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

[Han_Zen]

This is just word-salad, I'm afraid.

You want to place restrictions on what modules people can fit into slots and you're trying to sell it as "REMOVING the RESTRICTION" when you're actually intent on doing exactly the opposite.

You're not going to stop people from "griefing"others just because they can't load up a ship with HRPs, MRPs and SCBs.
What's more, I hate to break it to you but you're also not going to do any better at combat just because those ships aren't fitted with those modules.

If you're currently playing in Solo because you're worried your ship is going to get smoked in Open, it's probably for the best if you remain there because limiting the modules available to PvP ships isn't going to make much difference.

Aside from anything else, it's not usually the defensive capabilities of a ship that make it dangerous. It's the weapons.
Unless you want to nerf "remove the restriction" ([where is it]) from those as well, you're probably going to end up just as exploded.

Restrictions are good. It limmits extreme specialication. If we didn't have them, people would put five shield generators in a Cutter.

Several optional interal modules have a 'one per ship' limit. Moving HRPs, MRPs and SCBs to this category, would not hurt anyone. No one needs more than one, If no one else has more than one.

The same goes for utilities.

Limits like this would free up slots that pirates could use for cargo space, scanners and limpet controllers and still stay at max combat capability.

It would also reduce the TTK for meta builds, that is way to high at the moment.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Restrictions are good. It limmits extreme specialication. If we didn't have them, people would put five shield generators in a Cutter.

Several optional interal modules have a 'one per ship' limit. Moving HRPs, MRPs and SCBs to this category, would not hurt anyone. No one needs more than one, If no one else has more than one.

The same goes for utilities.

Limits like this would free up slots that pirates could use for cargo space, scanners and limpet controllers and still stay at max combat capability.

It would also reduce the TTK for meta builds, that is way to high at the moment.

What's the deal with extreme specialization? Blaze your own trail.
Also, most modules that have a limit of one are they way they are because having more than one would be literally useless. What can you do with two ADS?

 

[NeilF]

Just thinking out loud, I haven't given this full processing power yet, but let's get a discussion going and see...

The way I see it, the problem with pvping in open, is that the people who are just minding their own business, doing CGs, missions, whatever, are in ships that have possibly 'some' armor, 'some' shield batteries, but they'll be mostly technical, non military modules, limpet controllers, cargo racks, scanners, docking computer, etc etc.

The griefers on the other hand and those out looking for a pvp fight in general, have a military item in every single slot. Their ships are useful for NOTHING except dogfighting, they even have to dock to refuel and visit a nav beacon to scan a system. ANYTHING less than that is BADLY suboptimal. I enjoyed building my FAS, it is overpowered as hell, completely ridiculous, over 9000 (lol, unintentional reference there) effective armor against all conventional attacks (shieldless), but like that, I can only do one thing. Fight other players. I'm not even optimal for fighting one on one against NPCs as I don't have my warrant scanner.

This creates a huge disparity, the murderers are in untouchable ships and the victims are in squishy mission runners.

So, why not simply make it so you can't have a military item in every slot? If every ship was restricted in terms of military slots, you could still have a pvp meta ship and still run a few missions, and otherwise play the game, not having to refuel at stations, being able to disco scan and fuel scoop, and STILL pvp at the highest level the next minute.

I know if this was implemented, I would play in open from that moment on, knowing that I could be competitive against griefers in my mission runner, it would FREE me to play in open and LOOK FORWARD to my next interdiction. I could know I wouldn't have to face someone who was 50% stronger than me before skill even came into play.

Just a thought.

Why not actually make psychotic behaviour accountable?

Sure you could probably get away with a few illegal destructions over a given period, but then penalties start ramping up, quick! If you act like a psycho more and more stations won't let you dock. More and more systems start denying you a permit. You're highlighted as a psycho to other CMDRS.

Why is the interdiction and mindless destruction of CMDRs seen as some sort of noble, deep gameplay we need to tolerate? Surely it's little more than the three year old placeholder gameplay it is?

Surely PvP should be a bit more involved and interesting by now? It needs more interesting easily accessed gameplay (scenarios), with mindless/illegal destruction held accountable by some sensible cause and effect outcomes...

 

[Stealthie]

Restrictions are good. It limmits extreme specialication.

No.

Useful, justifiable, restrictions are good.

Restricting things just for the sake of making it seem like you've done something, or restricting things and causing a bigger problem than the one you're attempting to solve, is almost always a bad idea.

It's not modules (or weapons) that encourages people to go and do nasty things. it's the fact that they can get away with doing nasty things with no consequences that encourages it.

Give everybody a Sidewinder with no shields and a pea-shooter for a weapon and you're still going to get people acting like tools as long as there's no significant deterrent.

 

[Han_Zen]

What's the deal with extreme specialization? Blaze your own trail.
Also, most modules that have a limit of one are they way they are because having more than one would be literally useless. What can you do with two ADS?

The main problem in ED is that it allows extreme specialization on a very limited area. I can chose to use all my optional internals, military slots and utilities to boost my defense. I can not use all of them to boost my speed, my jump range, my heat management or my firepower. Not even my cargo capacity.

It's an illusion of freedom that leads to lack of variety. Only tank builds are given the opportunity. That makes it boring.

No.

Useful, justifiable, restrictions are good.

Restricting things just for the sake of making it seem like you've done something, or restricting things and causing a bigger problem than the one you're attempting to solve, is almost always a bad idea.

It's not modules (or weapons) that encourages people to go and do nasty things. it's the fact that they can get away with doing nasty things with no consequences that encourages it.

Give everybody a Sidewinder with no shields and a pea-shooter for a weapon and you're still going to get people acting like tools as long as there's no significant deterrent.

I don't care about people doing bad things. I just want a more interesting game.

 

[Stealthie]

I don't care about people doing bad things. I just want a more interesting game.

I would be interested to hear how you think limiting people's module choices would achieve that.

It's a bit like when they change the rules in Formula 1.
They change the rules and for a couple of months wacky things happen but then everybody finds the new "meta" and it's business as usual again.
The fast cars are still fast, the slow cars are still slow and the best drivers, in the best cars, still win all the races.

Same thing is going to apply in ED.

 

[Aashenfox]

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

Clapping each other on the back for failing to understand something is not really productive now, is it.

What's the deal with extreme specialization? Blaze your own trail.
Also, most modules that have a limit of one are they way they are because having more than one would be literally useless. What can you do with two ADS?

Gotcha, blaze your own trail is exactly what you can't do now. Blaze one trail, or lets say 1 of 4 trails, or be a victim. Do you not see that? I ask you both again, does it seem logical that you can get 56% resistance to everything? Do diminishing returns (if you even know what that means) seem like they're working properly at the moment?

Why not actually make psychotic behaviour accountable?

Sure you could probably get away with a few illegal destructions over a given period, but then penalties start ramping up, quick! If you act like a psycho more and more stations won't let you dock. More and more systems start denying you a permit. You're highlighted as a psycho to other CMDRS.

Why is the interdiction and mindless destruction of CMDRs seen as some sort of noble, deep gameplay we need to tolerate? Surely it's little more than the three year old placeholder gameplay it is?

Surely PvP should be a bit more involved and interesting by now? It needs more interesting easily accessed gameplay (scenarios), with mindless/illegal destruction held accountable by some sensible cause and effect outcomes...

Sadly my proposal won't stop psychotic behavior, we need both.

 

[Aashenfox]

This is just word-salad, I'm afraid.

You want to place restrictions on what modules people can fit into slots and you're trying to sell it as "REMOVING the RESTRICTION" when you're actually intent on doing exactly the opposite.

You're not going to stop people from "griefing"others just because they can't load up a ship with HRPs, MRPs and SCBs.
What's more, I hate to break it to you but you're also not going to do any better at combat just because those ships aren't fitted with those modules.

If you're currently playing in Solo because you're worried your ship is going to get smoked in Open, it's probably for the best if you remain there because limiting the modules available to PvP ships isn't going to make much difference.

Aside from anything else, it's not usually the defensive capabilities of a ship that make it dangerous. It's the weapons.
Unless you want to nerf "remove the restriction" ([where is it]) from those as well, you're probably going to end up just as exploded.

No.

There are ships which have military slots, yeh? Restrictions, you gotta have something military in there, right? Then you have a load of 'free' slots' that you can put whatever you want in. ok?

So, if you take those military slots and simply change the restriction from one of military item to one of non-military item, you immediately make it so that people can carry at least 2 non military items and still do pvp effectively, WIN! The prupose of those miltary slots was to give a ship more protection while still allowing it to carry mission gear. Unfortunately, FD failed to anticipate that players could then put a military item in EVERY slot, making the already overpowered ships more so. It;s like the parents went away and left little Johnny to look after his sister Jane, they gave Johnny enough money to look after both, but Johnny thought, screw that, I'm spending it all on me! There's a phrase for that too, it goes 'having your cake and eating it'. They should have given the money to Jane, cos they knew Johnny was a griefer...silly parents.

If you switch that around, you've STILL given those ships the extra slots, they're just non military now, that doesn't mean they can't still fill al the optional slots with military items, it just means that someone else in the same ship can ALSO have a military item in every slot and a disco sscanner and fuel scoop in the now (non military ) restricted slot. Nobody got nerfed, we just repurposed an existing restriction to make pvp better. Get it?

I know Kurama says he can win a pve ship, I'd have to see him do so against someone like peleuch (sp?) to believe it.

If you think I'm crying nerf now, wait till you see my plan for utility slots. lol.

 

[NecasekO]

Just to illustrate the current imbalance in a different way:

A trade ship that uses all of its internal modules for trade = BAD. Needs to sacrifice some of its cargo capacity for defensive modules to be viable.
A combat ship that uses all of its internal modules for combat = GOOD. No sacrifice, no compromise. Especially with engineers as there is no power limit thanks to overcharged power plants.

 

[Aashenfox]

Just to illustrate the current imbalance in a different way:

A trade ship that uses all of its internal modules for trade = BAD. Needs to sacrifice some of its cargo capacity for defensive modules to be viable.
A combat ship that uses all of its internal modules for combat = GOOD. No sacrifice, no compromise. Especially with engineers as there is no power limit thanks to overcharged power plants.

Cheers for the help, I got another good way to put it, think this will help a lot of people...

Another potential solution to this would be to simply incorporate a disco scanner, a fuel scoop and at least 4 tons of cargo on every ship as a baseline and modules were on top of that. How would you naysayers feel about that? That would achieve the exact same goal, and you can't call THAT a nerf. Do you at least get the goal now?

 

[Cmdr Tel]

No.

There are ships which have military slots, yeh? Restrictions, you gotta have something military in there, right? Then you have a load of 'free' slots' that you can put whatever you want in. ok?

So, if you take those military slots and simply change the restriction from one of military item to one of non-military item, you immediately make it so that people can carry at least 2 non military items and still do pvp effectively, WIN! The prupose of those miltary slots was to give a ship more protection while still allowing it to carry mission gear. Unfortunately, FD failed to anticipate that players could then put a military item in EVERY slot, making the already overpowered ships more so. If you switch that around, you've STILL given those ships the extra slots, they're just non military now, that doesn't mean they can't still fill al the optional slots with military items, it just means that someone else in the same ship can ALSO have a military item in every slot and a disco sscanner and fuel scoop in the now (non military ) restricted slot. Nobody got nerfed, we just repurposed an existing restriction to make pvp better. Get it?

I know Kurama says he can win a pve ship, I'd have to see him do so against someone like peleuch (sp?) to believe it.

I'm afraid it seems that some won't/don't want/unable to understand your suggestion or misinterpret your intention to HELP improve PVP and encourage people into to open and only see a nerf bat. Perhaps they could offer alternatives other than "run or play in solo".
A small hit to invincible builds to encourage more participation is worthwhile in my opinion...and as suggested earlier let anything go in anarchies.

 

[Stealthie]

No.

There are ships which have military slots, yeh? Restrictions, you gotta have something military in there, right? Then you have a load of 'free' slots' that you can put whatever you want in. ok?

So, if you take those military slots and simply change the restriction from one of military item to one of non-military item, you immediately make it so that people can carry at least 2 non military items and still do pvp effectively, WIN! The prupose of those miltary slots was to give a ship more protection while still allowing it to carry mission gear. Unfortunately, FD failed to anticipate that players could then put a military item in EVERY slot, making the already overpowered ships more so. If you switch that around, you've STILL given those ships the extra slots, they're just non military now, that doesn't mean they can't still fill al the optional slots with military items, it just means that someone else in the same ship can ALSO have a military item in every slot and a disco sscanner and fuel scoop in the now (non military ) restricted slot. Nobody got nerfed, we just repurposed an existing restriction to make pvp better. Get it?

I know Kurama says he can win a pve ship, I'd have to see him do so against someone like peleuch (sp?) to believe it.

Allow me to remind you of your OP:-

So, why not simply make it so you can't have a military item in every slot? If every ship was restricted in terms of military slots, you could still have a pvp meta ship and still run a few missions, and otherwise play the game, not having to refuel at stations, being able to disco scan and fuel scoop, and STILL pvp at the highest level the next minute.

You seem to have started off by suggesting that the number of "military items" that could be fitted to a ship should be restricted.
You used the word yourself, right there. "...if every ship was RESTRICTED in terms of military slots..."

If you're now saying that the military slots currently available in some ships should be unrestricted so that people could fit more varied load-outs, my question would be; why?
Why do you think it'd encourage people to create more varied load-outs and why do you think people would actually consider doing it?

Also, on a related note, I'd also ask why you think it might be useful to allow somebody to fit, say, an SRV bay into one of the mil slots of their Vulture instead of an HRP when they can currently already just bung that SRV bay into one of the regular slots if they want it aboard instead of another HRP/MRP/SCB?

We are still talking about trying to make combat ships less tanky, right?
Why would anybody willingly fit fewer "military items" into a combat ship if the military slots were unrestricted?

Or, are you saying you want to turn the mil slots into "non mil slots" so that only things like SRVs and cargo bays can be fitted into them?
Cos that takes us back to the word "restricting", which you seem to get pretty defensive about, despite using it yourself in your OP.

it doesn't matter if you're talking about monkeying around with mil slots or regular slots.
If you're advocating limiting the number of "military items" that can be fitted to a combat ship, you're talking about nerfing it - whether you realise you're saying it or not.

 

[Stealthie]

Sadly my proposal won't stop psychotic behavior, we need both.

No, we don't.

Find a way to deter the "psychotic behavior" and your proposal becomes completely redundant.

 

[Han_Zen]

I would be interested to hear how you think limiting people's module choices would achieve that.

It's a bit like when they change the rules in Formula 1.
They change the rules and for a couple of months wacky things happen but then everybody finds the new "meta" and it's business as usual again.
The fast cars are still fast, the slow cars are still slow and the best drivers, in the best cars, still win all the races.

Same thing is going to apply in ED.

Meta builds would still be meta builds, but they would have available slots for non combat modules and utilities as well. That makes them more usefull and more fun.

The only reason to stack these modules is that other ships have stacked them.

 

[Aashenfox]

Allow me to remind you of your OP:-



You seem to have started off by suggesting that the number of "military items" that could be fitted to a ship should be restricted.
You used the word yourself, right there. "...if every ship was RESTRICTED in terms of military slots..."

If you're now saying that the military slots currently available in some ships should be unrestricted so that people could fit more varied load-outs, my question would be; why?
Why do you think it'd encourage people to create more varied load-outs and why do you think people would actually consider doing it?

Also, on a related note, I'd also ask why you think it might be useful to allow somebody to fit, say, an SRV bay into one of the mil slots of their Vulture instead of an HRP when they can currently already just bung that SRV bay into one of the regular slots if they want it aboard instead of another HRP/MRP/SCB?

We are still talking about trying to make combat ships less tanky, right?
Why would anybody willingly fit fewer "military items" into a combat ship if the military slots were unrestricted?

Or, are you saying you want to turn the mil slots into "non mil slots" so that only things like SRVs and cargo bays can be fitted into them?
Cos that takes us back to the word "restricting", which you seem to get pretty defensive about, despite using it yourself in your OP.

it doesn't matter if you're talking about monkeying around with mil slots or regular slots.
If you're advocating limiting the number of "military items" that can be fitted to a combat ship, you're talking about nerfing it - whether you realise you're saying it or not.

It;s been tweaked along the way, but it's the same result. To achieve DErestriction, I also saiod int he OP that I hadn't finished processing the idea at that point, remember? I have also stated a couple fo times that such a big change would also require many additional tweaks to balance. The concept remains the same, you can carry a couple of non military items and still be effective. Here, see my latest post, this may help. It's yet another way of achieving the same goal which I've stated all along, being able to pvp with a couple of non military items.

Cheers for the help, I got another good way to put it, think this will help a lot of people...

Another potential solution to this would be to simply incorporate a disco scanner, a fuel scoop and at least 4 tons of cargo on every ship as a baseline and modules were on top of that. How would you naysayers feel about that? That would achieve the exact same goal, and you can't call THAT a nerf. Do you at least get the goal now?

I see those things as the mot basic items to be able to do pve missions, with possible exception of the fuel scoop. You need the cargo to accept missions (which is dumb, but there you go, if missions didn't reward cargo that was useless, we could dispense with this as well, no issue) and the disco scanner is needed in combat ships to find assassination targets, and various other things.

 

[Aashenfox]

No, we don't.

Find a way to deter the "psychotic behavior" and your proposal becomes completely redundant.

No it doesn't, how can you say that!? PvP is RUBBISH (the actual CQC is good, but the pvp element of the game is a shambles) in Elite, you can only do it in one of a few specs, stopping psychotic behavior doesn't fix that? I could say the same thing, give people the ability to defend themselves while minding their own business and we don't need C&P, we can dish it out ourselves, which was OBVIOUSLY the original plan.

 

[MottiKhan]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to disparage new ideas, although I also think we've had too many of these ideas trying to make ED into something else.

But forcing us to carry cargo or making us fit our ships to your ideas is just plain wrong. The first year I played, I was exclusively combat oriented. This was before engineers, so I admit that things have changed. And not really for the better in that regard. I wouldn't want someone new to the game to be forced into a mission or cargo oriented build just to appeased a small minority of CG PvP'ers. Exploration ships would also suffer. My exploration Asp was built to be lightweight and cool running. My combat ships are purpose built as well.

Leave them alone. Build your ships to your purpose and don't force your way of playing on me.

 

[Aashenfox]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to disparage new ideas, although I also think we've had too many of these ideas trying to make ED into something else.

But forcing us to carry cargo or making us fit our ships to your ideas is just plain wrong. The first year I played, I was exclusively combat oriented. This was before engineers, so I admit that things have changed. And not really for the better in that regard. I wouldn't want someone new to the game to be forced into a mission or cargo oriented build just to appeased a small minority of CG PvP'ers. Exploration ships would also suffer. My exploration Asp was built to be lightweight and cool running. My combat ships are purpose built as well.

Leave them alone. Build your ships to your purpose and don't force your way of playing on me.

You misunderstand. Honestly, I know you think you don't but you do. I only have the greater good in mind. I may be deluded (but that seems unlikely given the number of people who have understood this completely and posted such), but I'm not selfish. Please. We're just discussing ideas, I don't want to force anything on anyone.

 

[Stealthie]

It;s been tweaked along the way, but it's the same result. Now who's playing with words. The concept is the same, you can carry a couple of non military items and still be effective. Here, see my latest post, this may help. It's yet another way of achieving the same goal which I've stated all along, being able to pvp with a couple of non military items.

I see those things as the mot basic items to be able to do pve missions, with possible exception of the fuel scoop. You need the cargo to accept missions (which is dumb, but there you go, if missions didn't reward cargo that was useless, we could dispense with this as well, no issue) and the disco scanner is needed in combat ships to find assassination targets, and various other things.

It seems like you've lost sight of your original objective, TBH, and are now trying to perfect the method rather than achieve the desired result.

How is inflicting a compulsory scanner and cargo rack on people going to deter them from PvP?
Do you really think that you're going to have more luck against, say, an FdL fitted with a scanner and a C2 cargo rack than you would have had if those slots had been filled with a couple of weedy HRPs or something?

Or do you assume these people are suddenly going to get the overwhelming urge to go and do some cargo missions instead of pew-pew when they realise their ships are forced to carry those things?

Also, FWIW, I just looked at my ship spreadsheet and, out of 31 ships, being forced to fit a scanner and small cargo bay would screw up all 3 of my exploration ships, 2 data-delivery ships, 4 mining ships, 2 passenger ships, 2 recreational ships and 2 utility ships.

So, congratulations. You've just shafted almost exactly half of my fleet and achieved absolutely NOTHING in the process.

And, meanwhile, gankers still be ganking.

 

[Aashenfox]

It seems like you've lost sight of your original objective, TBH, and are now trying to perfect the method rather than achieve the desired result.

How is inflicting a compulsory scanner and cargo rack on people going to deter them from PvP?
Do you really think that you're going to have more luck against, say, an FdL fitted with a scanner and a C2 cargo rack than you would have had if those slots had been filled with a couple of weedy HRPs or something?

Or do you assume these people are suddenly going to get the overwhelming urge to go and do some cargo missions instead of pew-pew when they realise their ships are forced to carry those things?

Also, FWIW, I just looked at my ship spreadsheet and, out of 31 ships, being forced to fit a scanner and small cargo bay would screw up all 3 of my exploration ships, 2 data-delivery ships, 4 mining ships, 2 passenger ships, 2 recreational ships and 2 utility ships.

So, congratulations. You've just shafted almost exactly half of my fleet and achieved absolutely NOTHING in the process.

And, meanwhile, gankers still be ganking.

Gankers be ganking in open pvp in every game that has it, that is not the problem.

I give up completely. You haven't even understood what I said about the free pve items not affecting modules. You win, don't worry about it, I'm trying to nerf everything, ruin all your ships, it's a crap idea, all the others who understood it must be fools too. Well fought sir.

/throwsselfonsword

Put this on my epitaph please...

I'm afraid it seems that some won't/don't want/unable to understand your suggestion or misinterpret your intention to HELP improve PVP and encourage people into to open and only see a nerf bat. Perhaps they could offer alternatives other than "run or play in solo".
A small hit to invincible builds to encourage more participation is worthwhile in my opinion...and as suggested earlier let anything go in anarchies.