PvP The PvE <-> PvP Rift

[Bob Lighthouse]

Not at all. We would encounter the same ranks of NPCs - but they would all pose more of a challenge (bar Harmless ones that would stay the same), i.e. increased general NPC difficulty.

If you want to split hairs that's a fine definition.

I still fail to see why this is an unreasonable proposal.

Low ranking Cmdrs farming elite NPCs makes much less sense.

 

[cmdr kruzer70]

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.

1. The game doesn't evaluate pilot skill accurately you can encounter harmless rated NPCs or elite rated NPCs even if you are relatively new. This would make CZs in particular a mess.

2. In my personal case my commander is in Colonia with a Colonia built ship. That means no engineers and no A-rated modules. Having to deal with NPCs on that are on Par with PvPrs (is that even possible?) would my whole game.

Look, solo a Medusa class Thargoid or solo a Wing Assassination mission in a B-rated python. Do that, and we can talk about the lack of challenge in the game. Your crowd are the ones sticking their hand in my face, your crowd are the ones responding with 'get gud' anytime I try to articulate my concerns well screw you guys. It comes down to this, the challenges are there to be found in the game and if you would just go pursue them you wouldn't hear a peep from me, I'm not the one ing in your sandbox and telling you what's good for you and what standard of player you should be to enjoy the game am I?

 

[Robert Maynard]

It certainly would be.

You won't get better if you keep on shooting the same old potatoes.

Better skills in escape and evasion, situational awareness, how to use heat sinks etc would go a long way to prevent so called "griefing".

I haven't been killed by an NPC since that time. I've been killed by loads of players though, because they are just better then AI.

By increasing difficulty in designated areas you have a better chance of training the players to a better standard.

I've never been "griefed". I think the whole problem is caused by players being unable to evade.

The opinion that such a general change would constitute an improvement rather assumes that everyone *should* become more proficient in combat.

Why should they? They bought the same game for the same price as other players after all.

Localising the NPC difficulty changes, i.e. through only spawning them for specific missions, USS, etc., would adversely affect fewer players and would be more likely to be accepted.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Some can, no doubt. Some can't. It rather depends on the ships / loadouts in question, i.e. specifics, not generalities. Therefore, increasing the capability / weaponry of NPCs in general would likely reduce the escape success percentage of ships, in general.

Ah, I see.
You're assuming no one would get better, or simply play smarter as a result.

That's exactly the gap the OP is trying to bridge, and giving a logical skill/outfitting based progression system to do it.
I still don't see it as unreasonable at all.

 

[withnail]

Some can, no doubt. Some can't. It rather depends on the ships / loadouts in question, i.e. specifics, not generalities. Therefore, increasing the capability / weaponry of NPCs in general would likely reduce the escape success percentage of ships, in general.

I disagree completely.

Submit, pop a heat sink, boost and high wake.

You can do it in a sidewinder.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Or escaping.

Not all ships are created equal in terms of likelihood of escape.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

The opinion that such a general change would constitute an improvement rather assumes that everyone *should* become more proficient in combat.

Why should they? They bought the same game for the same price as other players after all.

Localising the NPC difficulty changes, i.e. through only spawning them for specific missions, USS, etc., would adversely affect fewer players and would be more likely to be accepted.

They don't have to now with live Cmdrs.
It gives the opportunity.
There are still modes.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Ah, I see.
You're assuming no one would get better, or simply play smarter as a result.

That's exactly the gap the OP is trying to bridge, and giving a logical skill/outfitting based progression system to do it.
I still don't see it as unreasonable at all.

I'm suggesting that it is unreasonable to assume that everyone will be able to improve their skills such that they still have "fun" doing what they were doing. Not everyone will be able to do that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I disagree completely.

Submit, pop a heat sink, boost and high wake.

You can do it in a sidewinder.

Not in all ships, not all the time, even at the moment. Which is fine. Reducing that chance through more challenging NPCs might well reduce the "fun" of the game, for some.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Not all ships are created equal in terms of likelihood of escape.

You win some, you lose some.

Pretty much a staple of video games since forever, right?

 

[Robert Maynard]

They don't have to now with live Cmdrs.
It gives the opportunity.
There are still modes.

Exactly - they don't have to now with live CMDRs. The OP is suggesting that NPCs be made closer to live CMDRs in terms of skill and loadout - which would affect all game modes, not just Open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You win some, you lose some.

Pretty much a staple of video games since forever, right?

Of course - however lose too many, in a game with consequences for loss, and what was "fun" may no longer be.

 

[[VR]tailgunner30uk]

With respect, I do not agree with the OP. for one fundamental reason. At any point in the game the player can effectively define the level of difficulty of the game. By simply changing the ship they fly. What the OP suggests would compel ALL players to equip their ships for PvP, and restrict them to eventually flying just the Big 4 "Endgame" ships, fully engineered to the hilt. But That I feel would kill Elite.

The whole ethos of Elite is "Play the game your own way", Blaze your own trail across the stars in any way and any ship you chose. If PvP is your thing then great, fly that Uber death dealing Corvette against similarly equipped death dealing monstrosities. If you feel that the CZ you are in is tame, park up your PvP ship and fly something that increases the challenge.

I, for instance, love my Courier. It is only partly engineered, mostly for speed. The shields are lightweight, the beam lasers and Guardian Plasma Charger are un-engineered. In the Ross 310 CG I have been driven out of multiple combat zones, lost the ship twice, gone head to head, 1v1 against corvettes aggro-ing them into chasing me either away from the combat area or luring them towards a group of allies. I would make 1 pass runs to distract an enemy so that the allied ship could turn the tables and chosen to engage fighters rather than high payout ships, to help out allied ships. Sometimes the fight was over in seconds, other times the battle would be minutes long. Sometimes I would win, sometimes I would "brave Sir Robin". Occasionally through teamwork, my allies and I could clear the CZ of enemy ships, driving them before us and reveling in the lamentations of their kinfolk.

I could have built a hyper-engineered Corvette and farmed a High risk CZ sweeping all before me. I could have farmed 10's of millions of credits in combat bonds with little or no risk. I chose to do the other thing, and probably had a lot more fun than the farmers.

Fly Safe Commanders and remember it's not about the credits, it's about having fun.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I'm suggesting that it is unreasonable to assume that everyone will be able to improve their skills such that they still have "fun" doing what they were doing. Not everyone will be able to do that.

And you're forgetting/ignoring the people who want to by the same token.

Also, I've yet to encounter a Thargoid attack.
How can that be?
Shouldn't I have been attacked by these new powerful NPCs?

You are setting up some false dilemmas methinks.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Of course - however lose too many, in a game with consequences for loss, and what was "fun" may no longer be.

Sure, some won't like it and will uninstall. Others may be drawn back to the game, while others get to grips with the challenge and develop.

Once again, it's a matter of win some, lose some.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

With respect, I do not agree with the OP. for one fundamental reason. At any point in the game the player can effectively define the level of difficulty of the game. By simply changing the ship they fly. What the OP suggests would compel ALL players to equip their ships for PvP, and restrict them to eventually flying just the Big 4 "Endgame" ships, fully engineered to the hilt. But That I feel would kill Elite.

Not at all.
You misunderstood entirely, and the most popular PVP ships are medium.
And the OP is primarily a PVEr...

Besides, there are tons of harmless Cutters and Corvettes already, lol...

 

[Robert Maynard]

And you're forgetting/ignoring the people who want to by the same token.

No, I'm not. There are options for players that don't find the game challenging enough - however a common response is "I've spent [x] hours Engineering this ship - why should I have to gimp it to face a challenge".

Also, I've yet to encounter a Thargoid attack.
How can that be?
Shouldn't I have been attacked by these new powerful NPCs?

You are setting up some false dilemmas methinks.

Thargoid encounters don't seem to spawn everywhere in the galaxy. Thargoids don't seem to, from what I have read, initiate an attack unless they scan the player and find that they are carrying specific items. I've seen plenty more NHSSs than I've had Thargoid hyperdictions.

NPCs, on the other hand, exist everywhere in and close to the bubble. NPCs regularly interdict and initiate an attack.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sure, some won't like it and will uninstall. Others may be drawn back to the game, while others get to grips with the challenge and develop.

Once again, it's a matter of win some, lose some.

I expect that Frontier can look at their player-base, through the lens of game analytics, and gauge what effect that has on play-time - just as they probably did immediately after 2.1 released.

 

[withnail]

I'm suggesting that it is unreasonable to assume that everyone will be able to improve their skills such that they still have "fun" doing what they were doing. Not everyone will be able to do that.

Give them their easy areas. Somewhere they can generally feel safe.

But the rest of us don't have to accept a game designed for the lowest common denominator.

Your reticence to accept anything that might make the game more difficult (whilst at the same time giving players the opportunity to get better) is a real shame.

 

[M00ka]

Not "out of the way" at all. We would encounter the same ranks of NPCs - but they would all pose more of a challenge (bar Harmless ones that would stay the same), i.e. increased general NPC difficulty.

If a corresponding reduction in encounter frequency of higher ranks took place it would be less of an issue, in my opinion.

I like that idea, it would result in an Elite NPC being well 'Elite' and damn hard to kill. One downside will be the number of Commanders who still ignore the rank recommendations on Missions, can imagine the outpouring of salt would be quite large!

In fact the entire concept of scalable NPCs could even be taken a step further. Have the NPC's around the starter systems nerf'd a little to give the newbies a slight leg up whilst they are still learning the game. Then utilise the security rating of the system -High Sec has basically what we have now in NPC ability, Med Sec is a little harder, Low even harder and Anarchy should have the best (or baddest if you want to be picky) NPC's going around. Throw in some uber Elite NPCs for assassination missions at Elite level and we can put the Dangerous back into ED!