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

[Aashenfox]

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.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Makes sense actually.



I also suggested that the game go through a massive overhaul, to actually prevent any one ship being good in all areas.
So you can either be;
A Hull tank
A Shield tank
A Heavy Hitter
Or fast and agile.

You could compromise and do a bit of each.
But never all at once.


Way too much work though. Your way is probably far simpler. Lol

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[Andovar]

But to make it so that gankers can't gank, you'd have to gimp them to the point where you've pretty much destroyed any form of piracy.
and if it's only a slight hit with the nerf bat, then it really won't change the status quo at all.

Personally, I think a robust C&P system is really the only way to go.

 

[Non Grata]

You'd also have to get rid of performance being tied to weight, otherwise PVPers would have an advantage (due to lack of cargo, cabins etc).

 

[NascentChemist]

But to make it so that gankers can't gank, you'd have to gimp them to the point where you've pretty much destroyed any form of piracy.
and if it's only a slight hit with the nerf bat, then it really won't change the status quo at all.

Personally, I think a robust C&P system is really the only way to go.

Have to agree here. I would love for piracy to be more viable, not less.

A strong, karma-linked C&P could be an effective deterrent.

 

[Aashenfox]

But to make it so that gankers can't gank, you'd have to gimp them to the point where you've pretty much destroyed any form of piracy.
and if it's only a slight hit with the nerf bat, then it really won't change the status quo at all.

Personally, I think a robust C&P system is really the only way to go.

Real pirates succeed because they have trained in combat arts, usually they would be at a DISadvantage in comparison to their victims in terms of equipment, they are deadly because of their skill and cunning with cannon and blade. What is the point even of a pirate who can't collect his spoils? I've seen this a few times on YouTube, they pirate a dude, win the battle, make them dump the cargo, then fly off with a sense of self importance. What is that about? Lol. To be honest, isn't a pirate that's better equipped than you simply a thief?

What I propose specifically wouldn't affect ganking, 2 mission runner ships against a mission runner ship is still going to be a very difficult fight to win, and even with limited modules, there will still be a pvp meta, I believe it will shift toward special effects and their counters.

 

[Aashenfox]

You'd also have to get rid of performance being tied to weight, otherwise PVPers would have an advantage (due to lack of cargo, cabins etc).

That's a much smaller advantage, but a point well made. I never said I had all the answers Skill could make that gap where it mattered. There's still Solo.

Have to agree here. I would love for piracy to be more viable, not less.

A strong, karma-linked C&P could be an effective deterrent.

I would love for piracy to be piracy too, not shameless seal clubbing, humiliation, then not picking up the cargo.

 

[damon8r351]

I've seen the results of this type of suggestion in another game like Tom Clancy's The Division. Where they monkey around with how many mod slots you can have in your gear, how you can modify your stats, damage values on the weapons, etc. If you entered the Dark Zone without an SMG, you might as well hang it up. People throw a fit because they remove their PvP advantage, and they either leave forever or get over it and find another exploit. People don't like their PvP performance monkeyed around with, and I like that. I like the basic shell of the idea. Evens the playing field.

 

[Tadeus72]

Most pirated targets would have no chance to win such a fight (or would know how to do it), even if the pirate ship would lose half of his combat capacity. Which would be kind of strange, combat/military ships should be designed for combat.

But most victims COULD get away, if they would sacrifice some cargo slots for shields and would know that they can escape much easier with HIGH WAKE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh9AWV_BWo0

So if you want to make life easier for traders just give them some free standard shields, because most of them are not ready to give up on carge space even if they know it makes them an easier target

 

[StevieG]

Piracy... oh the days of 1.3... then came missions overhaul and Robigo/quince etc and oh look now no one is doing rare or imp slave trading anymore as they make 30 times as much doing a transport mission hauling... biowaste.

High security systems.... should be high security.....
Anarchy systems.... well thats where you would pirate.....

CGs in open in high security systems are a joke. Give the PVPers a reason to PVP and a reason to pirate and give the PVE players an opportunity to enjoy Open by having a realistic C&P system.

 

[Aashenfox]

I've seen the results of this type of suggestion in another game like Tom Clancy's The Division. Where they monkey around with how many mod slots you can have in your gear, how you can modify your stats, damage values on the weapons, etc. People throw a fit because they remove their PvP advantage, and they either leave forever or get over it and find another exploit. People don't like their PvP performance monkeyed around with. I like the basic shell of the idea. Evens the playing field.

Yeh, the thing is there would still be a pvp meta, using different weapon combinations is still very strategic. DB himself said in the kickstarter that his vision was for PvP to be rare and meaningful, it was a bit of a pipedream, but very opposite of what we've got now.

Also, on the subject of pvpers being unhappy about messing with their advantage, I don't know if SDC would see it that way, and I welcome their input, cos all of a sudden, there a thousand or more more targets players in open to be their content. They ARE good pilots, we know this, and the 6DOF dogfighting style of Elite has a PHENOMENALLY high skill cap, what problem could they have? It would be tantamount to admitting that they don't use skill to win.

 

[Andovar]

Real pirates succeed because they have trained in combat arts, usually they would be at a DISadvantage in comparison to their victims in terms of equipment, they are deadly because of their skill and cunning with cannon and blade. What is the point even of a pirate who can't collect his spoils? I've seen this a few times on YouTube, they pirate a dude, win the battle, make them dump the cargo, then fly off with a sense of self importance. What is that about? Lol. To be honest, isn't a pirate that's better equipped than you simply a thief?

What I propose specifically wouldn't affect ganking, 2 mission runner ships against a mission runner ship is still going to be a very difficult fight to win, and even with limited modules, there will still be a pvp meta, I believe it will shift toward special effects and their counters.

Ok, I get the little RP pirate thing. But within this game, pirates are absolutely much, much better equipped for fighting than your average miner or trader.

Also, if this wouldn't affect ganking, then what exactly are we trying to accomplish here?
Maybe I'm using the term gank incorrectly. But I was referring to something like a PvP FDL interdicting a mining T7. There's no amount of balancing that will bring them anywhere close (nor should it).
I'm just not seeing what this nerf to combat ships would do to help anything without having more negative effects than positive.

 

[Shadowdancer]

OK, let me boil it down for you:

1. There are too many people who just want to make others have a miserable time.
2. No amount of rules jockeying or punishment mechanics will change that.
3. It it impossible to "balance" an open world game with vertical progression for "fair" PvP without removing either.

That compound problem is solved. People can choose to play without interacting with other players, or curating their experience with groups.

And with that, off to Hotel California instead of adding to the recent wave of spurious forum pollution.

 

[Aashenfox]

Most pirated targets would have no chance to win such a fight (or would know how to do it), even if the pirate ship would lose half of his combat capacity. Which would be kind of strange, combat/military ships should be designed for combat.

But most victims COULD get away, if they would sacrifice some cargo slots for shields and would know that they can escape much easier with HIGH WAKE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh9AWV_BWo0

So if you want to make life easier for traders just give them some free standard shields, because most of them are not ready to give up on carge space even if they know it makes them an easier target

Yeh, but I don't want to just escape, that's why I play in solo when in a squishy expensive ship. A T9 is never going to beat a Fer de Lance anyway, that won't change. But I would fly more combat ships when mission running in case I ran across anybody, it would bring life to Open I think.

 

[M. Volgrand]

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.

No, thanks. If a players wants to have a combat dedicated ship, let him have it. If a trader doesn't know how to survive in a CG, better go play solo. I do survive in CGs, as I have different ships outfitted for every possible situation created by other players sabotaging the mission.

And in a more simpler way: A ship dedicated to mission run and trading should not be a match for a similar ship dedicated to combat. Forcing players to do otherwise would go agains the nature of this game.

 

[Aashenfox]

OK, let me boil it down for you:

1. There are too many people who just want to make others have a miserable time.
2. No amount of rules jockeying or punishment mechanics will change that.
3. It it impossible to "balance" an open world game with vertical progression for "fair" PvP without removing either.

That compound problem is solved. People can choose to play without interacting with other players, or curating their experience with groups.

And with that, off to Hotel California instead of adding to the recent wave of spurious forum pollution.

Did I offend you or something? Why are you being so dismissive? This isn't another one of 'those' threads, it's a mechanics discussion.

1. How is that relevant? They will want more victims in open and if I have a fighting chance against them in my missions ship, I'd play in open and I'm sure many others too. The ones that have no skill and truly just want to grief will be driven from the game. Result, no?
2. I'm not trying to change that.
3. I'm not trying to 'balance' pvp, just try to suggest an idea that will reduce the griefer equipment advantage, despite still not eliminating it, as there are clearly weapons that are better in pvp, for a start anyone who's adept with fixed weapons will have an advantage.

 

[NecasekO]

I agree with the OP. Currently the difference in combat ability between an optimized combat ship and the same ship that is slightly useful for something else is too big. Consider that even a pirate ship that has some cargo space, scanner and hatch breaker is at a serious disadvantage when fighting the same ship type that has one more shield booster and two more HRPs.

And I also agree that we need a better C&P system but that will not fix combat balance, which this thread is about. I too would welcome the chance to actually fight back while flying armed traders or mission running ships.

 

[Aashenfox]

No, thanks. If a players wants to have a combat dedicated ship, let him have it. If a trader doesn't know how to survive in a CG, better go play solo. I do survive in CGs, as I have different ships outfitted for every possible situation created by other players sabotaging the mission.

And in a more simpler way: A ship dedicated to mission run and trading should not be a match for a similar ship dedicated to combat. Forcing players to do otherwise would go agains the nature of this game.

There will still be combat dedicated ships and trade dedicated ships, all I'm proposing is switching around the 3 mil slots, 6 mil/tech slots to 4 tech slots 5 mil/tech slots. for example. It won't remove\variation, there will still be strong and weak ships and meta builds. I just don't see these concerns that it's a nerf to pvpers. They will have more content and if they can fight, they'll get more good fights. It's win all round.

 

[Speedy O]

Kind of like the idea, but only in a system state kind of way....

The same way as some systems welcome narcotics etc.
Some systems should ban ships above a certain armament level?

I strongly believe that we should have more variety in systems. Weird rules that set systems apart, so that the bubble gets a bit more character. Alongside the high sec, low sec thing that we've all been banging on to FD about for ever....

 

[Vasco Sapien]

You'd also have to get rid of performance being tied to weight, otherwise PVPers would have an advantage (due to lack of cargo, cabins etc).

When you equip a ship, you do so knowing its limitations and advantages. You know the trade off's when installing a module and you chose how to fly accordingly. If you get greedy and overload your ship to the point of it being slow with terrible shield coverage, thats a risk you knowing took as a commander.

Lighter ships having better performance makes perfect real world sense.

A wing of small ships (cobra sized) will still pick apart a slow heavy ship. would you suggest we make a Cobra turn like a Type-9 or a Type-9 turn like a Cobra, because its fair? Then whats the point of the entire mechanic of module classes and ship classes and hull space on large ships vs small ships if all ships handle roughly the same to limit advantages to one play style over another.

--

We don't need to nuke game mechanics to make the game fair.... We need a Crime and punishment system that makes petty crime tough, so that only the most ardent game pirates will go full career as one. A real test of their skill, one that is actually rewarding if you have the skill. Cut out the casuals because they can't cut it. Get Gud and become a real pirate within a real justice system. The numbers of griefers will fall. Fame and infamy will have value and the spaceways will hopefully be alot safer in general.