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

[Kingston@#]

There is a problem with PvP. It does not happen. In three years I have never been killed by or killed another player.

I'm possessive to PvP in prinsipal, but I don't go out of my way to find it. If it finds me(happens about every two months if I play in open), I will assess the strength of the opponent and act based on that.

So far this has resulted in zero fights. If ships were more evenly matched, I would probably engaged in a few fights. The ships that looks hard at me are usually 10 times stronger than mine, so I just leave. As they have zero ability to follow this works out fine, but it kils PvP in the long run.

To bad. It could have been fun.

yes it is rare as rocking horse ****. I play the same, wait and see what happens. I am currently doing massacre mission in a system with an engineer in. plenty of other Cmdrs in and I haven't been attacked once. this is nice but a bit boring.
though I play with my own rules. cmdrs are fair game if wanted. enemy of my faction, fair game. enemy of the feds, fair game. though I am not involved with a super power now. so last one is now no longer implemented. I haven't decided I want to be a pirate YET, but it will come one day thargoids are incoming so some excitement on the way, maybe. disappointment might also come as well. will wait for the surprise
I have been killed by about 7 in the 3yrs I have played

 

[Stealthie]

One of the basic issues is that piracy just doesn't make any sense in the design philosophy - it's markedly less profitable than just trading...

Here's a simple way I'd solve this...

When you're trading legally, let's assume that the prices include a substantial "tax" which covers things like insurance costs, station maintenance, SysSec wages (they're overpaid) etc.

Perhaps if you're a pirate you could take any "acquired" cargo to unlicensed trading stations, in anarchies, and flog them for at least triple the normal rate?

Before this could work you'd need to set it up so you couldn't just buy stuff at a commodities market and then take it to an anarchy and flog it for a huge profit.
That's where all this "Karma" and C&P stuff comes in though.
If the game was set up so that a Wanted CMDR wasn't safe in a law-abiding system and a law-abiding CMDR wasn't safe in an anarchy then it'd be very risky to try and "game" the system.

Pirates would be able to raid individual ships and make a decent profit for their efforts by selling at stations in anarchies but it would be very risky to try and buy cargo at a law-abiding station.
Equally, law-abiding CMDRs could carry on as they are but if they tried to take their cargo to a station in an anarchy they'd be likely to be cut to ribbons before they arrived at the station.

 

[Cmdr Tel]

I have to say I like the OP's idea and for the reasons he stated. The guys/gals that are good are still going to be good just not as over powered and probably add some variety to loadouts.
I would suggest that the restriction not apply to anarchy systems though. Anarchies should be more dangerous and it would allow extreme PVP action in the game still.
If you need a RP reason; "Law enforcement has become concerned about overpowered criminals/villains endangering their ships so have imposed restrictions on outfitting."
Anarchy =no rules but you would be unable to ship it out to anything other than to another anarchy system because it wouldn't get past customs.
Profit from the various trade/missions should be increased in these systems to equal the risk and i think would add some interest to route plotting.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

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



You don't get it.

Well, you propose we shouldn't be able to fit all modules with military modules. A consequence of that is the limitation of possible builds.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

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.

1º Optimal, yes. As optimal as before, no.
2º You are removing the PvP specialization builds. You want to force PvP builds to have modules that won't matter in combat. You want to diversify the capabilities of PvP ships.
3º No, you can always find players at your experience level if you wish to have a fun battle. You can always request a PvP match with some people with vanilla modules. Equal battles are fun. People make them unequal with their ship choices.
4º Again, engineering has a purpose. That purpose is to have an upgrade in stats. If you know you have a vanilla ship and an enignnered ship is looking for you, you should understand that they have done the grind to ahve the ships they have. It's the reward for our work.
5º Honestly your proposal won't save the vast mayority of trading, mining, mission running ships from PvP ships. Why should a trader ship evem attempt to fight a MILITARY ship.
6º The gear advantage comes from hard work, not pixie dust. All of us can git gud, if you want to do it, then that's your choice.
7º PvP ships don't need huge advantages to fight trader ships but that doesn't mean they can't use it or shouldn't use it.
8º You clearly have a bias in your PvP commentary. It is true that PvP is hard to access but it is false that it's hard to survive from it. You can make your personal PvP as interesting as you want, just get the right contacts or get a proper ship.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

You would still be able to remove the shield.
If you like PvP you should want as large a percentage as possible of ships in space to be PvP capable. As long as an optimal PvP ship is useless for most activities in the game, this will not happen and PvP will continue on it's current death spiral.

Again, we can all be part of PvP. It's hard but doable. What I see in this reply is "I like PvP, I'd like to be part of PvP, I'd like for many people to be part of it, we don't have the ships or gear to do so, let's make it easier to get into PvP by limiting the gear needed for it."

 

[Shinji Ikari]

You still haven't understood the mechanics of what I'm talking about and neither had Eve4eva when he wrote that post. REad this....




this...



And this...changing just those two military slots (on the FAS for example) to foced NON-military slots and doing the same on other ships provides ALL the following benefits and no downsides except that you won't be literally invulnerable to everything except another ship specced like you any more, a bad thing?

I read it all. It's just an iteration of the OP. Don't say I don't understand what you propose just because I disagree. That's very condescending from your part.

Edit: I have actually read the OP 3 times by now.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

I'm not hostile, I'm just passionate and repeating myself a lot. Of course you're allowed to dislike an idea, but you need to show you understand it, your concerns about my implementation show you haven't understood it, therefore your saying that this is all about me and trying to troll me into a personal disagreement is neither helpful nor relevant. This is about a dry mathematical mechanic of the game, not you OR me, as I said before. I want this for the good of Elite, I genuinely believe this would make the game better for the PvPers and their victims. I have only that motivation, and I CLEARLY understand the mechanics and implications of what I'm talking about. If you want to disagree, be my guest, disagree, but be able to articulate why without creating attributes that have nothing to do with the the proposal (the things you mentioned in your first post on the subject about the ships at the CG). I'm not trying to remove specialisation AT ALL, I have a ridiculous OP combat ship and I can sort of fly it, I have no problem playing the game as it is now, however, I think something that would encourage more people to 'play the game' in open, in a wider variety of ships because they knew they weren't going to get minced and humiliated without having a chance, and have the video posted on youtube, would be a 'good thing', no?

Indeed, mathematically you are reducing the amount of possible builds. There's no doubt on that.

it's about REMOVING the RESTRICTION to have EVERY module a military item in order to be anything but lunch.

What?! There's no such restriction.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Currenlty the choice is either run missions and CGs in solo, or accept that if you do get attacked by another player in anything but a perfectly min maxed ship, your only gameplay choice is run away or be slaughtered without a chance. That's just counter productive.

You don't need a PvP ship to escape. Just get decent thrusters and decent shields and you should be fine.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

What makes you think you'll persuade anyone who doesn't want a scrap to come into Open to have a scrap?

Your statement isn't true at all. It's not even a "mild exaggeration". Open is not dead, I've been playing in it around Maia all week (before the CG started) and have met many people. A handful of people may be saying that Open is dead, but they haven't provided any proof, and pretty much all of them have an ulterior motive (they want to shoot you). The rest of us just play the game, using whichever mode we want to. As designed.

Honestly you find good friends from time to time in open. It took me 300 hrs of game time and a CG visit to finally get ganked by somebody. Open isn't a slaughterhouse.

There is a problem with PvP. It does not happen. In three years I have never been killed by or killed another player.

I'm possessive to PvP in prinsipal, but I don't go out of my way to find it. If it finds me(happens about every two months if I play in open), I will assess the strength of the opponent and act based on that.

So far this has resulted in zero fights. If ships were more evenly matched, I would probably engaged in a few fights. The ships that looks hard at me are usually 10 times stronger than mine, so I just leave. As they have zero ability to follow this works out fine, but it kils PvP in the long run.

To bad. It could have been fun.

But what prevents you from bringing that 10 to a 1?

 

[the100thmonkey]

What?! There's no such restriction.

Sure there is - in unplanned PvP, if you're in, say, a mission-runner Python and your opponent is in a meta-FdL, you have no chance at all. Every module on the FdL will be there for the exclusive purpose of combat; the Python might not even have a single SCB equipped.

What Aashenfox is proposing is limiting the number of combat-focussed elements of all ships to reduce the disparity between a PvP build and a PvE build. In other words, he's saying that having a ship designed for doing literally anything else in the game excludes the pilot from taking part in PvP because they'll just die.

Saying "everyone can PvP if they want to" isn't a helpful response to the OP, as the OP is not about setting up a meta-built combat ship; it's proposing a way to bring the meta for combat back from being so ridiculously overpowered compared to effective builds for other roles in the game.

 

[Morbad]

They are no longer near impervious to pve weapons, a very important part of this.

The problem is the dichotomy between NPC and CMDR loadouts/ability.

My combat ships shouldn't be any more or less vulnerable to PvE than PvP weapons, but this is a problem with the weapons and how NPCs use them, not with the fact that I can build a really durable vessel.

The biggest problem with/in/for open is that most of the PvP is against much weaker targets.

Coming after me with five ships isn't a problem with the game, it's about the most sensible thing I can think of. It's a problem for my CMDR and it should be...that is the idea, after all.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Sure there is - in unplanned PvP, if you're in, say, a mission-runner Python and your opponent is in a meta-FdL, you have no chance at all. Every module on the FdL will be there for the exclusive purpose of combat; the Python might not even have a single SCB equipped.

What Aashenfox is proposing is limiting the number of combat-focussed elements of all ships to reduce the disparity between a PvP build and a PvE build. In other words, he's saying that having a ship designed for doing literally anything else in the game excludes the pilot from taking part in PvP because they'll just die.

Saying "everyone can PvP if they want to" isn't a helpful response to the OP, as the OP is not about setting up a meta-built combat ship; it's proposing a way to bring the meta for combat back from being so ridiculously overpowered compared to effective builds for other roles in the game.

Indeed that's what the OP proposes. What I say is that you can survive easily from a PvP ship with a PvE ship currently, just get the right modules on it.

 

[the100thmonkey]

Indeed that's what the OP proposes. What I say is that you can survive easily from a PvP ship with a PvE ship currently, just get the right modules on it.

The presumption therein being that the PvE build is the one with the problem. This is where you disagree with each other. In the example I gave above, Python Vs. FdL, the compromises to make the Python survivable tend to make it rather less than effective for PvE - putting SCBs, HRPs and MRPs on one not only slow it down, but eat a significant chunk out of the cargo it can carry, enough to make it much less useful for its role.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

The presumption therein being that the PvE build is the one with the problem. This is where you disagree with each other. In the example I gave above, Python Vs. FdL, the compromises to make the Python survivable tend to make it rather less than effective for PvE - putting SCBs, HRPs and MRPs on one not only slow it down, but eat a significant chunk out of the cargo it can carry, enough to make it much less useful for its role.

Risk for reward. You may want to carry as much cargo as possible, I may want to have the biggest jump range, they may want to carry as many weapons as they want. It's a matter of choice, sacrifice cargo for safety or play the risky move to carry even more cargo. Oh, and solo/private mode is always available if you want to avoid the risk.

 

[Aashenfox]

Sure there is - in unplanned PvP, if you're in, say, a mission-runner Python and your opponent is in a meta-FdL, you have no chance at all. Every module on the FdL will be there for the exclusive purpose of combat; the Python might not even have a single SCB equipped.

What Aashenfox is proposing is limiting the number of combat-focussed elements of all ships to reduce the disparity between a PvP build and a PvE build. In other words, he's saying that having a ship designed for doing literally anything else in the game excludes the pilot from taking part in PvP because they'll just die.

Saying "everyone can PvP if they want to" isn't a helpful response to the OP, as the OP is not about setting up a meta-built combat ship; it's proposing a way to bring the meta for combat back from being so ridiculously overpowered compared to effective builds for other roles in the game.

Well said sir.

 

[Stealthie]

Your first sentence shows you don't understand, it's not about nerfing combat ships, it's about making more combat ships and builds viable. It's not about making traders fighters or anything like htat.

Its not about restrictions, or rather it is, but in a reverse psychology kind of way, it's about REMOVING the RESTRICTION to have EVERY module a military item in order to be anything but lunch.

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.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

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.

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

 

[Aris_]

The presumption therein being that the PvE build is the one with the problem. This is where you disagree with each other. In the example I gave above, Python Vs. FdL, the compromises to make the Python survivable tend to make it rather less than effective for PvE - putting SCBs, HRPs and MRPs on one not only slow it down, but eat a significant chunk out of the cargo it can carry, enough to make it much less useful for its role.

You can do it and i did with a mission running Python not only against an fdl but a massive gang of 2 corvettes and an fdl (nitek founders) not once but 3 times until they brought groms and i had to hw but you pay the price of limited cargo you cannot have the whole pie and be full learn to compromise , there are no pve ships there are bad and good loadouts

farming cargo missions and npcs is what brought us to this problem = not enough skill

 

[MrFailfactory]

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.

You speak more kindly than I would have, so rather than do that, I'll just echo your sentiments, if you don't mind. You seem to have a grasp of things that the OP lacks, and hopefully, he doesn't off-handedly dismiss you again.

Riôt