Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ali Aras
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
319
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 20:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
I think this thread is probably the one for the biggest activity. Got anything you want to say about PvE in EVE? (A: probably yes). POST HERE! http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog |
Omega Tron
23
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 03:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
I would like to see them implement all the missing agents. I do not think this needs to be done as a big bang approach but rather an on going week content and enablement project. EVE Online is CCP's sand box. -áThe sand is owned by CCP. -áWe just get to pay them a monthly fee to throw the sand at each other. -áGet over your thoughts that you have some influence on what they will add or do for you. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 04:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
Any plans for updates to missions? They've gotten bit and piece-meal updates to various missions over time but they're still considered rather boring, once you've done the same mission a few times you don't really even need to consult Eve Survival.
Which is sort of another problem, these out-of-game resources exist as that's great but for a newbie just jumping into missions there's a world of difference from a vet jumping into missions on a new character because they know exactly what to expect where as Joe McNewbie doesn't. |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
242
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
Level 5 mission LP stores VS FW LP stores. Why can you earn more ISK with a frigate fitted with a prototype cloak and 3 meta 0 stabs than with billions of ISK invested in carriers and unique PVE ships? Any reason why we shouldn't be adequately rewarded for risking all of this to make a living? |
EI Digin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1174
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 20:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
PVE is the most important system that needs to be iterated on in the game because every player in the game is dependent on PVE (whether it's by shooting NPCs or shooting those who shoot NPCs) in order to have a good gaming experience.
NPCs are flawed because unlike real people, they are unable to learn and react to different situations. There will always be a guide or a strategy to make PvE mind-numbingly boring. The only way to avoid this is to increase the amount of player interaction. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2156
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 21:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
Does CCP actually consider PvE important in its own right or merely as a means to an end for players to get money and other resources to do Sandbox Things with?
Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 21:52:00 -
[7] - Quote
Are there any plans to make non faction war lowsec more attractive from a missioning/anom running standpoint? Currently you only get around 50% more lp, but due to faction war sharing the same items as the majority of other lp stores, you dont really make much more isk as average joe missioner. Additionally this bonus payout for missioning in lowsec doesnt compensate at all for the risk of pvp to most people. It becomes better to mission in hisec and make slightly less than mission in lowsec and put your ship at risk for the vast majority of lp stores.
Perhaps elevating lowsec based mission payouts to the same level of nullsec based payouts would help counteract the fact that you can make much much more lp in a t1 frigate in fw? Obviously lvl 5 missions are the exception since you actually put a decent asset at risk in order to make large amounts of lp.
Either that or lower the base lp payout of fw missions to standard mission levels. That would put more of a focus on tier multipliers and warzone control while still allowing regular missions to be relatively on par. Granted were no longer in the days of ~1b an hour income but I feel its still a problem that theres such a wide gap in income, and it doesn't sit well with me that some of the best advice I can give a new player who wants to make alot of isk from scratch is: "Put a cloak on and go orbit this button for 10 mins"
|
None ofthe Above
673
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 00:56:00 -
[8] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:Level 5 mission LP stores VS FW LP stores. Why can you earn more ISK with a frigate fitted with a prototype cloak and 3 meta 0 stabs than with billions of ISK invested in carriers and unique PVE ships? Any reason why we shouldn't be adequately rewarded for risking all of this to make a living?
A closer balance between LP gains in FW and regular PVE is atractive to me.
Randomizing the spawns in the missions makes sense to me.
One day I would love to see a PVE overhaul. Or a new PVE system added. PVE as it is today is obviously dated and one of the most primitive parts of the game. I understand to an extent that it's not the best bang for buck, but I think it will have to be tackled eventually. Don't make me hand you a wizard hat. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
11332
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 12:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
All PvE needs to have more random & unpredictable elements.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC The Last Chancers.
714
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 18:38:00 -
[10] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Does CCP actually consider PvE important in its own right or merely as a means to an end for players to get money and other resources to do Sandbox Things with?
This is a critical question. With nullsec alliances far more dependent on bottom-up (or at least, middle-up) income, there will be much more top-down pressure to seek out PVE that provides for something as close to a salary as possible: reliable, relatively safe, lucrative enough to keep up with doctrine, and doable in T1 ships for the sake or relatively new players. Anything that makes PVE riskier or more dangerous or more unpredictable will meet with stiff resistance, both from people who only consider player-created content to be worth anything, and from people who simply need the ISK necessary to participate in corp or alliance activities. (There are also the people who play EVE to relax.)
For people who like the lore and the universe and also the player contributions to it, anything that livens up PVE is good. In fact, it may be useful to consider the idea of "PVE" to be an archaism, and to look at environmental response to player choice instead. Having the Empires hand out LP for player kills in FW is a first step along these lines. This is considerably more complicated, but the potential reward is tremendous.
There's no particular reason to do either/or. The first case is essentially already done, and requires little more than a tweak here and there. There can be parts of the game where NPCs are such a distant concern that players who hate NPC interference can go there. Then there can be parts of the game where NPC interference is considered an obvious consequence of sharing the galaxy with trillions of other people, and their intrusions are, if not always welcomed, at least taken in stride. Fortunately, these parts of space are already fairly well delineated, and the players mostly located where they want to be.
Right now, the general consensus of the last blog banter was that lore was wallpaper, and people were either indifferent to it or frustrated by it. There are people who wouldn't mind if you just ripped it down and exposed the bare wall, and there are people who'd prefer something more interactive (which is a very tall order). How much of what kind of PVE CCP chooses to implement where is a major decision, but CCP Seagull has already detailed what seems like a relatively near term scenario where it will be important: will capsuleers have a say in determining where and how and how far the Empires fall, and where and how and how much the capsuleers take over (in other words, will the Empires respond to capsuleer pressure)? Or is CCP just going to rip the wallpaper down, and say whoops! look at that! no Empires anymore. It's all yours, have fun? Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
|
Ali Aras
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
325
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 01:16:00 -
[11] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Does CCP actually consider PvE important in its own right or merely as a means to an end for players to get money and other resources to do Sandbox Things with?
I'm not sure about CCP. I see the potential for better PvE as an instant action time filler in between Sandbox Things-- EVE has a lot of downtime, and if that downtime is spent engaged in the game instead of playing, say, ARAM, that's a win for CCP and potentially even a win for Sandbox Things, as more people online -> someone to see your gang or your SBU or whatever -> faster formup -> violence. That's just one CSM opinion though, and not too deeply fleshed out for that.
Interesting posts on the rest of the thread; I'll read/respond as I can. http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
595
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 06:00:00 -
[12] - Quote
PvE is important
Tell me that all the renters in null do so because they make beaucoup iskies doing PvP
It is where a LOT of players start out and I agree with Malcanis in that some variation and spice would be good for the game.
I am the RP guy (or so I keep being told) on the council. You know I want the Lore to mean something and what we DO to become a part of that. We should be making decisions based on Lore and Lore making decisions based on what the players do.
But to get back to the initial premise of PvE being important. Go back and look at past economic chats from past fandests. Tell me where all the isk faucets are.
m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
11346
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 08:40:00 -
[13] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Does CCP actually consider PvE important in its own right or merely as a means to an end for players to get money and other resources to do Sandbox Things with?
That's an excellent question. My view on the issue can be summed up as: The large majority of EVE players spend a very big fraction of their game time doing PvE of one kind or another. There is simply no excuse to write off improving PvE gameplay as "unimportant".
I realise that there is an ideological concern about changing the nature of EVE into a PvE themepark, but candidly, that's just a post-hoc rationalisation. Whenever people are arguing for or against a change, I find it's a good mental exercise to imagine what the argument would be for reversing that change. If EVE had "good" PvE, would anyone be sincerely arguing for it to be made more predictable, boring and unchallenging in order to make EVE "less themeparky"?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
1654
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 11:01:00 -
[14] - Quote
I would like that players were provided tools to set up PvE content to other players.
FAI, make players earn "agent points" and set up missions with elements provided a price tag in "agent points".
Say you need, in order to set up a Lvl4 mission, 10% of the total bounties in ISK plus 20,000 agent points. Adding a Meta 1 frigate could cost 100 points, an acceleration gate 200 points, first gated room 500 points, second room 1000 points, a Meta 5 BS could cost 1500 points... just throwing numbers, obviously the price tag should be carefully tested and balanced.
The player setting up a mission would be rewarded, either by unveiling another agent, or eliminating it, or with just more agent points. The ultimate goal would be to build a network of agents able to cordinate in political decissions that affected the evolution of NPC corporations or even the empires. Let's say that, for a modicum 500 billion agent points, you could access Empress Sarum herself and convince her to ban access to Amarr trade hub to all Minmatarr players for 1 month...
At start, the idea would apply only to FiS, but WiS would be a much richer environment. Political clienteles would be a relevant part of RP as capsuleers infiltrated the structure of power, buying favors through agents and points, killing, defending or bribing NPCs. The system could be dynamic, no need to set a roster of NPC agents, rather they could be spawned on demand (say set up mission, someone else fulfills it, and now you acces the "Head of Security team of station Z at system Y moon X", which didn't existed until now... and may suffer a grim fate as soon as other players notice that agent has become "active".
So you unveil the poor devil in charge of a certain station and bribe him to steal T2 modules and sell them to you at a discount price, someone hires the local mafia gang to kill him, other hires the security chief to protect him, and three missions spawn; one to kill a freighter and steal the T2 items, another to kill the corrupt station director and another to kill the assassins before they assemble.
The whole agent system would play like a maze of cards for a cards game. Agents would be the cards, each one with an "efffect" (certain kinds of missions) and a "cost" to "cast" the card; direct cost in iSK and agent points, but also in opening the agent to retaliation form players owning "hunter/killer" cards, which in turn could be blocked by "healer/guardian" cards. The players taking on the missions would never know who they are working for and would be provided only limited inteligence (level, total esteemed reward) unless they had some agent points to spend learning things like main damage type, main damage resist or the presence of webbers/jammers. Each mission would be unique and players could specialyze building "mission runner killer" missions -and fits appropiate to lose when things went sh*t.
The result would be a whole new venue of gameplay, based on dynamically generated PvE, a new type of PvP that rewarded skill and cunning instead of brute force (picking the right agents, the right missions, not just putting 500 agents on the same target), and on top of it, it would be a soloable and casual-friendly hisec activity -something a new player could start from scratch and develop a uberplayer career without ever being bothered to become a target for tear collector or a cog to nullseccers, without a need to "jump the wall" and leave hisec. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! |
Matt Grav
Wrath of the Pea
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 15:51:00 -
[15] - Quote
Personally I'd like to see an expansion in the number of combat sites found through exploration. Getting the same handful of sites per faction or security level means that unless I'm moving around a lot I just get the same sites over and over.
I'd support adding much more randomness to the encounters as well.
PVE should never lose that PVP element of giving other players the option to 'mess' with you. There should always be a feeling of competition. |
Rengerel en Distel
1785
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 01:35:00 -
[16] - Quote
Is the goal of CCP still to make PVE more like PVP in regards to the fittings of ships? That seemed to be the case before Foxfour got moved to Dust after the initial NPC AI release fiasco.
CCP Affinity made a thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2650656#post2650656 got it stickied, then abandoned it in one day. Does CCP think that's a great way to deal with the community?
With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
|
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
1661
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 09:04:00 -
[17] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:Is the goal of CCP still to make PVE more like PVP in regards to the fittings of ships? That seemed to be the case before Foxfour got moved to Dust after the initial NPC AI release fiasco. CCP Affinity made a thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2650656#post2650656 got it stickied, then abandoned it in one day. Does CCP think that's a great way to deal with the community?
I hope they don't. I suggested the idea thinking about NEW missions that required PvP-like fits, but CCP in its cunning inability to grasp the essentials, tinkered with the idea of shifting AI so EVERY PvE required PvP fittings. A move which certainly would earn eternal love and gratitude from every Mission runner who spent several billion ISK and several tens of millions of SP building PvE fits, just to find them rendered useless in a single move. Plus, of course the need to climb yet another SP zigurat and build yet another set of mision running fits as your income source takes a severe hit, all because-of-so.
If that idea has been abandoned because of the anti-drone AI issue, I'm 100% glad with it. New anti-drone AI is a PITA in most cases and mostly serves to make mission running a clickfest, with the unvaluable assistance of Drone UI. You can adapt to it, sure, but it's the opposite of fun and interesting.
Adding stuff you ought to bear with =/= adding interesting stuff. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC The Last Chancers.
714
|
Posted - 2013.08.25 02:16:00 -
[18] - Quote
One possible way to deepen PVE at least slightly would be to diversify it enough that players weren't put on the frigate->battleship treadmill, with battleships as the endgame (well, except for those select few people running L4s in assault frigates, etc.). It would be cool if advanced PVE depended more on the ability to choose the ship and the fit for the job than presenting yet another occasion to undock the Raven Navy Issue. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Opaque Intent
Setenta Corp AL3XAND3R.
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 01:51:00 -
[19] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:Level 5 mission LP stores VS FW LP stores.
Also, level 5 agents in NPC nullsec space please.
|
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
386
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 02:23:00 -
[20] - Quote
I'm not sure what balance can be made between lvl 5 missions or (what I'll assume is the focus) lvl 4 faction warfare missions.
People doing lvl 5 missions do put quite a bit on the line, but this is usually their choice for method of running them. You could use more people ala incursions and avoid carriers all together. I'm not saying this is a good idea or a justification for any balance activity, just that the ships you are using are not alone even worth entering into a balancing discussion. Number of rats in the mission? Mission goals/types, that would be productive discussion.
People doing fw missions are by it's nature at war with dozens or hundreds of people in their immediate vicinity and their missions are advertised to the world the moment they activate them. Again, this has nothing to do with balancing actions either, but does show the stark difference between the two.
In fact the only thing these things have in common is that they are pve activities and they draw from many of the same reward pools (one being isk obviously and the other, more importantly, their shared LP store choices.
And this specifically is where I think the focus here should be. It's the only link and as such the only thing worth discussing at all if we must discuss the activities in the same building.
As long as each has it's own niche then they can be balanced independently. Which, as they are completely different activities built on completely different types of.. platforms? They likely should be.
If one steps on the others toes, unless we want to open a giant can of worms by balancing these two completely different things in relation to each other (lol) then the focus should remain on the stores and the stores alone.
We don't balance dead space complexes against high sec level 2 missions. We balance dead space complexes against their own equations and we balance level 2 high sec missions against their own distinct equation. And with good reason. |
|
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
298
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 09:02:00 -
[21] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:One possible way to deepen PVE at least slightly would be to diversify it enough that players weren't put on the frigate->battleship treadmill, with battleships as the endgame (well, except for those select few people running L4s in assault frigates, etc.). It would be cool if advanced PVE depended more on the ability to choose the ship and the fit for the job than presenting yet another occasion to undock the Raven Navy Issue.
Reasonably profitable PVE content that's accessible to frigates/cruisers would be a big help to newer players. Outside of FW, there's a lot of pressure to race upward and get a battlecruiser, because the PVE content available to smaller ships means you'll be utterly destitute otherwise. Obviously, you'd have to balance the lower initial investment and SP barrier to entry some how (probably by increasing the risk).
--- Obligatory comment about discrepancy between PVE and PVP fits and how that should probably be changed. --- LP stores need a serious rework. |
Joshua Foiritain
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
246
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 11:25:00 -
[22] - Quote
Pirate factions need level 5 agents. Also some improvements on the pirate lp store would be nice, empire factions have been showered with ships, modules, implants, etc while pirate lp stores havent been updated in ages.
Coreli Corporation: Small gang PVP & Drug Production, Apply now! |
Alain Colcer
Agiolet Security and Logistics
83
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 13:51:00 -
[23] - Quote
Please revisit COSMOS and transform it into EPIC format.
Revisit Lvl5 missions too. |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 18:02:00 -
[24] - Quote
Fleshing out the PvE for Interbus would be nice.
You can maybe start with a generic LP store (if you build one, mission-ers will come)
Further Interbus might help with live events by giving (female) players something else to cheer/hunt then mass murderers like Sansha Kuvakei Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg http://bit.ly/13cGuW0 |
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
246
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 20:47:00 -
[25] - Quote
IMHO biggest and most easily fixable problem with EVE pve is unbalance of rat bounties. In short bounties for battleship size rats are too big, and bounties for cruiser, and especially for frigate size rats, are too small. Because of this missions and anoms with large number of small rats are extremely unprofitable tu run.
Also this is unjustifiable limit for new player income because new players (IGÇÖm talking fem months old) will be limited to low level missions and small rats anoms that give **** for bounties, while older players blic anoms with battleship sized rats in their start cruisers, faction battleships and even carriers, for inordinate profit. So I think you should ask CCP if it could be possible to lower bounties for pirate battleships and increase them for pirate frigates and cruisers. Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows... |
Louis Robichaud
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 04:38:00 -
[26] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Does CCP actually consider PvE important in its own right or merely as a means to an end for players to get money and other resources to do Sandbox Things with?
That's an excellent question. My view on the issue can be summed up as: The large majority of EVE players spend a very big fraction of their game time doing PvE of one kind or another. There is simply no excuse to write off improving PvE gameplay as "unimportant". I realise that there is an ideological concern about changing the nature of EVE into a PvE themepark, but candidly, that's just a post-hoc rationalisation. Whenever people are arguing for or against a change, I find it's a good mental exercise to imagine what the argument would be for reversing that change. If EVE had "good" PvE, would anyone be sincerely arguing for it to be made more predictable, boring and unchallenging in order to make EVE "less themeparky"?
I agree. I'm an RvB player. I spend my time gleefully blowing up other people - but I also get (slightly less) gleefully blown up. Since I do like flying ships with t2 mods from time to time, it means I must spend more time outside of RvB making isk with an alt than I do spend in RvB - and the reason I re-sub was to try RvB!
I'm sure there are people out there that make a living strictly on PvP, but they are a minority and will *always be* a minority - it's simply impossible for everyone to fund their PvP with PvP due to modules being destroyed, it's a less than zero sum game for that aspect.
So yeah, the things we have to do to fund our PvP should be more fun in and of themselves. PvE doesn't have the "glamour" of PvP perhaps, but it doesn't mean it's not important. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2169
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 06:37:00 -
[27] - Quote
Its been a long time since I actually ran any combat missions, but are there any that aren't just some variation of 'warp to deadspace, shoot all the things, pick up loot'? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
1678
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 06:46:00 -
[28] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Its been a long time since I actually ran any combat missions, but are there any that aren't just some variation of 'warp to deadspace, shoot all the things, pick up loot'?
Some can be accomplished without shooting. But the mechanic is pretty much "go & do & get". The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group Gatekeepers Universe
56
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 10:39:00 -
[29] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:All PvE needs to have more random & unpredictable elements. Exactly!
But also, I'd like to see rats showing more challenging behavior. Why dont they try to warp out when enter structure, for example?
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
680
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 11:18:00 -
[30] - Quote
Maybe start to work on the concept that was mentioned many years ago. Make it fewer but smarther NPCs that will require PVP fit and not PVE fit to deal with. Hopefully one day there won't be a talk about PVE vs PVP fit ships, they are all PVP fit. Mashie Saldana Dominique Vasilkovsky
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |