So to start off, there's a problem with Elite right now: NPCs are generally pushovers compared to players. (*Especially* where Engineers is concerned, but since I see Engineers as its own issue, I am going to ignore it for the purposes of this thread and focus on 'vanilla' stuff.) And this creates an all-too-stark constrast between "PvE" and "PvP" combat feedback.
I believe a big reason for this is that the AI does not know how to design its own ships. At least, not very well.
I don't know for certain how you do the magic behind the scenes, but I imagine the AI pulls loadouts from pre-existing templates, maybe with a chance of certain items appearing or not?
I think it would be provide a better experience if the NPC ships were kitted out in fashions similar to what players would have..."fully fleshed" ships, so to speak. (If it's already the case but it's closely tied to the NPC's combat rank, then I say that the amount their ships get fleshed out needs to be raised across the board.)
For instance, in the live game, a Deadly NPC Corvette in a combat zone might have turreted cannons (which are only supposed to be available up through Large) in its Huge hardpoints. You'd never catch a player seriously using a mismatched loadout like that. (Though, that too might change if you improve shell velocities to make turreted cannons actually *useful*, but again, different issue.)
And there's evidence to believe NPCs will rarely have as many shield boosters or SCBs or MRPs or HRPs as players might have - and in some cases lack them entirely!
Now, these outfitting items are of course subject to balancing and change, they are not perfectly permanent and to create more "fixed" templates based around how powerful (or not powerful) these items are could have bad ramifications.
So instead, I propose to semi-regularly reach out to the community and ask for community-designed loadouts for specific ships performing specific roles (e.g. "Viper III: Contract Assassin" template), and use that as a basis for NPC loadouts ("Flavor of the month"?), able to react and be flexible according to other changes affecting ships and outfitting.
Mechwarrior Online has done something similar in the past, for their "trial mech" system whereby someone can pick any from a rotating roster of 'Mechs that they might not yet own and haven't had a chance to try out yet - it became clear that the designs made in-house didn't match up with what the players would do, so they straight-up asked the players to design the trial mechs, and from what I could tell it's worked out well.
The way it worked there, was they'd made an official thread asking for loadouts (we can use coriolis.io or edshipyard.com, in our case, or instead perhaps an Fdev-approved format of some other kind), and then picked a few loadouts based on which posts (1 per person in each thread was the rule, I think, but you could have multiple suggested loadouts in 1 post) got upvoted the most, and any loadouts that got the attention of the staff reading the threads; then a new official poll would start, asking people to pick between the chosen loadouts.
In this case, that final step might not even be necessary, since having many options is actually a good thing and the AI needn't be narrowed down to just using 1 loadout.
___
Now, this has other implications as well: the current values of rank gain for defeating an NPC ship, and the bounty/bonds/whatever accrued, are based on the current live build where NPCs are held back by the limitations of their loadouts.
So if the NPCs are, in effect by all this, made to be more difficult (Challenging! Engaging! DEPTH! yada yada etc.), then each kill should be made to feel more worthwhile in a proportional fashion.
In other words, on the basis of each foe being more challenging and worthwhile to defeat, the gain in combat rank, the bounty/bond(s) awarded, and other rewards should be increased, in a measured fashion to make each individual kill feel Worth It.
I stress that point because, especially lately, combat in Elite is by far the grindiest activity I've ever done - each individual kill feels meaningless by itself, hardly worth the time or effort unless I continue to get dozens, hundreds, even thousands of kills, just to feel like I've won a fight. And that goes for the rewards I get too, easily exceeded by many other money-making tasks available in Elite (and I'm not talking about any exploits - just doing missions, passengers, various kinds of trading....)
I mean, can you imagine buying a thousand Anacondas? Where are NPCs getting all these ships, anyway? Who's footing the bills here? (This isn't one of the mysteries Elite is trying to keep hidden, right?)
So given that the prices for constructing ships are already *way* out of whack compared to the bounties we get for killing an equivalent ship, this has a nice side effect of closing that gap a bit in the name of believability.
Of course, it has to be *fair* - NPCs shouldn't become more powerful, per se, just tougher and more worthwhile to defeat. It's a subtle difference, perhaps, but an important one.
And, of course, that's a bit easier to get a feel for *now*, since NPCs no longer are pirouetting, using Skynet weapons, taking all-turreted loadouts and forgetting they can't fire any of those weapons, and so on!
Here, again, you can also use the community: have a beta session asking players to try combatting (or otherwise aggressively interacting with) NPCs using the new loadouts, and use the feedback to get a better feel of how much to change rank gains and awarded bounties and so on - to find the 'goldilocks zone', as it were: not too little, and not too much, but *just* right.
I believe a big reason for this is that the AI does not know how to design its own ships. At least, not very well.
I don't know for certain how you do the magic behind the scenes, but I imagine the AI pulls loadouts from pre-existing templates, maybe with a chance of certain items appearing or not?
I think it would be provide a better experience if the NPC ships were kitted out in fashions similar to what players would have..."fully fleshed" ships, so to speak. (If it's already the case but it's closely tied to the NPC's combat rank, then I say that the amount their ships get fleshed out needs to be raised across the board.)
For instance, in the live game, a Deadly NPC Corvette in a combat zone might have turreted cannons (which are only supposed to be available up through Large) in its Huge hardpoints. You'd never catch a player seriously using a mismatched loadout like that. (Though, that too might change if you improve shell velocities to make turreted cannons actually *useful*, but again, different issue.)
And there's evidence to believe NPCs will rarely have as many shield boosters or SCBs or MRPs or HRPs as players might have - and in some cases lack them entirely!
Now, these outfitting items are of course subject to balancing and change, they are not perfectly permanent and to create more "fixed" templates based around how powerful (or not powerful) these items are could have bad ramifications.
So instead, I propose to semi-regularly reach out to the community and ask for community-designed loadouts for specific ships performing specific roles (e.g. "Viper III: Contract Assassin" template), and use that as a basis for NPC loadouts ("Flavor of the month"?), able to react and be flexible according to other changes affecting ships and outfitting.
Mechwarrior Online has done something similar in the past, for their "trial mech" system whereby someone can pick any from a rotating roster of 'Mechs that they might not yet own and haven't had a chance to try out yet - it became clear that the designs made in-house didn't match up with what the players would do, so they straight-up asked the players to design the trial mechs, and from what I could tell it's worked out well.
The way it worked there, was they'd made an official thread asking for loadouts (we can use coriolis.io or edshipyard.com, in our case, or instead perhaps an Fdev-approved format of some other kind), and then picked a few loadouts based on which posts (1 per person in each thread was the rule, I think, but you could have multiple suggested loadouts in 1 post) got upvoted the most, and any loadouts that got the attention of the staff reading the threads; then a new official poll would start, asking people to pick between the chosen loadouts.
In this case, that final step might not even be necessary, since having many options is actually a good thing and the AI needn't be narrowed down to just using 1 loadout.
___
Now, this has other implications as well: the current values of rank gain for defeating an NPC ship, and the bounty/bonds/whatever accrued, are based on the current live build where NPCs are held back by the limitations of their loadouts.
So if the NPCs are, in effect by all this, made to be more difficult (Challenging! Engaging! DEPTH! yada yada etc.), then each kill should be made to feel more worthwhile in a proportional fashion.
In other words, on the basis of each foe being more challenging and worthwhile to defeat, the gain in combat rank, the bounty/bond(s) awarded, and other rewards should be increased, in a measured fashion to make each individual kill feel Worth It.
I stress that point because, especially lately, combat in Elite is by far the grindiest activity I've ever done - each individual kill feels meaningless by itself, hardly worth the time or effort unless I continue to get dozens, hundreds, even thousands of kills, just to feel like I've won a fight. And that goes for the rewards I get too, easily exceeded by many other money-making tasks available in Elite (and I'm not talking about any exploits - just doing missions, passengers, various kinds of trading....)
I mean, can you imagine buying a thousand Anacondas? Where are NPCs getting all these ships, anyway? Who's footing the bills here? (This isn't one of the mysteries Elite is trying to keep hidden, right?)
So given that the prices for constructing ships are already *way* out of whack compared to the bounties we get for killing an equivalent ship, this has a nice side effect of closing that gap a bit in the name of believability.
Of course, it has to be *fair* - NPCs shouldn't become more powerful, per se, just tougher and more worthwhile to defeat. It's a subtle difference, perhaps, but an important one.
And, of course, that's a bit easier to get a feel for *now*, since NPCs no longer are pirouetting, using Skynet weapons, taking all-turreted loadouts and forgetting they can't fire any of those weapons, and so on!
Here, again, you can also use the community: have a beta session asking players to try combatting (or otherwise aggressively interacting with) NPCs using the new loadouts, and use the feedback to get a better feel of how much to change rank gains and awarded bounties and so on - to find the 'goldilocks zone', as it were: not too little, and not too much, but *just* right.
Last edited: