PvP The PvE <-> PvP Rift

[ColonelJack71]

You have GOT to be joking. The resistance to changes to balance PVP, such as those in the OP of this thread, are by players who want their victims to STAY victims. How did you read the thread and draw the exact opposite conclusion?? You didn't read the thread or the OP did you. Go on, admit it.

I'm with the Doctor. When a PVPer wants everyone in the same mode, do you think it's to have biscuits and tea together?

 

[mistohise]

You have GOT to be joking. The resistance to changes to balance PVP, such as those in the OP of this thread, are by players who want their victims to STAY victims. How did you read the thread and draw the exact opposite conclusion?? You didn't read the thread or the OP did you. Go on, admit it.

The OP said that they wanted to balance PvP by introducing tougher NPCs.

That doesn't really come across as balancing PvP to me.

 

[Aashenfox]

The OP said that they wanted to balance PvP by introducing tougher NPCs.

That doesn't really come across as balancing PvP to me.

Not agreeing with the method does not invalidate the concept.

Th epoint is the member came with a snarky 'I want moar vitims' comment, and that is just not in the slightest what this thread is about. If he or anyone else thinks it is, you need to read the thread again.

 

[Abil Midena]

...Anyway, the difference is that PvP in ELITE typically means a G5-modded and fully dedicated Combat Ship meets something that's not. End of story. And especially post-Engineers that's normally the end of the line.
1000-1500 DPS meets 125 DPS. 4000 SP meets 600 SP. 3500HP meets 900HP. Doesn't take a genius to predict what's most likely to happen if the non-Combat Ship sticks around.
Essentially PvP in ELITE is broken beyond(tm) repair if Combat Traffic seeking Combat meets General-Purpose Traffic seeking something else than Combat...

You hit the nail on the head right there.

 

[gribley]

So many people talking about the specalised nature of the ships are forgetting the core reason they get dunked on.

I have 600 million in rebuys. Lots of pvpers have well over a billion. It doesnt matter what you do to tweak the ships, if you dont know how to fly you are going to lose, and rightfully so. Surely someone with much more experience than you deserves to win. Granted the builds matter, i use lasers to carebear but would need to be drunk to use them in med ship pvp.

Regardless tho, if you want to pvp then the biggest block is the thousands of hours and hundreds of millions in rebuys. Before engeneers a select group stomped everyone who lacked pvp experience, and engeneers didnt change that at all.

You definately need to be engineered, but anyone rich enough to pvp should have access to all engeneers, and with the new system there is nothing stopping you from being on an equal footing.

 

[Dr Zarkov]

You have GOT to be joking. The resistance to changes to balance PVP, such as those in the OP of this thread, are by players who want their victims to STAY victims. How did you read the thread and draw the exact opposite conclusion?? You didn't read the thread or the OP did you. Go on, admit it.

I have read it whole. As I have read many, many similar ones from the day one. The bane of this game is PvP minority trying to force all the changes just focused on them.

In the bigger picture of ED, the whims of PvP'ers are way less important than the need for the significant improvements in mission logic, adequate pay per hazard, more variety to the universe etc etc... a whole spectrum of issues. This thread was supposed to be moved to PvP section instantly.

 

[Aashenfox]

I have read it whole. As I have read many, many similar ones from the day one. The bane of this game is PvP minority trying to force all the changes just focused on them.

In the bigger picture of ED, the whims of PvP'ers are way less important than the need for the significant improvements in mission logic, adequate pay per hazard, more variety to the universe etc etc... a whole spectrum of issues. This thread was supposed to be moved to PvP section instantly.

Why would a thread that primarily interests PVEers be moved to the PVP sectoin where nobody except PvPers are going to read it? Wouldn't that result in the situation you describe yourself in the post above? A circle jerk of complaining? How are you not seeing that this is not in the slightest what this thread is about.

Here's one, how did you think that you would close a theorycrafting thread with such a simple (and insulting to the contributors of the topic) non-statement? 3 pages and you think you can paint us all griefers in one blanket statement. /rolleyes

 

[Stigbob]

All of this "let's talk PvP-PvE rift" is just a thinly veiled "I want moar victims" cry.

No the OP's more PVP'er than PK'er, the PK'ers just want you to confuse the two because it generates salt from both PVE and PVP'ers.

 

[Cliffson]

The PvE/PvP rift is a simple one of equipment.

As long as it continues to be advantageous to stack every single slot on our ship with defense (boosters in the utes, hrps/mrps in the optionals), over a ship that carries ANY mission equipment whatsoever, this imbalance will continue.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, FD almost hit on the answer back in the day with specialist modules, unfortunately, they addressed it backwards (it is kinda counter intuitive, so bear with me). When they gave military ships military slots, what they should have done was the opposite, dedicate some slots on EVERY ship to NON-military items.

Example: Each small ship gets 1 non-military optional slot and 1 non military utility slot. Each medium ship gets 2 non military slots and 2 non military utilities, etc etc. Tweak for specific ships as needed.

This would mean every ship, pvp or pve would be able to max out defense and still be able to scan a system, carry 4t of cargo or scoop fuel and not be a total victim in combat.

Trust me when I say this is THE whole issue with pve vs pvp. As long as you enforce this equipment gap and continue to say 'pveers show their skill by successfully running away, herp derp', those who think its unfair will run in solo/pg.

This is why WoW has two gearsets, one for pve and one for pvp, it's kinda obvious to most gamemakers.

+1 from me. Before engineers, the stacking of hrp, scbs etc became the start of the widening gulf. That was when the concept of having a trader with teeth (vs players) died

Personally i'd go for each of scbs hrp mrps to be one per ship in normal slots with military slots allowing more. Coupled with an invrease in bulkhead multipliers and an increase to hrp/scb values some (Some ships may need slots adding/increasing in size).

There would then only be so much achievable difference betweeen pvp pve builds.

Utility mounts are then a seperate issue to address booster stacking.

Next step is add more powerful high end npcs to make farming builds less effective.

 

[mistohise]

Not agreeing with the method does not invalidate the concept.

Th epoint is the member came with a snarky 'I want moar vitims' comment, and that is just not in the slightest what this thread is about. If he or anyone else thinks it is, you need to read the thread again.

Sure, the snark adds nothing. Thing is, though, altering NPCs *was* the concept, rather than "balance". Altering the NPC range so that it's tougher doesn't particularly balance anything.

The crux of the issue is that there is no particular place you can get to where massively diverse play styles would be balanced. The compromises are extreme, because extremes exist, removing the extremes upsets the people sat on those extremes, generating salt. And those extreme edge people are vocal here, on both sides.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

On the combat side, the problem, I think, dates back to the original Elite. In that, the enemy ships were technically inferior: far smaller shields, rarely carried ECM, etc. - but they usually came in wings of 2-4 and sometimes bigger.

In FE2/FFE, again, the enemy ships were much less well-equipped than the player ship could be, and had terrible AI on top of that. They, again, often came in large wings.

In Elite Dangerous this pattern continues to an extent but:
- the player ship, unlike Elite, does not have intrinsic advantages over NPCs
- the player ship, unlike FE2/FFE, does not generally have much better outfitting decisions, or at least has to compromise to get them (therefore with a trade/exploration build, before engineering is taken into account, the NPCs are likely tougher than the player ships, at least on paper)
- the NPC AI is much more effective than previously
- running away from or entirely evading a fight with an NPC is much easier

So you end up with a situation where a 1v1 NPC fight is relatively straightforward in most cases provided you have weapons and shields yourself ... but a 2v1 or 3v1 fight requires a much better ship and pilot. With engineering and a decent build, sure, the wing assassination missions (6v1 or so) can be done solo, or a CZ can be a relaxing half-hour.

Ultimately I don't think it's a "PvP" versus "PvE" issue so much as a reflection of the giant disparity in power between a high-end engineered combat ship and a more generic multirole - my FDL can solo wing assassinations ... my trade/exploration Python can take on any single NPC but not two high-ranked ones at once ... my lounging-around Cobra largely runs away from fights.

More optional scenarios with high-end engineered NPCs and/or large NPC wings would be good. But I think that's all that can be done.

----

On the actual "PvP" versus "PvE" side, I agree with those who say that motivations is the main difference. PvPers want to fight something. PvEers ... vary a lot in how much they want to fight, from the people who solo wing assassination missions, to the people who find all NPC attacks an unwanted interference - note that while "PvPers attacking PvEers for an invalid reason" is a common complaint on these forums, "NPCs attacking Players for an invalid reason" does come up occasionally.

Again, more high-end optional NPC scenarios would help for the PvEers who want some more challenges and PvPers who can't find a fight right now.

(Note: optional doesn't have to mean USS-based: I'd quite like Elite-ranked courier/trade missions to have tougher opposition than they currently do show up to try to stop you - in exchange for higher pay)

 

[Aashenfox]

Sure, the snark adds nothing. Thing is, though, altering NPCs *was* the concept, rather than "balance". Altering the NPC range so that it's tougher doesn't particularly balance anything.

The crux of the issue is that there is no particular place you can get to where massively diverse play styles would be balanced. The compromises are extreme, because extremes exist, removing the extremes upsets the people sat on those extremes, generating salt. And those extreme edge people are vocal here, on both sides.

OK, but I think the solution is dead simple...

The PvE/PvP rift is a simple one of equipment.

As long as it continues to be advantageous to stack every single slot on our ship with defense (boosters in the utes, hrps/mrps in the optionals), over a ship that carries ANY mission equipment whatsoever, this imbalance will continue.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, FD almost hit on the answer back in the day with specialist modules, unfortunately, they addressed it backwards (it is kinda counter intuitive, so bear with me). When they gave military ships military slots, what they should have done was the opposite, dedicate some slots on EVERY ship to NON-military items.

Example: Each small ship gets 1 non-military optional slot and 1 non military utility slot. Each medium ship gets 2 non military slots and 2 non military utilities, etc etc. Tweak for specific ships as needed.

This would mean every ship, pvp or pve would be able to max out defense and still be able to scan a system, carry 4t of cargo or scoop fuel and not be a total victim in combat.

Trust me when I say this is THE whole issue with pve vs pvp. As long as you enforce this equipment gap and continue to say 'pveers show their skill by successfully running away, herp derp', those who think its unfair will run in solo/pg.

This is why WoW has two gearsets, one for pve and one for pvp, it's kinda obvious to most gamemakers.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Restricting optional slots to non-combat related items, on a ship that is clearly designed to be a combat ship, would also seem to be counter intuitive - from a design perspective.

 

[Aashenfox]

Restricting optional slots to non-combat related items, on a ship that is clearly designed to be a combat ship, would also seem to be counter intuitive - from a design perspective.

Easily justified, mass restrictions, any way you like. That small immersion breaker is a very small price to pay to bring everyone back to open, don't you think?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Easily justified, mass restrictions, any way you like. That small immersion breaker is a very small price to pay to bring everyone back to open, don't you think?

Combat builds would have to be crippled to a degree, in my opinion, that would very probably be unacceptable to most players if there was to be any real hope of encouraging *everyone* back to Open, i.e. escape from unwanted PvP combat would have to be practically guaranteed. Then there's the fact that there are players that will not, under any circumstances, play in Open - by choice.

I doubt that many would be prepared to pay that price.

 

[Aashenfox]

Combat builds would have to be crippled to a degree, in my opinion, that would very probably be unacceptable to most players if there was to be any real hope of encouraging *everyone* back to Open, i.e. escape from unwanted PvP combat would have to be practically guaranteed. Then there's the fact that there are players that will not, under any circumstances, play in Open - by choice.

I doubt that many would be prepared to pay that price.

No doubt you're right, and that continues to be exactly what holds this game back. People not willing to eat two grains of rice so that they can have a big plate of chips in the future. Just look at grandfathering for another example.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

The guld of difference between PvE and PvP is quite possibly the biggest factor preventing this game from achieving any amount of balance in the realm of combat. This has been an issue since before horizons, but the massive increase in power afforded by engineering, without a similar increase in power in NPCs, has changed a gap into a chasm. PvE became all about "farming" as many vastly technically inferior ships as quickly as possible, while PvP remained all about killing one (or a very small number of) ship(s). What this leads to is people basically playing two different games. What might seem fine for one person will seem like a mess to another, and vice versa. Mechanics that are of great importance to one person, may be completely irrelevant mysteries to another. Beyond the obvious challenge of balancing things to work in two vastly different environments, this huge gap also drives a wedge into the community. It all comes down to "PvE players vs. PvP players" in discussions, with ridiculous things like someone accusing someone else of being one or the other. It shouldn't be like that. It should just be people discussing COMBAT, not one type or the other, or which one is "better" than the other.
It doesn't need to be like this. If frontier would make a concerted effort to make top-ranking NPCs as close to fully optimized PvP fit ships as possible (and scale all other ranks evenly between that, and "harmless" NPCs remaining like they are), this division could go a way. Yes it would be a mess at first. Yes payouts would need to be adjusted, and cr/hr would be thrown into flux again. But guess what? That's because things are currently not in a good place. This craziness would be a pain, but it would get everyone on the same page. Real productive discussions could take place, with everyone now facing the same challenges and dealing with the same mechanics. Talks could change from "PvP vs. PvE", and instead become, "How can we make the game better?" Will this ever happen? I'm not sure. I tend to be doubtful. FDev has proven themselves to be quite hesitant to upset a given apple, much less the whole apple cart. I can hope, though, and we can all encourage them to take the hard steps that need to be taken.

I know this is (more than) a bit of a rant. I'm just exasperated. I'm tired of all the bickering, and I'm tired of myself and others needing to defend themselves, instead of their ideas. I plan on taking a leave from the forums for an indefinite amount of time. I fully intend to keep playing the game as I enjoy it (despite it's increasingly large amount of unrealized potential). If you feel like chatting, feel free to hit me up there (CMDR Frenotx). I may also still post videos to my youtube channel, since that's kinda fun to do. I need to disengage from the forums for a while, though. It's just too blasted frustrating and disappointing. So celebrate, I guess. You chased off another dirty "PvP player" trying to ruin the game.

Its about time Frontier speaks up about this stuff imo. It sucks people are having a tough time with this on both sides. Not really fair to the community at all.

Dancing around this stuff when they ask about saying. "PVP just exists in the game" When people ask for meaningful PVP instead of greifing is really not healthy for anyone.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No doubt you're right, and that continues to be exactly what holds this game back. People not willing to eat two grains of rice so that they can have a big plate of chips in the future.

People cannot be forced to play the game - and if changes are made that cause players to not have "fun" then they're less likely to play at all. I expect that Frontier's analysis of play-time / activity metrics from before, during and after the 2.1 implementation of bugged / enhanced NPCs gave quite some food for thought in that regard.

 

[Troy_McClure]

All of this has been discussed to death...but hey, why not go for it again!? Unlike COD for example, this game has many different types of player ie traders, miners, explorers; some of those are still combat ranked 'mostly harmless' or similar low ranks, hence the only way forward is ranked based &/or optional AI challenges - such as 'Mega Haz RESs' & engineered pirates.

The AI already fly really well - much better than the majority of players, if a little predictably - but are let down by their equipment, so just buff their load-outs with incremental engineering culminating in fully buffed Elite ships. This is so obvious it should have been implemented 2 years ago from the inception of 2.1...but as is usual with Frontier logic, it didn't happen!

Will it ever happen? Who knows - but it would be one step towards closing the gap between PvE & dedicated PvP - & that's what we are talking about here - some players say they PvP, but until you fight a Rinzler/Monstro/John Raanes/Sundae/Archon...you have no idea! Even the next level down: Chongo, StarfireIX etc (apologies if you guys are now in the same bracket as the former - but when I fought you, you weren't! [big grin]) will give you a kicking you won't forget in a hurry!

 

[Aashenfox]

People cannot be forced to play the game - and if changes are made that cause players to not have "fun" then they're less likely to play at all. I expect that Frontier's analysis of play-time / activity metrics from before, during and after the 2.1 implementation of bugged / enhanced NPCs gave quite some food for thought in that regard.

I don't see how introducing some module restrictions is going to cause people to have so little fun that they wouldn't want to play any more (whereas the OPs suggestion of pvp quality opponents might). On the contrary, I think people would find the game more fun after this change (levelling the griefer/mission runner playing field). The problem as you seem to infer yourself, is perception. People don't know what's a worthy sacrifice or not, because they don't really understand games, they just think something is being taken away rather than something being given to them. It's sad, really.