This is going to be quite a missive, so it's quite an ask to read it I know. But hopefully it will provide food for thought and be worth the time.
Anyway. Here my thoughts after a few days of testing the shield/hull changes.
Now of course much of this is basic stuff, and I’m sure it’s going on behind closed doors. But as a player we don’t see any of it, or the rationale for some of the decisions. So this perceived lack of directional clarity muddies the waters and I believe makes everyone’s lives more difficult from player to developer.
This isn’t aimed at a group of people, but is simply part of my ‘professional’ analysis of issues. As the saying goes “it’s not personal, it’s just business” and I really hope this missive is read in that light.
I’m also not going to talk numbers, as to me, it’s not the numbers that are the issue. It’s the approach.
TLDR I don’t think the shield/hull changes should go in. Not because of some whine entitled wah wah reason but because I feel it’s the wrong solution, and will not change anything materially.
The other reason for postponing the changes is to resolve these issues will take more work than is in 2.3. I’m not blind to the fact this will take a long time to resolve and will cost developer money. BUT I would argue getting it right once is more important and cost effective(particularly in the player goodwill stakes) than having to go back again and again playing whack a mole with players
PvP balance
The main issue here is quite simply people have different definitions as to what PvP Balance actually is. As far as I have been able to see there has been no definitive “This is our idea of PvP Balance” statement from Fdev which has led to all sorts of interpretations and misconceptions. I see the results of it every day on the forums, on reddit and even on voice com with other players.
Case in point: The role of the big 3.
Are they A, like the Bismark/Tirptitz which took a whole fleet to chase down and sink or are they like B. the HMS Sheffield which was sunk by a single missile from a few smaller aircraft.
With no direction, the community is divided meaning each and every change is exhaustively debated often with intelligent analysis being swamped by people’s interpretation.
In addition, PvP is a totally different game type than PvE. Ship loadouts are different, the attitude is different and quite frankly the entire culture is different. This to me, seems to add a great deal of time to the feedback analysis process
Added to this the power creep by engineers, which aided by random result and combinations makes I would argue PvP currently impossible to balance(assuming my interpretation of balance is correct
).
So my suggestion for PvP would be not to put the changes in BUT:
1. Work out what you want PvP balance to be. E.g What are the roles of the big 3. The FDL, the smaller fighters. Etc etc. How many eagles should it take to kill a corvette? Is there ever a case for reducing the FDL’s combat power to ships of equivalent cost etc?
2. Once you have worked out what you, as the games designers want PvP balance to be then put those ideas to a restricted focus group of PvP players to get their views.
3. Then publicly state “This is the direction of PvP” and stick to it. This way everyone knows what the direction is and since you have involved the community in its creation you’ll have created vocal advocates too.
4. Once you have an agreed direction it is then a heck of lot easier to balance to it.
Personally, I would combine this with changes to the crime and punishment system. Basically, bounties and having a large one is a trivial and largely pointless exercise. The aim is to give the player meaningful choices and consequences. Not have those wiped away with a single suicide winder..
I believe PvP balance and crime and punishment logically go hand in hand.
TLDR: Lack of Clarity over PvP balance objectives are clouding the balancing efforts which is causing a detrimental effect on not only getting feedback of changes but also possible game direction.
I’m not sure you will ever be able to balance the needs of the PvP and PvE community without separation. At the moment the simplest ‘fix’ I can think of is to relabel “open” to “open(Free for all PvP)” to make it clear what a player is letting themselves in for.
PvE Balance.
There is a perception amongst many players that Ships are game progression. Like PvP balance this I feel needs to be addressed.
Are ships part of game progression with the ‘end game’ being the biggest, baddest Corvette, conda or cutter OR are they tools in which the player uses like tools in a toolbox? I think the answer here is mutually exclusive, when again is why we see such confusion in the playerbase.
Like PvP balance the answer to this question is key to how things are balanced in the future.
Reading through the forums on a daily basis it’s clear players are crying out for meaningful, more challenging content. The question is how best to deliver that on a sustainable basis.
The other deficiency of the ‘changing the numbers’ approach is that it does not address the main issue in PvE, which is NPC AI, NPC load out and variation.
No other MMO game has enemies that use the same tactics and same skills regardless where you go. In Elite they are all the same if you are in Lave, Achenar, sol or colonia. The very best MMO’s and online games use active counters to player builds and make the player think about combat before going in
A rich universe of back ground sim, reputation, factions, superpowers and power play has been created. Why is this not being drawn on to improve the PvE experience?
Again I fully realise it’s time, development effort and money but in rebuttal. Adding NPC variation, Difficulty(in optional higher reward places) is by far a richer gameplay experience than simply changing numbers that will have zero effect on the game universe, difficulty or ‘danger’
So while it’s cheaper to change the numbers, in my view that time and effort is virtually wasted by it being negated by player behaviour so just how much of a saving in real terms is it?
Why do I say that?
First off Difficulty comes not only from how strong/smart you are but also how strong/smart your opponent is.
In this case any increase in difficulty or danger due to reduction of how strong we are is quite simply negated by changing player behaviour to jumping out as soon as the shields go down.
It doesn't matter if you double or triple the reductions, so long as the player can just wake out then the danger is not fundamentally reduced.
Atm we cannot repair hull outside of docking and if we do, then it costs money(esp on the cutter) so unless you feel like 'fighting to the death' you'll just wake out(does this make a case for delaying the desire to improve hull tanking until hull repair is out? dunno)
What is increased however is player annoyance at having to jump out more frequently and a decrease in the time spent "doing stuff" as opposed to "waiting for stuff"
It's this time spent “waiting for stuff” vs “doing stuff “equation that is the root of many players issues with the game.
Why would anything that that adds to the “waiting for stuff” side be seen as a good thing?
That is the issue with pure numeric changes they end up suiting a limited number of people. Without NPC variation every change affects everyone regardless of the ship they are in.
Regardless of what tweeks to numbers unless you have variation then it will still become one loadout fits all. Which then leads to a ‘chase the meta’ habit. I’ve seen it happen many a time in over 20 MMO’s and it never ends well.
We already know what the new meta is going to be and 2.3 hasn’t even gone live yet. Just replace Shield strength with resistance. So how long before they need to be nerfed too?
So how do you deal with player Meta’s then?
Well, my suggestion is. You deal with it not just by changing the player(you do this as a fine tune rather than a first response) but by changing their opponent. E.g If players shields are too strong give NPC’s anti-shield loadouts in certain areas. Players then have a choice. Stay in safer areas with less rewards or risk more in more dangerous ones (maybe not credits, but rarer mat drop rate etc)
Make the player think about what they need to take and where and you break out of the whack a mole cycle.
One of the joys I have in build making is thinking “well I’m going to get hit by this and this, how do I work around it” And you know what? That theory crafting can be done when not even playing it extends the enjoyment and complexity of the game beyond just using Coriolis to max shield resistance or DPS.
It makes people think and adapt.
By being able to fine tune encounters by NPC loadout and variation you get a lot more subtlety and challenge than is possible by the balance equivalent of carpet bombing
The situation is made 'worse' by any balance changes being rendered pointless by player behaviour, and made outdated by meta changes that are created within hours of them going live.
Now, i'm not saying player balance changes should never happen but they only work when they are used on top of a varied level of NPC and encounter difficulty.
If we look at balance changes in the history of gaming they have always been in the context of a fully fleshed out encounter experience. Different mobs, different locations, different skill loadout by NPC and different player classes.
As far as I can remember, blanket balance changes that affect every player everywhere they go be they newbie or expert are rare and are almost unilaterally unwelcome.
I do wonder if this is why people are looking forward to aliens, not out of some curiosity but in the hope they will represent some additional challenge to the game that the current set of NPC's do not.
So, my respectful suggestion on the way forward is(just off the top of my head).
1. Define the role of the ships in the game. Are they end game or just tools?
2. State the intended direction(doesn’t need to be in detail or give timescales or guarantees) for PvE, so as to give people time to adjust and set expectation
3. Postpone the shield changes, and divert the effort into
...a. Boosting NPC difficulty (e.g Elite should be a fearsome experience, not just take 20 extra seconds)
...b. Vary NPC loadout and spawn composition by, Location, Power aligned to, Combat ranking, Player reputation in that faction/superpower
...c. Give some NPC’s the ability to counter popular player builds
...d. Create areas of the game where these enhanced NPC’s can be found (Threat levels 5,6 and 7?) Have the rewards match the risk. Additionally have certain missions that are wing/multcrew only with different and phases objectives E.g destroy a generator needs a small nimble ship, while fending off fighter support needs a more powerful one). There are all sorts of ideas for this. Have a mission timer and leaderboard to introduce competition with players etc.
...e. Balance changes have their place, but only as a fine turning not as the be and end all
TLDR
I believe Basic numerical changes are inadequate to meet the objectives if introducing more danger, more skill and more fun into the game. Something more extensive and encompassing is needed to make best use of the potential within elite
With each and every balance change I ask myself does this enhance the richness of the Elite universe, does it bring the galaxy alive in a new and exciting way, does it reward risk, does it increase skill and does it inspire.
I have to honestly say. With these and other balance changes I've seen over the past few months my respectful answer is no..
That's why I am against the changes. While most of the community is fixated with stats and numbers I am trying to look at the bigger picture, compare with mistakes and victories from other MMO's and honestly and respectfully suggest a step back is taken to look at PvP and PvE as a whole and then, and only then tweek balance.
I hope you are still awake, and it’s not brought anyone any offense. What I do hope is that it’s given people food for thought above and beyond the limiting pure stats and numerical approach
Thanks for Reading
Shan
Anyway. Here my thoughts after a few days of testing the shield/hull changes.
Now of course much of this is basic stuff, and I’m sure it’s going on behind closed doors. But as a player we don’t see any of it, or the rationale for some of the decisions. So this perceived lack of directional clarity muddies the waters and I believe makes everyone’s lives more difficult from player to developer.
This isn’t aimed at a group of people, but is simply part of my ‘professional’ analysis of issues. As the saying goes “it’s not personal, it’s just business” and I really hope this missive is read in that light.
I’m also not going to talk numbers, as to me, it’s not the numbers that are the issue. It’s the approach.
TLDR I don’t think the shield/hull changes should go in. Not because of some whine entitled wah wah reason but because I feel it’s the wrong solution, and will not change anything materially.
The other reason for postponing the changes is to resolve these issues will take more work than is in 2.3. I’m not blind to the fact this will take a long time to resolve and will cost developer money. BUT I would argue getting it right once is more important and cost effective(particularly in the player goodwill stakes) than having to go back again and again playing whack a mole with players
PvP balance
The main issue here is quite simply people have different definitions as to what PvP Balance actually is. As far as I have been able to see there has been no definitive “This is our idea of PvP Balance” statement from Fdev which has led to all sorts of interpretations and misconceptions. I see the results of it every day on the forums, on reddit and even on voice com with other players.
Case in point: The role of the big 3.
Are they A, like the Bismark/Tirptitz which took a whole fleet to chase down and sink or are they like B. the HMS Sheffield which was sunk by a single missile from a few smaller aircraft.
With no direction, the community is divided meaning each and every change is exhaustively debated often with intelligent analysis being swamped by people’s interpretation.
In addition, PvP is a totally different game type than PvE. Ship loadouts are different, the attitude is different and quite frankly the entire culture is different. This to me, seems to add a great deal of time to the feedback analysis process
Added to this the power creep by engineers, which aided by random result and combinations makes I would argue PvP currently impossible to balance(assuming my interpretation of balance is correct
). So my suggestion for PvP would be not to put the changes in BUT:
1. Work out what you want PvP balance to be. E.g What are the roles of the big 3. The FDL, the smaller fighters. Etc etc. How many eagles should it take to kill a corvette? Is there ever a case for reducing the FDL’s combat power to ships of equivalent cost etc?
2. Once you have worked out what you, as the games designers want PvP balance to be then put those ideas to a restricted focus group of PvP players to get their views.
3. Then publicly state “This is the direction of PvP” and stick to it. This way everyone knows what the direction is and since you have involved the community in its creation you’ll have created vocal advocates too.
4. Once you have an agreed direction it is then a heck of lot easier to balance to it.
Personally, I would combine this with changes to the crime and punishment system. Basically, bounties and having a large one is a trivial and largely pointless exercise. The aim is to give the player meaningful choices and consequences. Not have those wiped away with a single suicide winder..
I believe PvP balance and crime and punishment logically go hand in hand.
TLDR: Lack of Clarity over PvP balance objectives are clouding the balancing efforts which is causing a detrimental effect on not only getting feedback of changes but also possible game direction.
I’m not sure you will ever be able to balance the needs of the PvP and PvE community without separation. At the moment the simplest ‘fix’ I can think of is to relabel “open” to “open(Free for all PvP)” to make it clear what a player is letting themselves in for.
PvE Balance.
There is a perception amongst many players that Ships are game progression. Like PvP balance this I feel needs to be addressed.
Are ships part of game progression with the ‘end game’ being the biggest, baddest Corvette, conda or cutter OR are they tools in which the player uses like tools in a toolbox? I think the answer here is mutually exclusive, when again is why we see such confusion in the playerbase.
Like PvP balance the answer to this question is key to how things are balanced in the future.
Reading through the forums on a daily basis it’s clear players are crying out for meaningful, more challenging content. The question is how best to deliver that on a sustainable basis.
The other deficiency of the ‘changing the numbers’ approach is that it does not address the main issue in PvE, which is NPC AI, NPC load out and variation.
No other MMO game has enemies that use the same tactics and same skills regardless where you go. In Elite they are all the same if you are in Lave, Achenar, sol or colonia. The very best MMO’s and online games use active counters to player builds and make the player think about combat before going in
A rich universe of back ground sim, reputation, factions, superpowers and power play has been created. Why is this not being drawn on to improve the PvE experience?
Again I fully realise it’s time, development effort and money but in rebuttal. Adding NPC variation, Difficulty(in optional higher reward places) is by far a richer gameplay experience than simply changing numbers that will have zero effect on the game universe, difficulty or ‘danger’
So while it’s cheaper to change the numbers, in my view that time and effort is virtually wasted by it being negated by player behaviour so just how much of a saving in real terms is it?
Why do I say that?
First off Difficulty comes not only from how strong/smart you are but also how strong/smart your opponent is.
In this case any increase in difficulty or danger due to reduction of how strong we are is quite simply negated by changing player behaviour to jumping out as soon as the shields go down.
It doesn't matter if you double or triple the reductions, so long as the player can just wake out then the danger is not fundamentally reduced.
Atm we cannot repair hull outside of docking and if we do, then it costs money(esp on the cutter) so unless you feel like 'fighting to the death' you'll just wake out(does this make a case for delaying the desire to improve hull tanking until hull repair is out? dunno)
What is increased however is player annoyance at having to jump out more frequently and a decrease in the time spent "doing stuff" as opposed to "waiting for stuff"
It's this time spent “waiting for stuff” vs “doing stuff “equation that is the root of many players issues with the game.
Why would anything that that adds to the “waiting for stuff” side be seen as a good thing?
That is the issue with pure numeric changes they end up suiting a limited number of people. Without NPC variation every change affects everyone regardless of the ship they are in.
Regardless of what tweeks to numbers unless you have variation then it will still become one loadout fits all. Which then leads to a ‘chase the meta’ habit. I’ve seen it happen many a time in over 20 MMO’s and it never ends well.
We already know what the new meta is going to be and 2.3 hasn’t even gone live yet. Just replace Shield strength with resistance. So how long before they need to be nerfed too?
So how do you deal with player Meta’s then?
Well, my suggestion is. You deal with it not just by changing the player(you do this as a fine tune rather than a first response) but by changing their opponent. E.g If players shields are too strong give NPC’s anti-shield loadouts in certain areas. Players then have a choice. Stay in safer areas with less rewards or risk more in more dangerous ones (maybe not credits, but rarer mat drop rate etc)
Make the player think about what they need to take and where and you break out of the whack a mole cycle.
One of the joys I have in build making is thinking “well I’m going to get hit by this and this, how do I work around it” And you know what? That theory crafting can be done when not even playing it extends the enjoyment and complexity of the game beyond just using Coriolis to max shield resistance or DPS.
It makes people think and adapt.
By being able to fine tune encounters by NPC loadout and variation you get a lot more subtlety and challenge than is possible by the balance equivalent of carpet bombing
The situation is made 'worse' by any balance changes being rendered pointless by player behaviour, and made outdated by meta changes that are created within hours of them going live.
Now, i'm not saying player balance changes should never happen but they only work when they are used on top of a varied level of NPC and encounter difficulty.
If we look at balance changes in the history of gaming they have always been in the context of a fully fleshed out encounter experience. Different mobs, different locations, different skill loadout by NPC and different player classes.
As far as I can remember, blanket balance changes that affect every player everywhere they go be they newbie or expert are rare and are almost unilaterally unwelcome.
I do wonder if this is why people are looking forward to aliens, not out of some curiosity but in the hope they will represent some additional challenge to the game that the current set of NPC's do not.
So, my respectful suggestion on the way forward is(just off the top of my head).
1. Define the role of the ships in the game. Are they end game or just tools?
2. State the intended direction(doesn’t need to be in detail or give timescales or guarantees) for PvE, so as to give people time to adjust and set expectation
3. Postpone the shield changes, and divert the effort into
...a. Boosting NPC difficulty (e.g Elite should be a fearsome experience, not just take 20 extra seconds)
...b. Vary NPC loadout and spawn composition by, Location, Power aligned to, Combat ranking, Player reputation in that faction/superpower
...c. Give some NPC’s the ability to counter popular player builds
...d. Create areas of the game where these enhanced NPC’s can be found (Threat levels 5,6 and 7?) Have the rewards match the risk. Additionally have certain missions that are wing/multcrew only with different and phases objectives E.g destroy a generator needs a small nimble ship, while fending off fighter support needs a more powerful one). There are all sorts of ideas for this. Have a mission timer and leaderboard to introduce competition with players etc.
...e. Balance changes have their place, but only as a fine turning not as the be and end all
TLDR
I believe Basic numerical changes are inadequate to meet the objectives if introducing more danger, more skill and more fun into the game. Something more extensive and encompassing is needed to make best use of the potential within elite
With each and every balance change I ask myself does this enhance the richness of the Elite universe, does it bring the galaxy alive in a new and exciting way, does it reward risk, does it increase skill and does it inspire.
I have to honestly say. With these and other balance changes I've seen over the past few months my respectful answer is no..
That's why I am against the changes. While most of the community is fixated with stats and numbers I am trying to look at the bigger picture, compare with mistakes and victories from other MMO's and honestly and respectfully suggest a step back is taken to look at PvP and PvE as a whole and then, and only then tweek balance.
I hope you are still awake, and it’s not brought anyone any offense. What I do hope is that it’s given people food for thought above and beyond the limiting pure stats and numerical approach
Thanks for Reading
Shan
Last edited:
