PvP Why PvP is not popular in Elite Dangerous?

[frostypaw]

I own it, but lost interest in it after twice having trouble logging into a server to play. Which is why I said "I haven't had the pleasure" because technically I couldn't even play it. Besides that, it's not even the same kind of game as ED, is it? Way more emphasis on being on foot in a spacesuit and using rifles, and survival elements, then ED judging from the trailers...which begs the question: how do you make the comparison, frosty? Is your lack of understanding of PvP in ED really that profound?

Jason it was used as an example of a space game played under hardcore rulesets because people thought it was what they wanted. That's all.

I really want to think of you as a reasonable and thoughtful person, but this sort of stuff makes it difficult.

 

[jasonbarron]

Jason it was used as an example of a space game played under hardcore rulesets because people thought it was what they wanted. That's all.

I really want to think of you as a reasonable and thoughtful person, but this sort of stuff makes it difficult.

Ok, I thought you were making a literal comparison, sorry for the snark.

 

[popuptoaster]

I enjoyed the harder to kill NPCs (Not the ones that were cheating) and love the risk of losing billions of credits but not interested in losing them to other players in open.

The way the game is set up makes no logical sense within it's own universe it's often bad enough in solo let alone in open where players can mess with what little order there is, there is no incentive to run cargo into anarchy systems and players can drop into supposedly safe systems and still kill you pretty easy unless you are in a combat capable vessel.

No one is hunted by the law, the pilots federation doesn't seem to care about it's members "murdering" each other, clients don't seem to care that their goods get pirated, players can shut down stations without the station seeming to care despite them housing thousands of people and being seemingly reliant on cargo vessels.

For those players who want the game world to make sense, Open is just terrible, you get randomly jumped by "Bigchunks#007-lover" in a high security system who destroys your almost empty cargo ship and then is gone with what is basically no consequences.

If you are looking for a game with a sense of realism and wholeness to it you avoid open like the plague, especially since the engineers and their magic weapons effects were introduced.

I don't know why PVP players keep trying to get more players into PVP, if you want to fight real players just get a thread together that arranges for all of you to be in one system at the same time and have yourselves a big war.

 

[Truesilver]

Engineers are not the larger part of the problem, the core stacking mechanics are the root of the problem.

V3.0 may help a bit with the introduction of the new Experimental weapons that may help defeat Shield and Hull tanks - especially if FD allow us to engineer them. The changes to engineering should also help combat the current imbalance caused by people farming god rolls on engineering. I was initially sceptical about those changes but I have been sold on them with the Beta.

Whether the collective changes in V3.0 will be enough to counter the overall issues there are with PvP meta builds v. other builds is going to be something only time will truly tell, but personally I think the changes are welcome but too little too late to salvage the situation with PvP. If they address the core stacking mechanic issues then there may be some hope, but given their last attempt to address this was stamped on hard by a vocal segment of the community I doubt we will ever truly have an effective resolution for the underlying concerns.

There's always been an argument (interesting and valid yet unpopular) that all ships should have a proportion of internals reserved for 100% non-PvP stuff, so that a pirate or miner or mission runner or whatever might not be at a total disadvantage against a full-PvP build.

Alexander the Grape, one of our most successful PvP duellists, has always been an advocate of this.

All that said though, there would have to be monumental changes in game design to create a situation whereby, if a PvE and a PvP build duke it out, even assuming even skill, the playing field would be completely level.

but I'm consequently trying an unusual combination of throttle and mouse atm - the utility of a throttle block, the precision of mouse. It's still not as fun as full HOTAS, but it works a treat. I like having multiple functions easily accessible.

Great(?) minds as ever, Mr Stitch. I was actually considering doing the same thing but kickstarter backed the Lexip project instead.

I don't know why PVP players keep trying to get more players into PVP, if you want to fight real players just get a thread together that arranges for all of you to be in one system at the same time and have yourselves a big war.

Understood, though actually it's long since happened. We've had 3 seasons of the PvP League and many players now hang out via the PvP Hub Discord, which is basically a permanent, daily, player-driven match-made PvP system in an anarchy.

I was astonished to learn that the system in question comes under constant, yet invisible, concerted BGS attack...

 

[lenna]

There's always been an argument (interesting and valid yet unpopular) that all ships should have a proportion of internals reserved for 100% non-PvP stuff, so that a pirate or miner or mission runner or whatever might not be at a total disadvantage against a full-PvP build.

Alexander the Grape, one of our most successful PvP duellists, has always been an advocate of this.

All that said though, there would have to be monumental changes in game design to create a situation whereby, if a PvE and a PvP build duke it out, even assuming even skill, the playing field would be completely level.

Not really, just need to make the stacking mechanic more balanced... for example...

The following rules could apply...

1. Keep the additive effect of stacking points
2. But reduce overall resistance proportional to the added points (e.g. double the shield strength = half the positive effect of resistances for example, maybe not quite that extreme but you get the point I hope)
3. When engineering adds resistance, make the overall increase proportional to the points that the resistive component adds.

This would allow people to still have mega-point shield/hull but it becomes more susceptible to damage to compensate. This would not affect those using mega-shields to compensate for hi-g landings in larger ships. It would also lower the effectiveness of so called god builds which try to use resistance stacking to make their ships effectively immune to damage.

Resistance stacked builds would be nerfed but still better off than those without resistance stacking since the benefit will still be additive just reduced and offset to a degree by reductions in base resistance.

Point stacked builds would still have a slight edge but due to reduced resistances enemy weapons would be more effective (unless they compensate with resistance stacking).

Overall, while it may not completely cure the underlying issues with stacking and larger ships it would help to mitigate the issues to a large degree in a fairly balanced way.

 

[popuptoaster]

Not really, just need to make the stacking mechanic more balanced... for example...

The following rules could apply...

1. Keep the additive effect of stacking points
2. But reduce overall resistance proportional to the added points (e.g. double the shield strength = half the positive effect of resistances for example, maybe not quite that extreme but you get the point I hope)
3. When engineering adds resistance, make the overall increase proportional to the points that the resistive component adds.

This would allow people to still have mega-point shield/hull but it becomes more susceptible to damage to compensate. This would not affect those using mega-shields to compensate for hi-g landings in larger ships. It would also lower the effectiveness of so called god builds which try to use resistance stacking to make their ships effectively immune to damage.

Resistance stacked builds would be nerfed but still better off than those without resistance stacking since the benefit will still be additive just reduced and offset to a degree by reductions in base resistance.

Point stacked builds would still have a slight edge but due to reduced resistances enemy weapons would be more effective (unless they compensate with resistance stacking).

Overall, while it may not completely cure the underlying issues with stacking and larger ships it would help to mitigate the issues to a large degree in a fairly balanced way.

It wont help, in the real world people can drive lorries full of stuff because the crims know the police are pretty effective at stopping crime, when piracy became to much of an issue in the days of tall ships, nations got involved and effectively shut down the pirates (or used them for their own nefarious purposes against other nations ships of course).

Messing with engineered effects or tweaks to the crime and punishment system are not going to bring lots of traders into open play, it will mostly remain the domain of PVP players who want a fight, no one wants to be a constant victim to crime and piracy.

Being a pirate should be fun in game but it should also be risky, not many lived to old age or kept their wealth in reality, in this game though all the risk is on the most vulnerable players, until that changes you wont get them (as a rule) into open.

Piracy should involve planning, finding vulnerable areas, laying in wait for victims and for the victims those areas should offer large rewards for trading, most would know the dangerous areas, it would be rare a newbie stumbled in and got robbed, most would be players who were taking the risk for the high rewards, thus enabling them to run the routes with less cargo and more guns while still remaining economical.

 

[Roybe]

You are right. Strong incentives are missing, for both sides. For being a criminal with all its risks (something that's hopefully being addressed now) but also for the trader to take the risk of being pirated. But that would require an asymmetric treatment of Open and Solo/Groups. Something the devs seem to avoid like the plague (huge number of cans of worms ahead, I guess).

When people understand that this will never occur, the forums will be much quieter.

 

[popuptoaster]

You know what might help if the payout in anarchy systems was high enough to make it worthwhile?

The ability to hire a wing of Elite NPCs (without their piloting skils nerfed) flying engineered ships and module for trade ships that could "cool" its escort ships so they could remain hidden until a pirate jumped them. Traders would feel safer but at a cost of credits and pirates might get a bit of an adrenaline rush once an interdiction was successful and they suddenly found they had a real fight on their hands, if they won though they get to take goods that are worth loads because anarchy system.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Han_Zen]

You are right. Strong incentives are missing, for both sides. For being a criminal with all its risks (something that's hopefully being addressed now) but also for the trader to take the risk of being pirated. But that would require an asymmetric treatment of Open and Solo/Groups. Something the devs seem to avoid like the plague (huge number of cans of worms ahead, I guess).

It’s also worth remembering that tha modes in ED aren’t realy modes. They are just instancing filtres.
Solo= block all filter
PG = block all but members filter
Open= bllock only block list filter

This is very economical from a development and testing perspective.

 

[Roybe]

It’s also worth remembering that tha modes in ED aren’t realy modes. They are just instancing filtres.
Solo= block all filter
PG = block all but members filter
Open= bllock only block list filter

This is very economical from a development and testing perspective.

That's the reason for why the modes have to be symmetrical...they are not different parts of the game...they are an overlay over the whole game.

 

[frostypaw]

Ain't that just the problem. Being a criminal isn't the fun and jolly equal career choice people want it to be to fit the fantasies if the rest of the world has to fit realistically around it so the other careers can get by.

Though of course too often "criminal" = "just pewpew everything" throwing any plans, measures or explanations out of whack.

 

[lenna]

Messing with engineered effects or tweaks to the crime and punishment system are not going to bring lots of traders into open play, it will mostly remain the domain of PVP players who want a fight, no one wants to be a constant victim to crime and piracy.

You are right in ONE regard, people will generally not engage in PvP just so they can be someone else's content.

However, negating or sufficiently mitigated the imbalance of certain build choices due to blatant flaws in core mechanics would help with the more general and wider situation.

Regardless of changes in this area, there will still be certain unwise people who think they should be able to get away with flying around in poorly defended ships (lacking shields and/or weapons). In those cases, nothing much is likely to change.

For others that like to mix and match our activities and are not solely focused on PvP, it would help to level the playing field.

Where piracy is concerned, it should be seen as viable in a Player Pirate PvE context and measures should be in place IMO to ensure that the "language barrier" is not an issue where Piracy is concerned. It would be nice to see a growth in counter-piracy/counter-smuggling PvX gameplay too - i.e. players being be able to operate in the position of a Customs/Police/Border-control vessel (in support of existing NPC agendas).

While PvP is a consideration for Piracy, PvP should not be defined by piracy nor should piracy be considered even mostly PvP.

 

[Truesilver]

Not really, just need to make the stacking mechanic more balanced... for example...

The following rules could apply...

1. Keep the additive effect of stacking points
2. But reduce overall resistance proportional to the added points (e.g. double the shield strength = half the positive effect of resistances for example, maybe not quite that extreme but you get the point I hope)
3. When engineering adds resistance, make the overall increase proportional to the points that the resistive component adds.

I do like this ^^ although it wouldn't actually affect TTK in most current PvP encounters very much, assuming apex builds.

The reason is that apex PvP shield defences currently tend to take the form of either a light build with circa 30-50% resistances to all damage types on a low Mj thermal bi-weave, or a reinforced prismatic and full HD boosters. The former relies upon resistances plus active regen, the latter has poor resistances and regen but full raw Mj. Because the most popular damage dealer is stacked plasma (60% absolute damage) overall I don't think your proposal ... even though I like it as anti-inflationary ... would alter TTK very much.

I can see the argument that if a guy is using pulse lasers for RES farming it might help a little if being jumped but really, the two main drivers of inflated TTK in PvP are currently (a) the power of active regen and evasion or (b) raw Mj. Resistances are a component part of the former but not so much the latter.

Note that I'm not saying that (a) is a bad thing, particularly as for well over a year it was pretty much my whole game! But just recognising it. But by and large PvP builds tend to go for either a low Mj + high resists or high Mj + low resists strategy, not so much both.

So basically what I'm saying is, "Right direction imo but in order to level the playing field more between PvE and PvP builds and/or to reduce PvP TTK we would need to go further."

 

[lenna]

So basically what I'm saying is, "Right direction imo but in order to level the playing field more between PvE and PvP builds and/or to reduce PvP TTK we would need to go further."

Indeed, there are other factors that could also be addressed such as the relative effectiveness of various weapons but I would say the problem is less about reducing TTK per se but making TTK across the board more balanced.

If I had my way, with no other changes, I would probably consider having shields hard capped at "~1.5k with Bi-Weave regen and nominal resistances" and balance the top end shields around that. Hull is a bit more complex, but I would probably also reduce heat dissipation rates in some way proportional to percentage hull increases above a certain level - as well as making the hulls above said level more brittle/susceptible to damage.

However, FD have already tried to go down that road (or something similar) and encountered resistance from certain vocal quarters of the ED community. *shrug*

 

[Truesilver]

However, FD have already tried to go down that road (or something similar) and encountered resistance from certain vocal quarters of the ED community. *shrug*

Yep although (for some reason not widely known, it seems) we do know from Sandro what's coming (Livestream):

- No direct nerf to shields or boosters
- No undermining of players prior work
- Hence diminishing returns or any other form of direct nerf to the booster-stacked builds that customers built unlikely

But as we go through ED's 3.x series:

- Development of new weapons and specials that directly harm shields/boosters and/or by-pass
- Leading to a meta that is somewhat less base-shield orientated and consistent with FDev's objective of
- Greater parity between hull and shield PvP

This of course neatly sidesteps the two objections of the primarily PvE objectors to 2.2.3 and 2.3 Betas:

- I ground for my build
- I will be too vulnerable to massed NPC's

... because of course basically nothing changes in either respect.

I super-welcome all of the above and have been asking for the ability to attack boosters directly since Summer of 2016.

However, without major other changes to NPC's, it does seem to me that all of the above will either only be relevant to PvP, or insofar as relevant to PvE simply increase the Cmdr>NPC advantage yet further.

 

[Darty]

Yep although (for some reason not widely known, it seems) we do know from Sandro what's coming (Livestream):

- No direct nerf to shields or boosters
- No undermining of players prior work
- Hence diminishing returns or any other form of direct nerf to the booster-stacked builds that customers built unlikely

But as we go through ED's 3.x series:

- Development of new weapons and specials that directly harm shields/boosters and/or by-pass
- Leading to a meta that is somewhat less base-shield orientated and consistent with FDev's objective of
- Greater parity between hull and shield PvP

This of course neatly sidesteps the two objections of the primarily PvE objectors to 2.2.3 and 2.3 Betas:

- I ground for my build
- I will be too vulnerable to massed NPC's

... because of course basically nothing changes in either respect.

I super-welcome all of the above and have been asking for the ability to attack boosters directly since Summer of 2016.

However, without major other changes to NPC's, it does seem to me that all of the above will either only be relevant to PvP, or insofar as relevant to PvE simply increase the Cmdr>NPC advantage yet further.

I'm very unhappy about the changes. By adding more shield bypassing instead of nerfing shields, the devs are saying "Yeah we completely broke the shield mechanics so we're just going to throw the whole thing away instead of fixing it because fixing it would upset some people." It's a terrible design strategy and it doesn't even accomplish it's goal of not nerfing players equipment, as if everyone is able to shoot through your shields they are actually less useful than if fdev had just nerfed all shield booster blueprints to only provide 35% total shield boost each with max engineering or 10% resistance. It is so much harder if not impossible to balance shields against a weapon that ignores or bypasses them. Either the weapon will have too many negative side effects to be worthwhile, or it won't have enough and will make shields next to useless in pvp. Moreover, if you DO find some way to balance it, the resulting meta will be very boring and un fun for both sides, as 90% of the battle will come down to the player's builds.

Sometimes you ave to break a few eggs to make an omelet, and sometimes you have to nerf some gear to balance a game. I understand why fdev don't want to go this route, as it's never fun to have to be the "bad guy" for the greater good of the game, especially when the reason you have to nerf is because you messed up in such an idiotic fashion as allowing players to more than quadruple their shield strength with very little side effects.

 

[Truesilver]

I'm very unhappy about the changes. By adding more shield bypassing instead of nerfing shields, the devs are saying "Yeah we completely broke the shield mechanics so we're just going to throw the whole thing away instead of fixing it because fixing it would upset some people." It's a terrible design strategy and it doesn't even accomplish it's goal of not nerfing players equipment, as if everyone is able to shoot through your shields they are actually less useful than if fdev had just nerfed all shield booster blueprints to only provide 35% total shield boost each with max engineering or 10% resistance. It is so much harder if not impossible to balance shields against a weapon that ignores or bypasses them. Either the weapon will have too many negative side effects to be worthwhile, or it won't have enough and will make shields next to useless in pvp. Moreover, if you DO find some way to balance it, the resulting meta will be very boring and un fun for both sides, as 90% of the battle will come down to the player's builds.

Sometimes you ave to break a few eggs to make an omelet, and sometimes you have to nerf some gear to balance a game. I understand why fdev don't want to go this route, as it's never fun to have to be the "bad guy" for the greater good of the game, especially when the reason you have to nerf is because you messed up in such an idiotic fashion as allowing players to more than quadruple their shield strength with very little side effects.

You are definitely right. I've read your post twice and agree with every word of it.

The reality though is that Frontier have decided to work towards a solution that leaves the Solo/PG PvE guys unaffected (even though some, I know, would actually agree with changes - but many would not).

I agree that this design decision means that the shield by-passes that will hit Open will have some strange consequences. But I think Frontier's position is clear. I occasionally put a lot of personal capital into trying to change balance issues affecting PvP but I'm not going to try to change this one. I can see it would be futile.

 

[frostypaw]

The reality though is that Frontier have decided to work towards a solution that leaves the Solo/PG PvE guys unaffected (even though some, I know, would actually agree with changes - but many would not).

Eh?

Not everything is moves for/against the "Solo/PG PvE guys" who seem to be a well defined group to you.

I'm pretty sure this change happens in all modes and both PvP AND PvE cmdrs have ground themselves out fancy shields.

It's pandering to the grinders in all modes and all playstyles, that's all.

 

[lenna]

Yep although (for some reason not widely known, it seems) we do know from Sandro what's coming (Livestream):

- No direct nerf to shields or boosters
- No undermining of players prior work
- Hence diminishing returns or any other form of direct nerf to the booster-stacked builds that customers built unlikely

But as we go through ED's 3.x series:

- Development of new weapons and specials that directly harm shields/boosters and/or by-pass
- Leading to a meta that is somewhat less base-shield orientated and consistent with FDev's objective of
- Greater parity between hull and shield PvP.

Personally, I am reserving judgement on the new weapons but I hope they are not all locked behind a personal "grind fest wall", looked at them early in the Beta and thought the required materials and material quantities would probably rule me out from ever getting them. Depends on how many ways there are to acquire the Thargoid materials. I don't particularly want to go poking them unless there is no choice - I can do without the new weapons if the only way to get them is to poke Thargoids.

Overall, I have solid doubts about FDs weapon focused approach to the problem - it would make matters even worse for PvEers in at least some cases.

 

[Truesilver]

Eh?

Not everything is moves for/against the "Solo/PG PvE guys" who seem to be a well defined group to you.

I'm pretty sure this change happens in all modes and both PvP AND PvE cmdrs have ground themselves out fancy shields.

It's pandering to the grinders in all modes and all playstyles, that's all.

Yes but having participated very thoroughly in two failed Beta attempts to nerf booster-stacked shields (2.2.3 and 2.3) I can say that almost every single PvP contributor to those forums was demanding hp reduction whereas the PvE contributions were more mixed.

Not 100% against, not by any means, but more mixed. There was a clear difference in breakdown (% for, % against) by whether PvP or PvE was the contributor's preferred playstyle. This was not inference, in one Dev-stickied thread we actually had to state our playstyle in a questionnaire format and the differences were clear.