Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Briar Thrain
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 20:46:43 -
[1] - Quote
The new belt miners / response fleets got me thinking about CCP's desire to add more advanced NPC AI into the game. There seems to be a consensus (according to things i see/hear) amongst players is that there is not enough in game to force/encourage large scale player encounters. This seems to be from pvp'ers concerned with content - all the way down to miners/industrialists concerned with market prices because little that gets produced gets destroyed.
Hear me out - how would a big project 'Drifter Invasion' sound? Not as in small isolated Drifter incursions, as in global 'This is it' Invasion across the cluster. Perhaps they have finally gotten to the moment their intelligence form the Jove observatories combined with the completion of their buildup has come to a head. Have them be their own NPC alliance hell bent on eradicating the capsuleer threat that is keeping them from conquering the major empires. Let them use stargates, let them have advanced Capitals that take major investment of countering. Let them attack Citadels and come back for the RF timers. Let them take Sov from nullsec and spread like a real alliance/corp. Fail to stop them and they take over your space, and if you want to keep your space there needs to be a lot of assets 'out in the open' to encourage player engagements. To prevent further worsening of the economy, perhaps the rewards should be nothing. Too harsh? lol. Too easy for players to simply 3rd party?
Surely the details would matter, for example perhaps the strength of them in Nullsec could be scaled to some kind of index, size of alliance, something clever to avoid circumvention like farming out Sov you've claimed, etc. |
Cade Windstalker
779
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 20:55:40 -
[2] - Quote
Sure, if CCP wants to either kill their game or it's getting shut down anyways and they want to send it off with a bang. Otherwise this would be nothing more than a good way to get a ton of players to quit the game all at once.
That's without getting into the amount of work that would have to go into what would basically be a massive one-off as they either win and wipe out Capsuleers in New Eden or the players win and push them out. Just implementing the AI for this would be a massive undertaking, and on top of that a lot of the underlying systems don't support things like NPCs taking sov, or jumping through gates, or being smart enough to shoot Citadels and respond to timers.
Also PvE can not be, inherently, massively destructive because people do PvE to earn money, so that makes this pretty inherently a bad idea right there, and as a cherry on top you're talking about taking a lot of choice away from a lot of players about whether or not to engage in PvE or not.
Just no, this is one of those things that looks great until you start thinking about the consequences.
In before trolls talking about how hilarious this would be... |
Briar Thrain
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 21:00:16 -
[3] - Quote
Fair critiques. You must admit though that if Eve becomes/remains an ISK making utopia the economy will not be healthy. Some kind of isk sink would be a welcome shot in the arm, and that doesnt happen with isk farming, it happens with things getting blown up. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3761
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 21:10:06 -
[4] - Quote
'player driven sandbox' players attack people. They capture systems. They fly through gates. They use caps. What's wrong with using these guys?
What you're suggesting is a themepark. For people who want this game play there are incursions and drifters etc. And they get paid for doing them. I've heard of them even shooting structures.
Now imagine you're a pvp alliance, at war with another player alliance. Whilst you're defending one side of your space, a massive bunch of npc's that do not play by the rules start invading the other side. They don't have factories. They don't have primary timezones or real life to worry about. They have no home you can attack. Their ships don't even follow the same rules as yours. But you have to divert real assets and real people with real lives to fight of these magic players or risk losing ratters, miners and even your structures it seems.
In null, i read incursions are a pita.
If you want more destruction of assets, lower the barriers of pvp. Players will do all the things you want.
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"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3761
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 21:13:58 -
[5] - Quote
Briar Thrain wrote:Fair critiques. You must admit though that if Eve becomes/remains an ISK making utopia the economy will not be healthy. Some kind of isk sink would be a welcome shot in the arm, and that doesnt happen with isk farming, it happens with things getting blown up.
fyi - I'm not sure you are understanding the economy I mention. The isk you make in PVE is only worth something if someone is willing to buy it for that price.
Destruction is not an isk sink. Its actually an isk faucet thanks to insurance.
Haven't read the economy updates recently but the isk faucet/sink wasn't to bad last i saw. You're damn right about production being way higher than destruction though.
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"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Briar Thrain
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 21:13:59 -
[6] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:'player driven sandbox' players attack people. They capture systems. They fly through gates. They use caps. What's wrong with using these guys?
What you're suggesting is a themepark. For people who want this game play there are incursions and drifters etc. And they get paid for doing them. I've heard of them even shooting structures.
Now imagine you're a pvp alliance, at war with another player alliance. Whilst you're defending one side of your space, a massive bunch of npc's that do not play by the rules start invading the other side. They don't have factories. They don't have primary timezones or real life to worry about. They have no home you can attack. Their ships don't even follow the same rules as yours. But you have to divert real assets and real people with real lives to fight of these magic players or risk losing ratters, miners and even your structures it seems.
In null, i read incursions are a pita.
If you want more destruction of assets, lower the barriers of pvp. Players will do all the things you want.
What if they 'did' have factories and such, that is the kind of thing i mean. There is the rampant complaint at the moment that large scale PVP does not happen nearly regularly enough. I'm not saying make them omnipotent, I'm saying make something that is designed with the intent of giving more opportunities for this to occur. The details are malleable. - rofl no man nobody makes isk positive off of insurance :-) |
Cade Windstalker
779
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 21:16:45 -
[7] - Quote
Things getting blown up are not an ISK sink they are a mineral sink. ISK sinks take the form of Corp and Alliance fees, market fees, NPC sell orders, and similar things that take ISK out of the economy directly. Ship Insurance is actually a net ISK faucet.
Also if you check out the EVE Prosper segment from the latest o7 show you'll note that we're actually currently running ISK negative in terms of Sinks vs Faucets, in large part due to people moving away from ratting and towards things like Rorqual Mining to make their ISK.
If CCP wanted to add another ISK sink to the game this sort of thing would not be the way to do it. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3761
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 21:23:32 -
[8] - Quote
The code and tracking required to do that on this scale is unimaginable. I can't think of anything that comes remotely close.
You misunderstand what and isk sink and faucet are. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.engadget.com/amp/2010/10/24/eve-evolved-isk-sinks-and-faucets/?client=ms-android-sonymobile
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"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5267
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 23:40:04 -
[9] - Quote
EVE's PVE is awful. Making it mandatory is not going to make it better. |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2923
|
Posted - 2017.02.15 07:58:58 -
[10] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:The code and tracking required to do that on this scale is unimaginable. I can't think of anything that comes remotely close. There was one thing: The Drifter Incursions and Empire response fleets from last year. The system made the servers buckle.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
|
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2017.02.15 09:04:37 -
[11] - Quote
What if there would be a huge PVE event instead of constant threat: the Drifters figured out, that the best way to break the current economy to make it easier to conquer is destroying the main market. This could be a kind of simulation about what would happen to the global economy if suddenly we would lose the market of China. During the event the Drifters attack every structure in Jita, regardless if it's player-made or NPC. If the Drifters win (spoiler: they will) all of the stations and everything in them will be destroyed. Players will have 2 options during the event to participate: - killing Drifters for ISK and Concord LP - accepting contracts to evacuate the properties from the system (as a response to this as we getting later in the event the Drifters will more likely attack haulers too) By the end of the event, Jita is full of station wrecks.
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3782
|
Posted - 2017.02.15 09:41:36 -
[12] - Quote
Briar Thrain wrote:. There seems to be a consensus (according to things i see/hear) amongst players is that there is not enough in game to force/encourage large scale player encounters.
.... where have you been getting your info?
last i looked people held the erroneous sentiment that the game forced you to blobb or join one of the big groups
BLOPS Hauler
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5570
|
Posted - 2017.02.15 10:01:37 -
[13] - Quote
Look, all I know is this: It would be absurdly fun to fly a Drfiter ship (even toned down and with a suspect status).
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3763
|
Posted - 2017.02.15 13:53:51 -
[14] - Quote
Keep going to fanfest. You'll probably get one eventually.
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"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
3951
|
Posted - 2017.02.15 14:09:51 -
[15] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Briar Thrain wrote:. There seems to be a consensus (according to things i see/hear) amongst players is that there is not enough in game to force/encourage large scale player encounters. .... where have you been getting your info? last i looked people held the erroneous sentiment that the game forced you to blobb or join one of the big groups
he's in nc., nobody wants to play with nc.
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Wolfgang Jannesen
The Evesploratory Society
33
|
Posted - 2017.02.15 14:38:38 -
[16] - Quote
-1 for your citadel getting attacked for no reason |
Briar Thrain
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2017.02.15 17:40:27 -
[17] - Quote
I, for one, welcome our new Drifter Super/Titan overlords. Although I don't think they want to set any blues. Also, CCPlease- have the drifters talk smack in local, post their killmails into local or something.
So I take it not many forum readers (and trolls) take kindly to NPC demolition as a tool for increased player interaction and economy stimulus. I have no idea what caused the Drifter Incursions (last?) year to make the servers choke so much, but it does seem like the bones of something like this are becoming present in the game already. The Lancers/Drifters already have more advanced stats and AI and warp about systems and remember players aggression, and NPC belt rats mine actual ore and make off with it, etc. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
3952
|
Posted - 2017.02.15 17:44:50 -
[18] - Quote
no id rather not be forced to interact with npc's, that should remain optional
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Cade Windstalker
798
|
Posted - 2017.02.15 18:17:33 -
[19] - Quote
Briar Thrain wrote:I, for one, welcome our new Drifter Super/Titan overlords. Although I don't think they want to set any blues. Also, CCPlease- have the drifters talk smack in local, post their killmails into local or something. So I take it not many forum readers (and trolls) take kindly to NPC demolition as a tool for increased player interaction and economy stimulus. I have no idea what caused the Drifter Incursions (last?) year to make the servers choke so much, but it does seem like the bones of something like this are becoming present in the game already. The Lancers/Drifters already have more advanced stats and AI and warp about systems and remember players aggression, and NPC belt rats mine actual ore and make off with it, etc.
The main reason the Drifter Incursions got removed was because players very quickly found a way to turn them into a free ISK printer to the tune of billions an hour.
The reason people are not in favor of this is because NPC combat isn't all that engaging by itself even with the changes that have been made, because NPC combat is and should remain largely voluntary, and because the economy doesn't work how you think it does. Destroying assets does not remove ISK from the game it removes minerals. This pushes mineral prices up, but it actually increases the ISK supply in the game because across all players insurance is a net ISK faucet, not a sink. |
Briar Thrain
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2017.02.15 21:49:09 -
[20] - Quote
So what I am hearing is that insurance payments should be nerfed in some fashion. You may relax in your smugly superior knowledge of the market economy. As someone who has never cared about either insurance payments nor the minutia of industry mechanics I was thinking of this idea more as a benefit to to the player interaction side of this.
Everyone is entitled to their ideas and opinions of course. I am of the opinion that the new structures like Citadels and EC's should be under a little more peril than they currently are, even minimal resistance like Drifters coming to bash down abandoned ones ('abandoned' by some metric) - easily to defend against if actually manned, would not be the worst idea imho. Same goes for large / powerful groups (again, by some metric) holding onto large swaths of Sov. |
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5268
|
Posted - 2017.02.15 22:01:11 -
[21] - Quote
You still haven't explained why forcing people to participate in an area of the game they have zero interest in (IE ratting) is a good thing. |
Cade Windstalker
801
|
Posted - 2017.02.15 22:22:56 -
[22] - Quote
Briar Thrain wrote:So what I am hearing is that insurance payments should be nerfed in some fashion. You may relax in your smugly superior knowledge of the market economy. As someone who has never cared about either insurance payments nor the minutia of industry mechanics I was thinking of this idea more as a benefit to to the player interaction side of this.
Everyone is entitled to their ideas and opinions of course. I am of the opinion that the new structures like Citadels and EC's should be under a little more peril than they currently are, even minimal resistance like Drifters coming to bash down abandoned ones ('abandoned' by some metric) - easily to defend against if actually manned, would not be the worst idea imho. Same goes for large / powerful groups (again, by some metric) holding onto large swaths of Sov.
You have *completely* missed the point here.
Nerfing insurance payouts would not make destroying ships an ISK sink. Also insurance is not a significant ISK sink, in fact it's just about at the bottom of the pile of ways ISK enters the game. It is not in need of a nerf. The point was simply that destruction of player owned ships is not an ISK sink so a massive wave of destruction of player owned goods does not remove any ISK from the game and is actually slightly ISK positive on the whole, even if it's not value-positive for the players involved.
As something of a side note here, if you don't care about something in general you should at least care enough make sure to get your terminology right. It avoids having your idea thread derailed because you've said something you didn't intend to say.
Citadels are plenty vulnerable at present, and they die every day in High, Low, and Null often in quite significant quantities, especially if not defended actively.
Also Sov Null owned by group size is just about at the smallest its been in Eve's history due to the mechanics of the current iteration of Sov and the changes to power projection. Also more different groups currently hold Sov than at any point in Eve's history.
In short, if that's your goal, then literally nothing is required to achieve it, we're already there. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3764
|
Posted - 2017.02.16 01:54:47 -
[23] - Quote
Briar Thrain wrote:
Everyone is entitled to their ideas and opinions of course. I am of the opinion that the new structures like Citadels and EC's should be under a little more peril than they currently are, even minimal resistance like Drifters coming to bash down abandoned ones ('abandoned' by some metric) - easily to defend against if actually manned, would not be the worst idea imho. Same goes for large / powerful groups (again, by some metric) holding onto large swaths of Sov.
And why can't we let players do this?
It would be a thousand times easier (and more sandbox) to tweak citadels to make them more vulnerable than it would be to come up with all this.
NPC's consume more resources, will NEVER play like you or i. They are no substitute for actual players.
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"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Briar Thrain
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2017.02.16 17:58:49 -
[24] - Quote
I have no real agrument with this, as of course eve is and should be mostly a player driven ecosystem - after all that is what differentiates it from other (all?) mmo's. I will play a little devil's advocate though in pointing out that the NPC miners were not asked for nor required, and yet here they are in game. They actively mine ore that other players would have been trying to hoover up. Not apples to apples with this thread but shows CCP has a desire to add more dynamic NPC content.
The irony of self identifying 'only pvp' style players moaning about 'having to shoot NPC's" would be delicious though. XD
Daichi Yamato wrote:Briar Thrain wrote:
Everyone is entitled to their ideas and opinions of course. I am of the opinion that the new structures like Citadels and EC's should be under a little more peril than they currently are, even minimal resistance like Drifters coming to bash down abandoned ones ('abandoned' by some metric) - easily to defend against if actually manned, would not be the worst idea imho. Same goes for large / powerful groups (again, by some metric) holding onto large swaths of Sov.
And why can't we let players do this? It would be a thousand times easier (and more sandbox) to tweak citadels to make them more vulnerable than it would be to come up with all this. NPC's consume more resources, will NEVER play like you or i. They are no substitute for actual players. |
Cade Windstalker
813
|
Posted - 2017.02.16 19:47:13 -
[25] - Quote
Briar Thrain wrote:I have no real agrument with this, as of course eve is and should be mostly a player driven ecosystem - after all that is what differentiates it from other (all?) mmo's. I will play a little devil's advocate though in pointing out that the NPC miners were not asked for nor required, and yet here they are in game. They actively mine ore that other players would have been trying to hoover up. Not apples to apples with this thread but shows CCP has a desire to add more dynamic NPC content.
There have actually been requests to make NPC mining fleets and NPCs in general more dynamic for years. Same goes for generally improving PvE content as well.
NPC mining fleets have a *lot* of differences from your idea though, and at least for me the primary issues with this are the forced PvE elements and the flawed economic reasoning. If you want to have a big Eve-wide invasion where NPCs shoot other NPCs but don't engage players until engaged then I'd say that sounds pretty interesting and has potential, so long as it was balanced right. |
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5268
|
Posted - 2017.02.16 20:01:34 -
[26] - Quote
Briar Thrain wrote:
The irony of self identifying 'only pvp' style players moaning about 'having to shoot NPC's" would be delicious though. XD
I assume you're American, and therefore do not understand what irony actually means?
How is there any irony in saying 'ratting is about as interesting as watching paint dry and I have zero desire to participate in this' an ironic statement?
This is a PVP game. Forcing PVP centric players to PVE if they want to keep their stuff does not exactly encourage them to hang around. |
Briar Thrain
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2017.02.17 18:06:40 -
[27] - Quote
You do realize there are many players who wish to PVE and complain from the mountain top that they 'should not have to PVP' if they do not want it. I actually split my time roughly 50/50 between both elements, and adding more interesting/dynamic form of PVE would be welcome, especially if it offered increased opportunities for escalating PVP.
Currently in game we also have the Sansha incursions which cause regional grief and player-spawned waves of 'Arithmos Tyrannos' salting the earth inside some wormholes.
I still feel like adding the Drifters as a bit of a rogue element would be fun. Surely there will be more Drifter-related content coming as they are being billed as a building threat. It would make a fair amount of sense if they switched their attention from targeting the empires to the capsuleers who have been thwarting their attempts.
Danika Princip wrote:Briar Thrain wrote:
The irony of self identifying 'only pvp' style players moaning about 'having to shoot NPC's" would be delicious though. XD
I assume you're American, and therefore do not understand what irony actually means? How is there any irony in saying 'ratting is about as interesting as watching paint dry and I have zero desire to participate in this' an ironic statement? This is a PVP game. Forcing PVP centric players to PVE if they want to keep their stuff does not exactly encourage them to hang around.
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5271
|
Posted - 2017.02.17 18:11:01 -
[28] - Quote
But it isn't going to be more interesting. It is going to be shooting a red chevron in a manner that is calculated to be the most efficient, the same as every other kind of ratting. There will be no difference between this ratting and running an incursion, or a burner mission, or a wormhole site, or any other example of CCP adding in rats that are supposed to be new and interesting, except that this ratting will be mandatory.
This is a pvp game. There is nothing you can do to avoid pvp in some form. The same is not true of pve, and nor should it be. |
Cade Windstalker
825
|
Posted - 2017.02.17 18:19:46 -
[29] - Quote
Briar Thrain wrote:You do realize there are many players who wish to PVE and complain from the mountain top that they 'should not have to PVP' if they do not want it. I actually split my time roughly 50/50 between both elements, and adding more interesting/dynamic form of PVE would be welcome, especially if it offered increased opportunities for escalating PVP.
Currently in game we also have the Sansha incursions which cause regional grief and player-spawned waves of 'Arithmos Tyrannos' salting the earth inside some wormholes.
I still feel like adding the Drifters as a bit of a rogue element would be fun. Surely there will be more Drifter-related content coming as they are being billed as a building threat. It would make a fair amount of sense if they switched their attention from targeting the empires to the capsuleers who have been thwarting their attempts.
Yes, people complain about it, but that's like buying a jar of peanut butter and then complaining that it tastes like nuts.
Anyone doing any amount of reading at all about Eve or playing it for any length of time should be aware that it comes with a warning label along the lines of "PvP may happen to you without your consent."
It's part of the game in a very fundamental way that random attacks of PvE aren't. This is, after all, a player driven game.
Key words from your own post here: "player-spawned waves of 'Arithmos Tyrannos'"
There is no PvE system currently in Eve that will engage you without you doing something to provoke it, whether that's warping to a belt or having *a player* pop a site that spawns a roving death-Battleship. |
Briar Thrain
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2017.02.17 18:20:36 -
[30] - Quote
Your argument is assuming that this content would be more of the same content that already exists that puts off certain people. I am not saying that I have the silver bullet idea of how this new content would be structured, but that the advanced AI and the Drifter element would be my vote to implement it.
Cade - I expressly said 'player-spawned' for the purpose of not trying to sound like I was misrepresenting said content. You are stating the obvious.
Danika Princip wrote:But it isn't going to be more interesting. It is going to be shooting a red chevron in a manner that is calculated to be the most efficient, the same as every other kind of ratting. There will be no difference between this ratting and running an incursion, or a burner mission, or a wormhole site, or any other example of CCP adding in rats that are supposed to be new and interesting, except that this ratting will be mandatory.
This is a pvp game. There is nothing you can do to avoid pvp in some form. The same is not true of pve, and nor should it be. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |