Modes Elite Dangerous PvE vs PvP and who needs a Solo play if you had PvE server

[Sylveria]

Yeah I've also put forth numerous posts regarding the bias toward combat optimization in this game. Role-specific ships beyond combat get relegated to the scrap heap because they're overshadowed by multiroles. Anaconda and Python are the "king" multirole ships because they can do everything the role-specific ships can do, only better because they're very combat capable, too. This is the same reason CCP had such issues with balancing later down the road because they made the same mistake with T3's and so forth in EVE... people started using T3's for everything and you very rarely saw people using the dedicated role cruisers.

The Exploration and T-series ships need some MAJOR love, they need to be better than multiroles for specific tasks, not just by a little, but a lot. There really needs to be a reason to pilot them beyond a few tons of cargo capacity, or a bit further jump range. (Anaconda has the furthest jump range, dedicated military slots and it's a multirole... what does this tell you?)

They need to add secondary passive bonuses to the role-specific ships to make them viable again. Give them each dedicated slots for their roles to enhance them, too. Multiroles should be Jack-of-all-trades, Masters of NONE, not masters of all.

 

[Phosphora]

Indeed - 100% skill based and perfectly balanced (except a miniscule, almost academic advantage when playing the white pieces). Something you won't find in any existing MMO! And on top of that it's something everyone can do at any time for free (e.g. at lichess.org)! When reading my own words I've just realized that I actually DO love proper PvP, but not so much in MMOs where it all too often boils down to Kindergarten or e-peen...

Agreed. I prefer chess to Elite's PvP because a) no one ever forced me to play chess when I wasn't ready, and b) chess doesn't require instant reactions.

I'm not saying chess is better than Elite's PvP, but it is different, and suits my personality better. I prefer Solo to Open for the same reason - what works for one won't work for another.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[Mouse]

Yeah I've also put forth numerous posts regarding the bias toward combat optimization in this game. Role-specific ships beyond combat get relegated to the scrap heap because they're overshadowed by multiroles. Anaconda and Python are the "king" multirole ships because they can do everything the role-specific ships can do, only better because they're very combat capable, too. This is the same reason CCP had such issues with balancing later down the road because they made the same mistake with T3's and so forth in EVE... people started using T3's for everything and you very rarely saw people using the dedicated role cruisers.

The Exploration and T-series ships need some MAJOR love, they need to be better than multiroles for specific tasks, not just by a little, but a lot. There really needs to be a reason to pilot them beyond a few tons of cargo capacity, or a bit further jump range. (Anaconda has the furthest jump range, dedicated military slots and it's a multirole... what does this tell you?)

They need to add secondary passive bonuses to the role-specific ships to make them viable again. Give them each dedicated slots for their roles to enhance them, too. Multiroles should be Jack-of-all-trades, Masters of NONE, not masters of all.

That needs to be shoved in some faces...

 

[Theodrid]

Yeah I've also put forth numerous posts regarding the bias toward combat optimization in this game. Role-specific ships beyond combat get relegated to the scrap heap because they're overshadowed by multiroles. Anaconda and Python are the "king" multirole ships because they can do everything the role-specific ships can do, only better because they're very combat capable, too. This is the same reason CCP had such issues with balancing later down the road because they made the same mistake with T3's and so forth in EVE... people started using T3's for everything and you very rarely saw people using the dedicated role cruisers.

The Exploration and T-series ships need some MAJOR love, they need to be better than multiroles for specific tasks, not just by a little, but a lot. There really needs to be a reason to pilot them beyond a few tons of cargo capacity, or a bit further jump range. (Anaconda has the furthest jump range, dedicated military slots and it's a multirole... what does this tell you?)

They need to add secondary passive bonuses to the role-specific ships to make them viable again. Give them each dedicated slots for their roles to enhance them, too. Multiroles should be Jack-of-all-trades, Masters of NONE, not masters of all.

Repped, well said.

 

[Brrokk]

Yeah I've also put forth numerous posts regarding the bias toward combat optimization in this game. Role-specific ships beyond combat get relegated to the scrap heap because they're overshadowed by multiroles. Anaconda and Python are the "king" multirole ships because they can do everything the role-specific ships can do, only better because they're very combat capable, too. This is the same reason CCP had such issues with balancing later down the road because they made the same mistake with T3's and so forth in EVE... people started using T3's for everything and you very rarely saw people using the dedicated role cruisers.

The Exploration and T-series ships need some MAJOR love, they need to be better than multiroles for specific tasks, not just by a little, but a lot. There really needs to be a reason to pilot them beyond a few tons of cargo capacity, or a bit further jump range. (Anaconda has the furthest jump range, dedicated military slots and it's a multirole... what does this tell you?)

They need to add secondary passive bonuses to the role-specific ships to make them viable again. Give them each dedicated slots for their roles to enhance them, too. Multiroles should be Jack-of-all-trades, Masters of NONE, not masters of all.

+Rep, this is true!

Once when I described my Python build for mining, I had someone incredulous that I would use "one of the best combat ships in the game" for mining.

 

[Sylveria]

That needs to be shoved in some faces...

Oh, I've posted ideas in the Suggestions subforum a few times, it won't matter until FD takes action, however.

I'm sure they're quite aware of the issue.

That said, there's a good reason why all the newb pilots who start playing this game think the Anaconda is the "end-game" and whine about how many credits/hour they're making and calling it a "grind". This is one of the biggest reasons, because ships are lopsidedly-balanced. If people had a reason to pilot the role-specific ships beyond them being "stepping-stones" to the Anaconda/Cutter/Corvette, you'd see a lot more of them being used.

Unless the Type-10 is introduced with some SERIOUS ability to rival the Cutter in terms of combat capability and cargo capacity, it's going to be a "meh" release. Watch and see.

 

[Denneb]

A game that wants its players to interact more with each other, won't present you with huge rebuys, nor threaten you of perma-losing your wingman you've been training for weeks or even months. In other words, the monetary, emotional, and time costs of losing a single fight should be minimal, as they are with most successful mmos on that matter.
If I wanted to seek the reason why open play feels empty, I would begin my search on that direction....

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Way to miss the point, that being, you mocking 'greedy builds' while at the same time flying ships that are good for naff all except pew pew pew, you can't even fly between systems in your boat, it has to be transferred, is that not 'greedy' to the extreme?

That is because my "greedy" build does not get me killed in 2 sec. My "greedy" build has nowhere to jump, I dont have anywhere to high-wake into, why on earth would I need an FSD that bears weight and decreases speed.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Chess is a game of skill and finesse and a mental challenge between opponents. PVP many times seems to be neanderthal style brute force. "Me better you suck get gud!"

It really depends upon the kind of PvP.

I really enjoy the Supercruise mechanics, so I've gotten really good at it. I may be middle of the pack on the Buckyball Racing circuit, but I can still outfly most GSPies out there, to the point where I've gotten quite a few of them to plow into the odd planet or moon.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Yeah I've also put forth numerous posts regarding the bias toward combat optimization in this game. Role-specific ships beyond combat get relegated to the scrap heap because they're overshadowed by multiroles. Anaconda and Python are the "king" multirole ships because they can do everything the role-specific ships can do, only better because they're very combat capable, too. This is the same reason CCP had such issues with balancing later down the road because they made the same mistake with T3's and so forth in EVE... people started using T3's for everything and you very rarely saw people using the dedicated role cruisers.

The Exploration and T-series ships need some MAJOR love, they need to be better than multiroles for specific tasks, not just by a little, but a lot. There really needs to be a reason to pilot them beyond a few tons of cargo capacity, or a bit further jump range. (Anaconda has the furthest jump range, dedicated military slots and it's a multirole... what does this tell you?)

They need to add secondary passive bonuses to the role-specific ships to make them viable again. Give them each dedicated slots for their roles to enhance them, too. Multiroles should be Jack-of-all-trades, Masters of NONE, not masters of all.

As is showed in my video, the Type7 is a beast when it comes to trading, sure the conda has more cargo space and guns, but compare the rebuys and the ship cost, also the Type7 is capable of going 400m/s with DD5 while the conda is much slower and bigger target.

 

[Sylveria]

As is showed in my video, the Type7 is a beast when it comes to trading, sure the conda has more cargo space and guns, but compare the rebuys and the ship cost, also the Type7 is capable of going 400m/s with DD5 while the conda is much slower and bigger target.

Uh-huh. And Jump Range? How's that compare? Dedicated military slots for more armor? Utility Slots?

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Uh-huh. And Jump Range? How's that compare? Dedicated military slots for more armor? Utility Slots?

It has more than enough armor as it is, in fact, my shields never went down even with 3 PVP murder-lances were attacking, I would assume with prismatic shields, you dont even need an armor at all, just engineer it for light weight mod. Jump range is 20 ly with mediocre FSD roll, I can agree they could increase this a bit.

 

[Theodrid]

That is because my "greedy" build does not get me killed in 2 sec. My "greedy" build has nowhere to jump, I dont have anywhere to high-wake into, why on earth would I need an FSD that bears weight and decreases speed.

No, your greedy build kills in 2 seconds, and all the while you mock traders and explorers for wanting to maximise their builds for what they enjoy, you expect others to compromise while thinking you shouldn't have to yourself. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and it was you having to compromise while others didn't have to, you'd be on here squealing like a stuck pig. Explain to me why only a tiny minority of this games playerbase should get to min max to ridiculous levels and have the exact ship they want while the vast majority should compromise?

 

[ALGOMATIC]

No, your greedy build kills in 2 seconds, and all the while you mock traders and explorers for wanting to maximise their builds for what they enjoy, you expect others to compromise while thinking you shouldn't have to yourself. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and it was you having to compromise while others didn't have to, you'd be on here squealing like a stuck pig. Explain to me why only a tiny minority of this games playerbase should get to min max to ridiculous levels and have the exact ship they want while the vast majority should compromise?

Because if you min max an explorer or a trader it means a quick death, while when I min max my combat ship it means efficiency.

Edit: I am not following your point, what do you want to happen, should I handicap myself for a better chance of your survival? I am not min maxed so I can take down traders, I am min maxed so I can fight other min maxed ships.

 

[Theodrid]

Because if you min max an explorer or a trader it means a quick death, while when I min max my combat ship it means efficiency.

Edit: I am not following your point, what do you want to happen, should I handicap myself for a better chance of your survival? I am not min maxed so I can take down traders, I am min maxed so I can fight other min maxed ships.

My point is simple, do you think it is fair that a minority of players get to outfit the ship EXACTLY how they want while everyone else has to compromise?

When answering that question try this miraculous thing called empathy and imagine yourself in the other camp being mocked by people like you.

 

[Sylveria]

My point is simple, do you think it is fair that a minority of players get to outfit the ship EXACTLY how they want while everyone else has to compromise?

When answering that question try this miraculous thing called empathy and imagine yourself in the other camp being mocked by people like you.

I'm sure if their ships were gimped to hell like other non-combat ships they'd have set the forums on fire.

 

[Brrokk]

...Unless the Type-10 is introduced with some SERIOUS ability to rival the Cutter in terms of combat capability and cargo capacity, it's going to be a "meh" release. Watch and see.

This is true. I confess I've already been looking at the possible leaked T10 information and comparing it to the slots and jump range the Anaconda has, (I'm so far unimpressed but maybe the information is wrong).

 

[Sirius Agent]

In GTA V you can do the same.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

My point is simple, do you think it is fair that a minority of players get to outfit the ship EXACTLY how they want while everyone else has to compromise?

When answering that question try this miraculous thing called empathy and imagine yourself in the other camp being mocked by people like you.

Watch the video and tell me what exactly do you call "compromise"? having a shield?

I also compromise a slot for an intredictor in my FAS, it would be better used for another HRP.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

My point is simple, do you think it is fair that a minority of players get to outfit the ship EXACTLY how they want while everyone else has to compromise?

When answering that question try this miraculous thing called empathy and imagine yourself in the other camp being mocked by people like you.

That's a ridiculous argument.

My T-9 is hardened for surviving PvP and for RES-Mining, and still has 400T of Cargo if I drop the mining gear.
My T-7 is combat fitted, though I have yet to engineer it, and it has 256. When I do engineer it the jump range will be comparable to my Pythons, which are both capable of surviving a PvP attack.
I have a DBX and and AspX that are both engineered and PvP capable, and they still get 45+ Ly jump ranges and are capable of multi-role.

I do have a couple of very lightweight scouts (DBS and AspS). They are purposefully lightweight and I accept the risk that if I get caught in them by a PvPer, I am likely going to die.

YOU get to outfit your ships exactly as you want as well. The problem is you just don't want to accept the fact that by compromising on defenses and integrity, and by chiseling out every last bit of jump range or cargo space, that you're leaving yourself vulnerable to attack.

It's all about personal responsibility.