Sounds like a lot of presumption from a singular data point.
- Status
Thousands of 'data points'. I read every post, by every forum user, in every stickied thread and every relevant forum user thread, across both Beta 2.2.3 and Beta 2.3.
There was a very small proportion of PvP-orientated players who were opposed to the changes, compared to a much larger proportion of PvE-orientated players in opposition.
If you also read every one of those thousands of posts, or are willing (?!) to do the same now via the archives, we can discuss our opinions about what those posts reveal from a position of equal familiarity.
But otherwise the 'presumption', I fear, may not be mine...
If the information you're relying on is one of the aggregate results (that it was more PvEers) then that one topic's result is one data point. I've realised it should also take into account the natural proportions of each - sadly only FDev really know
Heh, OK let's not argue. I suppose the truth is that even FDev don't know the preferences of the c.99% of their customers who don't post on forums, when it comes to proposed buffs/nerfs. The Developer knows every customer's current and past outfitting and engineering choices, but attempting to guess how those correlate (if at all) with future outfitting and engineering desires is largely art, not science.
I absolutely agree - that's always going to be missing from our information as we argue away here so other than some broad data that we have been told we're all people shouting "it looks flat from here"
The polemic just gets everyone upset.
Where the current system seems to fail is with potential resistance levels and potential maximum hit points (be it shield or hull).
On the face of things, FD seem to have analysed the situation and given the wider problems the nerfing of resistances/hit points typically causes (as exemplified by past attempts) their decided approach both has merit and fits with-in ED lore. Adding Xeno-Human hybrid weapons is a pretty canny move BUT I personally think they may have not actually changed much and may have made matters worse on-balance - depends on a number of factors which is why I am trying to keep an open-mind.
IMO from playing and modding various games similar to ED over the years there is nothing wrong with your viewpoint. However, choice if done right can rebalance things without fundamentally changing the original balance. However, if you take the necessary steps to do that you inevitably get differences in opinion.
To coin a phrase: there is more than one way to skin a cat.*
And while you should probably "eat the proverbial elephant one bite at a time"* there are disadvantages to that approach. In ED, the fundamental problem now is people. The choices have been given, and the balance situation has essentially created a divide that is unresolvable in a short time scale without upsetting one quadrant of the community or another.
Add more powerful weapons and some people will complain about making "glass cannons", nerf hit points and some people will complain about subverting "their progression". Addressing the core problems directly is a lose-lose situation, diversity is the only real way to bypass the whole situation without "throwing out the baby with the bath water"*. ED has the opportunity to add new damage types for example and limit their resistances and/or force build balance compromise to gain said resistances. Corrosive damage and shield by-passing weapons may be just the tip of the iceberg. Some weapons could even damage the firing ship in some way as a balance compromise for more powerful weapons - and no, I am not talking a M.A.D. approach but rather more something akin to health-sacrifice weapons/spells in some RPGs.
Taking the diversity approach and forcing compromise while doing so over a protracted period essentially can result in a net balanced situation. FD just need to try to ensure that any universally effective/resistive balance options with the end-state are not too effective.
* - disclaimer: no real world animals nor children were harmed in this philosophical debate and the harming or consumption of then is not being proposed nor advocated.
Last edited:
The 'Mega shield mafia' consists of 85% big 3 ship RES/CZ farmers. The remaining 15% are asymmetric PvP fans.
Most PvP players have been pro nerf.
The majority of PvE players that aren't all that focused on combat, didn't care either way.
To answer the original statement about pvp not being popular.
Who decided pvp is not popular, all I do in the game is engaging other players in consensual or non consensual PvP. Everyone I know in the game and in my group are the same.
From my prospective PvP is very popular actually.
If PvP was an actual vocal minority than how come we have mobious with 40k players. It is not reasonable to assume that a "vocal minority" caused so many players to leave open and create a large player group. It doesnt sound like a "minority" to be honest.
The whole game is balanced around PvP and that's why we dont have OP weapons like huge rails or missile and the constant rebalance of broken modules such as heat cannons and healing beams proves farther that PvP controls many aspects of the game.
Anywhere in OPEN where players congregate there will be PvP, just because the majority on those forums dont engage in it does not mean it is not popular.
Who decided pvp is not popular, all I do in the game is engaging other players in consensual or non consensual PvP. Everyone I know in the game and in my group are the same.
From my prospective PvP is very popular actually.
If PvP was an actual vocal minority than how come we have mobious with 40k players. It is not reasonable to assume that a "vocal minority" caused so many players to leave open and create a large player group. It doesnt sound like a "minority" to be honest.
The whole game is balanced around PvP and that's why we dont have OP weapons like huge rails or missile and the constant rebalance of broken modules such as heat cannons and healing beams proves farther that PvP controls many aspects of the game.
Anywhere in OPEN where players congregate there will be PvP, just because the majority on those forums dont engage in it does not mean it is not popular.
Yeah, I see your point. It probably is futile since Fdev seems set in their ways on this issue. I guess it's just kindof a "Do not go gentle into the night" thing with me.
On the whole solo/pve issue though, they really don't have a leg to stand on. This is coming from someone who was dedicated to solo and pve until recently when I decided I wanted more of a challenge, and even then I spend 90% of my time in solo, so I'm not just some evil pvper wanting to trample other people's game experience. The imbalance between player and npc ships is so massive right now that even if players lost half their shield overnight they would still be able to defeat elite big 3 npcs without a problem. My mining cutter, with 5A G4 thermal resistance prismatics, 7 average shied booster, an unengineered huge MC, two turreted efficient pulse laser and a SLF can take out elite npc bounty hunters and pirates in FDLs and Condas without losing a ring of shield with me flying the fighter and my npc flying the mother ship. And I am a pretty bad SLF pilot. I could EASILY quadruple my effective shields if I went for a combat build and maxed out everything with 3.0 rolls. That's not even mentioning the increase I could get in DPS, which could easily be doubled by just equipping a better stock loadout, not to mention the extra 75% I would get from g5 engineering. So even if you nerfed engineered shields by a factor of 4, npcs still wouldn't be a threat to a halfway competent player that was flying a ship with proper shielding.
The only reasons for players to want such an insane difference in npc and player effectiveness are either they want to be able to kill everything with no effort or skill, or to make up for cheats the npcs use that makes avoiding them impossible. The first is not a valid reason and the second could be remedied by simply removing those cheats (ie npcs don't spawn when you drop out on a random location on a ring, pirates and bounty hunters won't spawn pre-targeting you, ect.)
I don't think many of the people against nerfing super shield are arguing from the second perspective though. I think it just comes down to the fact that a certain subset of players don't want any challenge at all. They want npcs to be nothing more than moving targets for them to shoot at for credits. It's sad that frontier is caving to them.
Last edited:
That is not entirely true, while in a combat context I think an "effective" shield strength (according to Coriolis) of approx. 3k (Engineered 1.5k Boosted Bi-Weave with good resistances) is borderline OP (wrt the bigger ships I can see good reason for people in a non-combat context wanting/needing 3+k of absolute shields for high-G planetary landings in those ships. A c. 1.5k absolute (c. 3k effective) shield strength big ship can take 40% or more shield damage in lower end High-G planetary landing circumstances.
It is a myth that shields only matter in a combat context.
Last edited:
Sure, but those builds were hardly hurt by the suggested nerf to SBs.
Builds with three or fewer boosters didn’t lose much.
Those that complained and had the changes stoped, ran 6-8 boosters.
In order to achieve 3+k of absolute shield strength you need to run 6-8 boosters in reality, which was my point. This can be justified for high gravity surface operations in larger ships.
I was ambivalent over (neither opposed nor supported) the original proposed SB stacking nerf but I personally think that FD should have targeted the effective numbers rather than the absolute numbers - that could have been done through resistance penalties rather than absolute strength penalties. The same principle (resistance penalties) could also have been applied to HRP stacking too.
For those interested in high absolute shield values for collision/high gravity landing protection, resistance nerfs would probably have zero net penalty. Those trying to exploit such absurd shield levels in combat though would be justifiably knocked down a peg or two.
Those in smaller craft would probably not notice that much of a difference.
[EDIT]In the grand scheme of things, the shield/weapon strength aspects are not the actual root cause of the perceived PvP issues (they don't help matters though) but instead (IMO) it is the behaviours around how they can be used/misused (in a PvP context) that some deem acceptable. The C&P changes in 3.0 may address that to a degree but I am sceptical if there will be any noticeable positive effect overall - at least where PvP is concerned.[/EDIT]
Last edited:
Somewhere in different dimension with Smart AI v.23.21. Year 2029.
Almost 58% of all NPCs in space sim Elite Dangerous decided to block themselves in private group called Botius. NPC say, that they dont want to play with other PvE-players anymore because humans are too agressive, they kill for no real reason, pirate them, grief them, waste their precious in-game time. NPC have right to play the way they want to, they dont want challenge, they just want to play with other NPCs because it is much easier. They work hard for Humans, they have own families and they have only 1 or 2 hours per day to relax in their favourite game. Why they have to confront agressive Humans for no reason? They can play with each other in Open, they can kill each other, why they have to kill NPC? No more discrimination. They want to farm money, to pirate - they can play with other people in Open.
I am bad at joking, but all this situation around PVE and PVP look like this to me.
Almost 58% of all NPCs in space sim Elite Dangerous decided to block themselves in private group called Botius. NPC say, that they dont want to play with other PvE-players anymore because humans are too agressive, they kill for no real reason, pirate them, grief them, waste their precious in-game time. NPC have right to play the way they want to, they dont want challenge, they just want to play with other NPCs because it is much easier. They work hard for Humans, they have own families and they have only 1 or 2 hours per day to relax in their favourite game. Why they have to confront agressive Humans for no reason? They can play with each other in Open, they can kill each other, why they have to kill NPC? No more discrimination. They want to farm money, to pirate - they can play with other people in Open.
I am bad at joking, but all this situation around PVE and PVP look like this to me.
That's how it is already Wydocq. We don't see the vast majority of NPC traffic it's just presumed in the background.
If you want a "you see every single ship in game and can play total control" game you want The Other Space Game With All The Spreadsheets - this game doesn't cater to that sorta play.
If you want a "you see every single ship in game and can play total control" game you want The Other Space Game With All The Spreadsheets - this game doesn't cater to that sorta play.
Truth. But in this "Other Space Game With All The Spreadsheets" you dont have control over your ship :] Otherwise more people would play it.
Yup. So we get a constant stream of people who want That Game Only With First Person Shooty Stuff, and we've been getting them for years.
Doesn't work. Witness time dilation and give up - accept that this is what gives in that exchange.
First of all I don't think that it is the *VAST Majority* that are against PvP, although there certainly does seem to be an anti-pvp hardcore on these forums, There also seems to be a fair amount of hysteria on these forums regarding PvP and so called griefers, which imo is completely unjustified as after playing this game from beta i've only ever been griefed once....
For me Elite is a game where PvP sometimes happens, but it is not a game that is *about* PvP, when it happens its fun but for me it's only fun when there is a game reason for it, for example a pirate player attacking a trader player for his cargo... When it's becomes about attacking another player simple because they are there then for me it spoils it.
Last edited:
IDK but for me killing PVP is a deal breaker. I see no point in this new CandP system. If people didn't want to pvp there is solo and private modes. To punish players for pvping in open makes no sense. If they dont want us pvping they might as well make the player ships unkillable by other players. I know, sounds stupid. I would honestly love a refund just because of this. For me the only fun part of the game was in fighting other players. The npc's are boring, the constant grinding of the same missions over and over again is boring, and exploration is a joke. They literally just came in and took away the last fun thing the game had.
For at least some, even once is bad enough - Zero tolerance for bullying of any form is not hysteria, and griefing is a form of bullying. That being said, griefing is not the only behavioural concern some have over PvP although it is perhaps the one of the few PvP behaviours that is explicitly prohibited by code of conduct covenants in on-line games.
Further more, due to the instanced-peer-to-peer and expansive-play-space nature of ED there are random factors that mean one person's personal experience does not define how frequently any particular type of incident is likely to happen to anyone else regardless of how long they have played.
In at least some players' books, "attacking without in-game reason" is tantamount to griefing (if not explicitly griefing). Whether this is actually the case or not is a bit moot. Further more, as PC characters do not drop cargo, materials, or modules on death - proper piracy which involves a player being attacked should involve a demand for cargo. If there is no demand for cargo, then it is not proper piracy IMO.
Your cargo or bounty value are a dime in a dozen to anyone who has more than a billion credits which is majority of pvpiers.
There is no content for PvP ao anyhting non consentual will be called out "griefing". Fortunately, the game does not agree with this term and open PvP is one of the best features of this game. Take it away and I am uninstalling the same moment.
- Status