What if... [Separate PvP/PvE Theory]

[lenna]

PvP and PvE Do Not Mix

I kind of agree but not entirely, IMO it would be more accurate to say "PvE and unconstrained/unmoderated PvP do not mix" especially in games like ED.

FD have talked about addressing the issues in play with C&P related changes like a PvP focused Karma system but the fundamental issue is the mentality of certain portions of the PvP community rather than PvP in itself.

WRT segregating the player base in order to allow certain PvE centric balance changes - I see no reason to do so, those that engage in the less desirable behaviours should be handled via FD intervention and/or C&P measures as most appropriate.

In essence, we already have a form of PvE/PvP segregation via Private Groups and Solo mode.

 

[Siobhan]

The same is true of mining, trading and exploring, though - you can build some ships to do all three at once (with enough internals), but it won't be very good at any of them compared to a dedicated build.

but being bad at trading or exploring won't get you a fast one way trip to the rebuy screen... and mining only if you're particularly bad

 

[Threeofseven]

I do not see a huge difference between PvP and PvE ships. The only difference is maybe PvE ships can be weaker (less shields/armor) because NPCs are no threat whatsoever.
A better idea would be to remove the ridiculous engineers (except FSD) so what you buy in the station is what you get.

 

[Morbad]

I disagree almost entirely with the core premise and virtually all the secondary points mentioned.

PvP is the same thing as PvE, with the exception that the opposition is more credible, in numerous ways. The main thing that distinguishes the two is that NPCs are artificially handicapped, while CMDRs are not. Unshackle NPC piloting, tactics, and loadouts and many of the distinctions will vanish.

The same sort of balance should work for both PvP and PvE, but it doesn't because the NPCs are designed to be your fodder. They exist for you to destroy and steal from. This ever present absurdity ingrained into the game has long been the most singularly disruptive element, from the perspective of verisimilitude and depicting a plausible setting.

Anyway, being competitive via outfitting in PvP means to stop playing the game as it was intended. No more trading, mining and exploring. You can't play the game and PvP at the same time with the same ship, which is the basic flaw. Without addressing it no solution can be found.

I don't agree with this either.

A dedicated combat vessel should rightly be better than a ship tuned for a variety of uses simultaneously...and adapting it to a different role is as easy as swapping out a few modules.

but being bad at trading or exploring won't get you a fast one way trip to the rebuy screen... and mining only if you're particularly bad

I can take a vessel cable of modest trading or exploration into combat against other CMDRs and not be at anywhere near the sort of disadvantage implied here.

I do not see a huge difference between PvP and PvE ships. The only difference is maybe PvE ships can be weaker (less shields/armor) because NPCs are no threat whatsoever.

I try to go into combat with combat ships and the best combat ships are those built to account for other CMDR built combat ships. Because CMDRs are generally a vastly greater threat, a ship built to deal with them is automatically quite good at rapidly destroying scores of NPCs. The only exception are special purpose setups built for wing combat against threats that are generally wholly absent from NPCs.

 

[Siobhan]

I do not see a huge difference between PvP and PvE ships. The only difference is maybe PvE ships can be weaker (less shields/armor) because NPCs are no threat whatsoever.
A better idea would be to remove the ridiculous engineers (except FSD) so what you buy in the station is what you get.

It's more a specialisation thing, I think.

In PvE, exploration ships get stripped down for weight, and therefore cannot last in combat. They *can* run, but there are ways to stop that.
trade ships can and should be defended, but most often run shieldless or with undersized shields. Profit is king, I guess... but again, in combat...
mining ships can be a tough shell, but with no weapons to speak of, another easy kill.

PvE combat ships can work, but they are more set up, as has been said upthread to be a tank. Low to medium dps, but able to hold out for a few hours in a haz res...
PvP combat ships in my admittedly limited experience (I used to pvp in Eve before the arms race pushed me away), are all about the alpha strike. Sure, shield banks, but
they are built to do max damage in minimum time and then leave. As such, they are likely to be lighter and faster than a PvE tank, which means they can get in and out for a few hits before the tank can do a lot. At least, that's how I used to do it.
Again, it's an imbalance.
There's also the fact that NPCs are more predictable (sort of)... they use energy weapons against shields and kinetic against hull. Perfectly sensible of course, but easy to defend against.
For the most part, players are more random... with exceptions.

If you start to balance a PvE ship to compete in PvP, then it ceases to be competitive in PvE. Sure it *can* fight or do its job, but it has to become a combat focussed ship, which changes the game a lot.

Not saying either way is best. Those who know me here will already know my opinion, but that's for HC and this is a thought experiment.

 

[Siobhan]

I can take a vessel cable of modest trading or exploration into combat against other CMDRs and not be at anywhere near the sort of disadvantage implied here.

I won't deny that you can. BUT, you can't be as good at trade, mining or exploration if you're retaining a semi combat fit. To be fair, you are right. Even on my long range explorers, I'd happily give up a couple of LY range to carry at least some defence. However, we're talking about the average player here, and you know as well as I do that (especially the inexperienced) are going to think they don't need to build a warship. Even for the more worldly wise of us, sometimes it's not the easiest thing to work out what's the best build for a task, and engineering makes it all worse. That was a mistake FDev should never have made.

 

[Morbad]

In PvE, exploration ships get stripped down for weight, and therefore cannot last in combat.

It's a great and continually perpetuated myth that jump range is the defining factor of an exploration vessel. Yes, it help racing from point A to B, but this is not exploration.

The only thing huge jump range is required for, as an explorer, is reaching systems where the density of stars is too thin to be reached without them. Surely this is a legitimate need, but there are vastly more systems to explore that aren't at the absolute fringes than are.

trade ships can and should be defended, but most often run shieldless or with undersized shields.

It's not rational to run flimsy setups in dangerous areas, nor does adequate protection cost much cargo space on most trade ships.

mining ships can be a tough shell, but with no weapons to speak of, another easy kill.

Plenty of mining ships are armed, not that it's weapons that make one a difficult kill...it's situational awareness and a willingness to leave when outmatched.

PvP combat ships in my admittedly limited experience (I used to pvp in Eve before the arms race pushed me away), are all about the alpha strike. Sure, shield banks, but they are built to do max damage in minimum time and then leave. As such, they are likely to be lighter and faster than a PvE tank, which means they can get in and out for a few hits before the tank can do a lot. At least, that's how I used to do it.

TTKs in Elite: Dangerous are often on the order of 15-20 minutes in 1v1 encounters, and only when significantly outnumbered or focused down by CMDRs who really know what they are doing will a single CMDR in a competitively equipped combat vessel fall to an 'alpha strike'.

In my experience, of about twenty-five thousand NPC kills and probably upwards of three-thousand or so PvP engagements, the vessels built for the latter, outside highly specialized wing PvP setups (dedicated reverberating cascade setups to knock out shield generators, small pursuit craft with phasing weapons meant to run down other very fast vessels) or novelty builds (all frag cannon, all railguns, et al), so out class anything NPCs can bring to the table that the vessel itself is rarely the limiting factor in PvE staying power.

My PvP Vulture, FDL, or Corvette can go to a Haz RES and destroy wanted NPCs vessels as fast as they show up for as long as I care to stay. In the last CZ CG I was taking my PvP Corvette into the conflict zones, completing 108 kill massacre missions in one sitting, and leaving with enough of my consumables intact to fend off repeat CMDR interdictions on the way to turn in the mission/bonds.

Yes, some useful PvP setups lack protracted staying power, but this is a conscious choice on the part of those who build and fly such setups, not anything mandated by participation in PvP combat.

I won't deny that you can. BUT, you can't be as good at trade, mining or exploration if you're retaining a semi combat fit. To be fair, you are right. Even on my long range explorers, I'd happily give up a couple of LY range to carry at least some defence. However, we're talking about the average player here, and you know as well as I do that (especially the inexperienced) are going to think they don't need to build a warship. Even for the more worldly wise of us, sometimes it's not the easiest thing to work out what's the best build for a task, and engineering makes it all worse. That was a mistake FDev should never have made.

What you see as a mistake I see as part of the game's depth.

 

[babelfisch]

I don't agree with this either.

A dedicated combat vessel should rightly be better than a ship tuned for a variety of uses simultaneously...and adapting it to a different role is as easy as swapping out a few modules.

That's not what I said.

 

[Crank Larson]

PvP and PvE Do Not Mix

I disagree. I generally play PvE, in the sense I tend to go and do what I like in the game (Missions, CGs, etc.). However, I also like playing in a universe where anything goes. I want that buzz when you see the hollow triangle just when you jump into the system. You don't get that with NPCs.

I've yet to kill another commander. But I have decided to stop running away.

So, for me, PvE and PvP really don't need to be distinguished. What does it matter to me whether it is an NPC or a player who interdicts me? Either I live, or I die - in either case.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

I disagree. I generally play PvE, in the sense I tend to go and do what I like in the game (Missions, CGs, etc.). However, I also like playing in a universe where anything goes. I want that buzz when you see the hollow triangle just when you jump into the system. You don't get that with NPCs.

I've yet to kill another commander. But I have decided to stop running away.

So, for me, PvE and PvP really don't need to be distinguished. What does it matter to me whether it is an NPC or a player who interdicts me? Either I live, or I die - in either case.

My statement about them not mixing was more to do with balancing. Or lack of.

I actually like playing in Open (when my internet allows), and not knowing what may happen.

What I was getting at, is not that I don't want PvP, but that PvE can be so much more interesting if you don't need to worry about balancing everything for PvP. I have nothing against PvP itself though.

Or something like that. Lol
(It's bed time...,)

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[Morbad]

That's not what I said.

It sounded to me that you were saying that being competitive in PvP meant having to stop playing the game as intended. I don't agree.

 

[Mohrgan]

Surly, being able to compete, not just High Wake, in PvP means that all around builds are just death traps. That was true before Engineers, and even more so after. Being able to rabbit from a threat, doesn't make you competitive, it make one annoyed. Nothing more.

 

[Threeofseven]

It's more a specialisation thing, I think.

In PvE, exploration ships get stripped down for weight, and therefore cannot last in combat. They *can* run, but there are ways to stop that.
trade ships can and should be defended, but most often run shieldless or with undersized shields. Profit is king, I guess... but again, in combat...
mining ships can be a tough shell, but with no weapons to speak of, another easy kill.

PvE combat ships can work, but they are more set up, as has been said upthread to be a tank. Low to medium dps, but able to hold out for a few hours in a haz res...
PvP combat ships in my admittedly limited experience (I used to pvp in Eve before the arms race pushed me away), are all about the alpha strike. Sure, shield banks, but
they are built to do max damage in minimum time and then leave. As such, they are likely to be lighter and faster than a PvE tank, which means they can get in and out for a few hits before the tank can do a lot. At least, that's how I used to do it.
Again, it's an imbalance.
There's also the fact that NPCs are more predictable (sort of)... they use energy weapons against shields and kinetic against hull. Perfectly sensible of course, but easy to defend against.
For the most part, players are more random... with exceptions.

If you start to balance a PvE ship to compete in PvP, then it ceases to be competitive in PvE. Sure it *can* fight or do its job, but it has to become a combat focussed ship, which changes the game a lot.

Not saying either way is best. Those who know me here will already know my opinion, but that's for HC and this is a thought experiment.

This is true but you're unlikely to take an exploration ship, or mining ship, in an area where you're going to meet hostile players. It's not impossible but it would be very very rare. Even at CGs 99% of the time the worst thing you can expect is a pvp pirate asking for a tiny amount of cargo. There is that 1% but 80% of the time with a little skill you can escape with your life.
In short, unless you're looking for PvP you are unlikely to be engaged in it.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

We already have a split game due to instancing and modes. There are around 10 open modes, 3 private modes and 1 solo mode. Basically 14 games.

 

[[VR] Enexemander]

I think I disagree with the premise? PvP ships are mostly just combat ships tuned to the highest degree. As Morbad said earlier- a PvP capable ship is easily capable as a PvE bounty hunter.

Also, alpha strike is not really a thing. 1v1s take ages in PvP.

Really, the only thing that throws a wrench in things is the Shield Meta with SCBs. To PvP, you're always going to want to have a counter to this or you will sincerely wish you did. I think more people should get involved in the PvP scene. It is not as scary as most people think, and it's not a radically different game. Also, lots of pvpers are not amazing pilots and many of them fly FA: ON with gimbals, just like you do.

 

[Gunnet]

Seems like it would dramatically improve PvE, but eventually kill off PvP entirely. I think a more middle-ground solution like PvP flagging is more likely to be workable as long as Frontier wishes to keep both playstyles alive.

 

[babelfisch]

It sounded to me that you were saying that being competitive in PvP meant having to stop playing the game as intended. I don't agree.

Yes, that's what I said. What I didn't say was that all ships need to be equal and there should be no differences in combat capability, which is what you implied here: "A dedicated combat vessel should rightly be better than a ship tuned for a variety of uses simultaneously...and adapting it to a different role is as easy as swapping out a few modules.
"
I basically agree with the first part (I said a dedicated combat vessel should have more punch than a trade ship) but it shouldn't be like ten times more shields.
I disagree with the second part though. If you want PvE players to accept the occasional PvP encounter in Open it will always be too late to swap modules. You can't just change them on the fly.

 

[Valethar]

Soooo......

People complain that FD can't manage to get their ducks in a row with just one ED, and now the idea is to double down and make two.....

Isn't that sort of like going to the bottom of the hill to remove a section of track, right before Amtrak shows up doing 90 miles an hour? :O

 

[Arindor]

I think I'm getting déjà vu here.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I basically agree with the first part (I said a dedicated combat vessel should have more punch than a trade ship) but it shouldn't be like ten times more shields.

There are three sources of shields in the game:
- main shield generator
- shield boosters
- shield cell banks

The first costs one internal which - unless you were planning to take advantage of the complete uselessness of NPCs by evading every interdiction, low-waking from the ones you can't evade, and high-waking from the ones which masslock you - should be one of the larger ones even on a trade ship (I use one of the sixes on my trade/exploration Python for the shields)

Using the second for shield boosters is very common on trade ships already, doesn't compromise trade ability - and trade ships can carry at least as many of them.

The third, I agree, is really for combat ships only (though if FDev make NPCs more dangerous I'll happily swap another 6 on my Python for a bank)

Both traders and PvPers can apply the same engineering to their ships. FDev have made all the shield engineers ones who can be accessed almost entirely without any combat at all (absolute pacifist characters will be limited to grade 3 shield boosters):
Farseer - direct non-combat unlock, SB 1 (also has G1 powerplant, which is enough to get 15-20% extra power from overcharged and a good secondary, and G3 drives for running away better)
Martuuk - direct non-combat unlock, SG 3
Chung - non-combat unlock, after Dweller who is also non-combat - SG5, SB3
Vatermann - non-combat unlock, after Jean who is also non-combat (and provides extra armour), after McQuinn who does require a small amount of combat - SG3, SB5

I'm assuming for the following calculations the "extreme" settings on Coriolis. Shield boosters and generators both have nice secondaries so getting blueprints to go beyond that is fairly easy but doesn't change the general pattern.

That's certainly enough to make a trade ship which can run away from a PvP fit ship. A Python with a 6A shield (thermal 4 or 5), and 4 shield boosters (2xresist 5, 2xheavy 5) will have ~1000 MJ base shield, or with 4 pips to systems and counting resistances, ~4500 MJ of effective shield. Sure, the same Python fit for PvP might have a prismatic, a pair of SCBs, and some extra secondary effects (but one of the boosters swapped for a heat sink) giving it over 20000 MJ of effective shield [1] ... but 4500 is certainly still enough to run away effectively.

(A shieldtank FDL fitted for PvP would only have around 7500 MJ of effective shields, is probably more common to meet than the Python, and is likely to be faster - but the trade Python can low-wake from that...)

[1] Until someone uses feedback cascade on it, anyway.