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

[Mohrgan]

I just scanned through all your posts in this thread and have still not seen an answer to that simple question: Why should a T6 be able to stick around to slug it out with a FAS or similar combat oriented ship?

I get that you think a trade vessel should be able to duke it out with combat optimised FdL, just not picking up on a proper justification for it from a gameplay perspective.

This brings you around to why I stopped using open. Short of "Submit, Boost, Wake" there was no game play for anyone without a hardened combat ship, that you couldn't find in a PG. A couple of weeks of running away from all the combat focused ships got real dull. The thrill of seeing a hollow icon was replaced by the drudgery of high waking and starting another approach to my destination. I know all of the evasion tricks out there, but by far, the most effective evasion method was just leaving the field to the shooters.

Having plenty of experience with all of the modes, I can tell you that I have lost nothing from the E|D experience by not logging in open.

 

[jasonbarron]

This brings you around to why I stopped using open. Short of "Submit, Boost, Wake" there was no game play for anyone without a hardened combat ship, that you couldn't find in a PG. A couple of weeks of running away from all the combat focused ships got real dull. The thrill of seeing a hollow icon was replaced by the drudgery of high waking and starting another approach to my destination. I know all of the evasion tricks out there, but by far, the most effective evasion method was just leaving the field to the shooters.

Having plenty of experience with all of the modes, I can tell you that I have lost nothing from the E|D experience by not logging in open.

I can understand how a player may feel that way (personally I don't; surviving in my long distance Asp is super fun IMO), but that is not a sufficient reason to dumb down combat rigs. I will agree that shields/booster/SCB's are stupid right now, and I'd heartily welcome dialing them back.

 

[Mohrgan]

I can understand how a player may feel that way (personally I don't; surviving in my long distance Asp is super fun IMO), but that is not a sufficient reason to dumb down combat rigs. I will agree that shields/booster/SCB's are stupid right now, and I'd heartily welcome dialing them back.

I don't advocate changing anything. I was just weighing in on the discussion surrounding ships builds v. open. My initial post in this thread expresses my thoughts on the OP's suggestion. Don't fiddle with access to the BGS. Each and every player payed their price of admission, we should all have equal access regardless of the mode used. We just, as a community, have to stop moralizing and judging each other over game play.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

A trade vessel that can survive to run away from a ganker can easily be built by almost anybody, which seems like sufficient balance to me. Why should a T6 be able to stick around to slug it out with a FAS or similar combat oriented ship?

The problem is, obviously, that trade ships don't have access to the same defensive modules that combat ships do. They can't equip shields, milspec armor, SCBs, reinforcement packages, or countermeasures.

They also can't equip sensors - combat vessels can, and that gives them a big advantage when it comes to recognizing and reacting to contacts.

Not to mention that engineers who can enhance and strengthen such modules are completely locked off to traders.

And to top it off, their power distributors are always locked in a 0-4-2 configuration... it's just unfair, I tell ya.

 

[jasonbarron]

The problem is, obviously, that trade ships don't have access to the same defensive modules that combat ships do. They can't equip shields, milspec armor, SCBs, reinforcement packages, or countermeasures.

They also can't equip sensors - combat vessels can, and that gives them a big advantage when it comes to recognizing and reacting to contacts.

Not to mention that engineers who can enhance and strengthen such modules are completely locked off to traders.

And to top it off, their power distributors are always locked in a 0-4-2 configuration... it's just unfair, I tell ya.

Well done Vin. Well done.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Sure, but we all face the same NPCs regardess of pvp or pve. So choice of mode is ultimately irrevant.
I don’t bother with my Corvette these days, everytime i take it out for a spin i end up looking at a rebuy screen sooner or later

Wow, how?

I've only lost my Anaconda (3 times) to station guns, usually from me flattening skimmers, (Surprisingly, none have flattened me yet!), Or a harmless NPC eagle stuck in the slot. Lol

I actually find it almost impossible to die from NPC's in ED.
A big ship like the Anaconda, or in your case, the Corvette, can hardly be mass locked by anything, so low waking is 1 button away, highwaking is pretty simple too.

I don't even fit any armour to my ships, because I hardly ever lose shields. And I only pack 1 SCB in any of my ships. So it's not worth the credits, or hit to speed, agility and jump range.

For reference, my Anaconda has 2100~mj of shields, and around 40~% resistances.
My Python, which also never dies in PvE, only has 1200~mj of shields, and 35~% resistances. That's the one that took out two Deadly Corvette Pirates in PvE.

I also carry cargo in to Haz Res' for funzies. Lol

Haven't figured out how to make the game any more difficult than that. But for now it's keeping me entertained.

God knows why I made a thread about super weapons...

Lol


CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[babelfisch]

I just scanned through all your posts in this thread and have still not seen an answer to that simple question: Why should a T6 be able to stick around to slug it out with a FAS or similar combat oriented ship?

I get that you think a trade vessel should be able to duke it out with combat optimised FdL, just not picking up on a proper justification for it from a gameplay perspective.

No, you don't know what I think. So unless you stop assuming to know what I mean when I say something completely different, I'll consider explaining it to you a waste of time.

The problem is, obviously, that trade ships don't have access to the same defensive modules that combat ships do. They can't equip shields, milspec armor, SCBs, reinforcement packages, or countermeasures.

They also can't equip sensors - combat vessels can, and that gives them a big advantage when it comes to recognizing and reacting to contacts.

Not to mention that engineers who can enhance and strengthen such modules are completely locked off to traders.

And to top it off, their power distributors are always locked in a 0-4-2 configuration... it's just unfair, I tell ya.

No, the problem is something entirely else, but just like jasonbarron it seems that you are simply unwilling to understand it.

 

[jasonbarron]

No, you don't know what I think. So unless you stop assuming to know what I mean when I say something completely different, I'll consider explaining it to you a waste of time.



No, the problem is something entirely else, but just like jasonbarron it seems that you are simply unwilling to understand it.

Well, I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from, I don't think I gave you cause that I'm aware of, but in the plus column it seems like I had your point figured out, so there is that.

 

[babelfisch]

Well, I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from, I don't think I gave you cause that I'm aware of, but in the plus column it seems like I had your point figured out, so there is that.

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be as hostile as it may sound to you. Anyway, to me it looks like you haven't read my posts at all, otherwise I can't explain why you think a T6 should "be able to stick around to slug it out with a FAS or similar combat oriented ship?" because that's not what I said. On the other hand I don't know how to make my point any clearer either because you don't want to understand it or because my English sucks.

 

[jasonbarron]

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be as hostile as it may sound to you. Anyway, to me it looks like you haven't read my posts at all, otherwise I can't explain why you think a T6 should "be able to stick around to slug it out with a FAS or similar combat oriented ship?" because that's not what I said. On the other hand I don't know how to make my point any clearer either because you don't want to understand it or because my English sucks.

You think the disparity between an all purpose or trader ship and a dedicated combat ship should be closer than it is at present, correct? In other words, the all purpose or trade fit ship shouldn't be at such a distinct combat disadvantage from the mil spec rig, and that white knuckle escape by the skin of your teeth shouldn't be the only option when the two meet. Do I have that more or less correct?

 

[Stigbob]

The problem is, obviously, that trade ships don't have access to the same defensive modules that combat ships do. They can't equip shields, milspec armor, SCBs, reinforcement packages, or countermeasures.

They also can't equip sensors - combat vessels can, and that gives them a big advantage when it comes to recognizing and reacting to contacts.

Not to mention that engineers who can enhance and strengthen such modules are completely locked off to traders.

And to top it off, their power distributors are always locked in a 0-4-2 configuration... it's just unfair, I tell ya.

You'd like my trade ship, I get my war anaconda then lazily swap the HRP's and maybe the fighter bay and one of the SCB's for cargo bays. Other than that it's still exactly the same heavily engineered killing machine.

Can't shift quite as much cargo but it makes more space cash from bounties than the trading usually.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

No, the problem is something entirely else, but just like jasonbarron it seems that you are simply unwilling to understand it.

You'll have to excuse me, babelfisch. My sarcastic comment wasn't directed at you, but rather to the anti-Open "PvE" community as a whole.

There are plenty of parts of your post that I disagree with. I'll discuss them...

Yes, I said in my first post in this thread that SBs, SCBs, HRPs, MRPs and the Engineers made playing PvP with (non combat) PvE focused players impossible in my opinion.

If two equally skilled players meet and Player A is flying a Vulture and Player B is flying a T6, Player A should definitely have an advantage, but it shouldn't be easy. It's already easy if you use the base stats, way better maneuverability, shields, hull and firepower. It gets stupid when you add combat focused modules. And it becomes impossible when you add the Engineers.

So the Trader could just fit combat modules and stop being a trader. But he would still be in a weaker ship.

He could also use the Engineers, (which would still result in being in a weaker ship...) but why? A PvP player wants to be competitive and needs to play in Open, he is forced to use the Engineers. A Trader would just switch to Solo or PG when going to CGs, Capital systems, etc.

The first is the use of the term "Traders" as if to suggest that everyone who trades in game does not engage in PvP. This is incorrect. There are a lot of people who trade in open, and when you play in Open you are engaging in PvP to some degree, even if your play-session winds up being devoid of other players.

PvP doesn't necessarily mean fighting to the death with another CMDR. When a player is interdicted, they have engaged in PvP, regardless of whether or not that player stays to fight, or runs to live and fight another day. Even evading or escaping an interdiction in supercruise is PvP.

The idea that in order to outfit their trading vessel with defensive combat modules, that a CMDR must then give up trading is an absolute fallacy. Using the "Rinzler model" for a T-7, your build would look like this...

https://eddp.co/u/TyboiZka

That's a T-7 with a solid 272 tons of cargo space. That's huge. If you wanted to really juice it up, you could swap out that 5A shield for a 6A and get some extra mj out of it, and you would still have 240T.

You made the statement "He could also use the engineers". You're absolutely right, traders can use the engineers. Even with some fairly decent rolls on the 5A shield and one booster, Rinzler's T-7, with 4 pips to SYS is sporting somewhere around 1000 mj of shields, and that's not counting the additional resistances that come with those rolls. That's accounting for G5 shield and G3 booster access, both of which can be gained from Lei Cheung - an engineering path that a player can unlock in a couple of dedicated sessions.

And that's more than enough shield strength to high-wake out of a simple gank if the trader keeps their wits about them.

In the end, you ask "why"? A PvPer wants to be competitive, but a Trader doesn't need to, and you simply end the discussion by saying that it's best to just take your ball and go home - and that's the issue I have with a lot of the discussion I hear from the "dedicated PvE'rs", and why I wrote the post I did. (Again, this isn't necessarily directed at you) It's not that they don't have access to the modules and mods that would allow them to compete against combat ships in Open, it's just that engaging in such pursuits is totally beneath them. How dare anyone suggest that they bother themselves with the PvP jock game? Don't you know they're members of mensa? They are just much so smarter than all of that...

(Are you triggered? I'm triggered.)

 

[babelfisch]

You think the disparity between an all purpose or trader ship and a dedicated combat ship should be closer than it is at present, correct? In other words, the all purpose or trade fit ship shouldn't be at such a distinct combat disadvantage from the mil spec rig, and that white knuckle escape by the skin of your teeth shouldn't be the only option when the two meet. Do I have that more or less correct?

Exactly. And I think the ships themselves already provide pretty good balance, with combat ships being superior. It's all the combat modules which got added since 1.2 and the Engineers which destroy balancing. This is of course interesting for pure PvP players participating in duels, for the PvE vs PvP player it's not. In my opinion it's a problem for both sides, for the PvE player because he doesn't stand a chance of surviving and for the PvP player because it's just boring and easy.

 

[babelfisch]

You'll have to excuse me, babelfisch. My sarcastic comment wasn't directed at you, but rather to the anti-Open "PvE" community as a whole.

There are plenty of parts of your post that I disagree with. I'll discuss them...



The first is the use of the term "Traders" as if to suggest that everyone who trades in game does not engage in PvP. This is incorrect. There are a lot of people who trade in open, and when you play in Open you are engaging in PvP to some degree, even if your play-session winds up being devoid of other players.

PvP doesn't necessarily mean fighting to the death with another CMDR. When a player is interdicted, they have engaged in PvP, regardless of whether or not that player stays to fight, or runs to live and fight another day. Even evading or escaping an interdiction in supercruise is PvP.

The idea that in order to outfit their trading vessel with defensive combat modules, that a CMDR must then give up trading is an absolute fallacy. Using the "Rinzler model" for a T-7, your build would look like this...

https://eddp.co/u/TyboiZka

That's a T-7 with a solid 272 tons of cargo space. That's huge. If you wanted to really juice it up, you could swap out that 5A shield for a 6A and get some extra mj out of it, and you would still have 240T.

You made the statement "He could also use the engineers". You're absolutely right, traders can use the engineers. Even with some fairly decent rolls on the 5A shield and one booster, Rinzler's T-7, with 4 pips to SYS is sporting somewhere around 1000 mj of shields, and that's not counting the additional resistances that come with those rolls. That's accounting for G5 shield and G3 booster access, both of which can be gained from Lei Cheung - an engineering path that a player can unlock in a couple of dedicated sessions.

And that's more than enough shield strength to high-wake out of a simple gank if the trader keeps their wits about them.

In the end, you ask "why"? A PvPer wants to be competitive, but a Trader doesn't need to, and you simply end the discussion by saying that it's best to just take your ball and go home - and that's the issue I have with a lot of the discussion I hear from the "dedicated PvE'rs", and why I wrote the post I did. (Again, this isn't necessarily directed at you) It's not that they don't have access to the modules and mods that would allow them to compete against combat ships in Open, it's just that engaging in such pursuits is totally beneath them. How dare anyone suggest that they bother themselves with the PvP jock game? Don't you know they're members of mensa? They are much so smarter than all of that...

(Are you triggered? I'm triggered.)

Sorry, I am not your average PvE vs Open player. For me the discussion isn't about PvP vs PvE. The reason I said Trader is simply because it fitted to the point I tried to make.

I am tired of all the forum fights of PvP vs PvE and I am not going to participate anymore.

PS
On your PvP T7 build: It wouldn't last very long. Maybe it's enough to high wake, but again where is the fun if everyone you attack just high wakes?
On the Engineers: My point still stands, it's easier to just visit popular places in PG or Solo.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

On your PvP T7 build: It wouldn't last very long. Maybe it's enough to high wake, but again where is the fun if everyone you attack just high wakes?

But that's the point - a T-type isn't meant to stick around and duke it out.

Have you ever tried pirating at a CG? I've had plenty of trade ships high-wake, and it's a good time! "Yearggh... that sucker got away! Dagnabbit!"

A really dedicated CMDR or wing could bring along a wake scanner to chase - but really it's best to just pop back into supercruise and wait for a wounded fish to come along. Not everyone is going to high wake, and there are weapons that can be used to help prevent it.

 

[lenna]

Mass-lock doesn't apply when high-waking.

Errmm... it does IME... mass lock affects ALL forms of waking.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Errmm... it does IME... mass lock affects ALL forms of waking.

Not at the scale of pilotable ships. Capital ships and stations will mass lock you, but nothing that CMDRs can fly will.

 

[lenna]

Not at the scale of pilotable ships. Capital ships and stations will mass lock you, but nothing that CMDRs can fly will.

IME you are wrong... but let me be clear on this... a ship with a sufficiently higher MLF will at least slow down your wake charge time - a group of ships with sufficiently higher MLF can practically inhibit it. I have been subjected to the effect often enough in PvE.

I have seen this with Anaconda wings and my Asp Explorer for example.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

IME you are wrong... but let me be clear on this... a ship with a sufficiently higher MLF will at least slow down your wake charge time - a group of ships with sufficiently higher MLF can practically inhibit it. I have been subjected to the effect often enough in PvE.

I have seen this with Anaconda wings and my Asp Explorer for example.

I just went and tested just to be sure - hopped over to my local nav beacon and ran a quick test.

I'm flying an Eagle that weighs in at something like 95 tons.

1. Type-9. Stayed within 100m of him, no noticeable disruption to high wake charge time.
2. Conda and FDL, winged. Stayed within 100m, of them, no noticeable disruption to high wake charge time.

 

[jasonbarron]

In the case of pilotable ships, mass locking has no effect on hi waking. This is why it's so important to always have a system destination whenever flying in a dangerous area, and the chief reason PvPers roll their eyes when PvErs talk about getting ganked as if it's an inevitability. In ED, for anybody with more than 50 hours game time, ship destruction is a choice.