Ok, but will this really reduce the disparity between the murderers and the squishy mission runners?
Sure, maybe a little bit, but it doesn't seem like enough to make a worthwhile impact.
The squishy mission runners will still be squishy, and the FAS, FDL, and Vultures will a little less destructive, but still more than enough to put a smackdown on those squishy targets.
Honestly, it sounds to me like you're saying "hey, I want to be able to run missions AND be able to do PvP at the same time"
Which suits my playstyle just fine, as I prefer a well rounded multipurpose ship. But for those that want to just do combat (and it doesn't have to be just pvp either), are going to be frustrated by the fact that they have some "useless" module slots.
It's almost like forcing a trader or an explorer to equip weapons, when they have no intentions of fighting anything.
well, this is it. There are two mechanics at play in the power of our ships. The items and the enchants. In other MMOs, everyone has the same number of items and enchants. In Elite, everyone has different numbers of items and wildly variable enchants, though lets leave the enchants out of it for now. Engineering does have issues, but for the sake of the solid discussion of the topic at hand, it would be useful to pretend that we are talking about vanilla ships. Cos with 4 military modules or 40, the modules there are are still going to get optimally engineered.
What it means is an Asp becomes a viable pvp ship against a FDL because despite being less agile, under my model they can both only fit 2 HRPs, the asp though, can also at least SOME cargo space a disco scanner and a fuel scoop. The FDL can't comlain, he has the same amount of additional hull armor and more agility, the Asp has a chance though, in mission spec. By the way, the number of hardponts on the asp under this model would make it a very interesting ship.
Yeh it will reduce disparity I believe, not completely, but enough to be worth doing, see above.
By the way, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, IW ant to pvp and be able to do a couple of missions, not trade a million tons, but carry some biowaste from here to there, or do an assassination and be able to carry the disco scanner, or go do somewhere with my combat ship and not have to remove and deliver items around the galaxy in order to fit a fuel scoop and remove it when I get there, and I want these conveniences for hardcore pvpers too.
No, that's not what I'm saying and you know it.
I'm so glad you're here. I need you to understand this, it's people like you who I admire that I want to sell it to.
I would be your content if I could just fit a, a disco scanner and a fuel scoop and still be competitive. How do you feel about that? If we both were able to be optimal meta and still carry the basic conveniences, wouldn't that be great? A thousand players like me looking forward to your interdiction, isn't that better? More viable ship builds, isn't that 'better'?
Of course I'm not syaing a T9 should take down a combat spec FAS, that's insane. Are YOU saying you need a FAS with 9000 effective armor and focused PAs TO take one down?
Last edited:
I realise, but honestly I see them as both needed and totally seaprate. I feel my proposal would be the opposite of dumbing down, smartening up, because with less modules to engineer, you wouldn't be able to build up these huge resistances to everything, you'd have to balance or pick and choose areas of strength. I built a pvp FAS in a couple of weeks, it's easy, wanna see the build? No thought required, All the big modules HRPs with HD for effective armor and big resist boosts, keep rolling those resists! 2 MRPs and that's it. Optional, that's a joke, those slots are quite simply what's optimal on the FAS. I could walk you through it in 5 minutes. If you cuold fly it you would be effective in pvp. I also would not ever want to see the relationship between mass and performance lost or nerfed in any way.
IMHO the FDL should have the advantage for sure, but it shouldn't be so overwhelming that anything short of "high wake immediately" is a death sentence. A reasonably equipped T9 should be able to make that FDL have to work for their victory, and if they're sloppy, maybe even be forced to retreat if they can hold out long enough for the police to arrive.
That's fun. It's interesting. It's dynamic.
As it stands today, the T9 can almost certainly escape if they're smart but it's not particularly interesting for either side when an encounter is reduced to "can you immediately high-wake before they disable you?"
I'd be interested to hear his response as well. Because honestly, I see this being a difficult sell to the PvP crowd.No, that's not what I'm saying and you know it.
I'm so glad you're here. I need you to understand this, it's people like you who I admire that I want to sell it to.
I would be your content if I could just fit a cargo rack, a disco scanner and a fuel scoop and still be competitive. How do you feel about that? If we both were able to be optimal meta and still carry the basic conveniences, wouldn't that be great? A thousand players like me looking forward to your interdiction, isn't that better? More viable ship builds, isn't that 'better'?
Of course I'm not syaing a T9 should take down a combat spec FAS, that's insane. Are YOU saying you need a FAS with 9000 effective armor and focused PAs TO take one down?
but hey, I could be wrong... wouldn't be the first time.
I'd be interested to hear his response as well. Because honestly, I see this being a difficult sell to the PvP crowd.
but hey, I could be wrong... wouldn't be the first time.
Well, I can give him some of his answer...the huge rebalance that would be required, it's very difficult now that we have an established status. Example...the FAS, if you took away a couple of its HRPs, to be optimal you'd be FORCED to run hybrid, a biweave, and do a LOT more pip management in order to be the equal of an FDL, because of it's strong shields and the FAS's crap ones. THe FDL would probably have no batteries or a paper hull under my model, but still, the FAS, which is a ship he flies, would suffer terribly from my proposal unless a total rebalance was done.
We can end this thread right there to be honest, it's a nice pipedream, but who am I kidding, it's never going to be done.
Yeah let's cater to the low bar crowd some more. You either equip your ship to fight, escape or both. If you can't be bothered you deserve to see the rebuy screen.
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?
disagree with the basic sentiment. if people want to optimize heavily in one direction, that's their prerogative. that's like saying don't let traders have all cargo slots, if that's the way they want to build, more power to them.
The point of the matter is there will always be people who want to play in pve only, that's why in many games they have pve servers, it doesn't matter how much you try to artificially try to even out the playing field, some people just won't want to be bothered. Other people also want to min max their trading in a paper thin version of their trade vessels. Why play in open for 2mil an hour when I can play in solo for 4? (arbitrary numbers)
Don't get me wrong I'd love to see a universe where we're all on the same server and it feels more populated, but I don't think this is the solution. Do you really think some guy in a type 7 is going to last any longer against the 4 fdl wing even if they're minus a couple of military slots?
The point of the matter is there will always be people who want to play in pve only, that's why in many games they have pve servers, it doesn't matter how much you try to artificially try to even out the playing field, some people just won't want to be bothered. Other people also want to min max their trading in a paper thin version of their trade vessels. Why play in open for 2mil an hour when I can play in solo for 4? (arbitrary numbers)
Don't get me wrong I'd love to see a universe where we're all on the same server and it feels more populated, but I don't think this is the solution. Do you really think some guy in a type 7 is going to last any longer against the 4 fdl wing even if they're minus a couple of military slots?
Yeh, I know, something to talk about though, isn't it.
You haven't read the thread. Addressed all of that already. Anyway, don't worry about it, it's not going to happen, I know it. Some people see the value. Some never could, they just glaze over and see a nerf bat rather than an enabler (I don't mean you when I say that Aekero, just sighing generally). <sigh>
Last edited:
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?
Speaking as a total goody-two-shoes, even I like to build dedicated combat ships for bounty-hunting, CZs/HazRes's and CAP and I wouldn't like the idea of that getting nerfed, especially given the upcoming Thargoid malarkey.
I'm not keen on the idea of artificially, arbitrarily, limiting things in general.
If FDev could come up with some kind of system where the threat posed by a ship formed part of any "karma" related stuff then I think that might be interesting.
For example, if you're an outlaw you could park up your flying death-machine in an Anarchy and fly a less dangerous ship in high-security systems without attracting as much SysSec attention.
If, OTOH, you showed up in the same system in your Murder-Lance, you'd be more likely to be greeted by a Corvette that wanted to give you a demonstration of it's weapons.
Point being, I don't think it'd be wise to stop people building combat ships.
All that's required is to try and create a more plausible environment, where there's some consistency and logic between the type of ships (and their CMDRs) that operate in a given area and the type of response that provokes.
I'm not keen on the idea of artificially, arbitrarily, limiting things in general.
If FDev could come up with some kind of system where the threat posed by a ship formed part of any "karma" related stuff then I think that might be interesting.
For example, if you're an outlaw you could park up your flying death-machine in an Anarchy and fly a less dangerous ship in high-security systems without attracting as much SysSec attention.
If, OTOH, you showed up in the same system in your Murder-Lance, you'd be more likely to be greeted by a Corvette that wanted to give you a demonstration of it's weapons.
Point being, I don't think it'd be wise to stop people building combat ships.
All that's required is to try and create a more plausible environment, where there's some consistency and logic between the type of ships (and their CMDRs) that operate in a given area and the type of response that provokes.
Last edited:
lol. I do need to git gud, but my ship is a beauty, thanks for the advice though.
Stealthie, you haven't read the thread either mate.
Last edited:
hmmm guilty, read your op and that's about it. I'm not worried about getting nerfed in any way shape or form, I'm not a min maxer and have yet to pvp.. I just believe that there are inherent reasons why many people will choose to pve that will never change unless forced. I'll try to go back and read the rest of the thread.
Thanks, but don't feel you need to honestly, I don't know if it's worth it, what's one more decent idea among the other 100 that have come and gone. Hopefully someone collects the good ones somewhere, I don't know if this would make the cut, but I can but hope, I certainly hope some of the other ideas I see posted make it onto such a pile.
You're going to have to give me concrete examples for all of those.
1. Nobody's losing a slot...?
2. Come on.
3. Let;s see shall we, I don't agree. They can stay in Solo where they ARE now. If just some of them come to open and join the game, positive effect, no?
No disrespect taken, but I just repeated myself.
Then you need to put more detail into your proposal, because I've clearly misunderstood it.
End of the day though, it's still ultimately any given degree of dimming down ship specialisation - which FD are clearly against in introducing additional military slots. Either it makes little difference or drags all ships towards being the same build; a trade ship shouldn't be able to stand toe-to-toe with a warship.
You did answer the conundrum in the OP, that said - traders have "some" armour, "some shields" - effectively little effort. It's not entirely true to say any given ship cannot be survivable, it just requires some common sense and concession; even relatively cheap traders can be quite bolstered enough to survive a reasonable attack. And at the top end of the cash flow, little but an exceptional gank wing could dream of taking out my trader iCutter.
And with all due respects, should someone that puts minor effort into their game be nearly on par with those that dedicate serious time? Honestly, advice is rife out there on developing your ship builds. You don't need to be on par with every combat ship out there, but you can survive almost any of them.