Modes How to maybe solve one of the problems of pvp in open...

[Shinji Ikari]

Fly with a single cargo rack, any size, a fuel scoop, any size, and a disco scanner, then show us how good you are. I'm sure you'll be just as successful, right? IF that's the case, then my implementation is great for you, cos it means I'll be in open looking forward to fighting people like you, and your regular quarry will provide more of a challenge, or do you like looking at wake trails?

See, that's the issue, using modules that give no protection is obviously dangerous. Why do you think I fly in solo when I return to the bubble when I come back from my exploration trips?

Or you could just git gud. I've never had a problem. Here is a hint, get yourself a decent g5 dirty drive, use a fast ship (i.e. clipper) and know how to high wake. Problem solved no?

No, get a Python.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

I fully agree with OP. Not to solve any griefing issues, but to make the game better.

- Restrict all modules and utilities, except cargo racks to one per ship.

- Restrict SCBs, HRPs and MRPs to military slots only.

- Remove special effects and premium amo.

If any particular ship gets to weak from being restricted to one SB, just beef up it's base shield.

Problem solved. More fun for everyone.

I disagree. That would severly limit our possibilities when bulding a ship. For what logical reason can't I make my ship a hull tank and remove the shields?

 

[Shinji Ikari]

OP is pointless. If you fully specialize a ship towards assassination, and spend countless hours harvesting G5 mat/data and actually min-maxing the rolls, of course You should have a much efficient killing machine, albeit unable to fuel scoop, mining, scanning or jumping. Figures.

Also, people CAN escape aggression in Open, even as of now. Here's a (ironic, I know) guide:
1. Drop some cargo capacity for shields/hull.
2. Learn to submit, boost and highwake.
3. Don't gimp your whole fit, denying yourself survivability.
4. Since you're in Open, fly paranoid. Check contacts regularly.
5. You can even emergency drop from SuperCruise when the "new contact" ping appears.

Of course these aren't 100% effective. Not should they be, you're in Open, then balance your profits against your losses.


Efficient C&P / bounties is the way to go. Not, gimping ship specialization.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to EvE4evah again.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

People don't wanna run away. I play in solo for exactly that reason, I want to fight whatever I come across. No offence mate, but you haven't understood the proposal, you know we see eye to eye on a lot of things, I'm not going to sweet talk you. I would have expected your support on this as a theorycrafter. Please have another look, understand it and let me know what you think, it's s mechanics thing, not a 'git gud' thing.

I read what you proposed. Whatever the purpose it has, it's not a good idea. I'm also a theorycrafter (albeit, only in exploration) if you wonder...

 

[Shinji Ikari]

It's a thought, but it's not fair to have to use every slot for defence or your only gameplay is 'run away'. They must just like seeing wake trails

Why is it fair then to use all slots with cargo racks?

They introduced military slots together with MRP (module reinforcement pack) and reducing weight of all HRPs by 50%. It was supposed to increase survivability of ships when shields fail, as this was tested together with stacking limits on shield boosters. But the shield booster changes didn't happen so we just ended up with all combat ships getting incredible hull strength with barely any downsides, while still having incredibly strong shields with barely any downsides.

And BTW the next round of proposed shield booster changes has resulted in much increased shield regeneration rates and, again, no change to shield strength.

So after 2 "balance" passes the gap between combat and non-combat ships is much bigger than it was and ships that were already indestructible got even stronger.

Does that matter? Does a trader pretend to kill the pirate who is chasing him or just try to escape instead?

 

[Shinji Ikari]

How to fix Open:
Get rid of Solo and PG.
Put a disclaimer on the title screen informing people that this is a multiplayer game.

Wrong thread, https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ps-thread-IV-Hotel-California?highlight=Hotel

 

[Vasious]

I find this odd as doing the CG today I am starting to see a lot of ships with no shields trading
In all sizes from Asp Xs to Clippers Pythons Anaconda Cutters and Type 9s

They dont see to have a problem with either Open, or maximising a ship in one direction to maximise performance in that area

Some of the names I recognise from the Ho Hsi conflict where they were in as equally specialised

They see to just outfit the right ship for the job at hand.

None of that suggests the OPs assertion that there is a problem with Open is true.

Just seems the OP has changes they want made to the game to suit them, at the expense of others who don't see there is a problem,.

I am not interested in entertaining the narrative there is a problem as justification of the OPs solution just to benefit them at the expense of others.

 

[NW3]

I'm hesitant to reply to this thread. The problem, imo, is the lack of balance. For "proper" PvP, the game needs to be more like OverWatch: No rebuys, similar power and defenses, so that it's a fair match. FD tried that with CQC, which was a good idea in principle, but completely missed the mark.

While I like the OP's concept, I don't think it can fix the fundamental problems that currently exist in Open. For that matter, I don't think the proposed C&P will be sufficient either. Someone mentioned improving the authority ship response: Much faster response with weapons that are sufficient to engage over-engineered PvP ships. That could help.

Unfortunately, these things are unlikely to tempt me to play in Open, because the cost of losing my progress is too high. One thing that might, would be to restrict instances so that they only contain "similar" ships, so it's a "reasonably fair" fight. That is, if you have an engineered PvP ship, you would only see other PvP ships with comparable (engineered) build outs. If you are in a wing, you'd only share an instance with other wings. If you want to be a pirate, you'd need to have some empty cargo racks in a ship that is suitable for trading and weapons suitable for disabling a ship, not obliterating it. Battles which last a few seconds aren't fun for at least one of the parties.

I'm sure the PvPers would hate this, so there's no chance that FD would implement something like this, but until they do, I won't be playing in Open.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

I'm hesitant to reply to this thread. The problem, imo, is the lack of balance. For "proper" PvP, the game needs to be more like OverWatch: No rebuys, similar power and defenses, so that it's a fair match. FD tried that with CQC, which was a good idea in principle, but completely missed the mark.

While I like the OP's concept, I don't think it can fix the fundamental problems that currently exist in Open. For that matter, I don't think the proposed C&P will be sufficient either. Someone mentioned improving the authority ship response: Much faster response with weapons that are sufficient to engage over-engineered PvP ships. That could help.

Unfortunately, these things are unlikely to tempt me to play in Open, because the cost of losing my progress is too high. One thing that might, would be to restrict instances so that they only contain "similar" ships, so it's a "reasonably fair" fight. That is, if you have an engineered PvP ship, you would only see other PvP ships with comparable (engineered) build outs. If you are in a wing, you'd only share an instance with other wings. If you want to be a pirate, you'd need to have some empty cargo racks in a ship that is suitable for trading and weapons suitable for disabling a ship, not obliterating it. Battles which last a few seconds aren't fun for at least one of the parties.

I'm sure the PvPers would hate this, so there's no chance that FD would implement something like this, but until they do, I won't be playing in Open.

Play as you will, but I think the dangerous feeling in the game is thrilling

 

[NW3]

Play as you will, but I think the dangerous feeling in the game is thrilling

Sure, there's risk and it is thrilling. There's nothing quite like the feelings you get when (stupidly) flying without a rebuy. (I try to avoid that, but I've done it a few times.) Another is returning to the bubble with months of exploration data in an exploration ship with tissue-paper shields.

Generally, I try to avoid unnecessary risk, like flying in Open in a non-PvP ship.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Sure, there's risk and it is thrilling. There's nothing quite like the feelings you get when (stupidly) flying without a rebuy. (I try to avoid that, but I've done it a few times.) Another is returning to the bubble with months of exploration data in an exploration ship with tissue-paper shields.

Generally, I try to avoid unnecessary risk, like flying in Open in a non-PvP ship.

Ah sure, I return in Solo or private group. No questions on that.

 

[NecasekO]

Ah sure, I return in Solo or private group. No questions on that.

Exactly. OP is trying to think of a way to enable more ships to fly in Open and have fun combat encounters. Which is not possible with current defence stacking mechanics.

 

[MrFailfactory]

I'm having a hard time processing why any ship that isn't optimized for Combat should be on equivalent ground with one that is.

That position makes no sense whatsoever, and quite frankly, invalidates any reasoning that follows it.

That's not even mentioning ships that aren't fit for any kind of serious NPC combat (let alone PvP), like most Trade or Exploration builds.

Riôt

 

[Aashenfox]

I like it how it is. Someone wants to rambo their ship out, go for it. Neutering everyone so that it becomes a Barbie doll convention doesn't solve the issue which is that some people want nothing but pew pew and some people want nothing but environment hugging.

That's just how the game is. Trying to survive in that world is more interesting than the placid world suggested in the OP.

THat's not what's being suggested, please feel free to read the thread properly and contribute a considered opinion.

I'm having a hard time processing why any ship that isn't optimized for Combat should be on equivalent ground with one that is.

That position makes no sense whatsoever, and quite frankly, invalidates any reasoning that follows it.

That's not even mentioning ships that aren't fit for any kind of serious NPC combat (let alone PvP), like most Trade or Exploration builds.

Riôt

THat's not what's being suggested, please feel free to read the thread properly and contribute a considered opinion.

 

[Aashenfox]

I find this odd as doing the CG today I am starting to see a lot of ships with no shields trading
In all sizes from Asp Xs to Clippers Pythons Anaconda Cutters and Type 9s

They dont see to have a problem with either Open, or maximising a ship in one direction to maximise performance in that area

Some of the names I recognise from the Ho Hsi conflict where they were in as equally specialised

They see to just outfit the right ship for the job at hand.

None of that suggests the OPs assertion that there is a problem with Open is true.

Just seems the OP has changes they want made to the game to suit them, at the expense of others who don't see there is a problem,.

I am not interested in entertaining the narrative there is a problem as justification of the OPs solution just to benefit them at the expense of others.

On the contrary, YOU are the selfish one saying don't change my game for everyone's good, 'I' like it how it is.

You also haven't understood the proposal, it's ok, it does requre a deep understanding of the variables of outfitting, and how engineering and resistances work, it's pretty dry stuff, but if you're intereted, you only have to read the posts in this thread with your brain turned on instead of your "nobody could possibly ever have a better idea than me!" cap on. This is not about me OR you.

Exactly. OP is trying to think of a way to enable more ships to fly in Open and have fun combat encounters. Which is not possible with current defence stacking mechanics.

Thanks for the help mate, I really appreciate it. The concept is too much for many people, they can't visualise it and just cry nerf liek I said on the first page. What can you do, take a horse to water and all that. <sigh>

 

[Weylandt]

I guess the real question is what do we (and FD) want to "open play" to be: a big free-for-all where all non-PVP players are basically free lunch for anybody inclined to attack them. Or the main game mode where the majority of players of all trades (exploration, trading, bounty hunting, piracy and PvP, ...) play and where of course, pvp is one component. In the end, this is always about risk. A guy (or gal) in a pvp-optimised ship risks almost nothing when he or she attacks a non-pvp ship. Either he can destroy the target very quickly, or he can dis-engage if he bit off more than he can chew. Even in the worst case, the attacker's rebuy cost will probably be significantly less than that of a bigger trading vessel. I'd say that this disparity in risks is what allows many ganker/griefer type pvp-players to do what they do.
This is why I have big hopes for a good crime & punishment system: we need to make it riskier for the pvp crowd to attack others players who do not specialize in pvp. So if an unprovoked attack and destruction of a player ship leads to a very hefty bounty, they might rethink their idea of fun. Add restrictions of access to high-security systems or a more aggressive response by system authorities when they encounter these players, this could at least reduce the amounts of ganking and griefing in open mode.
Some dial-down on the more extreme engineering effects would be nice as well. Of course, a combat-designed ship should be able to take down a bigger, less combat-oriented ship.. but if a reasonably shielded and armored Anaconda is taken down by a small ship in a matter of seconds, this is way over the top.

 

[Aashenfox]

How would they get more content by not having access to certain builds they like to use?

THat's not what's being suggested, please feel free to read the thread properly and contribute a considered opinion.

See, that's the issue, using modules that give no protection is obviously dangerous. Why do you think I fly in solo when I return to the bubble when I come back from my exploration trips?



No, get a Python.

You don't get it.

 

[Aashenfox]

I read what you proposed. Whatever the purpose it has, it's not a good idea. I'm also a theorycrafter (albeit, only in exploration) if you wonder...

No you didn't, or you didn't understand it. The way I write about this, how could you possibly think I want to REDUCE anything. My proposal...

* Means you can be optimal and still be able to do SEOMTHING other than kill players.
* Makes the loadout choice menaingful again because you won't be able to get 55% resistance to EVERYTHING, you'll have to choose a direction of specialization.
* Means that the difference betwen a PvE COMBAT spec ship and a PvP combat spec ship is no longer 50% in terms of defence just because the other person doesn't want to play the game, they just want to stack military modules so they know that anyone else not similarly specced is nothing but a victim, and kill players who don't ave a chance. How many advantages do they need in order to win?? More military modules, better engineering AND more skill? Couldn't we reduce ONE of those to make it a little more 'interesting'?
* With the resistances down, the PvP ships won't be completely impervious to PvE weapons. You won't be 'helpless' unless you use PAs and Rails or a specialised special effect build suddenly, this would be very nice.
* In open a combat fit ship's only option when faced by a pvper won't be just 'run away'
* The PvPers will have more content, they will still be better min maxed, they will still have more skill, they just won't have a 50% gear advantage, which is something they certainly shouldn't have over someone COMBAT specced who's running an assassination mission (and therefore probably has a disco scanner and fuel scoop)

And the most important thing of all. Are these PvPers saying they NEED a 50% afvantge to take out a pve specced combat ship? Couldn't they do it if both ships were forced to carry at least 2 non military modules? This will also dramatically increase the viable builds and go someway toward reducing the huge and unreasonable power creep. BEtter dimishing returns as stated by another poster would also help.

Elite PvP has a VERY VERY VERY high skill cap. PvPers who don't want to be able to be touched by anyone are basically cowards saying that if the playing field was more level they wouldn't be interested. That's the ones that actually understand impact of the proposal, most of them can't be bothered or lack the gumption it seems.

 

[EdzUp]

Majorly easier way to solve PvP is make it so you can only have ONE engineered module in a ship at once, more than one causes a conflict which makes them more fragile dependent on how many more you have.

 

[Aashenfox]

Majorly easier way to solve PvP is make it so you can only have ONE engineered module in a ship at once, more than one causes a conflict which makes them more fragile dependent on how many more you have.

Appreciate the suggestion, that would help, definitely, but I don't think it would have enough impact, you'll still have player killers filling every slot with military parts and any spec that isn't equivalent is still just a victim, cos whetever is applied has to be applied evenly. Engineering and C&p are definitely important areas that need work, but they are indpendent of this particular mechanic, the problem with which was stated very succinctly by this poster...

They introduced military slots together with MRP (module reinforcement pack) and reducing weight of all HRPs by 50%. It was supposed to increase survivability of ships when shields fail, as this was tested together with stacking limits on shield boosters. But the shield booster changes didn't happen so we just ended up with all combat ships getting incredible hull strength with barely any downsides, while still having incredibly strong shields with barely any downsides.

And BTW the next round of proposed shield booster changes has resulted in much increased shield regeneration rates and, again, no change to shield strength.

So after 2 "balance" passes the gap between combat and non-combat ships is much bigger than it was and ships that were already indestructible got even stronger.