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

[Winterwalker]

Step 1: Click 'Solo'.

Repeat.

Alternative to Step 2: Click 'Open' and fly smart? Iron Mouse!

I've tried solo/private and - ultimately - no matter the pro's and cons, the adrenalin just isn't the same.
Men's men play on ten and women's women, deep end swimmin'?

ps. I don't care what mode people play but open is very survivable, even on a below spec rig.

 

[Theodrid]

I never thought I'd find myself doing this, but on this one issue, I actually agree with AL. If you play in Open, equipping a cargo ship as a blockade runner makes a lot of sense, and you sacrifice almost nothing to do so, at most one light year of jump range, before any FSD modifications. Shields, even "navigation" ones, are just common sense, and everything else involves fully utilizing every module location on your ship.

For losing a single light year if jump range, which might cost you, at most, 45 seconds of time on a trip, you end up with a ship that can soak up a lot of damage. It's the difference between flying an armored car, and a cardboard box.

That having been said, I think anyone in Open who sees a cardboard box and thinks "free kill," rather than, "someone in need of an education," is being a jerk. Here's hoping the upcoming C&P changes reduces the amount of jerkish behavior, or at least gives potential jerks a momentary pause.

I agree with all of that Dark and I'm kind of agreeing with Al too, fit your ships, compromise where you have to etc etc, the problem is when folk like Al start posting videos and taunting/baiting people who don't compromise when it's been clearly proven he'd never be willing to compromise his PVP boat in any way himself.

 

[Sylveria]

I agree with all of that Dark and I'm kind of agreeing with Al too, fit your ships, compromise where you have to etc etc, the problem is when folk like Al start posting videos and taunting/baiting people who don't compromise when it's been clearly proved he'd never be willing to compromise his PVP boat in any way himself.

Yep, hence the "git gud" condescension posts. Those saying it aren't willing to compromise their own ships but they're sure as hell willing to tell everyone else to do the same.

"Because that's the way the game was designed."

Great, so the next time people whine about people playing in Solo and PG's remember to tell yourself the same.

 

[Theodrid]

Yep, hence the "git gud" condescension posts. Those saying it aren't willing to compromise their own ships but they're sure as hell willing to tell everyone else to do the same.

"Because that's the way the game was designed."

Great, so the next time people whine about people playing in Solo and PG's remember to tell yourself the same.

Amen

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Yep, hence the "git gud" condescension posts. Those saying it aren't willing to compromise their own ships but they're sure as hell willing to tell everyone else to do the same.

"Because that's the way the game was designed."

Great, so the next time people whine about people playing in Solo and PG's remember to tell yourself the same.

That's it - here's what I've been failing to articulate.

My questions is - What exactly is it that you think combat ships should have to compromise on?

I'm not looking for a generic response. I'm looking for specifics.

Jump Range?
Cargo Space?
Multi-Role Utility?
Speed?

In your eyes, what exactly is the compromised capability that combat ships are wanting for?

 

[Deleted member 115407]

A max-engineered PVP build increases success vs other Cmdrs in combat, but decreases it for most everything else.

A max-engineered trade/explo build increases success vs the environment (including NPCs), but is "no bueno" against one thing: PVP-specific combat ships.

Trader/Explorer says, "Why should I compromise my most efficient loadout to deal with encounters with PVP builds?"

PVPer says, "I gave up trading, mining, exploring, planetary landings, salvage missions, assassination missions in neighboring systems, literally every other game activity to have a PVP vessel. That's my compromise."

The irony is that, in order to afford a maxed-out FdL, and to gather the materials & travel the distances needed for engineering to the max, the PVPer at one point needed (and still needs) a non-PVP ship to run missions & jump some distance. And it was probably all done in Solo.

I agree with everything but your last sentiment. There is no reason that you can't gather mats and engineer in open, in a non-PvP ship.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yep, hence the "git gud" condescension posts. Those saying it aren't willing to compromise their own ships but they're sure as hell willing to tell everyone else to do the same.

"Because that's the way the game was designed."

Great, so the next time people whine about people playing in Solo and PG's remember to tell yourself the same.

Pretty much this - as there's no "fun" in being popped, while in one's non-combat ship of choice, while not seeking combat, by a meta-build-du-jour - not for me, anyway.

 

[Sylveria]

That's it - here's what I've been failing to articulate.

My questions is,?what exactly is it that you think combat ships should have to compromise on?

I'm not looking for a generic response. I'm looking for specifics.

Jump Range?
Cargo Space?
Multi-Role Utility?
Speed?

In your eyes, what exactly is the compromised capability that combat ships are wanting for?

How about defense vs damage projection? Or all of the above?

Why is it that you can fully outfit a defensible, combat ready Anaconda with a superior jump range and cargo slots to boot without sacrificing ANY defensive or offensive capability?

Why is the Python able to do the same in almost every respect excepting Jump range?

As a combat ship- if you initiate combat you already have an advantage to begin with.

Please don't tell me you're about to go into denial about this... I was actually starting to gain respect for some of the clarity in your posts...

 

[Robert Maynard]

PVPer says, "I gave up trading, mining, exploring, planetary landings, salvage missions, assassination missions in neighboring systems, literally every other game activity to have a PVP vessel. That's my compromise."

Arguably that's a focus through choice rather than a compromise through necessity.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Yep, hence the "git gud" condescension posts. Those saying it aren't willing to compromise their own ships but they're sure as hell willing to tell everyone else to do the same.

"Because that's the way the game was designed."

Great, so the next time people whine about people playing in Solo and PG's remember to tell yourself the same.

SOLO wont save you if you trade without shields ( not compromising a cargo spot)

 

[Theodrid]

That's it - here's what I've been failing to articulate.

My questions is,?what exactly is it that you think combat ships should have to compromise on?

I'm not looking for a generic response. I'm looking for specifics.

Jump Range?
Cargo Space?
Multi-Role Utility?
Speed?

In your eyes, what exactly is the compromised capability that combat ships are wanting for?

Specifically for me it's jump range vin, 0.5 ly jump range is stupid, it makes a mockery of the outfitting quite frankly, all I'm asking is for certain PVP ships, (within reason), to be able to jump to another system, be it to escape the proposed new super NPC's, pursue their prey or whatever. This is NOT a one way street though, I believe EVERY ship should have a minimum in terms of spaceworthiness, including defences, why I hear you ask?, well so the PF would be willing to insure it for starters, why would the PF insure ships that are either unsheilded or can't jump away from trouble when it gets too much? - I want the game to make a little more sense across the board.

 

[Phosphora]

Alternative to Step 2: Click 'Open' and fly smart? Iron Mouse!

I've tried solo/private and - ultimately - no matter the pro's and cons, the adrenalin just isn't the same.
Men's men play on ten and women's women, deep end swimmin'?

ps. I don't care what mode people play but open is very survivable, even on a below spec rig.

Marmite.

 

[Robert Maynard]

PvP in ED seems to create more problems and creates more hate between players than it actually supports interaction in my perception. Certainly miles away from the cooperative gameplay David Braben originally had in mind according to some of his early statements...

Thankfully Frontier fulfilled their design in relation to Private Groups and, on PC at least, permitted up to 20,000 members per.

With *careful* membership control, players can fill their boots with co-operative play.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

How about defense vs damage projection? Or all of the above?

Why is it that you can fully outfit a defensible, combat ready Anaconda with a superior jump range and cargo slots to boot without sacrificing ANY defensive or offensive capability?

Why is the Python able to do the same in almost every respect excepting Jump range?

As a combat ship- if you initiate combat you already have an advantage to begin with.

Please don't tell me you're about to go into denial about this... I was actually starting to gain respect for some of the clarity in your posts...

Specifically for me it's jump range vin, 0.5 ly jump range is stupid, it makes a mockery of the outfitting quite frankly, all I'm asking is for certain PVP ships, (within reason), to be able to jump to another system, be it to escape the proposed new super NPC's, pursue their prey or whatever. This is NOT a one way street though, I believe EVERY ship should have a minimum in terms of spaceworthiness, including defences, why I hear you ask?, well so the PF would be willing to insure it for starters, why would the PF insure ships that are either unsheilded or can't jump away from trouble when it gets too much? - I want the game to make a little more sense across the board.

Give me some time to answer you both.

 

[Sylveria]

Thankfully Frontier fulfilled their design in relation to Private Groups and, on PC at least, permitted up to 20,000 members per.

With *careful* membership control, players can fill their boots with co-operative play.

Still think adding more restrictive ability for PvP/PvE would take this MUCH further.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Yep, hence the "git gud" condescension posts. Those saying it aren't willing to compromise their own ships but they're sure as hell willing to tell everyone else to do the same.

"Because that's the way the game was designed."

Great, so the next time people whine about people playing in Solo and PG's remember to tell yourself the same.

I still didnt hear what do you compromise when trading?

 

[Jockey79]

In your eyes, what exactly is the compromised capability that combat ships are wanting for?

Available power.

Ships with a full array of guns, top level shielding and SCBs / heat sinks - this shouldn't happen.

If a trader wants to max cargo space, they give up their shields.
So if a pew pew boat wants to max out its pew pew, it should have to give something up - scbs / shields / utils.

Because s far, those glass cannons, are not made of glass.
Offence and defence should be a balancing act, not a chuck it all on approach.

Look at Ozrams video from our test a couple of weeks back, his Vulture is tanked.
Flak cannons, shields, shield boosters, chaff - all engineered to the hilt.
It shouldn't have all that survival gear on a small ship and guns that wreak ships twice its size at the same time.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I still didnt hear what do you compromise when trading?

If the ship is not optimised for trading then it is compromised, e.g. by increasing survivability beyond that required against NPCs.

 

[dubsdj]

I see the problem being that the more they do to split up the game into separate servers, the more sparse the player base will be. Best to stick to one server and think of alternate solutions for pvp.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

SOLO wont save you if you trade without shields ( not compromising a cargo spot)

Even with sub-par shields. Learned that when an NPC FDL almost wiped my new T-9 that was running a very sub-class shield.