesting, as well as taking away freedom of choice for ship builds, the OPs proposal would make PvE harder. Some may welcome that; others may not - perhaps best to judge post 2.1 after another NPC AI upgrade by MoM.

> Definitely on-board with you there, ramming as a repeatable tactic seems pretty ludicrous to me.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

We talk about a game, not real life.
A game is meant to be fun. A lot of things are not realistic in this game, and if they would, the game would be simply unbalanced, not fun or even unplayable.

It has nothing to do with real life :S

If you buy a ship and wish to move cargo you're going to build it differently than if you want to go into combat.

That, I would have thought, was common sense ...?

 

[Faded Glory]

That would work. The reason I like that less is it because it makes little sense lore wise. Why would putting hull reinforcements over here be dependent on not having hull reinforcements over there?

Plus it doesn't allow for ship specific balancing

Hull reinforcements, as far as I can tell, simply give your whole hull more 'armor', so a CMDR makes a choice, not of how many they have, but how big an increase they want, and if they want a really big increase, that diminishes other capabilities, for example large SCB's or shield generators.

I'm not really sure what you mean by 'ship specific balancing', as similar ships will indeed have the potential to have different strengths, but what I think it would do is prevent ships with lots of internals becoming the potential tanks that they are today.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

That, whilst true, is an illogical wish - traders are not there to fight but move cargo; they also build their ships for cargo carrying capabilities whereas PvP ships are build for combat.

There's plenty of PvE focused players who would be happy to throw down in some PvP if jumped (and if they didn't start out at an overly-large disadvantage by design). I am one of them, and I am sure I'm not alone.

For example, I was jetting around a while back in my Viper Mk III, just joyriding very stripped down for speed. I had just two small lasers and a D3 shield for defense. I was interdicted by a player in a Courier who opened fire.

My assumption in this case has to be that he is shield-tanked and running multiple SCB's (this was before the SCB changes), so not only am I facing a ship with more firepower and stronger shields (which I am totally ok with doing), but a ship who can fully heal his shields four or five times over. I'd be totally willing to bet my skill and agility-focused build over his firepower and initial shield advantage, but I'm actually faced with the task of doing that five times over, all in a row, executed perfectly each time.

Eh, no. I'll just run. I don't get to fight. Player who wanted to fight me doesn't get to fight, no one wins. Boring!

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Pure fighters should be at an advantage against traders, I agree. But currently, the gap between pure "PvP" builds and anything else is just too big.

A "pvp" combat build, other than weapon load out, is identical to a pve-combat build, so making changes to anything but weapons hurts both worlds too. The main reason for the gap (that I can see) is that players use 4 * PA weapons that are devastating against other player ships. It's not so effective when PvEing as you run out of ammo too quickly. (Well, I did - I am a poor shot anyway and prefer lasers)

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

There's plenty of PvE focused players who would be happy to throw down in some PvP if jumped (and if they didn't start out at an overly-large disadvantage by design). I am one of them, and I am sure I'm not alone.

That isn't the point though (take PvP/PvE out the equation)

A trader, by design, isn't supposed to be able to take on/out combat ships - period, unless you're suggesting a T6 should stand a chance against a combat built Anaconda ? Now, if your argument is that the fights last too short a time ... look at the weapons then. (4 * PAs .. yeah - that's a good starting point right there )

EDIT:
You can easily build a combat based trade ship that hauls around 20T of cargo - if that's your desire then there should be no complaints as it's viable already, but up against a pure-combat ship : in such a build you should easily have time to high wake out ... that's the best you should hope for.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

A "pvp" combat build, other than weapon load out, is identical to a pve-combat build, so making changes to anything but weapons hurts both worlds too. The main reason for the gap (that I can see) is that players use 4 * PA weapons that are devastating against other player ships. It's not so effective when PvEing as you run out of ammo too quickly. (Well, I did - I am a poor shot anyway and prefer lasers)

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



That isn't the point though (take PvP/PvE out the equation)

A trader, by design, isn't supposed to be able to take on/out combat ships - period, unless you're suggesting a T6 should stand a chance against a combat built Anaconda ? Now, if your argument is that the fights last too short a time ... look at the weapons then. (4 * PAs .. yeah - that's a good starting point right there )

There are specific ships that were added into the game with the intention of being an "armed trader". The Keelback, Anaconda and Python for instance

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

There are specific ships that were added into the game with the intention of being an "armed trader". The Keelback, Anaconda and Python for instance

Yes, granted .. but they're "multi-purpose" and aren't supposed to stand up in a straight out conflict. They should be able to fend off / defend themselves, but go to the front lines (if specced out with trade in mind) ? Nah, can't see it.


Now, if your argument is that these armed-traders just straight out die in combat against a pure PvP combat ship then ... oh I dunno .. look at the weapons maybe ? Tweak the hull numbers ? Removing the ability to spec a ship how you want (when it's already severely limited) isn't the right way forward IMo.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

There are specific ships that were added into the game with the intention of being an "armed trader". The Keelback, Anaconda and Python for instance

Yes. Liqua, I think you're thinking of this in far too real-life terms.

All the ships in Elite were build to put up some degree of a fight. There are no "pure" trade designs like exist in the ocean or air today.

 

[CMDR Ellegon]

I think this idea makes a lot of sense. At the moment the only thing that stands any chance against a PVP-build ship is another PVP-build ship. If you're not PVP-built in open your only option is to run; frustrating for the victim and the attacker.

The current huge discrepancy between PVP-focused ships and all "other" ships takes any player skill out of the game and makes the "winner" solely due to build. So anything that levels the playing field helps, I'm pretty sure that this won't completely solve the problem but it's better than what we have now.

I would change your proposal slightly to state that shields can go in any slot not just combat ones (or give ships a specific shield slot).

HRPs seem a bit nonsensical to me anyway, the different bulkheads you can outfit make a lot more "sense". I'd remove HRPs altogether.

That is precisely the point. Anything but PVP-build ships does not stand a chance in Open. Thus it is just common sense for many players that prefer other activities to stay away from Open.

I am not sure that the OP's ideas are ideal, but I believe that they are a good start. Too bad that FD utterly ignores suggestions on the forum.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Yes. Liqua, I think you're thinking of this in far too real-life terms.

All the ships in Elite were build to put up some degree of a fight. There are no "pure" trade designs like exist in the ocean or air today.

OK look.

The ships in ED don't really have a purpose beyond how you spec them to be. Agreed ?

The moment you put a cargo slot into the build you're already at a disadvantage against a pure combat ship - agreed ?

So .. you either:

- Limit the freedom of how you can build ships (IMO - that's bad - ships are already limited in scope)
- Address the hull / shield numbers so combat lasts longer (better)
- Address the damage output from weapons (best IMO)

Your pure PvP-Combat build of 4 * PAs .. that is one of the elephants in the room. The 2nd elephant is collision damage.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

OK look.

The ships in ED don't really have a purpose beyond how you spec them to be. Agreed ?

The moment you put a cargo slot into the build you're already at a disadvantage against a pure combat ship - agreed ?

So .. you either:

- Limit the freedom of how you can build ships (IMO - that's bad - ships are already limited in scope)
- Address the hull / shield numbers so combat lasts longer (better)
- Address the damage output from weapons (best IMO)

Your pure PvP-Combat build of 4 * PAs .. that is one of the elephants in the room. The 2nd elephant is collision damage.

I disagree on both your assumptions. All ships are inherently multirole to some degree. Even a pure combat spec can run data. I think this is a lot more realistic too; even a dedicated combat pilot needs a place to eat and sleep, and so could theoretically haul a passenger or two. I think limiting "pure" builds is healthy for any game. "Pure" is unrealistic, and creates an expectation of gross imbalance.

Ideally, putting a cargo slot in will not disadvantage you too much in relation to someone who does not. That is what creates choice. More choice is good. And effective choice is far better than an illusion on choice, where some choices are stupid and no one really does them. A wide range of effective choice, while maintaining some level of overall balance, requires some level of restriction. This is why each ship is limited to x number of weapon hardpoints, and you can't just jam guns into every slot on your ship - it allows for more useable choice in combat loadouts in the end.

 

[Razgriz III]

The idea behind this change is essentially to prevent min/maxing, and that's impossible. Yes, the current gap between a combat fitted Asp and a non-combat fitted Asp is pretty large but this ultimately won't do much to balance anything between ships. The FDL and the FAS, the current kings of PVP, are clearly not multipurpose ships in any sense. They would hardly be touched by this proposed change, as it only makes sense for them to be designed with all or nearly all combat internals in mind. They will still have huge advantages over all other ships in combat. If anything this will just make that gap worse, as cheaper multi-roles won't even be able to hold their own. PVPers are always going to gravitate towards the biggest advantage in their preferred playstyle, and there's always going to be a huge gap between these 80-120mil combat-kitted ships over all others.

 

[YoKramer]

As much as I appreciate your write-up and thought process behind the suggestions, I still feel that this energy would be better directed at Arena. If PvP balancing is important to you, put all of that creative energy into making Arena the PvP haven you crave.

At the end of the day Elite: Dangerous is not a PVP-centric game. Balancing all of the ships for fair PvP combat will hinder the diversity of choice for the rest of the game. Arena on the other hand is only PvP and I'm sure FDev would love inputs like this to make Arena a truly fair and competitive arena combat game.

For the record I have absolutely nothing against PvP or people playing Elite the way they want to play, I'm simply against trying to force Elite into something that it's not.

Now in the future if FDev decides Elite Dangerous is going to become PvP-centric, then I'll zip my lips and you won't hear another peep from me.

His change literally does not change the dinger the diversity for the trader. The Trading/Missions build stays exactly the same but makes it able to defend itself easier, this is what you should want as a non pvp player.

 

[evoelise]

A "pvp" combat build, other than weapon load out, is identical to a pve-combat build

This is incorrect.

A PVE equipped ship (i.e one to deal with NPCs) will be built for sustainability - shields, lasers & SCBs.

A PVP equipped ship (i.e one to deal with players) will be built for initial, fast damage and for surviving a single fight - no shields, plasmas/rails, HRPs.

The better player in a PVE ship would beat another player in a PVE ship.
The better player in a PVP ship would beat another player in a PVP ship.

Any player in a PVP ship should be able to beat any player in a PVE ship.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Spoiler

This is incorrect.

A PVE equipped ship (i.e one to deal with NPCs) will be built for sustainability - shields, lasers & SCBs.

A PVP equipped ship (i.e one to deal with players) will be built for initial, fast damage and for surviving a single fight - no shields, plasmas/rails, HRPs.

Agreed on PvE.

I personally would never travel without shielding & SBs (knowing there would be hostile players) The new "meta" may call for it (as you said shield-less / rails / hull reinforcements) but perhaps that's the issue here ? 4 * PA's = devastating upfront damage which you can't really mitigate ?

 

[SushiCW]

Any player in a PVP ship should be able to beat any player in a PVE ship.

Yeah, no. The "PvE combat loadout" vs "PvP combat loadout" gap absolutely should be bridgeable by pilot skill.

To some extent, it already is, but you need either a really good pilot in the PvE ship or a really crappy one in the PvP ship.

 

[Razgriz III]

I feel the need to add a bit more to my last.

The amount by which this proposed change would even "balance PVP" is debatable at best. I believe it would unbalance it further. Currently, you can take a Cobra or a Viper or an Asp and shake it up with the combat-tier FDLs and FASes, if you outfit it for that purpose. And this is a good thing. This encourages people to get into PVP at lower levels, before they can afford the more expensive ships. What I see this proposed change doing is making these multi-roles and smaller ships even less viable against the current, very expensive, min/max builds that dominate the really hardcore PVP crowd.

People who intentionally outfit ships to max their PVP combat potential are looking for PVP. All PVP players will do this. The proposed change will make fewer ships able to hold viable PVP builds. It will NOT automatically make people who were never going out with PVP in mind more likely to engage in it. It will NOT help the lone bounty hunter being ganked by a wing of 4 combat ships. The only thing I can see a change like this doing is preventing people who are interested in PVP from trying it until they can afford FDLs, FASes, Clippers, etc, because they will have fewer options to be competitive with them​.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

Yeah, no. The "PvE combat loadout" vs "PvP combat loadout" gap absolutely should be bridgeable by pilot skill.

To some extent, it already is, but you need either a really good pilot in the PvE ship or a really crappy one in the PvP ship.

I think evoelise was talking in the predicative sense: as in, the PvP ship is likely to win regardless, not that the PvP ship in an ideal world would win regardless