It's time to revisit the PVP rebuy. Distant Ganks 2 makes the point.

[[VR] Mad Mike]

It's not that there's a big discrepancy between so-called PVE ships and PVP ships. It's that there's a big discrepancy between good engineering builds and bad engineering builds. You can use any PVP build in PVE and be similarly more effective than so-called PVE ships (eg double plus ungood builds).

The bigger discrepancy though is between people who know how the game works, and people who don't. You see this within the PVP community too. There is a crap ton of stuff that I don't know yet, and I am learning with almost every fight I get into. And there is a crap ton of stuff that I know that most people don't know yet either. It's a big deal, and can increase the effectiveness of your ship by a factor of 5 vs unwary opponents with similarly powerful builds. No joke.

The thing is up until now i have deliberately NOT built apex ships that many pvpers use.
I know some who for instance "specialise" so much their ship cannot jump, and has to be shipped in. This fails for me and is something i will not do. same with other things such as the monster shield builds or the fully decked out armour builds.. maybe this is the fault of the npcs and general game design but the simple fact is if i was to take one of the apex pvp type ships and do PvE stuff the ship would essentially be indestructable, as proven by the people who park up a turrent boat then go AFK for a few hrs whilst their ship farms for them.

I *could* build such a ship and then be technically indestructible in PvP (because i can high wake before anyone can kill me) and be literally indestructible for PvE... but this is not how i want to play ED.

So I have my self imposed rules which essentially (by my own choice) gimp my ships...... which has until now worked out just fine because i do not do it in open.

I will see how these ships manage in open.... i suspect i will be mostly ok however I am under no illusion that if a PvPer really wants me to blow up, it will happen and there is not much i will be able to do about it.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

so when you say say you're playing the "real game", you mean you are agreeing to fight NPCs with one hand tied behind your back because that is all that is required to win in PVE.

this is pretty much it i suppose...... but building "balanced" load outs with maybe a single shield booster and another with elemental effects protection, combined with maybe a single hull reinforcement in a military slot, room for an SRV, some cargo space to pick up offs and sods, a KWS well you know what i mean a jack of all trades if you will is much more fun to me, and still works against npcs.

if the option is to change the npcs to use the PvP meta build ships and thus forcing me to do the same, I do not think is the answer either. imo the crux of the problem is FD went completely overboard with the power creep with engineers.

if npcs go the same way then what is the point of having E - A rated gear in the game?

 

[babelfisch]

this is pretty much it i suppose...... but building "balanced" load outs with maybe a single shield booster and another with elemental effects protection, combined with maybe a single hull reinforcement in a military slot, room for an SRV, some cargo space to pick up offs and sods, a KWS well you know what i mean a jack of all trades if you will is much more fun to me, and still works against npcs.

if the option is to change the npcs to use the PvP meta build ships and thus forcing me to do the same, I do not think is the answer either. imo the crux of the problem is FD went completely overboard with the power creep with engineers.

if npcs go the same way then what is the point of having E - A rated gear in the game?

It's not just the Engineers. If I would decide to put HRPs in every single slot on my Krait apart from Shields and FSD Interdictor it would go from 770 to 2790 Armour. And that's without Engineering. I am pretty sure there is a discrepancy.

Suggestion:
Either remove this nonsense completely or limit each defensive module type to 1.
PS
Or do it like Mike suggested.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

It's not just the Engineers. If I would decide to put HRPs in every single slot on my Krait apart from Shields and FSD Interdictor it would go from 770 to 2790 Armour. And that's without Engineering. I am pretty sure there is a discrepancy.

true........ I think FD should "sack up" and re visit the notion of laws of diminishing returns. they were talking about doing it (and tried to do it) with shields, but i think the same can be done for armour too. have 1 shield/armour booster get 100% of the boost. have 2 of them only get 60% from the 2nd one, and have 3 only get 25% from the 3rd etc.

 

[Ziljan]

MRP, HRP, SB, SCB, Guardian modules... Are they all completely worthless? Unless you are twice as good as the best of them I can't see how your exploration Krait is better than their PvP meta FDL. Even if you are, I guess there aren't many people who are that good.

Those modules will make your ship very strong, but they aren't strictly necessary to be competitive. SCB on DW/DG is kinda silly tbh since most of the fights happen thousands of light years away from a base, so they're only good for 1 fight. What is necessary is adequate defense and overwhelming DPS which is entirely doable on almost any ship. I would say it's more about knowledge than flight skill in a Krait. But flight skill is still very important.

FDL might be a meta, but it's not because it's fundamentally better than the Krait. It's because it's a cool looking ship that makes a great high speed skirmisher and has a sky high flight-skill ceiling, and can dodge other FDL meta fire which is fun. However, the FDL has significant weaknesses, in particular meta FDLs which have low ToT burst weapons that frankly don't do much damage except en masse, or on high heat short range builds. They also have garbage hulls. However people are emotionally attached to the FDL and and even go so far as to claim it's the strongest combat/PVP ship, much in the same way that many PVE people think that the Corvette is the best large combat ship. Hint: both ships are just Ok.

 

[Lazuras Poe]

It would be interesting to see a build that can withstand an engineered combat build, that is not itself engineered, or at the most, the first 4 engineers you get to easily. From what I can see there are players that just don't do those kind of grinds. Is that unbalanced for open? Unfair? Is it the players fault? Should we be forced to play the engineering metagame to keep up?
Myself, I mostly explore, there's nothing worse than grinding out engineers, so much so, I get bored and go exploring again. I have what I need for that gameplay. And isn't that the point of ED? Different gameplay for different folks? Isn't that what the modes are for? Do we have to have all this drama?

I think the reality is Open is just too big and limited by the server structure.
Private groups have no admin tools.
And everybody is just trolling each other, let's face it, ED is pretty crap.

 

[Ziljan]

It would be interesting to see a build that can withstand an engineered combat build, that is not itself engineered

You can build a lot of unengineered ships to survive PVP. That's a pretty low threshold. Staying around to fight is possible too, but would require use of small fast ships and good amount of elbow grease in terms of flight skill.

 

[babelfisch]

Those modules will make your ship very strong, but they aren't strictly necessary to be competitive. SCB on DW/DG is kinda silly tbh since most of the fights happen thousands of light years away from a base, so they're only good for 1 fight. What is necessary is adequate defense and overwhelming DPS which is entirely doable on almost any ship. I would say it's more about knowledge than flight skill in a Krait. But flight skill is still very important.

FDL might be a meta, but it's not because it's fundamentally better than the Krait. It's because it's a cool looking ship that makes a great high speed skirmisher and has a sky high flight-skill ceiling, and can dodge other FDL meta fire which is fun. However, the FDL has significant weaknesses, in particular meta FDLs which have low ToT burst weapons that frankly don't do much damage except en masse, or on high heat short range builds. They also have garbage hulls. However people are emotionally attached to the FDL and and even go so far as to claim it's the strongest combat/PVP ship, much in the same way that many PVE people think that the Corvette is the best large combat ship. Hint: both ships are just Ok.

So an identical ship being 4 times more armoured without using the Engineers isn't a problem? I'd like to see your explanation for that.
I agree that the discussion doesn't make much sense when it comes to DW/DG 2 though, the attacking ships are mostly targeting paperplanes with inexperienced combat pilots. A stock Sidewinder would be enough to win that battle, especially since most don't even have guns.

 

[babelfisch]

It would be interesting to see a build that can withstand an engineered combat build, that is not itself engineered, or at the most, the first 4 engineers you get to easily. From what I can see there are players that just don't do those kind of grinds. Is that unbalanced for open? Unfair? Is it the players fault? Should we be forced to play the engineering metagame to keep up?
Myself, I mostly explore, there's nothing worse than grinding out engineers, so much so, I get bored and go exploring again. I have what I need for that gameplay. And isn't that the point of ED? Different gameplay for different folks? Isn't that what the modes are for? Do we have to have all this drama?

I think the reality is Open is just too big and limited by the server structure.
Private groups have no admin tools.
And everybody is just trolling each other, let's face it, ED is pretty crap.

I believe it's totally the players fault when they don't Engineer their ship. I can't blame the PvPers for using the tools that are available (not saying you are doing it either by the way). The question is if that offers good and interesting gameplay, in my opinion it doesn't.

 

[Ziljan]

So an identical ship being 4 times more armoured without using the Engineers isn't a problem? I'd like to see your explanation for that.

Not sure what problem or situation you're referring to here? Is this related somehow to something I wrote?

 

[deleteduser]

To be fair the extremists on both sides deserve derision. Claiming no one can shoot at you in open is equally as daft as claiming everyone must play in open right now if not sooner.

Its more a case of most people finding the furious and unreasonable keyboard chewers funny.

The proposal of giving each playstyle their 'own' Open, answers everybody's concerns on this score. PvE'ers don't need to worry about PvP'ers, while PvP'ers can shoot everyone in their instance.

It's literally a win-win scenario.

 

[babelfisch]

Not sure what problem or situation you're referring to here? Is this related somehow to something I wrote?

It's related to something I wrote.

It's not just the Engineers. If I would decide to put HRPs in every single slot on my Krait apart from Shields and FSD Interdictor it would go from 770 to 2790 Armour. And that's without Engineering. I am pretty sure there is a discrepancy.

Suggestion:
Either remove this nonsense completely or limit each defensive module type to 1.
PS
Or do it like Mike suggested.

PS
To clarify, you said there is no big discrepancy between a PvE and a PvP ship. I don't understand how you come to that conclusion.

 

[Stigbob]

The proposal of giving each playstyle their 'own' Open, answers everybody's concerns on this score. PvE'ers don't need to worry about PvP'ers, while PvP'ers can shoot everyone in their instance.

It's literally a win-win scenario.

Thats already provided for via the modes.

 

[deleteduser]

Thats already provided for via the modes.

With the compromise that those playing in Closed modes aren't subject to the same risks as those in Open, but get the same rewards when playing the BSG & PP.

Separating the modes, giving each an Open mode, undoes this problem as well. Like I said, "Win-Win", with another "Win" to boot.

 

[Stigbob]

With the compromise that PvE'ers aren't subject to the same risks as those in Open, but get the same rewards when playing the BSG & PP.

Separating the modes, giving each an Open mode, undoes this problem as well. Like I said, "Win-Win", with another "Win" to boot.

Extra hassle for FDEV, which BGS becomes the correct one and nothing new in terms of functionality added at all.

Its just not realistic, which is why that approach lost out five years ago.

 

[deleteduser]

Extra hassle for FDEV, which BGS becomes the correct one and nothing new in terms of functionality added at all.

Its just not realistic, which is why that approach lost out five years ago.

Both BGS's will be correct for their particular mode. It's not supposed to add anything new, it's about fixing existing issues highlighted by this thread and others.

Technically, it's a second spreadsheet. A far easier fix than any attempted rebalancing, such as is proposed here and elsewhere, of a game that is inherently imbalanced by the current [Closed]/[Open] modes operating within the same BGS.

 

[Stigbob]

Both BSG's will be correct for their particular mode. It's not supposed to add anything new, it's about fixing existing issues highlighted by this thread and others.

Technically, it's a second spreadsheet. A far easier fix than any attempted rebalancing, such as is proposed here and elsewhere, of a game that is inherently imbalanced by the current [Closed]/[Open] modes operating within the same BSG.

The only issue it would address is the feelings of people who bought without research.

Which BGS would they base galnet on ?.

 

[deleteduser]

Which BGS would they base galnet on ?.

GalNet is essentially a summary of the current state of the BGS spreadsheet, so the version you see will depend on whether you play PvP or PvE.

The only issue it would address is the feelings of people who bought without research.

Quite, but this proposal takes at face value the problems each of the playstyles say they have with the other, and offers a solution to those problems without breaking the game for everyone else at the same time.

 

[andrewg_oz]

Well, I've been lurking and watching this thread bubble along for a while now, and I think it's time I put in my $0.02 and go back to lurking.

The OP proposed the high cost of rebuys as a reason for the anti-PvP sentiment, especially in relation to the Distant Worlds and Distant Ganks.

IMO, rebuys have nothing to do with it. Rebuys could be free or credits could even be showered over the PK victims, and it wouldn't change anything. Most people have joined Distant Worlds 2 for the socialisation and even if all the explorers beefed up their ships to survive and escape, the reason for going on Distant Worlds would be literally blown away each time a PvPer entered an instance and started shooting.

Private groups are the only thing that allows an event like Distant Worlds to take place. The only reason Distant Ganks even became a thing is the poor support and functionality Frontier provide for managing private groups. The single person who could add people to the Fleetcomm group was simply overwhelmed in the final week by the literally 1000s of commanders trying to join.

The only point Distant Ganks has made for me is how important it is for Frontier to improve the management of large private groups. It should be possible for a group owner to delegate membership management to one or more other commanders. It should be possible for private groups to become larger than 20,000. It should be easy to search for a commander in order to remove them from the group quickly and easily.

While I like the idea of an "Open PvE" mode, I also don't see it as a realistic possibility. There is no way Frontier would want to take on the workload of dealing with 'troublemakers' in such a mode. It is much easier and more sensible for them to shift the responsibility to private groups. However, by abrogating their responsibility to provide a play mode that their customers clearly want, Frontier should show their appreciation of the people who *are* making that effort by giving them the tools they need to manage the very large groups that have emerged.

 

[deleteduser]

While I like the idea of an "Open PvE" mode, I also don't see it as a realistic possibility. There is no way Frontier would want to take on the workload of dealing with 'troublemakers' in such a mode.

There wont be any trouble makers in such a mode. From my reading of what's wanted by the PvE community, PvP in that mode will be technically impossible.

It would also be a possibility that frivolous switching between the modes, say by PvP'ers attempting to farm CR or Engineering Mats, might be prevented by a time limit (one switch every x days) or might have a penalty attached such as a resetting of PP status. This PP penalty or similar would also apply to PvE'ers switching back & forth.

There would be no need with this proposal to burden anyone with the responsibility of 'policing' their respective community.