You don't need a PvE fit to PvE, you can PvE in a PvP fit just fine most of the time. However, you typically know just about exactly what you're facing in PvE, therefore it's typically a good idea to optimize your fit against what you expect to be facing.

This actually carries over to PvP some too, if you know for a fact you're going to be facing an Oracle fleet, you're going to match your resists to that damage type. However, most of the time you aren't sure what you're going to be facing, which leads to people omni-tanking and such. It's just metagaming.

Due to rock paper scissors game design it's also almost impossible to design balanced NPC encounters which accurately reflect PvP game play.

Not to mention the obvious issues with alts and whatnot.

Planning for PvE means anticipating what you need. So it get's balanced out by having more quantity of opponents.

This results in PvE being some kind of predictable endurance test, rather than reflecting the realities present in most PvP encounters.

That's nice, but it's not exactly a plan for introducing balanced, non-exploitable PvP-style PvE.

Get back to us when you have an actual proposal, instead of a wish list.

My bad. I saw the solution as somewhat obvious here.

Introduce random elements to the loadouts of the enemy NPCs, and how they set up their own defenses.

Four damage types, four possible DPS loadouts in most cases. Same with defense weaknesses.

By raising the quality level in this manner, we can reduce the actual numbers involved.

PvE can become brief, violent, and thrilling.
Sure, the ships in a given encounter may be sharing a common logic for their defense and DPS type, but until you reach them you won't know which variation.

The same mission twice would have the forces possibly using different ammo along with different defense weaknesses.

At best, you may be able to get hints from the mission giver as to what they usually use. Same as knowing how certain alliances PvP fit so you can best fight them.

You could be surprised in both situations, so don't put too much faith in those plans.

This is not a complete proposal, all you have done is eliminate resist/damage profiles for NPC factions. It is not even remotely akin to PvP in this form.

As for hints, either they are hints that will become predictable or they are hints that do not work. Either way, the result would not be desirable.

You are kidding perhaps?

Along with the obvious elements Such as DPS and resistance types, there is also group composition.

Do they have two fighting ships and a logi, or are they relying on fast initial damage by using four DPS ships with a high alpha?

The mission agent can have you met at the site of conflict with either a shield or armor logi NPC, (you would choose at the mission giver), or a high offense or high defense support ship, (again you would choose at the mission giver).

You could be given an alternate support mission, (choose at mission giver), in that a logi pilot could be tasked with keeping alive friendly ships while they exchanged DPS with hostiles.

Survival mission option, you need to cross between two points simulating the need to hold out until your reinforcements arrive and shift the balance of power in your favor. (They actually don't need to reach the second point, just be exposed to enemy firing range until a timer expires)

Many things can be done to enhance missions beyond what we have currently.

Simi, you make such a good devil's advocate I think you are hiding horns on top of that pretty avatar you use.

My whole point is that it is possible to emulate PvP a lot better than they have been. The specifics for this are huge, and can even be quality matched to current events using a limited field of random tables.

Randomizing NPC group compositions is not unreasonable. There is a limited range of possibilities for each encounter, and the AI doesn't need to be complex.
It can be as simple as picking a flight strategy and a target for a weapon or effect. For logi, both for and against the player, that's cake.
For DPS ships they either target an NPC or the player first, and then proceed in sequence until a stop hits.

These ships don't need to react to anything beyond the player's arrival. At most they can have a dynamic hate list, where another target can take over as the most hated target, inspiring a change in where they place their DPS.

Fighting more than one player in a mission? Dynamic scaling can be used for this.
Support ships that use ECM or logi boats backing the NPC side can more than balance a limited player increase.

Also, considering player increases, allocating server resources to balance additional player interest and activity is always justified. If Bob feels he needs 10 pilots from his corp to beat something, the devs should take it as flattery that they created a mission which inspired such interest and teamwork.
The server would otherwise be handling 10 separate mission instances, instead of one big one. Not a bad trade off at all.

Ok, maybe I missed it in ages past, but I have never seen it brought up.
(That, and the keywords individually hit way too many unrelated posts)

Why should a separate fit exist for PvE and PvP?

A PvP fitting is intended to be a proper response to another PvP fit. It is the best possible balance of offense versus defense against another thinking and reasoning player opposing you.

So why do we have PvE scenarios that make completely separate fittings necessary, or even practical?

I am suggesting that PvE missions and encounters be balanced to reflect a common wisdom in ship fitting to PvP.

This means making the fights more like PvP as well.

This may also result in training current PvE pilots enough about PvP tactics to attempt PvP. This is of course totally dependent on the quality of the PvE emulating PvP.

Hehe, I'll take that as a compliment.

And for what it's worth, I would actually like to see NPC combat become more like PvP combat, although personally I'm not sure it's feasible.

It would save me having to swap ships all the time anyway.