BA turrets would need a huge range increase then, since BA turrets always need to be able to outrange CV weapons.
Maybe... ONE specific BA turret, just like CVs would only have ONE specific frontal gun with large range ? If CVs stop behaving like little zippy fighters and need to aim with the nose to target the base, then BA should have the "balanced" response, with its "main anti-CV turret" struggling to keep track of small fighters (fair) but have enough rotating and aiming capability for slower ships (usually: big). BA also doesn't suffer equivalent penalties for "mass" when adding layers upon layers of armor. And while all this looks fine in space, many players suggested that CVs should not be allowed on planets, but I disagree. Let players decide upon what risks they are willing to take, and just make the game "reasonable" with huge mammoths with no wings on a planet... things should settle by themselves. Edit : make the default "One main gun/ turret" but adjustable in multiplayer, as many CVs could gang up on a Base. But then again, at some point the developers can't compensate for every tactic and strategy players may come up with... Bases are static, and if at some point players don't want to realise that static objects, once found, can be pummeled by many moving objects, then they will have to adapt strategy. Having a huge lump of Armored Concrete is not enough, players also need to actively defend the structure with ships if needed.
well, pvp or even pve fight... is not what is must look like and what everyone is expected .... if you could bring the pve and pvp mechanics from freelancer here, i guess all players, pvers and pvers will be okay
I've been trying to find this "Scorpion" on steam workshop and had no luck, (stupid steam workshop) could you perhaps link to their workshop please?
I think multiplayer modes are great and I'm glad the game supports them. I think that, in general "PVP" is a very mixed bag in most games of this format (first person character centered). The "best" PVP in my opinion is to be found in games like Magick Online, or Chess, or play by email games like War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition. Why? Because the Internet is a big thing and lag and latency can have enormous impacts (not to mention end-user hardware). Add to this that: in a game "ecology" that is creative and complex, malicious individuals who have no desire to engage in sportsmanlike behavior can easily wreck a community . . . Amazingly, EVE Online does a good job of coping with all of these "human problems" inherent to complex ecology PVP by basically encouraging it. But from personal experience, the job of an EVE Online Wormhole alliance ganker is a stressful one. I think that, in some sense all of these experiences are perhaps "too much" for what we as a species are really "ready for." Having said all of that, which is really just philosophical missive, not agenda: I am not "opposed to PVP," I simply think it is a lot more of a mixed bag and--in most cases--a ticking time bomb than most who enjoy it stop to consider. Cooperative PVE mitigates most of these inherent flaws of fast-paced, first-person character focused PVP as well as most of the problems that arise from competitive play in highly complex and creative playfields where 'exploits' if not outright cheats are always a problem. Now then, HERE is my problem with PVP in THIS game: From the beginning of development, EVERY SINGLE block of code in this game, should have been structured so as to EASILY support two, or more, alternate versions: one for multiplayer mode, one for singleplayer mode. In fact, the game already includes several code architectural features of this sort: every thing in the game options pane which can be toggled to two or more alternate states. That is what I'm talking about: a code architecture which made it easy for the developers to apply one set of rules/settings/dynamics to one mode of play and an alternate to the other mode of play. This does NOT mean that, every single block of code in the game needed to have different settings for these two game play modes from the outset. Using one set of values for both game play modes at the outset would have been wise. But then if the code were designed to anticipate that the two gameplay modes would experience distinctive user preferences, it would have been easy over the years to identify these points of disparity, and simply apply different rules/settings/dynamics to the two play modes. Had they done this from the outset, the PVP-PVE "feud" would have never happened, because this has been the primary source of the dispute: PVP users identify a game rule/setting/dynamic which somehow imbalances or hampers PVP or more broadly multiplayer experience (e.g., CV arty cannons are "too easy" to destroy other player's planetary bases with, or "too many guns" on a CV makes it a death cube, or the constant accumulation of SDS hulks from the reinforcement spawns cause terrible lag on the servers, etc., etc., etc.) and devs change the rule/setting/dynamic to suit PVP/multiplayer experience, thus pissing off singleplayer users. Yes, many of these changes can be altered by editing yaml files, but not all, and of course editing yaml files it not the same thing as simply not having to deal with PVP imposed restrictions in SP mode.
Yes, I had overlooked that post, but he is basically saying many of the same things I tried to say , but perhaps more clearly. Magick is "great PVP" because well . . . it is so hard to "cheat" or exploit! Same for Chess and well-designed play-by-email. Even a Deathmatch game like PUBG is abit less prone to exploit simply because of the more narrow time frame and playfield. Of course, cheating or just plain "unsportsmanlike" behavior are possible in almost any competitive situation, but with a game like this one it is truly RIPE for these problems.
Something that I discovered recently that kind of gets left out of discussions like this.... There is no easy way to set the game to be fully "PvE". There's normal which is kinda half and half, and then there's an option to force PvP. There is no option to force PvE. In fact, in order to host a PvE only server you have to get really creative with editing the core client files to force a PvE mode. It's stupid really. Especially when you consider that this is not advertised as a PvP game.
The "No PVP" servers I've played on were well administrated. Basically, if someone actually attacked another player (setting aside things like friendly fire), they'd get a warning or if they were brazen with it, they'd just get their account banned from logging the server.
heres my 2 cents for what thats worth.. PVP players and PVE players will never both be happy if they are forced into the same place. 1.The PVE players want to enjoy the immersion, explore, build and do whatever floats their boat. 2.The PVP players want to go up against other players to test their skill and get that adrenaline rush. 1 cant happen if they're constantly being attacked by other other players for no reason, or if they are given "safe zones" to live in. Safe zones just limit the amount of the game they can interact with. 2 cant really happen if their only targets don't wanna fight them. it would be like stomping ants that's not fun, its bullying. Both communities have a legitimate right to play the game in any way which makes them happy, because the game was built that way. In my opinion, having the choice of separate servers as it is now works, as it allows every community to play how they like. Now - the problem I've come across before here is from PVP players saying that this is not right because all of their targets are either playing on other servers or SP (hiding from them). well that just proves to me that that type of PVP'er doesn't actually want the challenge, they just want to grief and bully, which isn't cool. I know its easy to say - "if there are not enough other PVP players about go play another PVP based game"; but that's just as dismissive. In this case there seems to be a number of people who want PVP, so its just a case of finding a way they can be in one place. TL;DR - You wanna be a "carebear" - AWESOME - go do that, and enjoy - You wana fight other players? AWESOME - go fight other LIKE-MINDED people. Nobody should be forced to play the way someone else wants them to just because they rant the loudest. (unless the entire game is build around PVP of course; but EGS isn't)
I wanted to add my 2 cents, initial post neglected to give points on WHY PVP is good for servers and I'd like to offer a few thoughts. In Alpha 12 I became a PVPer, having been adopted into a PVP faction - otherwise I suspect I probably would've stayed a PVEer, gotten bored and logged off. PVP adds an evolving goal to work towards: PVE works sort of like a puzzle to me, once I've learnt the sequence to beat a POI it forever loses its ability to challenge me. PVP however is a constantly evolving set of goals, players change, their ships change and I have to change in order to succeed. Sometimes it becomes a paper/scissors/rock scenario, the tools I need to beat player A are not the same as beating player B, so either way a cycle of adapting, creating, gathering is nearly always in play. PVP adds much needed end game content: in PVE its generally quite easy to acquire the resources we need to build our best ships, but then what? Once a player has built the ship required to defeat the PVE problem it was made for, it's extremely unusual to ever need another one. So once a player as acquired their best craft they really don't have much more to strive for, no need for better ships, no need for more resources, they can keep raiding and mining, to build a stockpile of unnecessary resources. In PVP it tends to be different, PVP is EXPENSIVE! Win or lose an engagement cost thousands of resources in ammo, damage, vehicles, bases and more. It becomes not only an arms race but also a design, tactics, resources, recruitment, political and deception race. You can't rest your laurels in a PVP fight, there is something that needs to be done and resources that need collecting. Valuable resources SHOULD be risky to acquire. On the first PVE only server I joined, I was able to fly to a planet with thousands of unguarded Estrum and Zacosium deposits. Same repeated with Pentax and all the other resources, they were just detected and dug up with very little difficulty. In my first mixed PVP/E server, I was constantly paranoid that someone would come for me. I had to keep my eyes on the map and dig with constant vigilance, the fear and excitement or working for those rare resources was real. It encourages interaction: why would I bother trading for resources when the risk and ease to acquire them personally is trivial? In mixed PVP/E servers the PVPers vie for control of the rarer resources and trade them to other players to keep their campaign going. You get more alliances (faction vs faction), trading, politics and the like.
PVP is GREAT, when there is (a) a big enough ecology in which to operate and (b) a reasonable system of checks and balances that constrain outright psychopathic behavior. EVE Online offers both of those, though the "system of checks and balances" was (in the time I played the game about 10 years ago) rather gamey and crude. I think EGS just does not have big enough user base at this point and that is compounded mightily by the fact that, EGS servers probably have a max possible concurrent login pop in the 200 ballpark? That is miniscule compared to the 'tens of thousands' of concurrent account logins the EVE Online servers afford. Even in EVE ONline, one can spend hours and hours and hours sitting camped at a gate (or roaming through low-sec or null-sec) waiting for / looking for an engagement. Even in the most gang violence riddled cities in the U.S. there are probably only one or two "engagements" per weekend, not the constant stream of ready opponents on demand that most of us who want the pure thrill of PVP would prefer. I've often thought that a canny developer who understood the psychology of this could come up with a good system that was more of an "Arena" type of deal, and perhaps with good matchmaking to insure well-balanced engagements. But then . . . I can remember how exciting it was back when I was a wolf to prey on the 'weak' and then to discover that I WAS the one who had been duped and had stepped into an ambush by a wolf in sheeps clothing. There is a visceral "hunters" savage reward from the unknown and the sudden realization of far greater risk than had been previously considered by operating as a veritable renegade serial killer in an otherwise 'civilized' social mileux. Unfortunately, I think that THIS dynamic is the more appealing part of "PVP" than the "Arena Champion" part, which is why a game with the proportions of EVE Online (tens of thousands of playfields, many thousands of entry/exits linking playfields together, considerable variation in the composition of playfields, and a liberal sprinkling of all the varieties of 'citizens' of the galaxy in different doses across the whole thing). Servers with 20 or 30 folks on them just cannot offer that I fear.
Just as two men can enjoy chess every afternoon, a PVP fight can be enjoyed by simply 1 on 1 or a small team vs another. I agree that a server of 20 to 30 can't offer massive battles (especially if you're comparing it to EVE), yet that doesn't discount that there can be a fun rivalry created between small factions and within the influence of a small server those effects can be wide felt. To expand on PVP there are different ways to enjoy it, personally I don't enjoy beating up on newbies but I will kill people to guard territory. Funnily enough, I give players I kill a new CV, let them keep their belongings and a few resources before shooing them on their way.
Waypoints: why even automatically display them on the HUD? Why not just scan into a "sensor objects" table, then select individual sensor objects to mark and track on the HUD? For long distance objects: Why not keep a list of "navigational bookmarks"? I don't need the waypoint to my base on the starter planet in the next system. Nor even in the same system on another planet playfield. I'd still like to select it when I want to travel back, but that doesn't require having it shown in space all of the time, slowing the game. PvP vs. PvE: From what I read so far, PvE players don't lash out without reason. There are quite a number of features that were patched out of the game because of being exploitable in PvP. The latest example seems to be saving position in space i.e. saving your seat in a CV. As a PvE player (so far), I can understand why people may get upset about the game becoming less "featureful" and less immersive because of PvP issues.
@lendarker well that's the odd thing right? It feels like Eleon has done very little to support PVP, and in many ways done things that have hurt both PVP/E so it seems odd for them to even make these changes?
