If FDev balances things such that combat is engaging for maxed-defense ships, then it will be overwhelming for more general builds and force players to hyper-specialize.
If Frontier did this, people might stop viewing the ridiculous gap between a specialised combat build and a hardened multirole as "just a PvP problem", when it took them 10 minutes per HazRES kill and they had to go back to refill their ammunition after each one.
It's notable that the Thargoids - which are a decent combat challenge - get that way by being basically immune to engineered weapons, and having numerous partial or total counters - phasing, corrosion, special attacks - to engineered defences. Similarly the ATRs are coming soon specifically built to counter engineering.
If Frontier did this, people might stop viewing the ridiculous gap between a specialised combat build and a hardened multirole as "just a PvP problem", when it took them 10 minutes per HazRES kill and they had to go back to refill their ammunition after each one.
It's notable that the Thargoids - which are a decent combat challenge - get that way by being basically immune to engineered weapons, and having numerous partial or total counters - phasing, corrosion, special attacks - to engineered defences. Similarly the ATRs are coming soon specifically built to counter engineering.
My ultimate dream is for there to be no distinction between PvE and PvP combat builds. For that to happen, NPCs need to have access to all the same stuff we do. For THAT to happen, engineering needs to be less powerful, otherwise new players and / or non-horizons players will pretty much be locked out of combat.
I don't see how "everyone who engages in combat, PvE or PvP" is a small number of players, or rare occasion. The issues with PvP are obvious, but ships having such a ridiculously wide range of possible health is bad for PvE, too. It makes balancing ships, and encounter difficulties challenging. An assassination mission that's appropriately difficult for someone with a "general purpose combat" build can suddenly become trivially easy if the pilot instead decides to stack nothing but defense. If FDev balances things such that combat is engaging for maxed-defense ships, then it will be overwhelming for more general builds and force players to hyper-specialize.
I get very annoyed when every balance suggestion I make is immediately countered with, "that only affects PvP, which almost nobody does, and thus shouldn't be balanced." PvE balance is very important to this game. Hell, I very rarely fight players in the first place- PvP is certainly on my mind when I make suggestions (because I want holistic balance), but PvE is my primary concern.
My ultimate dream is for there to be no distinction between PvE and PvP combat builds. For that to happen, NPCs need to have access to all the same stuff we do. For THAT to happen, engineering needs to be less powerful, otherwise new players and / or non-horizons players will pretty much be locked out of combat.
My ultimate dream is for there to be no distinction between PvE and PvP combat builds. For that to happen, NPCs need to have access to all the same stuff we do. For THAT to happen, engineering needs to be less powerful, otherwise new players and / or non-horizons players will pretty much be locked out of combat.
NPCs having access to all the stuff we do is something that I have been wanting a long time, but I also wouldn't want everyday NPCs that you meet a dozen of in every CZ to have access to the top end stuff. Elite NPCs having full G5 gear, but being appropriately rare would be the best solution as far as I can see. That way, common PvE builds can be used in battles of attrition against the lower ranked NPCs, but you would need to bring out PvP assassin builds to deal with high ranking opponents. Ideally, we would want the whole range of glass ships all the way through to fully militarised juggernauts all having their own place in the game. Glass freighters for high security milk runs, militarised ships for CZs and bounty hunting, while pirates and risky trade runs should be in the middle. What's needed is for the roles and tasks for ships to be better defined, not for the ships' loadouts to be undefined.
Currently in game regarding trade ships it breaks down to survival vs profit.
Trade ships by design can not stand toe to toe with a pirate ship even of a smaller class.
The Medium Type 6 only has two hard points for weapons, so right away you know this ships is not going to fight back with any sort of noticeable impact against a pirate.
Outfit with a 5A Shield, Dirty Drives, light weight modules and maybe mines or light weight turret cannons with Dispersal Field / Force Shell
Anything that will increase the Type 6 chances of getting back into supercruise or out of the system.
Compare the raw numbers and its easy to see the Type 6 will not last long against a Cobra MKIV pirate.
Completely expect pirates to be engineered so traders needs to also engineer to keep up with the growing threat.
The Keelback fairs better at trying to face the pirate with its increase in weapon hardpoints and ability to add a fighter. but at the loss of cargo capacity compared to the type 6.
It is all about the loadout and how clever each ship is built with a good helping of player skill. Traders pilot skills need to be on par with the pirate if not better to actually win a fight simply because the natural handy cap the trade ship imposes.
A pirates primary concern is the cargo, so they employ weapons that counter the ability to run away. Drag Munitions, FSD Interrupt, Scramble Spectrum anything that quickly disables the target. Keep in mind they also need space for limpets, FSD Interdiction, Wake scanner, cargo scanner and a bit of cargo so they are not normally over loaded with shield boosters, or hull reinforcements.
So traders can use this knowledge and outfit accordingly. Heavy Shields and Shield Boosters to survive the encounter long enough, ECM or Point Defense for those missiles, or Chaff for gimballed/turret weapons.
Outfitting the trade ship with defense weapons like the Cannons above, or raw firepower to bite back. The last thing a pirate expects is a trade ship to pump out enough damage to drop there shields in 34 seconds.
Here are some basic numbers to compare between the three builds.
Cobra MKIV Pirate Vs Keelback
Sys 1, Eng 1, Wep 4
Speed: 252/377 (4pips)
Remove Shields 0:33
Remove Hull 0:14
Sheilds Hold 0:28
Hull Hold: 0:11
Keelback Trader vs Cobra
Sys 4, Eng 1, Wep 1
Speed: 252/378 (4pips)
Remove Shields 0:34
Remove Hull 0:11
Shields Hold 1:30
Hull Hold 0:37
Type 6 Trader vs Cobra
SYS 4, Eng 1, Wep 1
Speed: 295/469 (4pips)
Remove Shields 4:37
Remove Hull: 1:00
Shields Hold 0:54
Hull Hold 0:04
The Keelback is designed to turn and face the pirate making him question if the cargo is worth the fight, the Type 6 is designed to run and make it as annoying as possible to keep chasing. Even with these hypothetical builds there is no guarantee the trade ship will survive. The chances are still better then an un-engineered shieldless trade ship with nothing but raw cargo and a pilot with dreams of pure profit.
I don't know why they don't just vary the utility slots and small compartments depending upon which bulkheads are purchased.
For instance military grade composite locks several of the internal modules to military only and reduces the size of some internal spaces. Lightweight subdivides a class 2 into two class 1s with max internal room at the expense of external utilites, the mirrored and reactive alter the number of utility slots and military slots...
Hence different internal and external arrangements depending upon role.
Currently in game regarding trade ships it breaks down to survival vs profit.
Trade ships by design can not stand toe to toe with a pirate ship even of a smaller class.
The Medium Type 6 only has two hard points for weapons, so right away you know this ships is not going to fight back with any sort of noticeable impact against a pirate.
Outfit with a 5A Shield, Dirty Drives, light weight modules and maybe mines or light weight turret cannons with Dispersal Field / Force Shell
Anything that will increase the Type 6 chances of getting back into supercruise or out of the system.
Compare the raw numbers and its easy to see the Type 6 will not last long against a Cobra MKIV pirate.
Completely expect pirates to be engineered so traders needs to also engineer to keep up with the growing threat.
The Keelback fairs better at trying to face the pirate with its increase in weapon hardpoints and ability to add a fighter. but at the loss of cargo capacity compared to the type 6.
It is all about the loadout and how clever each ship is built with a good helping of player skill. Traders pilot skills need to be on par with the pirate if not better to actually win a fight simply because the natural handy cap the trade ship imposes.
A pirates primary concern is the cargo, so they employ weapons that counter the ability to run away. Drag Munitions, FSD Interrupt, Scramble Spectrum anything that quickly disables the target. Keep in mind they also need space for limpets, FSD Interdiction, Wake scanner, cargo scanner and a bit of cargo so they are not normally over loaded with shield boosters, or hull reinforcements.
So traders can use this knowledge and outfit accordingly. Heavy Shields and Shield Boosters to survive the encounter long enough, ECM or Point Defense for those missiles, or Chaff for gimballed/turret weapons.
Outfitting the trade ship with defense weapons like the Cannons above, or raw firepower to bite back. The last thing a pirate expects is a trade ship to pump out enough damage to drop there shields in 34 seconds.
Here are some basic numbers to compare between the three builds.
Cobra MKIV Pirate Vs Keelback
Sys 1, Eng 1, Wep 4
Speed: 252/377 (4pips)
Remove Shields 0:33
Remove Hull 0:14
Sheilds Hold 0:28
Hull Hold: 0:11
Keelback Trader vs Cobra
Sys 4, Eng 1, Wep 1
Speed: 252/378 (4pips)
Remove Shields 0:34
Remove Hull 0:11
Shields Hold 1:30
Hull Hold 0:37
Type 6 Trader vs Cobra
SYS 4, Eng 1, Wep 1
Speed: 295/469 (4pips)
Remove Shields 4:37
Remove Hull: 1:00
Shields Hold 0:54
Hull Hold 0:04
The Keelback is designed to turn and face the pirate making him question if the cargo is worth the fight, the Type 6 is designed to run and make it as annoying as possible to keep chasing. Even with these hypothetical builds there is no guarantee the trade ship will survive. The chances are still better then an un-engineered shieldless trade ship with nothing but raw cargo and a pilot with dreams of pure profit.
That's how it should work, but in practice, isn't. Instead of choosing to go with a keelback instead of a t6 (to increase defense, at the cost of profit), a player can simply choose to stick with the max profit / min defense build and play in solo. To make matters worse, even if the player does go with the armored-cargo option of the keelback, the keelback's defenses are pathetic when compared to a combat-built ship. The keelback's defenses can be made decent, but it requires giving up the already small amount of cargo space, thus defeating the purpose. Ultimately, since piracy pays so poorly, the main player threat you need to be worried about is someone there to kill you. If you can't beat them in a fight, you best chance for survival is flying evasively while charging your FSD. Since you can't charge your FSD with your weapons out, there is no point in attacking someone / trying to defend yourself unless you think you can actually beat them.
Well, or hold out until the cavalry arrives - but even that requires a lot more resilience than either ship can provide
I think the problem in this particular case is rather more fundamental than just messing around with exact defense/offense combinations on ships, though - you'd need a completely different combat and encounter model.
* Make the T-6/Keelback/T-7 shield and hull much tougher - 10x, 20x, maybe more.
* Their weapons are still basically glorified point defense (though still some scope for fun with engineering specials) ... possibly make them even slower to heavily encourage use of turrets
* Make escaping combat with active hostiles virtually impossible.
* Allow sending out distress calls, hiring escorts, etc.
So then a battle around a freighter is more about which side's fighters win - but if the attackers do, the freighter can be looted at leisure. Basically dynamically setting up something like the escort/interdict convoy missions from Tie Fighter or Freespace.
That's basically "start over" levels of change, though.
That's how it should work, but in practice, isn't. Instead of choosing to go with a keelback instead of a t6 (to increase defense, at the cost of profit), a player can simply choose to stick with the max profit / min defense build and play in solo. To make matters worse, even if the player does go with the armored-cargo option of the keelback, the keelback's defenses are pathetic when compared to a combat-built ship. The keelback's defenses can be made decent, but it requires giving up the already small amount of cargo space, thus defeating the purpose. Ultimately, since piracy pays so poorly, the main player threat you need to be worried about is someone there to kill you. If you can't beat them in a fight, you best chance for survival is flying evasively while charging your FSD. Since you can't charge your FSD with your weapons out, there is no point in attacking someone / trying to defend yourself unless you think you can actually beat them.
And once again you are pointing out how the real issue here is the combination of PvP murderhobos being a threat in open and toothless NPCs not providing a credible threat in solo. PvP Murderhobos is a problem unique to open, the rest of the game isn't afflicted by them, and that problem needs addressing in its own right rather than flipping the board in an attempt to "fix" the problem. Toothless NPCs I agree are a problem everywhere, but that's an issue of them being stupid and having faulty interdictors; the NPC pirates, as well as bounty hunters and system authorities, do need significant additional work, both in intelligence and overall effectiveness.
A trader shouldn't be attacked by a fully militarised ship unless they have done something particularly stupid (such as wandering into a CZ, being found by bounty hunters, flying around with a massive bounty on their heads or getting into a massive brawl with system authority), the ones that traders are most likely to be facing off against will be pirates - which also cannot be fully militarised due to them requiring cargo bays themselves to pick up loot, not to mention how they should probably have limpets and an FSD interdictor. A Keelback stands a reasonable chance of fending off likely small pirates or initial system authority responders if equipped as a hybrid, such as cobras and vipers and maybe even an Asp, but it should never be expected to deal with the likes of an FDL or an Anaconda. Likewise, a T6 should be a massive magnet for pirates, because they should know that T6s are soft targets which then can then confirm by scanning, which would relegate completely unmilitarised builds (no defensive modules beyond the bare minimum shield generator) for the safest possible routes carrying the cheapest and least valuable cargo.
Not a fan of it bud. IMO this is just moving away from ship diversification and towards every ship having the same build, and still won't solve anything; there will always be a disparity between combat and multirole builds, and there always should be.
I have never seen sense in any suggestion trying to get players cruising in Open doing trade/missions to be able to stand toe to toe with an attacking PvP ship. It will simply never happen. If you want to beat an optimised combat build you will need to bring your own, and that is true for any game that has this kind of outfitting/customisation.
Outfitting is already in favour of the escapee thanks to shield engineering, and that is ultimately the only balancing aspect of all this that needs to be sorted. I don't wanna see hull tank builds become inviable in an attempt to make every ship be capable of doing all roles at once.
My ultimate dream is for there to be no distinction between PvE and PvP combat builds. For that to happen, NPCs need to have access to all the same stuff we do. For THAT to happen, engineering needs to be less powerful, otherwise new players and / or non-horizons players will pretty much be locked out of combat.
You might need to specify what difference exists between PvP/PvE builds before trying to fix it, because from what I see there is nothing to fix; a build that is good for combat in PvP is good in PvE. The disparity you are talking about is between combat and non combat vessels, and will always remain. Even FD made it crystal clear that outfitting is a game of choice and sacrifice; we will not be getting ships optimised to do everything at once.
You might need to specify what difference exists between PvP/PvE builds before trying to fix it, because from what I see there is nothing to fix; a build that is good for combat in PvP is good in PvE. The disparity you are talking about is between combat and non combat vessels, and will always remain. Even FD made it crystal clear that outfitting is a game of choice and sacrifice; we will not be getting ships optimised to do everything at once.
Depends on the PvE activity. For combat the skills translate, but the offensive requirement is different. For PvE the focus is on multiple, relatively short engagements, for PvP the focus is more on the single fight.
For PvP you really are only talking about combat with a much lesser focus on say cargo space & limpets (for a pirate), there are few benefits to PvP to fitting scanners rather than shield boosters, or large cargo bays rather than reinforcements.
We are not flying military vehicles, we are in civilian ships. Not a tank, a toyota pickup with an RPG in the bed. If you add much armour to your pickup truck it's not going to be as fast as a normal one.
Pure Combat builds maintain way too much of their regular manoeuvrability & speed, the compromise should be far greater imo, to allow more varied builds to compete in different ways. Speed OR hitpoints, firepower OR shields etc.
That's how it should work, but in practice, isn't. Instead of choosing to go with a keelback instead of a t6 (to increase defense, at the cost of profit), a player can simply choose to stick with the max profit / min defense build and play in solo. To make matters worse, even if the player does go with the armored-cargo option of the keelback, the keelback's defenses are pathetic when compared to a combat-built ship. The keelback's defenses can be made decent, but it requires giving up the already small amount of cargo space, thus defeating the purpose. Ultimately, since piracy pays so poorly, the main player threat you need to be worried about is someone there to kill you. If you can't beat them in a fight, you best chance for survival is flying evasively while charging your FSD. Since you can't charge your FSD with your weapons out, there is no point in attacking someone / trying to defend yourself unless you think you can actually beat them.
Ah ok i see where you are coming from
Looking for a way to resolve the issue of space gankers. Players who kill easy targets in open, not for profit, cargo, or a in game reason.
The new Crime and Punishment is one tool FD is adding to address these issues. Making the killing spree more and more of a hassle to remove off the pilots record.
• Notoriety increases by one whenever a Commander commits a murder crime.
• For each level of notoriety, murder bounty values are increased by a fraction of the perpetrator's rebuy cost - the higher the notoriety, the bigger the fraction.
• If the victim is a Commander (a player rather than an NPC) then you pay 10% percent per point of notoriety of the difference between your base rebuy cost, factoring in engineering, and the victim’s rebuy cost.
• In addition, Commanders that are destroyed have their rebuy cost reduced based on the notoriety level of their murderer - the more notorious the assassin, the bigger the discount on rebuy cost for the victim.
Granted the trader still loses the cargo and has the annoyance of being destroyed in the first place, but hope is it will happen less and less.
If a player sends the typical "im a pirate message" before interdicting me i normally submit and play along with the "RP", most times i dont have cargo anyway it was already delivered.
When im interdicted without warning by a player i know i will be running, so i will try to avoid the interdiction or if close enough willingly slam into the exclusion zone of a nearby planet.
Maybe its the time of day but i play in open all the time and its rare i come across one of the murderhobos as one person called it.
Flying in a wing, with one as the escort really is a lot of fun when being interdicted, by PC or NPC. as the escort is armed for combat. With Wing Nav lock on the wing will be forced down into the same instance as the trade ship and give the attacker an unexpected surprise.
I completely agree the ability to tank or withstand any sort of onslot from a pure combat pvp build ship with a trade ship is a gesture in futility. FD decided instead of making adjustments to all the ships capabilities they would add different tools to discourage this type of play style.
Don't get me wrong i like your idea, its fair and has balanced but reduces alot of build choices we currently have on ships, and as another person noticed. making major changes to the ship is the last thing FD will do. They are more willing to add then take away.
If your looking for a wing escort i would be more then happy to fly with you in open while you trade. you can add CMDR Wetwire.
Depends on the PvE activity. For combat the skills translate, but the offensive requirement is different. For PvE the focus is on multiple, relatively short engagements, for PvP the focus is more on the single fight.
For PvP you really are only talking about combat with a much lesser focus on say cargo space & limpets (for a pirate), there are few benefits to PvP to fitting scanners rather than shield boosters, or large cargo bays rather than reinforcements.
We are not flying military vehicles, we are in civilian ships. Not a tank, a toyota pickup with an RPG in the bed. If you add much armour to your pickup truck it's not going to be as fast as a normal one.
Pure Combat builds maintain way too much of their regular manoeuvrability & speed, the compromise should be far greater imo, to allow more varied builds to compete in different ways. Speed OR hitpoints, firepower OR shields etc.
But you are still talking about general combat v. multirole builds for the most part here, and that part is never going to change. Anyone that thinks general mission running or trade ships will ever stand up to carefully crafted combat ships is utterly deluding themself. It is akin to complaining that playing skyrim as an orc in heavy armour and 2 handed hammers doesn't facilitate stealth.
The only part you hint at that is relevant between PvP and PvE builds conceptually is longevity, i.e. multiple fights v singular - but defenses are so inflated that it no longer applies; some single PvP fights are as long as a brief BHing session for many CMDRs. Running in to PvP spamming a full multicannon loadout will quite happily see you emptying your ammo reserves against most shield tanks, and following the synth nerf you can no longer bypass that as an issue. So yeah, a lot of PvPers that actually see action know that lasors are becoming increasingly more relevant.
Honestly, none of this is a problem. Being able to specialise in a role is the heart and soul of ED: "blaze your own trail" and all. A trader shouldn't be expected to have the ship nor the skill to butcher a honed combat player in appropriate ship, though they unquestionably have the resources to survive almost unconditionally with basic techniques.
The only real issue we should look at is why a PvP vessel would attack a trader for sheer destruction. It should absolutely be possible but it should be open to consequence in high sec areas and should be less appealimg compared to more constructive PvP (e.g. piracy), but unfortunately FD's delusional C&P changes continually drive towards inconveniencing everything BUT murder.
Edit: Frenotx is generally a very perceptive CMDR and rightfully points out that FD's unwillingness to implement capable NPC vessels really drives this sentiment. If Elite NPCs were actually Elite skilled and had top end engineering, I suspect players would find them more difficult than many lower end CMDRs, and the only difference between takimg either on would be tactical ability - this is inherent to any PvP in any game - and that the radar contact would be hollow.
But you are still talking about general combat v. multirole builds for the most part here, and that part is never going to change. Anyone that thinks general mission running or trade ships will ever stand up to carefully crafted combat ships is utterly deluding themself. It is akin to complaining that playing skyrim as an orc in heavy armour and 2 handed hammers doesn't facilitate stealth.
The only part you hint at that is relevant between PvP and PvE builds conceptually is longevity, i.e. multiple fights v several - but defenses are so inflated that it no longer applies; some single PvP fights are as long as a brief BHing session for many CMDRs. Running in to PvP spamming a full multicannon loadout will quite happily see you emptying your ammo reserves against most shield tanks, and following the synth nerf you can no longer bypass that as an issue. So yeah, a lot of PvPers that actually see action know that lasors are becoming increasingly more relevant.
Honestly, none of this is a problem. Being able to specialise in a role is the heart and soul of ED: "blaze your own trail" and all. A trader shouldn't be expected to have the ship nor the skill to butcher a honed combat player in appropriate ship, though they unquestionably have the resources to survive almost unconditionally with basic techniques.
The only real issue we should look at is why a PvP vessel would attack a trader for sheer destruction. It should absolutely be possible but it should be open to consequence in high sec areas and should be less appealimg compared to more constructive PvP (e.g. piracy), but unfortunately FD's delusional C&P changes continually drive towards inconveniencing everything BUT murder.
Edit: Frenotx is generally a very perceptive CMDR and rightfully points out that FD's unwillingness to implement capable NPC vessels really drives this sentiment. If Elite NPCs were actually Elite skilled and had top end engineering, I suspect players would find them more difficult than many lower end CMDRs, and the only difference between takimg either on would be tactical ability - this is inherent to any PvP in any game - and that the radar contact would be hollow.
I'm not in favour of buffing NPCs just to give some semblance of balance between PvE & PvP, the NPCs are generally cannon fodder and more challenging NPCs are (rightfully) gated content already in the game. I think some players will always clamour for more challenging AI instead of accepting that the only way the AI will be harder to beat is with more of them, if a player is looking for an intelligent opponent the obvious answer is another human, not AI.
So I see PvP (as a challenge) being the one that requires proper on-the-fly adaptive skill, NPCs are (as a challenge) lots & lots of predictable cannon fodder where the skill is in identifying the pattern (as with thargoids).
Leave the AI as-is, FDev have messed around with them too much already when all that's needed is to fix bugs & refine. No more major changes.
The issue is with the disparity between a pure combat build and any other loadout. As I mentioned above the downside to focusing purely on armour & reinforcements should be much greater mass (like 5-10x what we have now) so that adding it becomes a proper dilemma rather than just a no-brainer yes for combat.
That way skill is still a factor, armour becomes a tool for the meek, and the skilled player is capable of doing more than just running away if they are not in a pure combat ship themselves.
The issue is with the disparity between a pure combat build and any other loadout. As I mentioned above the downside to focusing purely on armour & reinforcements should be much greater mass (like 5-10x what we have now) so that adding it becomes a proper dilemma rather than just a no-brainer yes for combat.
That way skill is still a factor, armour becomes a tool for the meek, and the skilled player is capable of doing more than just running away if they are not in a pure combat ship themselves.
This is no issue. As above, it is delusional to think multipurpose vessels can or should be as combat capable as...well, a combat vessel lol.
Relating it to PvP and PvE disparity, this stands especially true if NPCs are to remain at their mindless level. Even if you have the ship for combat, you do not have the skill; you could be gifted a meta PvP FDL but it does not mean you will be uploading videos of yourself downing Rinzler. A pure combat player will beat a non combat player because, you know, it is what he does-and likewise if PvE players refuse to engage with challening opponents they will not have the skill to beat a PvP player. Ergo, weak NPCs provide the only true PvP vs PvE disparity, in the form of skillset. And to say the game should have no challenging NPCs, when you know full well it would be optional, is unequivocally selfish.
Don't think you can mould all players into the same player. Create a galaxy that allows for natural interaction and let players "blaze their own trail".
This is no issue. As above, it is delusional to think multipurpose vessels can or should be as combat capable as...well, a combat vessel lol.
Relating it to PvP and PvE disparity, this stands especially true if NPCs are to remain at their mindless level. Even if you have the ship for combat, you do not have the skill; you could be gifted a meta PvP FDL but it does not mean you will be uploading videos of yourself downing Rinzler. A pure combat player will beat a non combat player because, you know, it is what he does-and likewise if PvE players refuse to engage with challening opponents they will not have the skill to beat a PvP player. Ergo, weak NPCs provide the only true PvP vs PvE disparity, in the form of skillset. And to say the game should have no challenging NPCs, when you know full well it would be optional, is unequivocally selfish.
Don't think you can mould all players into the same player. Create a galaxy that allows for natural interaction and let players "blaze their own trail".
Okay clearly I'm going to have to spell this out, I had assumed you were familiar with the issue at hand and we were moving forward:
A dedicated combat build is going to have more armour, and more shield boosters (hitpoint buffing modules) than a non-dedicated loadout. This is an inevitable result of min/maxing and not the issue.
The issue is the disparity, how much difference these hitpoint buffing modules make.
So any proposal which reduces this difference is good in my book, whether it be to nerf them, remove them from the game completely (my preferred solution) or just give them a big downside (mass, power consumption etc).
That a combat focused build is better at combat is (I thought) so obvious it goes without saying.
On to player skill.
Not every PvP player is amazeballs, the ones I meet are usually on a par or less experienced (with FA-off, pip management etc) than I am, and I'm no hotshot I've just played a lot. There is no significant skill disparity between a typical ganker (that I might meet) in open vs a typical PvE open player (like me).
Clearly a more skilled player is going to do better, there is no dispute nor solution required to handle player skill disparity. The issue is with the hitpoint buffing modules, not players, not NPCs, just those modules. The rest is just playing the game with the cards you were dealt.
You might need to specify what difference exists between PvP/PvE builds before trying to fix it, because from what I see there is nothing to fix; a build that is good for combat in PvP is good in PvE. The disparity you are talking about is between combat and non combat vessels, and will always remain. Even FD made it crystal clear that outfitting is a game of choice and sacrifice; we will not be getting ships optimised to do everything at once.
SRV Hanger (for scanning comm towers [comes up in assassination missions])
Discovery scanner (time saving for assassination missions)
Collector limpet (potentially for gathering materials from killed ships)
PDT (useful for missile-happy NPCs, useless vs. packhound-happy commanders)
Fuel scoop (Very handy if your combat missions take you to different systems, or if you like to follow bounty CGs)
LESS DRIVE to take SCBs, since their limited number of charges makes them less appealing on multi-engagement sorties typical of many PvE combat types.
Those are just for combat. Not really a multi-purpose ship- just one engaging exclusively in PvE combat content. If someone is looking to be multi-purpose, then the demand for modules rises even higher. Obviously this list doesn't include MRPs and HRPs, as those will just be filling in whatever space is left.
Honestly, none of this is a problem. Being able to specialise in a role is the heart and soul of ED: "blaze your own trail" and all. A trader shouldn't be expected to have the ship nor the skill to butcher a honed combat player in appropriate ship, though they unquestionably have the resources to survive almost unconditionally with basic techniques.
By having specialization make such an extreme difference (hyper specialization), variety in interaction is lessened. If you're in a trade ship and anything other than another trade ship jumps you, you know your only option is to run. There is 0 point of even having weapon hardpoints on the ship. The interaction is boring, and has no questions about it. Hyper specialization leads to cut-and-dry interactions between ships built for different tasks, and boring cookie-cutter setup for ships of the same task.
I'm of the opinion that the single-fight performance for ships needs to be fairly consistent in order to have interesting player-on-player interactions, and that specialization should instead help in other ways. Take combat, for instance: Right now, specializing for combat just giving you way more health (thus making your chosen activity easier, less risky, and less exciting). Instead, it could give you more multi-fight endurance. Ability to quickly repair between fights, ability to restock ammo, ability locate new targets more easily / using more methods, ability to engage in more combat-related activities (prisoner capture)... stuff like that.
P.S.
Combat ships can still have an advantage over comparable multirole ships: Firepower, speed, and / or agility. They don't need to have an overwhelming health advantage, too. Again, just giving combat focused ships a much larger health pool is about the most boring way to give them an advantage.
The way the outfitting works, multipurpose usually means "bad at everything".
Mining: at least 3 internals and 1 hardpoint (ideally more), plus cargo space
Exploration: at least 3 internals (ideally 5 or 6), low weight
Trading: as few used internals as possible
Combat: lots of internals, high weight
Multirole to me means it can be configured for multiple roles - the FDL will never make a good trade ship, the T-6 will always be outclassed in combat by much cheaper ships - but not necessarily at the same time.
(The Python can make a pretty decent armoured hauler, I think. You won't be carrying much with it, or winning much PvP alone either, but 64t of heavily protected cargo is practical)
Okay clearly I'm going to have to spell this out, I had assumed you were familiar with the issue at hand and we were moving forward:
...
The issue is the disparity, how much difference these hitpoint buffing modules make.
So any proposal which reduces this difference is good in my book, whether it be to nerf them, remove them from the game completely (my preferred solution) or just give them a big downside (mass, power consumption etc).
You can spell it out as many times as you like, it won't change anything - I don't misunderstand you, I disagree with you, and have seen nothing that I infer as a legit problem to ED.
Shield health inflation is a problem, yes - frankly hull can be left alone thank you very much - but this is still not the answer. Shields and SCBs inherently provide a disproportionate health advantages with almost no drawbacks, but we won't fix it by forcing everyone to fly the same ship. It still doesn't change that one module can provide thousands of effective mj health compared to hull giving a few hundred hp, less resistances, and having all the vulnerabilities hull brings.
SRV Hanger (for scanning comm towers [comes up in assassination missions])
Discovery scanner (time saving for assassination missions)
Collector limpet (potentially for gathering materials from killed ships)
PDT (useful for missile-happy NPCs, useless vs. packhound-happy commanders)
Fuel scoop (Very handy if your combat missions take you to different systems, or if you like to follow bounty CGs)
LESS DRIVE to take SCBs, since their limited number of charges makes them less appealing on multi-engagement sorties typical of many PvE combat types.
Those are just for combat. Not really a multi-purpose ship- just one engaging exclusively in PvE combat content. If someone is looking to be multi-purpose, then the demand for modules rises even higher. Obviously this list doesn't include MRPs and HRPs, as those will just be filling in whatever space is left.
If a multipurpose ship can't even begin to compete with a combat ship, then is it really multirole?
There seems to be a conception people are fostering here that once you remove a single HRP or MRP you are no longer classed as a combat build and will die the moment you look at a ship that is HRP/MRP only.
Might I remind you that many meta PvP players sacrifice a slot from their FDL for an interdictor? You are obviously well aware that a lack of internals is the FDL's only real combat flaw, and so sacrificing even one HRP is a fairly substantial..and yet most PvE players would still crumble like dust when interdicted by said meta FDL.
For the record this is one more slot not dedicated to combat than would be found on my PvE vessels; when I go to combat in PvE I bring nothing at all but combat modules, because I am prepared at all times for the worst, and am happy to sacrifice the few pennies a KWS brings, or a fuel scoop I won't use, or an SRV because I am fighting and not doing planetary runs...but even if I did lose a slot or two, I could still take on the majority of PvE players, because NPCs do not train you to tangle with high-level opponents and there's no need to engineer properly.
Make the level of concession that is appropriate to you and your playstyle and deal with it: most players can lose a slot or two and not forfeit all their combat ability. If you want to be full to the brim with mission modules however, you shouldn't expect to stand against a pure combat vessel, and if it's your standard outfit you probably won't have the skills to fight back against a PvPer even given a meta PvP ship.
Engineering is another matter but the base outfitting is surprisingly well conceived. I appreciate what you're getting at, trust me, but it's great that for once FD are strongly pro-consequence; they've made it clear your outfitting choices are exactly that - a choice you have to make - and every choice you make is intended to have an offset. Let's not remove the one and only piece of consequence in the game. If you want to reduce the disparity between PvE and PvP players, teach PvE players to fight and engineer properly by giving them challenging opponents, instead of forcing everyone to fly the same ship and still not resolving anything because the PvE player knows nothing more than pitching and FA Off boost turns.
