Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
1472
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 09:23:34 -
[1] - Quote
EVE OnlineGÇÖs strength stems from the player-player interactions that the relatively uninhibited sandbox rules and mechanics allow. It does not stem from high quality PvE game play. Given this, it is difficult to understand the logic behind the design of current combat PvE. LetGÇÖs analyse what happens when a player is running combat sites:
Case 1: You are running a combat site in lowsec or null and notice a new neutral in local. What do you do?
Case 2: You are running a combat site in J-space. You have a cloaked scout sitting on your static connection and hear a wormhole transit. What do you do?
Case 3: You are running a combat site in J-space. You have rolled your static and not initiated warp to the new signature. You see a new signature appear on the discovery scanner. What do you do?
In all cases, the GÇÿcorrectGÇÖ course of action is to warp away to safety, or at the very least start spamming dscan to detect probes which may be scanning down your signature. If you donGÇÖt, there is a very good chance that you will be ganked. The design of combat PvE sites means that the best response to another player is to avoid interaction with that player.
Risk is currently too binary. If you get caught, you die. So people try to isolate themselves by bubbling up null entrances or collapsing wormholes. This is bad design because it reduces player-player interaction. The lack of defensive options also results in the poor game play around cloaky camping.
What would be a better outcome? Player interaction! The ESS is an indication that CCP understands this. Why did the ESS fail? In large part because it only offered increased reward rather than decreased risk. This is a critical point: I think the key to increasing player-player interaction around PvE is to provide methods by which players can decrease the risk associated with interacting with a player who wants an explosion.
At this point I can practically hear the cries of GÇ£Risk vs Reward!GÇ¥ Yes, that is an important principle. But think about the current Risk vs Reward choices available to the player running a combat site in the above examples:
Warp out (low risk).....................................................Stay (high risk) |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Stop earning............................................................Continue earning
The decision tree for this situation is severely lacking in game play choices: http://imgur.com/gnxSEyL The current best practice of warping out effectively reduces risk to zero and is a bad outcome because it reduces player-player interaction. More player choices are required between the current extreme options of GÇÿwarp outGÇÖ and GÇÿstay in siteGÇÖ. What could such choices look like?
Here is an example to help explain what I think needs to be changed. LetGÇÖs imagine a new deployable called Site Defence:
- Site Defence locks an acceleration gate from the inside. Loot drops or bounty payouts are decreased.
- The locked gate can be hacked by a Data Analyzer module from the outside. This opens a brief skill-based PvP minigame.
- A hacking attempt disables warp within the site for [a period of time].
- If the attacker wins the game a trade window is opened which allows the site runner to offer a ransom in exchange for that gate becoming irreversibly locked to the attacker, their corp or their alliance (whatever makes sense). Perhaps this can be a deployable flavour.
- If a ransom is not agreed within 10 seconds the gate is opened.
We now have a very different decision tree: http://imgur.com/UllrppA This approach achieves several outcomes:
- The site runner has defensive options. The GÇÿcorrectGÇÖ decision is no longer to automatically warp out and avoid interaction. The player can avoid having his ship blown up by winning the minigame or offering a ransom. There is also a more subtle advantage: site runners are generally not PvP fit which, at least in part, means that they do not have a point fitted. Warp disruption within the site somewhat balances the odds in the engagement.
- Risk is increased for the attacker. First, an attacker would not be able to warp away at any time because PvE ships donGÇÖt fit a point. Second, they require a Data Analyzer (or an alt) which could further balance the fits. Third, the minigame and ransom process takes time which can be used to arrange a defence.
- More game play! The fact that the site runner doesnGÇÖt need to leave immediately means that there is increased player-player interaction. You would probably see more hunter-baiting by mission runners since the gap between a PvE ship and a PvP ship would be reduced. You would probably see more consensual PvP from a defensive counter. You would probably see people hunting for ransoms even though they donGÇÖt actually pose a real threat.
- This would also give some defence against the incredibly powerful covert ops cloak (which should be possible to probe in my opinion).
This is just an example which is admittedly quite complex. Simpler versions could be thought up - perhaps a hackable deployable which just locks the gate in return for lower payouts is adequate. I donGÇÖt really care about the implementation although it would have to be carefully thought through to avoid a GÇÿget out of jail freeGÇÖ card for the site runner.
tl;dr:
- Increasing player-player interaction should be a priority.
- Risk vs reward is currently too binary. If a site runner gets caught, they die.
- Risk should increase reward.
- It should be possible to reduce risk at the cost of decreased reward.
- Site runners need defensive options between the current extremes of GÇÿleave the siteGÇÖ and GÇÿstay to be gankedGÇÖ.
- PvP doesnGÇÖt have to just be shooting each other.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
700
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 09:41:48 -
[2] - Quote
tl;dr will never happen. Problem with eve is that it is a poorly designed FPS where the player base demands that there be nothing in the game code that can protect another player (think PvP flag), but same players abuse what little trust there is (trust is the most valuable commodity), they also expect all players should leave NPC corps but the smart ones know how trust can be abused for the entertainment of others. Give up your idea as quickly as possible, cause you will get lots of negative remarks. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks The Volition Cult
830
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 10:43:26 -
[3] - Quote
Came looking for new defence system involving bears (preferably grizzly).
Left disappointed. |
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
1472
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 11:04:25 -
[4] - Quote
Tchulen wrote:Came looking for new defence system involving bears (preferably grizzly).
Left disappointed. Yes, that's even better! WTB Space Bear that eats Falcons as soon as they decloak. It should growl and everything.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
183
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 11:10:41 -
[5] - Quote
I honestly think better way would be simply revamp the PVE itself. From grind-style mass destruction to more complex, PVP type experience. It also needs to have mechanisms that reward teamwork, and especially the kind of teamwork where members have specialized roles (to minimize benefits from ISbotting).
NPC RR chains that require neuting/jamming, key ships that need to be pointed or they escape, less but more powerful and intelligent rats. Basically you'd need a typical small gang comp and tactics to clear the site/mission.
Current form which heavily promotes soloing and fits min-maxed for the sites will always make PVErs "prey", instead of a "gf". Gadgets that help that aren't going to fix anything.
|
Jack Hayson
Atztech Inc. Ixtab.
17
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 11:27:20 -
[6] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote: key ships that need to be pointed or they escape That's something I've never understood about NPCs. Why don't they just try to warp out when they are about to die? "Hey, there is that ueberpowerful ship tearing our fleet apart. Let's stay and wait until it blows us all up."
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
371
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 12:19:47 -
[7] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:King Fu Hostile wrote: key ships that need to be pointed or they escape That's something I've never understood about NPCs. Why don't they just try to warp out when they are about to die? "Hey, there is that ueberpowerful ship tearing our fleet apart. Let's stay and wait until it blows us all up."
Belt rats do.
Just remember that forcing a player to carry a scram/point means you have to modify how missions are structured completely. Also a net increase for scramming and pointing rats should be introduced to missions. I personally was able to finish L4's in a low skilled drake and these days I can complete some in record times with a golem. Mostly just due to severe problems in the design of the missions. Especially ones with kill targets.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015
T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346
LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
Bnizzle
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 12:37:01 -
[8] - Quote
Tchulen wrote:Came looking for new defence system involving bears (preferably grizzly).
Left disappointed.
The Koala version is better :P |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
566
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 12:47:46 -
[9] - Quote
Bnizzle wrote:Tchulen wrote:Came looking for new defence system involving bears (preferably grizzly).
Left disappointed. The Koala version is better :P
Nerf Koalas.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Caerbanog Walace
Void.Tech Get Off My Lawn
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 14:21:47 -
[10] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote:I honestly think better way would be simply revamp the PVE itself. From grind-style mass destruction to more complex, PVP type experience. It also needs to have mechanisms that reward teamwork, and especially the kind of teamwork where members have specialized roles (to minimize benefits from ISbotting).
NPC RR chains that require neuting/jamming, key ships that need to be pointed or they escape, less but more powerful and intelligent rats. Basically you'd need a typical small gang comp and tactics to clear the site/mission.
Current form which heavily promotes soloing and fits min-maxed for the sites will always make PVErs "prey", instead of a "gf". Gadgets that help that aren't going to fix anything.
This is precisely what needs to happen.
Rework sites so that, while there may still be soloable sites with low reward, teaming up increases the reward instead of reducing it as happens now. Player interaction with your friends increases player retention far more than 1v1 PvP.
There is however the massive problem CCP created for itself by promoting alts... 15 multibox man fleets running incursions comes to mind. Still, worth a shot I believe...
Spawn a few more kinds of anomalies designed for team play. Spawn a few more kinds of missions designed for team play. And make them available! Don't hide them in expeditions or randomly spawn incursions only meant for dedicated PvE groups able to chase them around the universe.
(and I don't mean more 'burner npc' those force even more min-max broken fits)
There is no need for fancy mechanics. PvP will happen more naturally if your PvE fits are more similar to PvP ones and your fleet comp is balanced. Also make sites as multi-grid hunting grounds to give the same feel as chasing players through gates and make strategic positioning important for both PvE and PvP. You'll be surprised of how many PvE players actually want to fight back... only they can't.
|
|
Iain Cariaba
549
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 16:39:09 -
[11] - Quote
Bnizzle wrote:Tchulen wrote:Came looking for new defence system involving bears (preferably grizzly).
Left disappointed. The Koala version is better :P Koalas are not actually bears.
To OP: No, you may not have instanced sites.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
|
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
334
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 16:53:08 -
[12] - Quote
Zappity wrote:
- A hacking attempt disables warp within the site for [a period of time].
This basically kills your idea, as you're saying that in order for the bear to benefit from this increased security, he puts his fate almost entirely in the hands of the pirate. And this doesn't effect the pirate all that much: for fitting purposes he just replaces his point with a hacking module, and he gets the same effectiveness. Heck, since many hunters use dedicated probers anyway, it's nothing to throw a hacking module on a cov-ops. So you're essentially giving the hunter a free point by using this device; with that being the case, why would anyone use it? |
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
1473
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 20:03:03 -
[13] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Bnizzle wrote:Tchulen wrote:Came looking for new defence system involving bears (preferably grizzly).
Left disappointed. The Koala version is better :P Koalas are not actually bears. To OP: No, you may not have instanced sites. This is no more an instanced site than an acceleration gate that requires an officer's key to access. It is a layer of protection, not an instance.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
1473
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 20:07:40 -
[14] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Zappity wrote:
- A hacking attempt disables warp within the site for [a period of time].
This basically kills your idea, as you're saying that in order for the bear to benefit from this increased security, he puts his fate almost entirely in the hands of the pirate. And this doesn't effect the pirate all that much: for fitting purposes he just replaces his point with a hacking module, and he gets the same effectiveness. Heck, since many hunters use dedicated probers anyway, it's nothing to throw a hacking module on a cov-ops. So you're essentially giving the hunter a free point by using this device; with that being the case, why would anyone use it? There needs to be a mechanic to stop bears just using this as a 'Warp out now' alert. I agree about the free point but I think you are overstating it. I would never leave home without a point when I go hunting even with this deployable. It is too limiting for every single other engagement.
And the bear wouldn't be in the hands of the hunter. He could still win the hack or mount a defence. At worst, he is no worse off than the current mechanics where he could already be pointed if the gate is just unlocked anyway.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
335
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 21:34:11 -
[15] - Quote
Zappity wrote:I agree about the free point but I think you are overstating it. I would never leave home without a point when I go hunting even with this deployable. It is too limiting for every single other engagement. If you're hunting, you drop a mobile depot and swap out your point for something else. It's not like you don't have foreknowledge of the engagement.
Zappity wrote:And the bear wouldn't be in the hands of the hunter. He could still win the hack... Except the pirate has a devoted prober, which is going to be a cov-ops ship, and cov-ops ships have bonuses to their hacking modules, and probably also rigged their ships for the same purpose, as besides probing, that's all it has to do. Your ratting ship doesn't and needs its rig slots for other things. You are creating an environment where a pirate can have every advantage over you. So, you lose.
Unless your recommendation is that this is a toy to give further advantage to people with alts. In which case, I amend my "no" vote to a "HELL NO" vote.
Zappity wrote:...or mount a defence. The ship in a mission/site tanking Sansha pirates is going to mount a defense against someone dealing Kinetic/Explosive damage. Good luck with that. o7 |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
383
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 22:49:35 -
[16] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote:I honestly think better way would be simply revamp the PVE itself. From grind-style mass destruction to more complex, PVP type experience. It also needs to have mechanisms that reward teamwork, and especially the kind of teamwork where members have specialized roles (to minimize benefits from ISbotting).
NPC RR chains that require neuting/jamming, key ships that need to be pointed or they escape, less but more powerful and intelligent rats. Basically you'd need a typical small gang comp and tactics to clear the site/mission.
Current form which heavily promotes soloing and fits min-maxed for the sites will always make PVErs "prey", instead of a "gf". Gadgets that help that aren't going to fix anything.
Something that is like very hard but you shoot NPCs that could escape and leave you poor?
Like incursions with bubbles? Hmm.. interesting
Can't say that I am thrilled but the idea isn't terrible. My idea of pve was that you make cash and spend cash on gear but that's just me.
signature
|
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
1473
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 00:40:06 -
[17] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Except the pirate has a devoted prober, which is going to be a cov-ops ship, and cov-ops ships have bonuses to their hacking modules, and probably also rigged their ships for the same purpose, as besides probing, that's all it has to do. Your ratting ship doesn't and needs its rig slots for other things. You are creating an environment where a pirate can have every advantage over you. So, you lose. This is a good point. But remember it is meant to be a PvP mini game, not identical to data/relic site mini game. Maybe you don't need a Data Analyzer at all. It doesn't really matter. The point is to give people a reason to stay in the site and interact rather than just warping out.
Komi Toran wrote:The ship in a mission/site tanking Sansha pirates is going to mount a defense against someone dealing Kinetic/Explosive damage. Good luck with that. o7 If you are saying that the rats in a site are adequate defence against being ganked then you are just wrong. Site runners get killed by PvP ships all the time. This is not a good defence.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1950
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 07:48:02 -
[18] - Quote
hunting targets becoming a series of mini-games and trade windows? and in the end its still a case of trying to avoid combat at any and all cost. it maybe more interactive to run a PvP mini-game with the person trying to hunt you, but only a small amount, and not in a good way.
would rather restructure the PvE itself as mentioned. oh and remove local and other early warning systems
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |