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

[NW3]

It's unlikely any changes will be made along these lines, but I'll share my latest thoughts.

CQC was supposed to be our PvP system. It does a lot of things right, but almost no one plays it.

In true PvP games, like Overwatch, dying just sends you back to the respawn area and all you really lose is time (to rejoin the battle).

If ED got a pure PvP mode, it should be more like what players expect (based on other PvP games):

1. Use their regular ships (not the CQC fighters)
2. Play in same the galaxy systems like everyone else, but in a separate PvP instance, with the following modified rules:
3. No rebuy
4. Respawn wherever they entered the system (at the star, station, etc.)
5. Cannot lose any cargo (since there would be no cargo in PvP mode). This is not about piracy, it's about letting players fight without significant loses, just like every other PvP game.
6. Only combat missions would be available

If the PvP setting was not enabled, piracy would be allowed, but a pirate cannot destroy a ship, only damage it and disable it for a period of time, while they use hatch breakers and limpets to collect cargo.

 

[sb413197]

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 think you may be imagining that, high wakes bypass mass lock effects. However it certainly may FEEL longer if you are trying to escape 3 angry anacondas bearing down on you...

 

[lenna]

I think you may be imagining that, high wakes bypass mass lock effects. However it certainly may FEEL longer if you are trying to escape 3 angry anacondas bearing down on you...

I am not talking about a combat situation in that particular case, so your assumption about stress factors affecting perceptions of time is false.

 

[lenna]

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.

MLF is the key point... not mass...

According to Coriolis... Eagle has an MLF of 6, Asp Explorer has an MLF of 11, Conda has an MLF of 23, T9 has an MLF of 16, and an FDL has an MLF of 12.

The case I was specifically referring to was 3 or more Anacondas possibly with other ships (a total additive MLF of 69 or more - I was not paying that much attention to the precise ship mix but there were no capital craft and this was not an isolated incident either). I am not sure about the precise distances between me and the other ships but I was well clear of stations/planets/moons.

 

[babelfisch]

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

Well I don't mean to duke it out as in a Type 6 should be as powerful as a Vulture but survive long enough until the police arrives when they are in a high security sytem.
Unengineered Trade T6 vs Engineered Combat Vulture: 30 seconds
Engineered Combat Vulture vs Engineered Combat Vulture: 10 minutes
There is a huge discrepancy. Sorry if the numbers don't add up, I am just trying to illustrate my point.

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.

Hey if it's fun and good enough for you, that's great. It isn't for me though.

MLF is the key point... not mass...

According to Coriolis... Eagle has an MLF of 6, Asp Explorer has an MLF of 11, Conda has an MLF of 23, T9 has an MLF of 16, and an FDL has an MLF of 12.

The case I was specifically referring to was 3 or more Anacondas possibly with other ships (a total additive MLF of 69 or more - I was not paying that much attention to the precise ship mix but there were no capital craft and this was not an isolated incident either). I am not sure about the precise distances between me and the other ships but I was well clear of stations/planets/moons.

MLF only applies to low waking, high waking is unaffected and always takes the same time.

 

[Gunnet]

MLF is the key point... not mass...

According to Coriolis... Eagle has an MLF of 6, Asp Explorer has an MLF of 11, Conda has an MLF of 23, T9 has an MLF of 16, and an FDL has an MLF of 12.

The case I was specifically referring to was 3 or more Anacondas possibly with other ships (a total additive MLF of 69 or more - I was not paying that much attention to the precise ship mix but there were no capital craft and this was not an isolated incident either). I am not sure about the precise distances between me and the other ships but I was well clear of stations/planets/moons.

Even aside from the fact that it doesn't affect high waking, mass lock factor isn't cumulative.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

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

No, it doesn't, or did I miss some major rework of mechanics?

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Oh dear . This is so far off topic... Lol

 

[babelfisch]

Oh dear . This is so far off topic... Lol

True, but it's not locked yet

 

[StiTch]

Nice try mate but nah.

Fact is that both "sects" can already live by the same rules, they simply choose not to.

I think the main problem is that this entire game has been pitched with too much insinuation that we get to shape it in some way. As a result, entitlement wins out and players all fight for their own personal vision, but with little regard as to how the universe will actually fit together.

If you pay attention you'll notice that underneath the unified facade there are very fundamental differences in the arguments between people of the same group. "I don't like those dirty gankers, make them all go do their PvP thing together". "I don't like those dirty gankers, but I hate the idea of PvPers having content specific to them". "Open doesn't work with PG, split the BGS from private". "Open doesn't work with PG but the BGS needs to remain unified".

We could all live under the same rules, if FD put the big boy pants on and put the rules down. But we're apparently a player base that quite decidedly cannot be satisfied with a single ruleset, and will throw up a hell of a fuss when our idea of the ruleset is contradicted.

 

[StiTch]

It's unlikely any changes will be made along these lines, but I'll share my latest thoughts.

CQC was supposed to be our PvP system. It does a lot of things right, but almost no one plays it.

No, it wasn't. It was supposed to be a separate side game.

PvE players tend to have a very, very blinkered view of PvP. "These people shoot each other and that's all they like to do so put them in a room and let them shoot each other and everyone will be happy and peace will win out and the galaxy can enter an age of flowers and conflict will disappear forever! Right?"

Nah. Elite is supposedly bigger than an arcade game, and a large number of PvP players do so as part of the ED universe - some roleplayers. Even without us the major powers will keep whacking each other, minor factions will try to take over other systems, pirates will try to pirate your goods.

If someone wants to be a part of that, then "go do CQC" is about as much use as telling a gank victim to git gud. And IMO if someone wants to set up a blockade in the name of the power he supports, in order to change the course of the game, they have more right to do that in the persistent online mode than someone who wants to potter between two stations hitting the minimum buttons needed to complete a recurring trade run.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Nice try mate but nah.

Fact is that both "sects" can already live by the same rules, they simply choose not to.

I think the main problem is that this entire game has been pitched with too much insinuation that we get to shape it in some way. As a result, entitlement wins out and players all fight for their own personal vision, but with little regard as to how the universe will actually fit together.

If you pay attention you'll notice that underneath the unified facade there are very fundamental differences in the arguments between people of the same group. "I don't like those dirty gankers, make them all go do their PvP thing together". "I don't like those dirty gankers, but I hate the idea of PvPers having content specific to them". "Open doesn't work with PG, split the BGS from private". "Open doesn't work with PG but the BGS needs to remain unified".

We could all live under the same rules, if FD put the big boy pants on and put the rules down. But we're apparently a player base that quite decidedly cannot be satisfied with a single ruleset, and will throw up a hell of a fuss when our idea of the ruleset is contradicted.

I think PvE and PvP just don't work together. For various reasons. What I really dislike most is balance - there is simply no fun when you can't have a fair fight. And when you get unlucky and are matched against all odds and lose you get punished on top. Especially with that stupid addition of engineers.

I've played asymmetric PvP games that were balanced a lot better than ED.

 

[StiTch]

What I really dislike most is balance...
I've played asymmetric PvP games that were balanced a lot better than ED.

And here, exactly what I spoke about. Someone doesn't like balance, and would prefer ED to be a hack n' slash, but has painted the problem as a PvP/PvE problem.

That's not an incompatibility between player bases, that's you personally not liking a challenge. Cool, whatever. There are Harmless ranked ships out there for you to go mow through. And telling someone that is all it takes to resolve the situation; yet somehow every similar situation turns into a massive entitlement debate.

 

[babelfisch]

And here, exactly what I spoke about. Someone doesn't like balance, and would prefer ED to be a hack n' slash, but has painted the problem as a PvP/PvE problem.

That's not an incompatibility between player bases, that's you personally not liking a challenge. Cool, whatever. There are Harmless ranked ships out there for you to go mow through. And telling someone that is all it takes to resolve the situation; yet somehow every similar situation turns into a massive entitlement debate.

That's not what he said.

PS
It would make more sense to argue the other way around. It's those who support the current imbalance who don't like a challenge. Where is the challenge in destroying a T7 in an engineered FAS?

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

And here, exactly what I spoke about. Someone doesn't like balance, and would prefer ED to be a hack n' slash, but has painted the problem as a PvP/PvE problem.

That's not an incompatibility between player bases, that's you personally not liking a challenge. Cool, whatever. There are Harmless ranked ships out there for you to go mow through. And telling someone that is all it takes to resolve the situation; yet somehow every similar situation turns into a massive entitlement debate.

The unbalanced combat pretty much make it a one-sided hack and slash. Has nothing to do with "entitlement".

 

[StiTch]

That's not what he said.

Then I'm not sure what he means - "I think PvE and PvP just don't work together. For various reasons. What I really dislike most is balance"? Either way, there's no PvE and PvP problem in any of balance. Players like to use factors such as balance as a vector to complain about PvE or PvP, but there's nothing stopping the game having balancing that suits both.

That is if FD could get anything like the engineers right, but that's not related to either player base either. That was a cluck up all round.

 

[Robert de Vries]

Hello Commanders

Other MMORPG have found solutions to the PVP vs. PVE problem, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. The following approaches work pretty well elsewhere:

Variant 1. No PVP in the open game, PVP is only possible at special locations designed for the purpose. The players enter these zones on their own decision. This has been done in GuildWars2 for example.

Variant 2. Consensual PVP only in the open, a player needs to activate the option "allow PVP" in order to be able to attack other players who have also activated the option. If the option is not activated, no PVP is possible for that player and against that player. There can be special regions, where the option "allow PVP" is mandatory and the pilots get a warning before jumping into that kind of system. This has been used in World of Warcraft for example.

Variant 3. Split the open in two parts, one where PVP is mandatory and one where PVP is impossible. The player chooses whether he enters the PVP or PVE realm. This is also an idea from World of Warcraft

Elements of the three variants could also be combined to find a suitable solution for this game. As a counterpart, we could get rid of the solo mode and the group modes.

My point is that the PVE players are forced out of the open as things are now. This is not a viable solution in my opinion. The community needs to stop to be judgemental towards players who don't like to get their ship blown up within a few seconds, while attempting to fly through a well frequented system. The goal for everyone should be, that if a commander encounters a fellow commander, she/he should be excited and happy about it.

Greetings

Robert de Vries

 

[babelfisch]

Then I'm not sure what he means - "I think PvE and PvP just don't work together. For various reasons. What I really dislike most is balance"? Either way, there's no PvE and PvP problem in any of balance. Players like to use factors such as balance as a vector to complain about PvE or PvP, but there's nothing stopping the game having balancing that suits both.

That is if FD could get anything like the engineers right, but that's not related to either player base either. That was a cluck up all round.

I think this is the real problem here. There are so many prejudices between PvP and PvE players that it just became impossible to talk with each other.

In my opinion those who prefer the current imbalance and play PvP are those don't like a challenge and want the game to be a hack and slash. I could be wrong, but this is basically what I got out of the last 7 pages.

 

[StiTch]

Hello Commanders

Other MMORPG have found solutions to the PVP vs. PVE problem, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. The following approaches work pretty well elsewhere:

Problem is ED isn't "another MMORPG", and I'd say that it doesn't use wheels either. We can't create this game just taking from other games...and it's a rubbish reason to implement what someone wants.

If the galaxy becomes mysteriously PvE, what about anarchy systems? Piracy? Powerplay? Barricades? What if someone wants to block the mail slot and is invulnerable because of a magic anti-PvP rule? Nah, I think it was even Braben that said it's a poor idea to venture into magic damage blocks. People will always find a way around it, and it doesn't suit the game either.

Again, as above, "the problem" is not in the game or its universe. "The problem" is that someone's opinion is being put forward as unequivocal fact, and dilutes any valuable ideas that might actually appear here. I'm glad you decided that the aim of the game is to get a smile and a wave every time you pass another player - did you take the time to make sure that's what EVERYONE wants out of ED, before calling it the definite solution?

I think this is the real problem here. There are so many prejudices between PvP and PvE players that it just became impossible to talk with each other.

No, that I agree with, and was actually my point in a roundabout fashion. I saw the words "I don't like balance" and took it to mean someone doesn't like challenge. My apologies, Navigare, if that was not your meaning - but either way a balance issue was put forward as a reason for PvP/PvE not coexisting.

And that isn't a PvP/PvE issue; balance is, in this case, purely subjective (though ultimately should be a non-issue in PvE if FD correctly scaled sites/ranks)...as is whether a player plays for loving hugs with other CMDRs or watching every world burn. All that FD need to do is create a game that allows CMDRs to go in for the loving hugs or set worlds alight, and ignore players from either side of the fence that use opinion to compromise that.

 

[lysan]

Problem is ED isn't "another MMORPG", and I'd say that it doesn't use wheels either. We can't create this game just taking from other games...and it's a rubbish reason to implement what someone wants.

If the galaxy becomes mysteriously PvE, what about anarchy systems? Piracy? Powerplay? Barricades?

What if someone wants to block the mail slot and is invulnerable because of a magic anti-PvP rule?

Nah, I think it was even Braben that said it's a poor idea to venture into magic damage blocks. People will always find a way around it, and it doesn't suit the game either.

Again, as above, "the problem" is not in the game or its universe. "The problem" is that someone's opinion is being put forward as unequivocal fact, and dilutes any valuable ideas that might actually appear here. I'm glad you decided that the aim of the game is to get a smile and a wave every time you pass another player - did you take the time to make sure that's what EVERYONE wants out of ED, before calling it the definite solution?

Why not just make an OPEN PVE and OPEN PVP, problem solved, you can close SOLO if that is a technical issue.