Horizons FDev, please talk to the active PVP community.

[Alexander the Grape]

The problem there is that if people in combat capable (PvP viable) ships are told to go Solo, Open ends up with nothing but min/maxed PvP builds. There will be no variety, simply X beats Y load outs, and C outruns D load outs.

There will be no traders, no explorers, no smugglers, no pirates, no bounty hunters and nobody else in Open unless they are in a min/maxed PvP build - and everyone will wonder why they have nobody to shoot, and "weak" players in ships unsuited to min/maxed PvP are all "hiding" in Solo.

For once I heartily agree with you.

The predominance of "combat internals" and their consumable nature means that PvP is virtually impossible for non-PvP ships. A trader/PvE fit ship has not only less HP than a PvP fit ship, but often orders of magnitude less due to the power of the combat internal.

A successful PvP balance system will balance not only PvP min-maxed ships against one another but also against non mim-maxed PvE or trader builds.

Sandro, I know that you have been against any restrictions on outfitting, and I admire this pro-choice standpoint: but ironically, more choice in the outfitting g screen can lead to less choice in-game!

Perrsonally I cannot see another way to reduce the huge disparity between PvP only and moneymaking ships. Simply giving every ships a few orca-style enforced cargo slots would go a long way towards both balancing between ships and reducing the disparity between min-maxed and non min-maxed ships.

Whats more, one of the biggest problems with Elite currently atm is that you can only really have one experience at a time: the advantages you get from specialisation are so great that the vast majority of player experiences are pre-planned and not spontaneous (now I will bounty grind, now I will trade grind, now I will PvP).

A degree of enforced versatility would go some way towards making the Elite experience more varied

 

[hannibal0216]

This game is way too passive, it's catered for the casual crowd. PvP is high-end game play, it's a part of powerplay, but because so many people are just outright bad at it, they don't want it to be a part of their special game.

We are not worthy!!

/s

First of all ED is neither passive or catered to the casual crowd. You must be thinking of Minecraft.

Second, I SUCK at PvP (got my Vulture shredded by a MkIII Viper the other day) but it is an important part of the game and should be encouraged. In my opinion, CQC should be PvP in its purest form; which it is not currently. Why not release all ships and modules for free use in CQC? That would be the perfect testing grounds for the 'best' PvP build.

 

[BigFW]

Hello Commanders!

I haven't had time to take a detailed stroll through this thread yet, but skimming this last page, just wanted to say that we don't currently have any plans to add PVP flags, as that functionality is what private and solo modes provide.

On a different note, there seems to be quite a bit of debate over the best PVP loadouts. So maybe folk would like to post their ideas of go-to PVP modules and ships? No need for mega-detail, just call out the paths of least resistance as you see them.

Though Private and Solo do provide a route for non PvP they also mean you are less likely to experience a busy station or just being around any hustle and bustle of real people in the Elite environment going about their business.

So is player conflict more a key part of Elite compared to player 'interaction'? I would have thought a PvP flag would increase the population in Open in which would make Elite feel a richer place regardless of the fact that some of them could not be killed/shot at.

I like playing in a jack of all trades type ship to maximise the type of things I can do in a 'session'. So I can maximise my enjoyment. Rightly or wrongly I don't feel I can do that in Open. I know depending where I am there is a good chance I will never meet another player but if I want to take part in events the perception is you may encounter unwanted conflict as opposed to wanted or even passive interaction.

(hmm, maybe this needs to go to Hotel California!)

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

. PvP is high-end game play, it's a part of powerplay, but because so many people are just outright bad at it, they don't want it to be a part of their special game.

Horse Hockey!

Some aspects of PvP may require skill, going to a warzone and fighting it out with similar geared war vessels, or going to a RES and bounty hunters taking out pirates

or pirates attempting to steal cargo - without blowing up ships (blowing up ships does not reward a pirate)

this aspect of PvP I have little issue with (aside from the pathetic legal response).

but there is a huge amount of "PvP" which is far from high level, and this is what puts me off it. I am all for complex game mechanics, I do not want an EASY game. personally i would make flying our ships far FAR harder, with way more complexities with equipment failure and what not.

(maybe not as hard core as DCS A10c warthog but there is an example of a game which is FAR from casual, and is not a primarily PvP game)

as for "my special game" I want the game promised by FD throughout 2013 and 2014 in their dev diaries... ie the game I researched before buying.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

Hello Commanders!

On a different note, there seems to be quite a bit of debate over the best PVP loadouts. So maybe folk would like to post their ideas of go-to PVP modules and ships? No need for mega-detail, just call out the paths of least resistance as you see them.

It's a trap!!!

 

[GluttonyFang]

Hello Commanders!

I haven't had time to take a detailed stroll through this thread yet, but skimming this last page, just wanted to say that we don't currently have any plans to add PVP flags, as that functionality is what private and solo modes provide.

On a different note, there seems to be quite a bit of debate over the best PVP loadouts. So maybe folk would like to post their ideas of go-to PVP modules and ships? No need for mega-detail, just call out the paths of least resistance as you see them.

I wrote about this relatively early at the beginning of the thread:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=222898&p=3400814&viewfull=1#post3400814

 

[lenna]

At-least Half the problem with game balance has nothing to do with PvE/PvP per se but is about people's expectations.
---
There is the point that despite the Anacoda/Cutter/Corvette's size they are not the mega-killer capital ships that some seem to think of them as and probably never will be. It is true that they are very powerful ships but they are only larger more powerful fighters and far from invincible (assuming enough skill, patience, and the right load-outs).
---
A number of people earlier in the thread have stated that missiles are worthless, now I am not really a fan of missiles in Elite but after testing a double seeker-missile launcher loadout (not pure missiles - complemented with Beam/Pulse Lasers) they are effective against at least smaller craft (an Eagle's hull down with 3-4 seeker missiles based on a recent engagement, a Cobra Mk III may require a couple more). Before I added the missiles, comparable engagements could take ALOT longer.
---
If anyone is expecting missiles to be a big I WIN button that allows smaller craft to beat larger craft with less effort then I think they are missing the whole point of the idea of BALANCE (especially considering this is a PvX setting).
---
Now admittedly, the above is against PvE targets and not of a particularly high level but the overall point still stands. Missiles can be effective and as they are balanced now are not big I WIN buttons, and IMO they should never be.
---
ECM and Point Defence helps to counter the current level of missile threat and the likes of Hull Reinforcement helps to moderate their effect (assuming the shields can be got through - which is rarely a concern as none of the shields feel impenetrable), which is both fair and reasonable.
---
No single ship or loadout should be considered a "one ship to rule them all" from a balance loadout, and while the Anaconda/Cutter/Corvette ships may be powerful they are not exactly god-like (although it can feel that way at times when punting around in the likes of Cobra Mk IIIs and similar).
---
WRT making ships more costly to maintain or more difficult to fly I have to disagree - the current system does impose a degree of ship maintenance (and the level of maintenance required depends to a degree on how we fly our ships) even without combat and the consequences of not maintaining your ship properly can be greater damage from Heat and/or Combat. The current status-quo on that score seems to be a healthy balance that supports all kinds of gameplay. If you want more interesting and more difficult combat engagements, then that is where FA/OFF comes into play, the increased difficulty comes with the benefit of being able to perform more interesting manoeuvres.

 

[Matt L. Icious]

we don't currently have any plans to add PVP flags, as that functionality is what private and solo modes provide.

Thus, an official PvE-only private group could render most of the discussions mood.

You want to play with strangers in limited free-for-all? Play CQC.
You want to play with strangers that might harbor ill intentions: Play open.
You want to play with strangers without any head-on competition: Play open-PvE. <- proposed
You want interaction only with your mates: Play private.
You don't want to be bothered by anyone: Play solo.

Implementation effort required: One additional menu item in the 'Start' section redirecting to a hard-coded private group. Server-side automatism that locks the open-PvE mode for the commander on a PvP kill in that mode. (PvP kill detection is already in place)
Support effort required: Complaint/accident handling regarding the automatic locks.

Seems doable to me and I am convinced there is a crowd for that mode beyond the Mobius inhabitants.

How would that differ from Mobius?
* More accessible. Being a 1st class game mode, every player would know about it and be able to join immediately. Mobius et al. require word-of-mouth knowledge and registration.
* More populated. Mobius and other private groups with similar intentions split the player base.
* Better policed. The automated response enforces the no-PvP rule much better than any private group could handle that.
* Fairer. The server-side decision does not rely on circumstantial evidence to ban a commander, but on hard server logs. No playing favorites, mudslinging etc.

 

[Alpha087]

NPC wingmen ARE being added, and if you added attack drones, it would mitigate the speed/maneuverability of small ships considerably.

If you're referring to deployable fighters, the effectiveness of these (and which ships can even deploy them for that matter) has yet to be seen. If I can expect a pair of Condors or Imperial Fighters deployed by my ship to be about the same as the ones found in Conflict Zones, then they won't really do anything other than distract the NPC for the 30 seconds it takes them to destroy the fighters.

As for actual, hirable NPC wingmen, I'm rather certain it was stated in one of the Horizons livestreams that we would never be getting these. Unless someone in FD has since changed their minds.


Let's not forget that we have larger "combat only" ships balanced around maneuverability. If the Corvette loses its maneuverability, what exactly is going to be left to keep it in the current price point and rank lock? No jump range, poor firepower compared to an Anaconda (even moreso with reduced maneuverability decreasing the effectiveness of PAs), not a whole lot of overall speed. Like it or not the game is sort of heavily balanced around "Combat Ships", "Multirole Ships", and "Trade Ships". Messing with that dynamic will force some ships to either be buffed or become as useless as the Courier is now.

 

[CMDR Thon Mystra]

No. It's really not. Nobody is saying a Viper should be able to destroy an Anaconda 1v1. That's not what "balance" means.



Again, no it doesn't. Different ships should have different advantages and disadvantage. Progress (to better and better ships) should not be linear. A viper should be good for SOME situations and an Anaconda should be good for OTHER situations. Namely, an Anaconda should be big, slow, tanky, and threatening. It is those things, but it's also nearly as maneuverable as other, smaller ships. A FAS for example is basically a Vulture on Steroids. I'll say it again - Every ship should have a "role", something it's GOOD at, some reason to pick it over something else. For example, the DBE and DBS make AMAZING stealth ships. The Courier USED to be a great "small tank", with the huge shield values, horrible heat distribution, horrible hull values, and mediocre everything else. Now the Courier is effectively useless because low-end SCB's are useless and the Courier doesn't have the heat management to deal with them. So if you want to fly a Courier, what do you do? You stack it up with HRP's like every other small ship!

My point is - balance is possible, but the way FDev goes about it is completely unintuitive. For example, rather than simply buffing Hull Reinf, or limited the # of SCB's you could have per ship, or lowering the amount of SCB charges you got per module, they did a few things:

1. Increased heat on SCB's (what?!)
2. Made LOW end Hull Reinf GOOD but high end Hull Reinf BAD
3. Made HIGH end SCB's GOOD but LOW end SCB's bad.
4. Buffed heat sinks to compensate for the SCB heat nerf.. They buffed heat sinks to solve a problem they created that didn't need to be created!

SMALL ships (the ones that equipped small SCB's), were never the problem! They weren't the ships causing 20 minute long PVP encounters. You're thinking Anacondas and Pythons in 1v1... Anacondas should be most effective when escorted by a wing of smaller ships. They should not be a solo monster. That should be heavy fighters (See: FdL)



Again, not a problem if you have ROLES.. It's possible to make every ship VIABLE in PVP while also having some restrictions on how it *should* be used. No single ship should be able to dominate every other ship (See: The current FAS.) If you have a Rock-Paper-Scissors dynamic, it allows for counter-play.



Sure it does. FDev just doesn't know how to balance a MP Game, clearly, or they would have never created the bonuses that Arissa Lavingy Duval and Zachary Hudson get, when compared to the Bonuses of, say, Patreus. They would have never thought Prismatic Shields and Imperial Hammers and Pulse Disruptors were comparable to useless modules like...a mining lance.



Know what organized PVP events consist of? 1 hour of attempting to work around broken instancing.

Know what else happens in ALL PvP?

People shoot each other, people tank as much as they can, when their tank runs out they high-wake out to avoid a 5% or lower rebuy cost.


Know what should happen?

People should be able to employ tactics, ships, builds, and skills which can overcome one another through counter-play.


This is the fundamental problem with ED "Balance" right now.. It's not that Small ships are and big ships are awesome. (not the case). It's not that SCB's or HRP's are broken (they need balancing, but they're not broken.).. The problem isn't that SCB's create too much heat (they do) or that they should remain the way they are (they shouldn't)..

The problem is, THERE IS NO COUNTER-PLAY TO ANYTHING.

Here's how simple PVP is in this game:

1. Learn how to high-wake.
2. Stack shields/Hull Reinf/whatever defense is best for your particular ship
3. Learn to shoot with Fixed weapons and do so.
4. Interdict or get interdicted, deal as much damage as possible before you're forced to run or the enemy is forced to run.
5. ???
6. No profit.


The problem is the PvP is STALE. It's not REWARDING.. and I am not saying we need credits or merits or "in game" rewards for PvP.. I'm saying the game has an AMAZING Space-Combat engine, and it squanders it through stale game-play and jacked up balance decisions that have made it completely linear/1 dimensional.

There's no "risk/reward". There's no innovation or creativity that goes into it.

Fix that, and you have the best space combat game on the market.

Don't fix it, and Elite Dangerous remains an extremely niche market where eventually games like Star Citizen (which I do not like, mind you), take over.. Or other games (Eve) release 1st person versions and they take your player-base.. Or.. something new comes along and does well what ED does poorly.

In any case, I love the game and I hate the idea of quitting; but it's really getting to that point where I feel like the Devs make decisions that MAKE NO SENSE.

I have to agree with Imp here. Getting jumped by a clipper whilst in my trademark FDL, despite an eventual loss and 8MIL or so buyback, was IMMENSE fun! However getting jumped whilst in said FDL by 2 clippers and a conda was NOT any fun whatsoever. The first scenario kept me in open for a while, the second pushed me to solo and mobius.

Point is; PVP itself isnt the issue here, the issue is the interaction of the PVP crowd with the PVE crowd. Both Imp and GlttonyFang have given valid reasons and good ideas for balancing ships, and PVP in general, however the one issue of group-ganking lone players is one that is never going to go away. The "bring your mates to a one on one fight" mentality is prevalent in real life as much as games and can really only be controlled and not eradicated completely.

I am all for player pirates being able to rob other players or claim a bounty on a local scoundrel but that is not really whats going on, killing someone without a bounty on them, or without taking any cargo, with your 3 biggest mates IS griefing.

And it is here that I disagree slightly with this post.

What I read is that there needs to be more reward for PVPing. Bounties? Cargo? Got those. So what else could there be? Rewards for killing random players? What should the risk be on that? The risk factor for being a bounty hunter is only the chance of losing the fight, the risk for a PROPER pirate (remember pirates are thieves not murderers; they cant rob a corpse twice) again is only that of losing the fight, the bounty for stripping some shields is negligible and completely negated by leaving the system. The current risk for murder? Again, negligible. Griefers don't prey in their native systems, any encounters with NPC authorities result in dead authorities. No risk for murder means the police are also fair game.

"I'll put a price on your head so large you won't be able to go near a civilised system"

The risk for cold-blooded murder needs to be increased, massively, not rewarded; and enforced more effectively.....somehow. We've seen how borked smuggling has become through increasing enforcement to the other end of the scale to the point that there's a guaranteed interdiction every jump. That's not what we need. What we need is a better bounty system where PVPers can get player bounty missions and be able to track that player and hunt them down. (Old Star Wars Galaxies players will know what I mean here)

Give the community the tools to hunt griefers and the griefing will decrease.

I've had bounties myself for...*ahem*...one reason or another. Highest single: 283, 943Cr Highest concurrent total: 1,422, 534Cr and whilst none of them were player-related in any way, it was exciting jumping into systems where people might try to claim that bounty. Sadly only the code were brave enough to interdict me, and the three of them did a good job too

Seriously though, mindless murder either in a game or reality, is not something we generally ascribe to as civilised beings but there are always the few that do. Currently the enforcement of the crime of murder is left to AI police that ram you outside stations because they can't fly and scan at the same time, whilst bounties are treated like ASBOs and worn like a badge of achievement simply because there are no repercussions.

The main problem with SDC's current 'blockade' is that it's a sham. A veiled excuse to gank other players for kicks. As if destroying weaponless ASPs isn't enough, dead folk don't talk, they don't spread the word and so SDC's message never gets heard...except on reddit....which I don't read....not everybody does. Violence should be a last resort for a blockade, especially if they want people to stay away. Otherwise they will need a presence on all the respective barnacle planets until...well, the end of time really, as people are going to keep coming even after the CG ends.

....which will be when SDC pulls out of pleaides.....we all know it. This situation could be different with an easier in-game way to find other like-minded players who wanted them.....dealt with. There shouldn't have to be a choice made between playing the game or playing the forum game. Not everybody has the time, nor inclination, to develop a large post-count on the boards.

YES to more PVP
GIVE US more PVP tools
GIVE US more reasons to PVP
GIVE US the tools to deal with the plebs that spoil the game for everybody else, such as the pirate groups that suddenly develop a sense of humanity and want to prevent an alien war or the ones that, you know....don't actually steal stuff...

This is actually a game where PVP and PVE can live in harmony, all we need is a way to weed out the morons.

And balance.

Regards

 

[zeq]

My two cents on the matter. While consulting hardcore pvpers will lead to better balance for the game, it also has a real possibility of significantly raising the skill floor. It is a rather common occurrence in games. What is balanced at the casual level usually isn't at the competitive level, and vice versa. Balance is rarely uniform in a game, and working the mechanics so balance is retained across all skill levels and all methods of play is a monumental task. Especially if the goal of said balance is to increase the number of viable builds available, or to try and increase the skill ceiling. There is a reason every time a significant balance change comes out, there seems to be a shouting match on the forums about whether it is good or not. Depending on skill level and playstyle, any given balance change will affect you differently. Some of that is also a result of people becoming dependent on certain crutches, and unable to immediately adapt when that crutch is nerfed.

To be honest, ED is a game with a very high skill floor, and a relatively low skill ceiling, especially where pve is concerned. Most of the learning curve is just learning basic maneuvering in your ship. After you have done that and learned to stay on target, and you basically have all the skill you need for pve. While I can't really speak on behalf of pvp, it would seem that skill does matter a lot more, but there is still a limit to how much skill can contribute. Anything that can further raise this skill ceiling without making it harder to start out should be pursued, and I definitely think there are things that could be done to that end.

I ultimately feel that giving the dedicated pvp group some amount of say is a good idea. It should, however, be done knowing that the pvp group is a niche focus in this game and when it comes between balance for pve and pvp, pve is the area that should be focused.

 

[Noctover]

That's a little exagerated, isn't it?
Yes, PvP is existent in Open and it's treated like it's a major problem. But it simply isn't.
It's not like every CMDR in Open is about to kill every other CMDR.
Those are just a few and 95% of the people in Open won't start a fight.

My personal opinion on PvP in Open is:

Taking PvP from Open is like removing the cacao from chocolate (white chocolate, yummy, but not what I meant).
"Oh look, I'm a mighty pirate who bounces off your hull as you fly lauging away in your spacecow."
If you want to play in Solo, play in Solo.
If you want to play in PG, play in PG.
But don't go to Open and then cry about players able to hurt you.

You've pretty much said exactly what I've said many times on this forum in the last few weeks, PVP seems to be a hot bashing topic at the moment.

Unfortunately Becks, opinions like ours are not popular here .

 

[lenna]

You've pretty much said exactly what I've said many times on this forum in the last few weeks, PVP seems to be a hot bashing topic at the moment.

Unfortunately Becks, opinions like ours are not popular here .

I believe that there are many that are not strictly saying "remove PvP from Open" but rather add "a formal PvE only Open environment". Some PvPers seem to fear that such a move would mean the death of Open with PvP but if it did then it would be a natural death.
---
A half-way solution to the call for adding an Open-PvE environment would be for FD to increase the visibility of (and formally recognise) one of the PvE-only private groups (e.g. Mobius/EDC) as the "official" go-to-private/moderated-group for PvE focused gameplay. That would at least address the problem in part wrt private groups being considered tantamount to secret/semi-secret rooms.
---
However, this thread is not about the PvP/PvE divide per se but rather seems to be focused on balancing issues that may affect PvP gameplay... IMO FD are already walking the PvX balancing tightrope quite well and could do without one focus group or another pushing them in favour of PvE/PvP gameplay overall.

 

[GluttonyFang]

You've pretty much said exactly what I've said many times on this forum in the last few weeks, PVP seems to be a hot bashing topic at the moment.

Unfortunately Becks, opinions like ours are not popular here .

PvP has always been a hot bashing topic, knowledgeable PvP players on this forum is truly lacking, no wonder why I have to facepaw so many times on this forum in a single day.

 

[Noctover]

PvP has always been a hot bashing topic, knowledgeable PvP players on this forum is truly lacking, no wonder why I have to facepaw so many times on this forum in a single day.

There are many knowledgeable PVPers on this forum, they just know better than to post about it anymore because they get shouted down by the majority of PVE master racers.

 

[GluttonyFang]

There are many knowledgeable PVPers on this forum, they just know better than to post about it anymore because they get shouted down by the majority of PVE master racers.

Hahaha...

Well... I guess I'm one of the braver/naive ones...

 

[lenna]

There are many knowledgeable PVPers on this forum, they just know better than to post about it anymore because they get shouted down by the majority of PVE master racers.

It is the height of hubris to assume that just because you play a given game a given way that you know that game better than anyone else.
---
Where game balance is concerned, it is all just opinion.

 

[GluttonyFang]

It is the height of hubris to assume that just because you play a given game a given way that you know that game better than anyone else.
---
Where game balance is concerned, it is all just opinion.

There's this thing called polymath that exists, while it can still specialize in one subject...

 

[Etherimp]

It is the height of hubris to assume that just because you play a given game a given way that you know that game better than anyone else.
---
Where game balance is concerned, it is all just opinion.

What's hubris is coming here lecturing PvPers on how balanced Missiles are BECAUSE YOU TESTED THEM AGAINST NPC'S.

 

[lenna]

What's hubris is coming here lecturing PvPers on how balanced Missiles are BECAUSE YOU TESTED THEM AGAINST NPC'S.

Ever consider the balance of missiles is fine and it is something else at fault instead?
---
Missiles as they stand are probably powerful enough, overall the problem with balance in general is that it is all about trade offs. It does not matter if the opposition is PC or NPC, the concerns with balance are the same in essence.
---
The only difference really is that certain types of player opponents tend to min-max/meta which may result in certain weapons becoming less effective against them. Perhaps it is the min-max/metas that need to be nerfed as opposed to weapons beefed up.