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

[Han_Zen]

I'm always happy to see an area in the game where you pretty much have to have the experience of an elite. If you can't do that, you can always PvP with your friends or ask for a vanilla fight. As other people have suggested, a refresh to CQC would be very helpful here.

I agree with this. I just think it should be limits to the builds to make it a bit less nerdy.
Vanilla fighs are cool and I personally still use CQC from time to time.

All these activities involves deciding to PvP before taking off. That's the reason I rarely do any of them.

JB says he likes to be rewarded for for specialization.
The problem is that in reality, he is punished for it. The punishment is so hard that most players don't bother.
Zero reward, potential loss, ship with singular use and a huge grind with RNG on top. It's not a chart topper, is it?

limitations in the right places makes it easier to build a meta PvP ship and less inconvenient to use one The Elite experience is still needed at the controlls.

 

[Stealthie]

It's not that black and white. Lots of people skip PvP because it's to expencive and to inconvenient.

If you make PvP like F1, there is only going to be a few people doing it.
If you make it like Rally, a lot more will do it.

The best driver/car combo will win in both cases, but one is more excusive than the other.

Awhatnow?

That's a very nice analogy. The only problem is that it's wildly inappropriate.

I don't just mean that I don't accept it, or understand it. It's just flat-out not applicable.

Think about it.

The OP plans to control/limit/regulate/restrict what modules can be fitted to a COMBAT SHIP in order to make them slightly easier to destroy.

How does this make the idea of combat any more appealing to a CMDR that isn't interested in combat?
Does it make it any less likely that I'll fail all the missions I was carrying out prior to any combat?
Does it mean I'll have less expensive repairs as a result of any combat?
Does it mean my re-buy will be smaller if my ship is destroyed in combat?

So, remind me again, how this makes combat any more attractive to me, a CMDR who wasn't intent on combat?

If there's any motorsport analogy to be had, it's more like telling a lorry driver that, if they're willing to participate in an F1 race, Lewis Hamilton will have his DRS disabled.

Simple fact is that people who aren't interested in combat aren't suddenly going to become interested in it just because combat ships are slightly easier to kill.
It's not that those people are too scared to try combat, or that they're not gud enough, or that they're worried about the cost of a re-buy.
It's just that they're probably not doing combat because they're doing other stuff instead and they're always going to prefer to just carry on doing that other stuff.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

I agree with this. I just think it should be limits to the builds to make it a bit less nerdy.
Vanilla fighs are cool and I personally still use CQC from time to time.

All these activities involves deciding to PvP before taking off. That's the reason I rarely do any of them.

JB says he likes to be rewarded for for specialization.
The problem is that in reality, he is punished for it. The punishment is so hard that most players don't bother.
Zero reward, potential loss, ship with singular use and a huge grind with RNG on top. It's not a chart topper, is it?

limitations in the right places makes it easier to build a meta PvP ship and less inconvenient to use one The Elite experience is still needed at the controlls.

While we are at it, why haven't you complained about trader or exploration especialized builds? They are also made for a single role and nothing else.

 

[Weylandt]

While we are at it, why haven't you complained about trader or exploration especialized builds? They are also made for a single role and nothing else.

It's different because single-purpose trading or exploration ships do not interfere with other people playing since they won't force you into a fight you cannot win. Sure, there is the impact of traders on the background simulation, but overall, I'd say that's fairly negligible.
A question to the old-timers around: how was PVP pre-Horizons? Was it any fairer in the sense that you couldn't blow up another reasonably well-equipped ship in seconds? Just curious.

 

[thirstyfish]

It's different because single-purpose trading or exploration ships do not interfere with other people playing since they won't force you into a fight you cannot win. Sure, there is the impact of traders on the background simulation, but overall, I'd say that's fairly negligible.
A question to the old-timers around: how was PVP pre-Horizons? Was it any fairer in the sense that you couldn't blow up another reasonably well-equipped ship in seconds? Just curious.

Not really, because wings and the meta has always been around. Engineers just makes the meta shuffle around a bit in some regards. And noob killing has been a thing for a long, long time.

 

[Aashenfox]

Awhatnow?

That's a very nice analogy. The only problem is that it's wildly inappropriate.

I don't just mean that I don't accept it, or understand it. It's just flat-out not applicable.

Think about it.

The OP plans to control/limit/regulate/restrict what modules can be fitted to a COMBAT SHIP in order to make them slightly easier to destroy.

How does this make the idea of combat any more appealing to a CMDR that isn't interested in combat?
Does it make it any less likely that I'll fail all the missions I was carrying out prior to any combat?
Does it mean I'll have less expensive repairs as a result of any combat?
Does it mean my re-buy will be smaller if my ship is destroyed in combat?

So, remind me again, how this makes combat any more attractive to me, a CMDR who wasn't intent on combat?

If there's any motorsport analogy to be had, it's more like telling a lorry driver that, if they're willing to participate in an F1 race, Lewis Hamilton will have his DRS disabled.

Simple fact is that people who aren't interested in combat aren't suddenly going to become interested in it just because combat ships are slightly easier to kill.
It's not that those people are too scared to try combat, or that they're not gud enough, or that they're worried about the cost of a re-buy.
It's just that they're probably not doing combat because they're doing other stuff instead and they're always going to prefer to just carry on doing that other stuff.

Try this one: "Hey, guys, Lewis Hamilton is joining the Touring Car (CG bounty hunting) race today, in his F1 car! He's looking forward to a nice competitive race, don't let him down! Enjoy!"

 

[Han_Zen]

While we are at it, why haven't you complained about trader or exploration especialized builds? They are also made for a single role and nothing else.

A trader can't put extra cargo racks in the utility slots. He cant even engineer the racks he has. An explorer can't stack several DSSs to scan several bodies at the same time or put in a few FDS boosters. A combat pilot can't sacrifice some internal space for more fire power. I support all these limitations.

One aspect sticks out. That is defense. There are more modules to chose from, more freedom in fitting them and more potential to benefit from engineering. Defense is the odd one out in ED. The other aspects are properly regulated.

 

[Aashenfox]

A trader can't put extra cargo racks in the utility slots. He cant even engineer the racks he has. An explorer can't stack several DSSs to scan several bodies at the same time or put in a few FDS boosters. A combat pilot can't sacrifice some internal space for more fire power. I support all these limitations.

One aspect sticks out. That is defense. There are more modules to chose from, more freedom in fitting them and more potential to benefit from engineering. Defense is the odd one out in ED. The other aspects are properly regulated.

You'd think they'd have realised this when that other poster and I started talking about diminishing returns being another potential solution. But no...

What's REALLY crazy is that a size 1 cargo rack gives SIXTEEN TIMES LESS space than a size 5, yet a size 1 HRP can provide 80% of the resistance and armor that a size 5 can when engineered for HD.

That particular example isn't relevant to combat balance, but it is indicative how broken these HD modded HRPs are. Just ONE more (of ANY size) compared to your opponent is a significant advantage.

 

[Han_Zen]

You'd think they'd have realised this when that other poster and I started talking about diminishing returns being another potential solution. But no...

What's REALLY crazy is that a size 1 cargo rack gives SIXTEEN TIMES LESS space than a size 5, yet a size 1 HRP can provide 80% of the resistance and armor that a size 5 can when engineered for HD.

That particular example isn't relevant to combat balance, but it is indicative how broken these HD modded HRPs are. Just ONE more compared to your opponent is a significant advantage.

The system is bonkers but no one cares. Everyone likes modules that allows you to survive mistakes.

An interesting twist would be to allow defensive modules to be fitted only in military slots and in hard points. That would give some interesting trade-offs.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

You'd think they'd have realised this when that other poster and I started talking about diminishing returns being another potential solution. But no...

What's REALLY crazy is that a size 1 cargo rack gives SIXTEEN TIMES LESS space than a size 5, yet a size 1 HRP can provide 80% of the resistance and armor that a size 5 can when engineered for HD.

That particular example isn't relevant to combat balance, but it is indicative how broken these HD modded HRPs are. Just ONE more (of ANY size) compared to your opponent is a significant advantage.

That's an issue with the module itself, not with the practice of cramming dozens at a time. It also has been pointed out that any kind of nerf in our ships won't solve the problem you try to fix.

 

[Han_Zen]

That's an issue with the module itself, not with the practice of cramming dozens at a time. It also has been pointed out that any kind of nerf in our ships won't solve the problem you try to fix.

Why not try it. No one is hurt by stacking limits. It will be the same rules for everyone. It might make the game better.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

The system is bonkers but no one cares. Everyone likes modules that allows you to survive mistakes.

An interesting twist would be to allow defensive modules to be fitted only in military slots and in hard points. That would give some interesting trade-offs.

That sounds like heatsinks.

Why not try it. No one is hurt by stacking limits. It will be the same rules for everyone. It might make the game better.

What's the advantage of not being able to stack modules over a nerf of the stacking mechanics we have?

 

[Ian Skippy]

I'm probably mistaken, but I thought in Supercruise, a hollow triangle is someone with an interdictor, and a hollow square is someone without. I've never been too keen about testing out this theory, so I've never investigated this properly.

No. Triangle means hardpoints are deployed, square is retracted. Same in normal space. In SC this could mean FSDi, but also scanners when 'deploy on trigger' is turned on. All these Asps are not after you, don't worry. To see if someone has an FSDi, check their modules tab after scanning.

 

[Aashenfox]

That's an issue with the module itself, not with the practice of cramming dozens at a time. It also has been pointed out that any kind of nerf in our ships won't solve the problem you try to fix.

Despite the fact that I don't want to nerf anything, just jiggle things about a bit, I'll bite...

So you agree that more effective diminishing returns on HD HRPs would be a 'good thing'? I'd settle for that.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

A trader can't put extra cargo racks in the utility slots. He cant even engineer the racks he has. An explorer can't stack several DSSs to scan several bodies at the same time or put in a few FDS boosters. A combat pilot can't sacrifice some internal space for more fire power. I support all these limitations.

One aspect sticks out. That is defense. There are more modules to chose from, more freedom in fitting them and more potential to benefit from engineering. Defense is the odd one out in ED. The other aspects are properly regulated.

We only have two modules for hull defense, HRPs and MRPs. Same goes for shields.

Despite the fact that I don't want to nerf anything, just jiggle things about a bit, I'll bite...

So you agree that more effective diminishing returns on HD HRPs would be a 'good thing'? I'd settle for that.

Yes I do. Same for shields. Strictly speaking that's a nerf whether you want it or not.

 

[Aashenfox]

We only have two modules for hull defense, HRPs and MRPs. Same goes for shields.



Yes I do. Same for shields. Strictly speaking that's a nerf whether you want it or not.

I'd call it rebalancing for everyone's benefit.

 

[Stealthie]

Try this one: "Hey, guys, Lewis Hamilton is joining the Touring Car (CG bounty hunting) race today, in his F1 car! He's looking forward to a nice competitive race, don't let him down! Enjoy!"

Ummm, I think you're going to have to explain that one to me.

On the one hand, I guess I'd expect an F1 car to gallop off into the lead of a BTC race. OTOH, I suspect that as soon as it banged wheels with another car (as is common in BTC) it'd be damaged so badly that it wouldn't be able to continue in the race.

And I'm genuinely not at all sure how that applies to the idea you're advocating.

Your analogy would seem to suggest that an F1 car (our apex combat ships) is just fundamentally so much better at what it does than a Touring Car (our regular ships) that limiting/restricting/regulating/controlling various minor facets of the F1 car still isn't going to allow the Touring Cars to be competitive.

Also, while I'm at it, I'd also suggest that doing so is simply going to annoy all the people who actually WANT to participate in a full-on F1 race and you're still not going to convince Touring Car drivers that they have a chance of competing with an F1 car.

All of which rather supports my assertion that this is a pointless idea, which I don't think was the intention of your analogy. [where is it]

 

[Stealthie]

Why not try it. No one is hurt by stacking limits. It will be the same rules for everyone. It might make the game better.

Ugh,

"Why not give it a try?!" has got to be THE worst reason for advocating anything.

I was actually going to say, yesterday, that it'd only be a matter of time before somebody offered the "Why not just give it a try?" argument.

It's the same argument that people resort to whenever politicians propose something that flies in the face of all logic, has no evidence to support it's usefulness but when the politicians seek to create the appearance that "something has been done".

It always ends up being a disaster and, what's more, psychological inertia usually means that once something IS done, it doesn't get undone again regardless of how futile, inconvenient or impractical it turns out to be.

 

[Han_Zen]

We only have two modules for hull defense, HRPs and MRPs. Same goes for shields.

Shield generator, SBs and SCBs for shields. Armor, HRP MRPs for hull/modules. All adds to the total of hits you can take.

Of these, only the Shield Generator and Armor makes sense. They work as they should.

SBs are hopless. They give the same percentage boost to Class 8 prismatic as they give to a 2E shield. Even has the same power requirement.
HRPs and MRPs are strange as well. They are passive modules(no power draw), yet they can protect the entire ship from one slot on board.
SCBs could have made sense unless they were allowed to bypass the PD.

They aren't needed. They make it possible to have OP defenses and they have lead to the introduction of silly MMO potion type special effects for weapons, to counter them.

 

[Han_Zen]

Ugh,

"Why not give it a try?!" has got to be THE worst reason for advocating anything.

I was actually going to say, yesterday, that it'd only be a matter of time before somebody offered the "Why not just give it a try?" argument.

It's the same argument that people resort to whenever politicians propose something that flies in the face of all logic, has no evidence to support it's usefulness but when the politicians seek to create the appearance that "something has been done".

It always ends up being a disaster and, what's more, psychological inertia usually means that once something IS done, it doesn't get undone again regardless of how futile, inconvenient or impractical it turns out to be.

Removing unnecessary stuff is always a good way to see the real issues.