I mean player can upgrade exploration, transport or any other ship so it can defend itself and be able to jump away from danger. Players decision is whether they want to have less cargo space but fly safely or have a lot of cargo/jump range/whateaver and take a risk
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
They can indeed downgrade their ships, in terms of its efficiency in its main role, yet the combat focused players face no such requirement.
.... against players facing little to no risk themselves. Then those players complain about players affecting the game from Solo and Private Groups....
It's a ship game.
And most of the people desire to pimp their ships to be perfect for their own scope and playstyles.
For example:
- when mining i want my ship to be perfect for mining. I can do that and have a perfect miner that is also able to survive a pve combat encounter. But under no circumstances that ship will survive a pro-gank.
- when exploring i want me ship to be perfect for exploring. I can do that and have a perfect explorer that is also able to survive or at least evade a pve combat encounter. That's not possible when we add to the equation a pvp gank
By comparison, a pvp player can pimp their ship and have it perfect at pvp - their scope and playstyle.
To conclude, a pvp player can play unhindered/unrestricted... not having to compromise anything.
PVE players cannot - they have to compromise they ships around pvp players IF they want to also enjoy an unlimited social experience in ED (which is not offered by a PG, not even Moebius / Fleetcom )
It's pretty obvious this leads to frustrated pve players.
Sure people want to do it, but that doesn't mean it's not a tactical mistake in the conditions that prevail in the game.
of course you can set up the ship that way as you mentioned it is your choice.
A piracy ship has also no match to a pvp ship, so you usually don't want duels in that.
But it doesn't stop from attacking weaker ships to rob them.
This is how the game works.
I think an average pvper/ganker/pirate has died in game many more times than a cargo hauling player. so 'no risk' is not an argument.
You forgot to add voluntarily in the above phrase.
A pvp player cannot die unless they chose to. High waking when down to 1 ring for example.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
By choice, yes, and very likely prepared for it both in ship build and mindset. They choose to engage in PvP. They are not forced to engage in it by others.
Last edited:
so can every player can do same thing - by choice of install shields and be able jump out after an attempted attack.
No one is forcing them to stay in fight.
with the difference that one shield ring on a combat ship provides more protection than one shiled ring on a non combat ship.
Non-PVP player can try to jump out but the question is, will they survive long enough to jump? I think most wont make it.
And this means, all player have to adapt to PVP gameplay in open to have at least a chance and they cant play the way they would like to, except in solo or PG. What also contracdicts the "play like you want" idea.
Your example is reasonable, but it doesn't quite fit the situation:
Its more like you're going as a vegetarian to a restaurant with a meat eater, and he ends up trying to force you to also eat meat...
Sure, then we go back to building and flying an optimized ship for the task.
Putting heavy shields and a ton of shield boosters on an exploration ship means that ships is no longer optimized for covering huge distances fast
Putting Heavy shields on a T9 means that T9 is no longer optimized to trading.
And the circle is complete.
Precisely this
PVP players are a minority and yet, they get to dictate the gameplay for the majority.
This would get sorted out by a PVE mode.
3-4 shield boosters to G3 tier and medium shields is more than enough to survive for 5-10 seconds and jump out, which doesn't require that much engineering afford.
it's not an adaptation for a PVP gameplay - it is a safety first rule.
Is there no combat in PVE mode?
and you don't build combat ships to fight there?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
There's next to no non-optional combat when not in an instance with another player....
.... and NPC interdictions can be avoided, unlike PvP interdictions (which seem to be biased towards the inderdictor).
it is also up to the player to choose if they want to have their ship ready and specialized for combat purpose or not.
nonsense, you can defend yourself from player interdiction. it is much more difficult, yes, but not impossible.
Someone wrote earlier that they want the best mining ship or the best exploration ship.
I understand that to fight in CZ player will fly with the best ship to fight.
Which contradicts the thesis that in pve mode flies only exploration/cargo/mining ships unable to jump out from fight
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - and three Elite ranks don't require the player to fire a shot in combat - so combat is likely not a primary concern for players engaged in those activities.
"much more difficult, but not impossible" - which seems to agree with what was responded to. I now realise that I should have written "can be easily avoided" in relation to NPC interdictions.
Which brings us to another fact, that players are able to defend about 99% (in worst case scenario) NPC interdictions and and they are in game to exclusively annoy player and teach absolutely nothing.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
NPC interdictions are part of the PvE game - and have, from memory, been tweaked to be more palatable to players in general. There's no need to "teach" players to prepare them for an optional game activity.
.... and Frontier set the challenge posed by the game for all players, not just skilled players. Half of players are at, or below, median skill.
fair, so don't be surprised that player interdictions are more difficult, even though they are also optional.
I mean, this is also a restriction for combat players. I 'main' combat but that doesn't mean I have no interest in other areas of the game. It would actually be nice to be able to be simultaneously competitive in my chosen niche without forgoing the option of, say, deploying an SRV or using limpets at a random USS while I wait for a fight, etc.
In my opinion the game allowing 'siloing' ships for a singular task to such an extent is a systemic problem for everyone and some amount of balance should be inherent to each hull.
If you're a combat player and want to remain competitive you know that every single slot must be a defensive module, as even a small concession made for utility amounts to a ~ 100 to 400 loss of EHP.
It's the same as if you're a trader and want to maximise your trade profits. It's not something combat players are exempt from.
Personally I think a better modular system would've had more compartmentalised slots and offer customisation within reasonable parameters to avoid some ships being uber-tanky but unable to do anything else, while others are made of paper in order to achieve their utility. Military slots were a step in the right direction but they were too coy with it imo.
Edit: for example I think all ships should have a basic cargo allowance, a basic non-defensive utility allowance - balanced sensibly for that ship's profile and supposed role, as well as having base defensive capabilities that allow it to be technically survivable without compromising it's chosen role. Then have customisation on top of that balanced base to specialise and personalise.
So many of Elite's mechanics seem built on the premise that we're flying multirole ships, and yet the game rewards you most for siloing. Hard code a modest bit of multirole into every hull and suddenly you've got a healthier and arguably more fun ecosystem.
Last edited: