PvP The PvE <-> PvP Rift

[lenna]

Wrong. If you change the player power level, so should the NPC's. Otherwise you turn the game into a trivial point & click to win game.

That how all the games do it. I don't get why ED should be any different. I mean, it would be like diablo using the Act I mobs in Act IV without
changing the HP or anything. When my expert NPC can clean up a CZ all by himself in my Corvette, it's quite telling of how absurdly OP it is.

The Corvette is not OP by any stretch of the imagination - the same goes for the Anaconda, Cutter, and T10D - However, there are certain builds that can make them ALL OP and that is primarily down to excessively exploiting certain stacking mechanics. It is totally possible for a player piloted Corvette to get out of their depth in a CZ (even a low intensity one) - at least in the cases of not exploiting certain "god builds".

The big issue with ED in that regard is the fact that engineering is HZ only. If it was open to the core version, it would make tuning the
NPC difficulty curve less of a headache.

When Horizons was released, I highlighted the divide it created - effectively giving one set of players a place other players (who did not own the expansion) could not follow them into. These areas are sufficiently widespread across the universe to make it justifiable to segregate those running Horizons from those not running Horizons. The Horizons owners could still load the base game to play with/against those that do not own it (at the cost of engineering being disabled in their ships) and certain Horizons exclusive ships not being available - or at least prevent them from instancing with the Horizons players perhaps.

I disagree with the OP's stance, I also disagree with the principle of unlocking expansion exclusive content in part or in whole for non-expansion owners.

In general, I do not disagree that there are certain build concerns that when exploited in a combat setting can make certain encounters feel unbalanced (especially in a PvP setting) but FD already seem to have a path to deal with this issue with resistance and shield ignoring weapons. IMO In the PvE setting, there are already challenging combat opportunities for those that do not excessively exploit certain mechanics.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

No, I didn't know that. But I guess that they had a group meeting and decided the result.



I totally agree and would love to see it happen as well with every player enjoying Open mode versus too many fearing it.



What is the defense for those who take advantage of it? It's that darn balance problem again. But hey, start a thread prompting it and see if Frontier responds with the next update. Get Frenotx to assist as he researches an issue, complies the data then makes an excellent case to promote an idea. The best I've seen in years. When Frontier makes a decision I'll go with it.



Yes, that is a different story and I totally agree. If one is going into harm's way with Power Play or Community Goals bring on their best game play face. I also don't like circumventing CGs with Group or Solo but that's another discussion in another thread. I suspect it is balance for new players joining in but derails the purpose for experienced players. I don't see a Frontier solution.



You basically summarized my post with one sentence. Thanks.



People like me? Now you are getting personal. Darn and we were agreeing on many points doing so well...Must be that typing a text message can be taken 10 different ways. I should have used more emoticons.

Best Regards

No worries dude. Wasnt trying to make it personal. A lot of people dont understand if they are involved in powerplay and BGS work that they are indeed PVPing. Even though they may not have weapons on their ships.

They just think its seal clubbing.

Really frustrating sometimes.

 

[Muetdhiver]

The Corvette is not OP by any stretch of the imagination - the same goes for the Anaconda, Cutter, and T10D - However, there are certain builds that can make them ALL OP and that is primarily down to excessively exploiting certain stacking mechanics. It is totally possible for a player piloted Corvette to get out of their depth in a CZ (even a low intensity one) - at least in the cases of not exploiting certain "god builds".


When Horizons was released, I highlighted the divide it created - effectively giving one set of players a place other players (who did not own the expansion) could not follow them into. These areas are sufficiently widespread across the universe to make it justifiable to segregate those running Horizons from those not running Horizons. The Horizons owners could still load the base game to play with/against those that do not own it (at the cost of engineering being disabled in their ships) and certain Horizons exclusive ships not being available - or at least prevent them from instancing with the Horizons players perhaps.

I disagree with the OP's stance, I also disagree with the principle of unlocking expansion exclusive content in part or in whole for non-expansion owners.

In general, I do not disagree that there are certain build concerns that when exploited in a combat setting can make certain encounters feel unbalanced (especially in a PvP setting) but FD already seem to have a path to deal with this issue with resistance and shield ignoring weapons. IMO In the PvE setting, there are already challenging combat opportunities for those that do not excessively exploit certain mechanics.

I agree that if one restrain himself not to use more than 4 G5 boosters on the big3/FDL, things are mosty ok. Still introducing +70% shield boosters was pure stupidity IMO. x3.5 over stock value is .
Still, out of CZ's, any fight between a player modded ship and an equivalent unmodded NPC ship is trivial, no matter the NPC rank. This is not good.

In the short term I think FD could consider doing something like :

• Introduce engineered ships and wings in Hazardous RES and high intensity RES. Don't touch the regular / low ones.
• Add rank 5/6/7 human SS.
• Introduce some engineered "flag" ships in high intensity CZ's, giving higher payouts.
• More difficulty 5/6/7 missions
• Avoid engineered NPC's in non-consensual PvE (sounds wired, but you get my meaning).
• Mark engineered NPC's with a bolt in front of their rank (so that you know what you get into)

Since those are all cases where the player choose to get into combat, it would be fine. In fact I can't think
of any downside that would come from this.

 

[kofeyh]

Who do you think?

Cute, but it was a fairly rhetorical question.

Given that Horizons is an optional extra to the base game and that players of the base game are not locked out of it due to not owning Horizons....

Not sure what this is saying. Pretty sure not owning horizons actually locks you out of considerable content at this point; I think Frontier's motives, again, are pretty clear here. As is the determination to ignore the differences when building the experience.

Frontier are great people, and work super hard. They're also pretty transparent at this point. 3.0 was the time to reset expectations and knuckle down to build a rock-solid experience. I hope they manage to get on top of that; I want to believe I'll still be playing by the end of the year.

I'm not sure I will be though. That's not because of PVP people. Or because of greifers. Or because I'm offended people are in open or solo or what version they are in. It will be because Frontier had a great opportunity to reset the tone and experience, as said they would. But didn't. There are hints of greatness. Really. There's so much promise.

But I've been fooled by claims by Frontier, before. They don't get to do that again, for free.

--

Just as an aside, I've enjoyed debates with you m8, honestly. You're prepared to have a civil discussion, regardless of the topic and I can respect that. But I don't think this place has helped the game, and it's been the attributable cause of a few missteps from Frontier. And I kinda like the game too much to make that situation worse, by continuing to engage here.

3.0 has become the "we're breaking stuff in live because why not" edition; that's not entirely what was promised.

Fly safe o7.

 

[Stigbob]

Not sure what this is saying. Pretty sure not owning horizons actually locks you out of considerable content at this point; I think Frontier's motives, again, are pretty clear here.

I can't play fallout 4 I've not been locked out of content, I just haven't bought it.

 

[Dural]

Trouble is, that's fine in an FPS where there's nothing to do except killing or being killed.
Not so much in a game which claims a wide variety of available pursuits.

Let's face it, it's not a problem unique to ED either.
Look at a game like, say, Minecraft and the community is a total salt-mine over the issue of people trying to build monuments or farms on a server while other people get their yucks just by blowing stuff up "cos they can".

About the only way you're ever going to fix this to the satisfaction of all parties would be to develop a mirror of a modern society, where we're all bound to act in a law-abiding manner or face the near-certainty of a properly punitive response.

I still hope that can be made to work in ED if C&P can be made tough enough to effectively deter serious criminal behaviour in high/medium-sec systems without being so convoluted as to create undue hassle over minor offences while, at the same time, giving outlaws the freedom to do their thing in low-sec systems and giving lawful players plenty of reasons to risk visiting those places.

Alas, I fear there's always be some players who just get their jollies by "beating the system" and inflicting their brand of "emergent gameplay" on people who aren't interested in it, which is why there'll always be room for groups like Mobius.

It's kind of like seeing a bunch of anglers hammer the living poop out of a lake until they've completely wrecked the ecology of it and then complaining that there's no good fishing to be had.
If PvPers in ED aren't happy with the lack of people in Open, it's because they've driven so many players away from Open with lousy behaviour.

Yes, exactly, killing other commanders for the sake of it in ED is operating outside the mechanics or activity streams. It is not purely galaxy wide DM and that's not how a lot of people want to play.

It would make a lot of sense to expand C&P (I like the direction it's going) but to have increased penalties in designated areas (around the starting systems as one area) and lower penalties in others with the draw of say rare materials in open only outside of the safer zones to encourage players to visit those areas. Supersized Davs Hope type areas in "less policed" or lawless in open only might even encourage players to wing up and go in groups to collect materials if the rewards are worth the risk as an example. Personally, I'd do that and it would give people a mechanism to swap the grind of collection for some exciting and rewarding gameplay. Anyway, that's getting too far into specifics. One problem with C&P at the moment is mistakes and collateral damage to the feds or clean players can instantly lead to a visit to the IF. Perhaps shield only damage can never be more than a fine while hull damage means a bounty or something? The difficult thing is getting the balance and application of punishments accurate and appropriate as there is no jury or mechanism for appeal so it's not possible to factor in intent which is critical in meting out appropriate punishments. Determining the punishments is also tricky. Someone with a lot of money isn't going to care. Bounties won't bother people. If someone deliberately killed a number of players in "safe space" then disabling their ship for a period of time might make them behave.

Excellent angling analogy.

At the moment it sounds a bit like having gangs of MMA fighters roaming the streets mugging people. The only way to deal with that is to become an MMA fighter and travel in groups with other MMA fighters and that simply isn't practical or possible for almost everyone.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Cute, but it was a fairly rhetorical question.

.... then why frame it as a question at all?

Not sure what this is saying. Pretty sure not owning horizons actually locks you out of considerable content at this point; I think Frontier's motives, again, are pretty clear here.

One is not locked out of any content from the base game - that's what I'm saying. That one does not have access to content that one has not paid for seems to be quite reasonable.

 

[kofeyh]

I can't play fallout 4 I've not been locked out of content, I just haven't bought it.

That's not even a relevant example. It's if Bethesda added the DLC, then made the core rely on the DLC for key mechanics. Bethesda didn't do that. The entire game can be played without the DLC; and this won't ostensibly change the experience for the core game.

Horizons by comparison? lol. Where do I even start. Easy, I won't, because continuing to engage here, won't help one tot. Fly safe. o7

 

[Han_Zen]

Not everyone owns Horizons - so not everyone has access to Engineers.

Players of the base game also require to be able to play the game.

This is an important point.

One does not fix the problem of over powered player ships by buffing NPCs to the same OP level. SCB popping NPC Anacondas has not made AI combat better.

As I see it, there are two reasons for the current imbalance between players and NPCs.

1. Massacre type game play as a main source of income, creates the need for super strong endurance builds. The quicker you can kill, the more cr you make. You kill quicker, if you can ignore incoming fire. As long as effective(cr/hr) bounty hunting is designed as 3D space invaders, players will demand builds that are efficient in the role.

2. The need for none combat ships to be able to survive a PvP attack. Because of point 1, all PvP ships are essentially indestructible. They can't even kill each other in a 1 vs 1. To mend this issue, FD has introduced a bunch of special effects(+ PP modules and synth ammo) that counters specific defenses. These effects are mostly only relevant in PvP and make wing fights almost functional.
The side effect is of course that they invalidates otherwise adequate trader or multi-role defenses.


The power creep loop goes:

- Massacre play is more effective with massive defense. Buffing is popular.
- PvP players will always max their defenses.
- There must be weapons available to players, that can take down maxed defenses. If not, PvP is completely pointless.
- Non combat players lose to much internal/utility capacity by adding adequate defense. They switch to Solo/PG.
- Defense is buffed to get more players in Open.

It's a tight knot. It can't be untied. It has to be cut open.

 

[Stigbob]

That's not even a relevant example. It's if Bethesda added the DLC, then made the core rely on the DLC for key mechanics. Bethesda didn't do that. The entire game can be played without the DLC; and this won't ostensibly change the experience for the core game.

Horizons by comparison? lol. Where do I even start. Easy, I won't, because continuing to engage here, won't help one tot. Fly safe. o7

You need to buy the thing to have the thing, simples.

 

[kofeyh]

One is not locked out of any content from the base game - that's what I'm saying. That one does not have access to content that one has not paid for seems to be quite reasonable.

Cool, so if you don't own that content, you don't get to decide what happens within that; or how it might shape the game because it doesn't have any bearing on the 1.x release. Except when it does. Like AI difficulty, or PVP 2.x ships whizzing around next to 1.x because the developer, hilariously, didn't think to just use matchmaking to seperate major-release players to avoid the obvious differences, which would also allow more granularity in AI capabilities.

Sometimes, Robert, it's because the developer, like players, is human, and just doesn't think through some of it's changes very well, and then decides that they don't see the issues the constructive feedback on that decision making is giving, until it becomes screaming and or the damage has been done.

--

I really like Frontier. I've met some of the team and I think they are amazing. They are also tone-deaf at times. And all of this 1.x vs 2.0, open versus solo, etc is just a giant diversion from the fact Frontier are struggling to get a cogent, stable vision out the door and people are looking for scapegoats like never before.

I really, honestly hope they nail this sucker. It's an amazing game, let down by some less than amazing experiences.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Cool, so if you don't own that content, you don't get to decide what happens within that; or how it might shape the game because it doesn't have any bearing on the 1.x release. Except when it does. Like AI difficulty, or PVP 2.x ships whizzing around next to 1.x because the developer, hilariously, didn't think to just use matchmaking to seperate major-release players to avoid the obvious differences.

Does anyone, other than Frontier, get to decide what happens within that content?

Using matchmaking to segregate players based on whether or not they had bought Horizons would be a double edged sword - as there would be those who would use it to avoid other players - and there would be those who would complain that "their" galaxy was quieter than they'd like (because not all players, even in the same mode, on the same platform, would be visible).

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

.... then why frame it as a question at all?



One is not locked out of any content from the base game - that's what I'm saying. That one does not have access to content that one has not paid for seems to be quite reasonable.

Technically it's not locking out of content - but if the AI engineered bulletsponges spawn it's just not fun anymore, takes significantly longer and isn't worth it on top. In fact, it just feels like being locked out.

 

[Lateralus]

Yes, exactly, killing other commanders for the sake of it in ED is operating outside the mechanics or activity streams. It is not purely galaxy wide DM and that's not how a lot of people want to play.

Operating outside of the mechanics or activity streams? Please explain..

As most of you guys usually enjoy raking up ancient FDev blurb to support your arguments - here you go:

 

[M00ka]

Does anyone, other than Frontier, get to decide what happens within that content?

Using matchmaking to segregate players based on whether or not they had bought Horizons would be a double edged sword - as there would be those who would use it to avoid other players - and there would be those who would complain that "their" galaxy was quieter than they'd like (because not all players, even in the same mode, on the same platform, would be visible).

Just a quick question Robert, do you have any idea the percentage of current players who don't own Horizons? Since Horizons was released in Dec 2015 I would find it difficult to understand why someone who still plays ED hasn't purchased Horizons given the additional content contained in it.

 

[kofeyh]

Does anyone, other than Frontier, get to decide what happens within that content?

Sorry, which forums are we on again?

Using matchmaking to segregate players based on whether or not they had bought Horizons would be a double edged sword - as there would be those who would use it to avoid other players - and there would be those who would complain that "their" galaxy was quieter than they'd like (because not all players, even in the same mode, on the same platform, would be visible).

As Stealthie said, you need to buy the thing, to have the thing. No-one with 2.x should have been able to see 1.x, or vice versa. Would that split the community? Irrelevant question. 3 major platforms. PC, Live, PSN. It's already fractured. Frontier's entire player base is fractured further, over solo, private and open. You're arguing a perspective that's literally redundant already.

When you have two gazelles in an enclosure, you don't then replace one gazelle with a Lion, with a post-it note that says "it's an engineered gazelle", and assume this will be just fine. No-one does this. Who even does this?

And yet, here we are. You're arguing both sides, Rob, against the middle. Pretty much what this entire place has devolved too. Have a good one. I really am done. The game is amazing; people are just too busy trying to find scapegoats because it's easier than realising Frontier still have so much work to do, to actually understand their players; and the experience. And Frontier have been squandering opportunity to go on fool's errands because that's more interesting than solving fundamental, yet boring issues. o7

 

[sollisb]

I agree that if one restrain himself not to use more than 4 G5 boosters on the big3/FDL, things are mosty ok. Still introducing +70% shield boosters was pure stupidity IMO. x3.5 over stock value is .
Still, out of CZ's, any fight between a player modded ship and an equivalent unmodded NPC ship is trivial, no matter the NPC rank. This is not good.

In the short term I think FD could consider doing something like :

• Introduce engineered ships and wings in Hazardous RES and high intensity RES. Don't touch the regular / low ones.
• Add rank 5/6/7 human SS.
• Introduce some engineered "flag" ships in high intensity CZ's, giving higher payouts.
• More difficulty 5/6/7 missions
• Avoid engineered NPC's in non-consensual PvE (sounds wired, but you get my meaning).
• Mark engineered NPC's with a bolt in front of their rank (so that you know what you get into)

Since those are all cases where the player choose to get into combat, it would be fine. In fact I can't think
of any downside that would come from this.

None of any of that makes sense.

1. Engineered ships are already in the HazRez sites. Lo-Res. High-Res are not important, the federales are there to help.
2. It obvious to any dummy that an engineered player ship is going to have a massive advantage over a non engineered ship. I'm not sure what your point is here.
3. What exactly is non consensual PvE ??
4. You're forgetting that non-Horizon players need 'elite' ranked NPCs to get to Elite Combat Rank.
5. I agree, the new uber NPCs you're looking for should be hidden in U.S.S.s where we can decide to ignore them if we want.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

And yet, here we are. You're arguing both sides, Rob, against the middle.

Funny you mention this.

 

[Seizewell Warrior]

That's not even a relevant example. It's if Bethesda added the DLC, then made the core rely on the DLC for key mechanics. Bethesda didn't do that. The entire game can be played without the DLC; and this won't ostensibly change the experience for the core game.

Horizons by comparison? lol. Where do I even start. Easy, I won't, because continuing to engage here, won't help one tot. Fly safe. o7

To be fair, although the DLC in FO4 isn't essential to finish the main game it does add weapons and tools to make it easier. Robot Workshop means you can easily build a mechanical companion or mod Codsworth to be a one hit death machine. Likewise the second from last mission before hitting the Mechanists Lair gives you a Tesla gun which can take down multiple opponents with one shot. Far Harbor gives you a melee weapon which once modded and with high enough skill can clear a room in one or two hits.

As regards higher level players in both PVE and PVP, why not adopt a similar mechanic to FO4 and put a skull and crossbone next to the icon or description - engage at your discretion!

 

[Dommarraa]

Not convinced "pandering" to non-horizons is a sensible business case. If they are not prepared to spend the price of a pizza to get several years of groovey functionality, I dont see them having much skin in the argument.
If FD had churned out a £40 must-have power-creep expansion every year, then it would be very different.

Power Creep has happened, live with it. There may be some scaling back of a few areas, but FD are simply not prepared to live with the Salt generated by anything significant, as has already been demonstrated several times.