Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
161
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 04:07:17 -
[1] - Quote
As it is, a mission runner or ratter is screwed against someone trying to PvP them unless the PvPer is really bad. It shouldn't be an even fight, but I would like to see "Fight back" as a more competitive option.
So I wanted to create a thread to brainstorm ways to make it more reasonable.
Here is one: MWDing rats or rats that try to warp away. This would give ratters a reason to fit a scram, and being unable to stop "PvPer warps away" is a big problem. You can't kill someone fit for PvP. Only force him to warp away or die. |
Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
77
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 04:19:46 -
[2] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:As it is, a mission runner or ratter is screwed against someone trying to PvP them unless the PvPer is really bad. It shouldn't be an even fight, but I would like to see "Fight back" as a more competitive option.
So I wanted to create a thread to brainstorm ways to make it more reasonable.
Here is one: MWDing rats or rats that try to warp away. This would give ratters a reason to fit a scram, and being unable to stop "PvPer warps away" is a big problem. You can't kill someone fit for PvP. Only force him to warp away or die.
Start by equipping the two best weapons in EvE. They work great for both for PVP and PVE.
Second best weapon: A Fleet Best Weapon: Information
--Gadget |
Antillie Sa'Kan
Forging Industries Silent Infinity
773
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 04:24:52 -
[3] - Quote
This requires new NPC AI. Writing good AI is hard. Sleeper AI is pretty good but its hardly able to simulate the way a good player will act in PVP. |
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
161
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 04:29:57 -
[4] - Quote
Gadget Helmsdottir wrote:Tear Jar wrote:As it is, a mission runner or ratter is screwed against someone trying to PvP them unless the PvPer is really bad. It shouldn't be an even fight, but I would like to see "Fight back" as a more competitive option.
So I wanted to create a thread to brainstorm ways to make it more reasonable.
Here is one: MWDing rats or rats that try to warp away. This would give ratters a reason to fit a scram, and being unable to stop "PvPer warps away" is a big problem. You can't kill someone fit for PvP. Only force him to warp away or die. Start by equipping the two best weapons in EvE. They work great for both for PVP and PVE. Second best weapon: A Fleet Best Weapon: Information --Gadget
In PvE a fleet is generally not a good weapon. There are a handful of fleet activities(incursions, WH escalations) but generally isk making is drastically more efficient solo. |
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
161
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 04:32:33 -
[5] - Quote
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:This requires new NPC AI. Writing good AI is hard. Sleeper AI is pretty good but its hardly able to simulate the way a good player will act in PVP.
The AI doesn't have to use strategies as effectively as players do. It just needs to use roughly the same strategies. CCP has demonstrated they can do this(we have NPCs that jam and neut), but most NPCs are limited to web scram and dps. |
Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
77
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 04:39:24 -
[6] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:Gadget Helmsdottir wrote:Tear Jar wrote:As it is, a mission runner or ratter is screwed against someone trying to PvP them unless the PvPer is really bad. It shouldn't be an even fight, but I would like to see "Fight back" as a more competitive option.
So I wanted to create a thread to brainstorm ways to make it more reasonable.
Here is one: MWDing rats or rats that try to warp away. This would give ratters a reason to fit a scram, and being unable to stop "PvPer warps away" is a big problem. You can't kill someone fit for PvP. Only force him to warp away or die. Start by equipping the two best weapons in EvE. They work great for both for PVP and PVE. Second best weapon: A Fleet Best Weapon: Information --Gadget In PvE a fleet is generally not a good weapon. There are a handful of fleet activities(incursions, WH escalations) but generally isk making is drastically more efficient solo.
Redundancy trumps efficiency. The most well oiled machine fails to work when it's been blown up, so have a backup ready.
Still, If you're going to be solo, then have allies available at a moment's notice.
The problem is you're trying to make PVE = PVP. Even burners don't do this. Rats operate on a script; players don't. Until there are players behind the rats (nope!), or AI makes some serious leaps and bounds, then the fighting styles of both will be different. However, there's nothing stopping you from doing PVE in a PVP specced ship, is there? Oh Yeah, efficiency...
--Gadget |
Antillie Sa'Kan
Forging Industries Silent Infinity
773
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 04:39:42 -
[7] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:The AI doesn't have to use strategies as effectively as players do. It just needs to use roughly the same strategies. CCP has demonstrated they can do this(we have NPCs that jam and neut), but most NPCs are limited to web scram and dps. For this to work NPCs need the same weaknesses as players. This is something they currently do not have. Also they cannot overheat, don't use off grid boosts, are immune to neuts, don't run out of cap, and don't swap ammo. Even then making NPCs imitate player tactics is really hard. As I said, writing good AI is really hard.
As much as I would like to see all NPCs have better AI I would rather CCP spent their time rebalancing ships and reworking sov. |
Maarg
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 04:41:26 -
[8] - Quote
I think you may ave something there. Right now we are 'calibrated' to having a bunch of lumbering, NPC's that produce a large amount of damage over a long time in, for instance, belts. Maybe they could make the AI more challenging, with warp ins and warp outs and much higher bounties. Then PVEr == PVPer. . |
Lugh Crow-Slave
224
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 04:43:34 -
[9] - Quote
just fit for PvP when you rat.... not that hard |
Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Eschelon Directive Universal Consortium
70
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 04:51:32 -
[10] - Quote
If you are PVE'ing for lack of a better word, you are mostly in a sustainable tank mode, where pvp is more of a burst damage thing with obvious exceptions. Some PVE does require aspects of PVP (looking at sleepers) but the most efficient way to deal with those are again fits that are horrible against most pvp setups.
If PVE was less about being able to out tank sustained damage and more about burst damage, mobility and positioning it would probably closer simulate pvp, i think the burners were a step in the right direction but it still could use some refinement.
Less red crosses on the field with better AI trying to get the upper hand by not mindlessly slowboating to its optimal but also reacting to burning out of your optimal might do the trick.
The issue is though that every AI (if you can call it that) in the past has had a flaw that people could cheese through and make it more boring with less "pvp" fits and more this works better in less time.
Part of the issue is us, we tend to gravitate to cheese fits for pve because it works against the npc's and it is easy or faster than fitting with the expectation of pvp or pvpish npc's.
|
|
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
161
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 04:51:44 -
[11] - Quote
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:Tear Jar wrote:The AI doesn't have to use strategies as effectively as players do. It just needs to use roughly the same strategies. CCP has demonstrated they can do this(we have NPCs that jam and neut), but most NPCs are limited to web scram and dps. For this to work NPCs need the same weaknesses as players. This is something they currently do not have. Also they cannot overheat, don't use off grid boosts, are immune to neuts, don't run out of cap, and don't swap ammo. Even then making NPCs imitate player tactics is really hard. As I said, writing good AI is really hard. As much as I would like to see all NPCs have better AI I would rather CCP spent their time rebalancing ships and reworking sov.
Not neccesarily. Not every strategy needs to be effective against NPCs, but a strategy that is effective against NPCs should be somewhat good against players.
Scram+web+shoot is a decent strategy
Web+shoot just leads to them warping off if they start losing. |
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
161
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 04:57:32 -
[12] - Quote
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:If you are PVE'ing for lack of a better word, you are mostly in a sustainable tank mode, where pvp is more of a burst damage thing with obvious exceptions. Some PVE does require aspects of PVP (looking at sleepers) but the most efficient way to deal with those are again fits that are horrible against most pvp setups.
If PVE was less about being able to out tank sustained damage and more about burst damage, mobility and positioning it would probably closer simulate pvp, i think the burners were a step in the right direction but it still could use some refinement.
Less red crosses on the field with better AI trying to get the upper hand by not mindlessly slowboating to its optimal but also reacting to burning out of your optimal might do the trick.
The issue is though that every AI (if you can call it that) in the past has had a flaw that people could cheese through and make it more boring with less "pvp" fits and more this works better in less time.
Part of the issue is us, we tend to gravitate to cheese fits for pve because it works against the npc's and it is easy or faster than fitting with the expectation of pvp or pvpish npc's.
I actually set a much lower bar. I just want the same rough fittings to work together. NPC behaving like player would be ideal but even without that it would be an upgrade. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13962
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 05:53:26 -
[13] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote: In PvE a fleet is generally not a good weapon. There are a handful of fleet activities(incursions, WH escalations) but generally isk making is drastically more efficient solo.
I would also support giving people better reasons to group in PvE, but thats for a different thread.
A small gang running level 4s will earn more than any solo player.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1993
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 05:54:53 -
[14] - Quote
Burners were a big leap toward this already. it will never be perfect but thats pretty much what your asking for and CCP have already expanded on the first iteration of burners.
i hope they continue to do so.
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"
|
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
274
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 10:13:01 -
[15] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:As it is, a mission runner or ratter is screwed against someone trying to PvP them unless the PvPer is really bad. It shouldn't be an even fight, but I would like to see "Fight back" as a more competitive option.
So I wanted to create a thread to brainstorm ways to make it more reasonable.
Here is one: MWDing rats or rats that try to warp away. This would give ratters a reason to fit a scram, and being unable to stop "PvPer warps away" is a big problem. You can't kill someone fit for PvP. Only force him to warp away or die.
I fit a point on my low/null PVE ships so I can kill stuff that manages to jump me. If you decide you rather min/max your PVE fit, it's your own choice.
Yesterday I was fixing my sec status in lowsec and running Mordus sites, when suddenly! A wild Arazu appears:
http://unset.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=26089263
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
797
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 13:50:57 -
[16] - Quote
when people fit purely for pve they intentionally put them into a bad position for pvp, namely for max ISK/h. You dont have to if you want to compete in pvp while doing pve you should fit that way, its all on your part. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
505
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 14:32:19 -
[17] - Quote
Many, MANY PvP fits are buffer, you're going to have a bad time pveing in a buffer fit, unless it's a comedy shield tank.
They two don't overlap, really. Even burners are nothing like PvP - a fitting puzzle is all.
What it would take is burner like missions, but much weaker, needing tackle and so forth to start bridging the gap. Not sure it'll get the DEV time though. I think it has potential personally but a lot of things need fixed too.
Edit: and even were it possible - no pvp fit is going to stand up to an interloper AND rats wailing on them so it is somewhat moot. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10694
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 14:56:14 -
[18] - Quote
They have already taken a step in the right direction.
Burner rats.
What needs to happen now is for missions to be less about shooting down 60+ soft targets, and more about shooting down 10-15 hard targets. That'd be a big step in the right direction.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
540
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 15:19:18 -
[19] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:As it is, a mission runner or ratter is screwed against someone trying to PvP them unless the PvPer is really bad. It shouldn't be an even fight, but I would like to see "Fight back" as a more competitive option.
So I wanted to create a thread to brainstorm ways to make it more reasonable.
Here is one: MWDing rats or rats that try to warp away. This would give ratters a reason to fit a scram, and being unable to stop "PvPer warps away" is a big problem. You can't kill someone fit for PvP. Only force him to warp away or die.
what is stopping a pve fit ship from running the scram now?
Pull a "pve" midslot item, accept the caveat isk per hour goes down a bit as you need to warp out a few times if too hot, problem solved. I have pve'd a few times on pvp fits, its doable. Just taking off few mil isk per hour is all. On the player to decide if 3 million lost per hour is worth more the cost of a "pve" ship.
Also google some pve fits that have utility slots still. May notice some pack neut/nos for just this occasion. Drain the fast tackler, decide if you stay to kill or gtfo while the tackler is needing Scotty and Jordy tag teaming it to give that ship more power to run mods.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
521
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 15:34:40 -
[20] - Quote
Make a fleet, run missions in the same system
Do your missions in PVP ships
Ideas & stuff
EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down.
Status: Bouncing on the diving board.
|
|
Antillie Sa'Kan
Forging Industries Silent Infinity
773
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 15:42:40 -
[21] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:Not neccesarily. Not every strategy needs to be effective against NPCs, but a strategy that is effective against NPCs should be somewhat good against players.
Scram+web+shoot is a decent strategy
Web+shoot just leads to them warping off if they start losing. So how do you propose NPCs handle things like choosing to kite or choosing to brawl? What scripts to load into their TDs or damps? And how is a player supposed to take on a gang of NPCs that combine jamming with damps? How should they react to player EWAR? What about dual prop fits? Or dual/tripple rep cap boosted fits? How about ASBs?
My point is that writing an AI that can not only use all of the tactics that players do and respond to them in kind is really really hard. Why do you think most MMOs use an aggro generation system to control NPC targeting in conjunction with simple command scripts?
Try killing BS rats in a bomber in null. You can use a full PVP fit for it just fine. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
780
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 17:10:44 -
[22] - Quote
How about fitting for pvp and learning to run the missions that way? I run anoms pvp fit all of the time and have no issues with them |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
3094
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 17:18:57 -
[23] - Quote
Having read this thread thoroughly, I believe OP's title is backwards. It should read:
"Give PvP fits a chance in PvE". |
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
161
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 18:04:30 -
[24] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Having read this thread thoroughly, I believe OP's title is backwards. It should read:
"Give PvP fits a chance in PvE".
You are right. Title has been fixed. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
65
|
Posted - 2014.11.23 03:25:53 -
[25] - Quote
My take.
If you want PvP go find it. If you want missions go run them. They are two distinctly different styles of play and cater to two distinctly different player styles.
We really need to make it clear if you are talking about missions in low/nul or in high sec because what you can/need to do as the mission runner is different.
In high sec the whole idea is to survive long enough for Concord to come to your rescue, or to warp out. Using a neut, scram/web or ecm is considered an offensive action and cancels the Concord response. If you take any of these actions you are deciding to stay and fight or hoping that you can break away and warp out, and if you take them before you are shot your attacker will have to battle with Concord to see who records the kill.
I have minimal experience with missions in low/nul but since you are in a free PvP area I expect the fits and tactics would need to be significantly different.
Fleets and missions in general. Two players each flying a combat fit primary and a salvage alt is perhaps the most efficient way to run missions for ISK but that requires both players to have at least two accounts each. If you are a single player or two players with one account each then one combat and one salvage is probably the best option.
But the primary reason to run missions as a fleet is the chance to sit and BS with friends/corp mates while doing something that is reasonably easy. Fleet mission runs really do make a wonderful social encounter in the land of EVE. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |