EVE Search - Suggestion to get more PVEers into PVP.

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Suggestion to get more PVEers into PVP.

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Topic
Webster Carr Aliastra	Posted - 2008.06.03 23:17:00 - [1] Why is PVE combat so much different than PVP? Why are good ship outfits and tactics for PVE are practically useless for PVP (and visa versa)? Why are missions made so much different than PVP combat? Why not make the two a bit more similar and let the skills people develop in PVE translate more easily into PVP? Suggestions: First: Decrease the number of spawns in missions and make each one tougher. (Also increase bounty/loot/salvage per wreck to compensate.) I would rather have one tough duel against another battlecruiser (and perhaps some frig support) in a level 3 than against five, any one of which I can kill easily. (One of my favorite missions, style wise, is Duo of Death.) Reasoning: You would never, in PVP, jump in solo to a group of 5 similar class ships and expect to make it out intact. Why is this the norm for PVE? Second: Calculate attributes for NPC ships based on reasonable fits according to their hull type and a skill level based on how tough you want them to be. (Side note - Why do I see Kestrals and Caracals shooting railguns at me in missions?) For example a cruiser in a level 2 mission might be fit and piloted as if it had 3 ranks in most relevant skills, while a level 4 mission might have a few skills at level 5. To keep things loaded towards the players, make stats for NPCs calculated at base tech 1 item fits... (Execept maybe for officer spawns, etc...) Reasoning: If you can take down a reasonable NPC for your skill, you start learning what it might take to take down a PC ship. (Of course a PC is always less predictible in fit and tactics but this would at least be a start.) As a side note this might also level some of the differences between PVP and PVE fits. (Having an all out gank fit and EWAR fits might become viable PVE fits if you're only facing a handfull of ships, right now EWAR is useless in PVE because you can't EWAR anywhere near the number of targets you have to deal with.) Third: Make missions less predictible. One level 3 mission to take out a transport might have 3 frigates and 1 cruiser as guards while another of the same name might have a battlecruiser and a destroyer. (Making it viable and reasonable to use cov-ops to scout missions might be a result of this.) Just some ideas and observations. YMMV. Peace, Webb
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2008.06.03 23:18:00 - [2] Have you tried any of the factional warfare missions? Unfortunately the test server doesn't like so I can't say from experience, but I've been told that the factional warfare missions are a bit more interesting than normal missions. ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.81 (Updated 4/8)
Veldya Guristari Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2008.06.04 04:32:00 - [3] Edited by: Veldya on 04/06/2008 04:32:37 The problem with PvE is that it requires radically different setups to PvP, mission runners don't stand a chance against Pirates because they are loaded up with no tanks, just maximum up front firepower and maximised hp. Being able to tank 1k dps means nothing when you have 10k dps coming at you. A significant issue is that logistics is a very narrow and specialised field, only a handful of ships are good at it and they are extremely flimsy, the ones that will get focused first. Then you have non-combat ships which are useless in combat, have no real defensive qualities. It is why there is such a void between PvE and PvP. If they designed non-combat ships to be massively durable, made logistics a lot more effective/accessible for non-fleet battles and created ways to limit the effectiveness of focus firing then they could evolve the game so there wasn't much of a difference between PvE and PvP and relax some of the limiting factors like Concord and the ability to warp to 0, etc. While there is such a void between the two there has to be artificial barriers.
Joe Starbreaker	Posted - 2008.06.04 05:10:00 - [4] Originally by: Veldya ways to limit the effectiveness of focus firing They have this, it's called LAG when your whole fleet is shooting at nothing for 10 seconds following your destruction of a Blackbird or something with 30 battleships. ---------------- [insert signature here]
Oakrayven Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.04 05:28:00 - [5] Mission running is about killing everything you need to in the mission FAST so you can get to the next one, surviving that big ass damage pulse thats hitting you from the blob, loading up your hold with loot, and controling NPC Agro. its also 1 Player more often than not. I think part of the reason why the rats suck is because their bascialy based on th crap fits and skill setups that everyone had way back when when noone knew better. heck when you look at the mission database and compare missions by when they were first entered into the database, its often obvious how old the "rediculously easy" missions that are still in the game are Vs the newer, tougher missions. what they need is a system of "easy" "medium" "hard" and Bring your best game or else missions at each level, and an overhaul of the loot system so that fewer ships that make you want to do a real PvP fit to go up against them pay out as well in drops and loot as that big ass blob of newbifit crap did. and lose the agro rules, seriously if part of my corp was getting chewed up at our hangout, dont you think that the other 20 of us would be warping in to nail that solo dweeb in his BC? *** ** Trust Aura. Aura is Your Friend. If your too paranoid to play EVE. . . Then your not paranoid ENOUGH to play EVE
Chiefs Fan Perkone	Posted - 2008.06.04 05:43:00 - [6] this game would hold more subscriptions if missions were more interesting. most ppl quit the game when they realize how many months it takes to get into a capital ship. while waiting that many months it would be nice to have something to do besides these terrible missions. a year ago most 0.0 corps would recruit newbs as long as they could fly a bs, now a year later the cap ship seems to be much more the standard... a bs just cant expect to live against a blob of cap fleet. idk maybe im wrong.
Novemb3r Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2008.06.04 05:53:00 - [7] Originally by: Veldya The problem with PvE is that it requires radically different setups to PvP, mission runners don't stand a chance against Pirates because they are loaded up with no tanks, just maximum up front firepower and maximised hp. Being able to tank 1k dps means nothing when you have 10k dps coming at you. The problem with PVE has nothing to do with setups and everything to do with people who do PVE being adverse to losing things. They don't PVP because they don't want to have their ships blown up. They aren't interested in risk versus reward, they are interested in no risk at all. You can come up with all the suggestions you want but you can't change human nature. Short of forcing them out of high sec, they won't leave unless they want to. Think about it. If you are running missions in your uber pimped CNR you can probably afford to lose a few ships without too much pain yet these are the people who are least likely to engage in behavior that will result in lost ships. tl;dr the people who want to PVP are already doing it. -
FlameGlow School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.04 06:03:00 - [8] Originally by: Chiefs Fan this game would hold more subscriptions if missions were more interesting. most ppl quit the game when they realize how many months it takes to get into a capital ship. while waiting that many months it would be nice to have something to do besides these terrible missions. a year ago most 0.0 corps would recruit newbs as long as they could fly a bs, now a year later the cap ship seems to be much more the standard... a bs just cant expect to live against a blob of cap fleet. idk maybe im wrong. IIRC it's about a 1 year from start to be able to fly a carrier half-decently (lot shorter if you just rush to meet requirements, but then without all those supporting skills you're just flying a big target, not a combat ship) That's some hard to find newbs for recruitment with a year's experience and over 15 mil SP probably
Rodj Blake PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.06.04 07:22:00 - [9] I'm pretty sure that there's a large number of corporations out there who don't exclusively fly capital ships in combat. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
b1zz	Posted - 2008.06.04 07:56:00 - [10] The missions need an overhaul. What I would like to see is this: 1. No repeated missions for any one character. 2. All missions story missions. 3. Decent engrossing story missions. 4. Randomness and unpredictability as the OP suggested to keep me on my toes. 5. If they want more people in low sec they need to lower the +8 standing requirement for NPC corp jump clone access. I mean, I do want to join a corp, but I'm not interested in joining one just to get jump clones. I want to get out to 0.0 and start mixing it with PvPs then join a group that I've enjoyed interacting with ie. mix with then join, not join then mix.

CrayC CrayC Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.04 08:00:00 - [11] Originally by: Webster Carr Why is PVE combat so much different than PVP? Why are good ship outfits and tactics for PVE are practically useless for PVP (and visa versa)? Why are missions made so much different than PVP combat? Why not make the two a bit more similar and let the skills people develop in PVE translate more easily into PVP? Lots of questions, answers to them are somewhat identical, so I'll keep them in one quote. When I do missions, I know what damagetype I will be recieving and what I need to dish out myself. I can fit accordingly and not having to worry much about anything but probers. In PVP, you will almost always be met with ships, damagetypes and resistances of all 4 races. This means you have to omnitank to better your odds. And since they also have omnitanks, you cannot say this or that damagetype is more effective than the others, so you basicly need to fit whatever hits the hardest, stat-wise. In missions, I know what type, if any, electronic warfare I will be met with. These rats drain my cap, I kill them first so I won't need a cap booster in that medium slot. This one scrambles me, he goes second and I can free up a lowslot instead of fitting a WCS. And so on. In PVP, you will most likely be met with every type of EW. You have no way of making a priority, as the weakest ship is not always the biggest threat, so it won't matter much if you kill that or not. You will need to protect yourself as good as you can against all types of EW, so you might need both a cap booster and WCS. This will affect your tank and you go pop a bit faster... So, since we don't need all the fancy stuff for missions, but do need them for PVP, it gets a bit harder to use samme setup everywhere, at least with the same efficiency. And this is why PVP and PVE are so far apart: In PVE you focus a lot on few aspects of the enemy, while in PVP you have to focus on everything. People that cannot handle the input given during a PVP fight and respond to it, will stick to missions, as they are so much simpler. So the transistion from PVE to PVP can't really be easier without missions becoming more like the real thing. And no game I have ever played, online or not, have been able to reproduce several human beings working together and outsmarting the opponent. I doubt EVE will be the first game to achieve that...
b1zz	Posted - 2008.06.04 08:10:00 - [12] Well, it would be nice if they could make an effort to make each PvE encounter a unique experience rather than the current monotony and predictability. If this is technically not possible then fair enough.
Venkul Mul	Posted - 2008.06.04 08:18:00 - [13] Originally by: Novemb3r Originally by: Veldya The problem with PvE is that it requires radically different setups to PvP, mission runners don't stand a chance against Pirates because they are loaded up with no tanks, just maximum up front firepower and maximised hp. Being able to tank 1k dps means nothing when you have 10k dps coming at you. The problem with PVE has nothing to do with setups and everything to do with people who do PVE being adverse to losing things. They don't PVP because they don't want to have their ships blown up. They aren't interested in risk versus reward, they are interested in no risk at all. You can come up with all the suggestions you want but you can't change human nature. Short of forcing them out of high sec, they won't leave unless they want to. Think about it. If you are running missions in your uber pimped CNR you can probably afford to lose a few ships without too much pain yet these are the people who are least likely to engage in behavior that will result in lost ships. tl;dr the people who want to PVP are already doing it. Another post for the list "I live with my assumptions never bothering to check them". You (as a group, not the player) never get that some player can find combat PvP with endless wait for the fleet to form, endless "wait at the gate", melt some noob frigate with 5 BS or enter combat to see if the fitting you have chosen is good or not, with very little chance to modify the end result after combat start, as boring as you find missions. Combat PvP is 50% blob warfare, 45% choose the perfect set up with hours of EFT experimentation, 5% skill after the combat begin. You can find it interesting, I find it boring as hell. There is more tactic and strategy managing aggro and controlling the combat condition in a mission than in a 20 seconds fight at a gate. Strategy and logistic enter the PvP game at the higher level, when you speak of large fleet battles and wars, but at that level only some of the players are in the position to make decision for all the fleet. PvE could be made better and the people doing it could lose more ships/risk more but that will not necessarily make them more interested in PvP combat. It will simply make them more interested in PvE combat.
The Tzar Malicious Intentions Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.06.04 09:03:00 - [14] Originally by: Venkul Mul There is more tactic and strategy managing aggro and controlling the combat condition in a mission than in a 20 seconds fight at a gate. Don't make me laugh..., too late Clearly the PvP you have experienced has been utter bogshyte if you actually believe this. There is not one of my PvP ships that couldn't stroll through any mission (not inc. lvl5's) without any thought for tactics. What possible tactics do you need when the NPC's are perfectly predictable in their simplicity? In PVE you tank a set damage type, deal a set damage type, warp out whenever you want as the only tacklers are non-inty speed frigs and the TOTAL dps is lower than ONE PvP battleship by itself. PvE is a joke compared to PvP. Try including bubbles, doomsdays, capitals, POS gunners and then come back and say that PvE requires more tactics. Seriously __________________________________________ 'Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear intelligent until they speak' __________________________________________
Shintai Balad Naran Orbital Shipyards	Posted - 2008.06.04 09:09:00 - [15] Reduce current alliance space hugging? Increase access routes to lowsec/0.0? Profit? Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.06.04 09:23:00 - [16] I think there is a lot they could do to NPCÆs to bring combat with them more inline with combat vs. other players. For starters, NPC Battleships they deal typically? 150-300 dps? You get T1 player cruisers doing up to ~ 500 dps! This sort of damage may have been fine 3-4 years ago, but things have moved on, itÆs time they did too. So the short of it is, they need beefing up and the numbers reducing (helps the server load too). Particularly so in 0.0, if you come across a pirate Battleship, it should not be a case of æwhack-a-moleÆ for a 3 month old noob in a Raven. As it stands, even the so called æeliteÆ; officers and commanders, are mere speed bumps, and these guys are supposed to be capsule pilots too... IÆd suggest ælong range' NPC battleships should be doing of the order 400-500 dps, and those that MWD up into your face doing of the order 800-900 dps. Reduce the numbers, and increase the bounty payment, perhaps so that the reward is higher than current in 0.0. Carry this over to officers so they are in-fact, as hard as a Deadspace/Faction-fitted Battleship really is. Secondly they really need to re-introduce tackling NPCÆs, it used to be that every 0.0 spawn you took on would have interceptors to lock you down, there was a real risk of actually gasp dying. IÆve no idea why they removed this. Thirdly they need to give NPCÆs some more brains and start switching fire. If you as a player arenÆt breaking someoneÆs tank, you donÆt sit there banging your head against a wall, you try hitting the damage dealers. This would probably require the rewards of complexes be beefed up, but again, itÆs worth it to get away from this æwhack-a-moleÆ PVE and bridge the gap. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Armoured C Globaltech Industries The ENTITY.	Posted - 2008.06.04 09:33:00 - [17] join factional warfare isnt that was it was intented for PVE' goers to bridge the cap in a standard evniroment to bridge the gap between carebear to scarebear
Hannobaal Shadow Forces Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.04 10:47:00 - [18] Originally by: Novemb3r The problem with PVE has nothing to do with setups and everything to do with people who do PVE being adverse to losing things. They don't PVP because they don't want to have their ships blown up.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.06.04 11:15:00 - [19] Originally by: Gabriel Karade I think there is a lot they could do to NPCÆs to bring combat with them more inline with combat vs. other players. For starters, NPC Battleships they deal typically? 150-300 dps? You get T1 player cruisers doing up to ~ 500 dps! This sort of damage may have been fine 3-4 years ago, but things have moved on, itÆs time they did too. So the short of it is, they need beefing up and the numbers reducing (helps the server load too). Particularly so in 0.0, if you come across a pirate Battleship, it should not be a case of æwhack-a-moleÆ for a 3 month old noob in a Raven. As it stands, even the so called æeliteÆ; officers and commanders, are mere speed bumps, and these guys are supposed to be capsule pilots too... IÆd suggest ælong range' NPC battleships should be doing of the order 400-500 dps, and those that MWD up into your face doing of the order 800-900 dps. Reduce the numbers, and increase the bounty payment, perhaps so that the reward is higher than current in 0.0. Carry this over to officers so they are in-fact, as hard as a Deadspace/Faction-fitted Battleship really is. Secondly they really need to re-introduce tackling NPCÆs, it used to be that every 0.0 spawn you took on would have interceptors to lock you down, there was a real risk of actually gasp dying. IÆve no idea why they removed this. Thirdly they need to give NPCÆs some more brains and start switching fire. If you as a player arenÆt breaking someoneÆs tank, you donÆt sit there banging your head against a wall, you try hitting the damage dealers. This would probably require the rewards of complexes be beefed up, but again, itÆs worth it to get away from this æwhack-a-moleÆ PVE and bridge the gap. This. First off, it would greatly reduce lag. Facing 4-5 ships in a L4 mission (and not always the same ships either to remove the predictability factor) is fairly sensible: with typical BS doing the equivalent of a player character with all L2 (mostly)-L4 (for the highest bounty ones) skills, with officers having full L5s. So facing a BS supported by a one or two cruisers (possibly a T2 cruiser on one of the tougher missions) and a frigate/interceptor or two would be something entirely reasonable and challenging. But a few of those missions would pay off very well - even though you may not be able to solo all of them without top skills and the best gear. The only issue is increasing profit / time by doing that, however. Secondly, all the NPC ships should have fittings which are close to normal PvP fittings - varied, of course: so occasionally you'd meet a plated/buffered BS with all the PvP essentials, occasionally they'd be active tanked and without web or point, relying on their tacklers to do the job. Occasionally the NPCs would have a huggin or something to prevent you from speed-tanking, occasionally they would have interceptors. Occasionally they'd bring useless stuff like tank drakes which do bugger all DPS and just require a solid beating (well, players do that as well). All that would make missions unpredictable and dangerous. It would both get people accustomed to losing ships (even on missions!) and accustomed to adapting to different situations and/or having gangmates, plus help them learn about different fittings and different opponents. This would greatly help those deciding to try PvP. It would probably make the PvE aspect much more interesting as well - rats are currently much like mobile asteroids. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Venkul Mul	Posted - 2008.06.04 11:44:00 - [20] Originally by: The Tzar There is not one of my PvP ships that couldn't stroll through any mission (not inc. lvl5's) without any thought for tactics. What possible tactics do you need when the NPC's are perfectly predictable in their simplicity? In PVE you tank a set damage type, deal a set damage type, warp out whenever you want as the only tacklers are non-inty speed frigs and the TOTAL dps is lower than ONE PvP battleship by itself. PvE is a joke compared to PvP. Try including bubbles, doomsdays, capitals, POS gunners and then come back and say that PvE requires more tactics. We are speaking 2 differnt languages so I dubt you can get whatr I mean but I will try the same: Tactic is what you do in the combat encounter. Most PvP is decided before the fight or even the encounter start. Your ship setting and group composition and the enemy ship set up and composition make the results after the fight start almost automatic. In PvE fights you generally have the time to adjust your tactic. It is not about easyer battles or harder battles, in one you can try to change the outcome even if it is going badly, in the other the possibility to reverse the outcome is almost non existant. If you want, in PvE you can use tactic to change the outcome (and you are using tactic if you don't charge gung ho straight to the largest number of enemies), in PvP you must rely on strategy, preparation before the fight. Try entering a bubble alone witout a cloak. Survivial is less than 0,1%. But that is not tactic, it is strategy. It would be tactic if you could use the "local terrain" to change the outcome. Quote: Originally by: Venkul Mul Strategy and logistic enter the PvP game at the higher level, when you speak of large fleet battles and wars, but at that level only some of the players are in the position to make decision for all the fleet. Umm, you only want one or two people making decisions for the entire fleet..., focused fire wins battles. FC's generally have access to intel that the rest of the fleet do not have, therefore does it not make sense for the group to act as one? You read what you want, not what is written. It is self evident that it is better for a fleet to operate as a group and that only a few people as possible make the decision. The point is that it is not fun or interesting. Why I should pay a game enter a big fleet and listne to orders? I could do it to support friend and corporation, but it is not my goal in a game. As it is most of EVE combat Pvp, eve combat PvP is not my goal or something that I find interesting. Quote: I want more people to PvP, especially people like this! Fit facton mods and come along with your superior PvE tactics. Joker Read and think abot what is written and not what you think other people is saying. And BTW, enter a mission with your superior PvP ships and fire at will against all the targets. Remember to warp scramble and nos the enemy ships. Then say it will not require tactics.

Venkul Mul	Posted - 2008.06.04 11:59:00 - [21] Originally by: Gabriel Karade I think there is a lot they could do to NPCÆs to bring combat with them more inline with combat vs. other players. For starters, NPC Battleships they deal typically? 150-300 dps? You get T1 player cruisers doing up to ~ 500 dps! This sort of damage may have been fine 3-4 years ago, but things have moved on, itÆs time they did too. So the short of it is, they need beefing up and the numbers reducing (helps the server load too). Particularly so in 0.0, if you come across a pirate Battleship, it should not be a case of æwhack-a-moleÆ for a 3 month old noob in a Raven. As it stands, even the so called æeliteÆ; officers and commanders, are mere speed bumps, and these guys are supposed to be capsule pilots too... IÆd suggest ælong range' NPC battleships should be doing of the order 400-500 dps, and those that MWD up into your face doing of the order 800-900 dps. Reduce the numbers, and increase the bounty payment, perhaps so that the reward is higher than current in 0.0. Carry this over to officers so they are in-fact, as hard as a Deadspace/Faction-fitted Battleship really is. Secondly they really need to re-introduce tackling NPCÆs, it used to be that every 0.0 spawn you took on would have interceptors to lock you down, there was a real risk of actually gasp dying. IÆve no idea why they removed this. Thirdly they need to give NPCÆs some more brains and start switching fire. If you as a player arenÆt breaking someoneÆs tank, you donÆt sit there banging your head against a wall, you try hitting the damage dealers. This would probably require the rewards of complexes be beefed up, but again, itÆs worth it to get away from this æwhack-a-moleÆ PVE and bridge the gap. Have you ever looked the resists of those ships? Try to reproduce them and then look what damage you can do. Probably you will end doing less damage than the NPC. I would be curious to see a ship set up capable of getting 90/80/80/60 resist on shield and armor, shield and armor boosting, antimissile (funcional too) and some passable damage. Ah, and always capable of firing/repping even if NOSsed/Disrupted. Mostly NPC ships are set up for tank. It is a simplified set up, so it not reflect any player ship set up. Changing it to reflect "typical" ship damage will require a very bigh chance in the mission payout and rewards and then it will require costant tweaking. After the first 2-3 weeks the player would discover the weak points of the new set up and farm it for the higher rewards so CCP should again change it, trying at the same time to maintain a balance in the mission difficulty. Almost certanly the current missions structure has been kept because even with the best ships and set up *****ing so much hard tanks require time. So CCP can control the isk flow against play time at least to an acceptable level. Changing them to a more "small scale PvP" stile of combat will make them faster and increase the isk flow when the NPC weak points are identified.
Venkul Mul	Posted - 2008.06.04 12:07:00 - [22] Originally by: Cpt Branko All that would make missions unpredictable and dangerous. And impossibler to balance for rewards/risk, require ungodly time to develop and test, constant upkeep to keep them functional and so on. It is possible to develope them, but you PvPers hate every second that CCP spend on PvE, then you ask for a overhaul of the system that will require most of the developers for a year? Be careful that you don't get what you wished for.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.06.04 12:26:00 - [23] Originally by: Venkul Mul It is possible to develope them, but you PvPers hate every second that CCP spend on PvE, then you ask for a overhaul of the system that will require most of the developers for a year? Because it benefits us indirectly. I mean, if they left PvP as it is for a year, well, OK, I'm having fun PvP-ing as it is - while, getting mission runners to realise that losing ships is a question of 'when' instead of 'if', that everything IS a matter of risk and reward, and that small-scale PvP is not the horrible thing you envision it to be (what you describe is the worst kind of fleet and blob warfare, which is annoying), but rather something fun, exciting and challenging. Anyone who thinks that tactics play very little in PvP has either only been in huge lagfest blobs or hasn't done a lot of PvP at all. Not all combat is about listening to someone listing primaries and hitting F1-F8. Hell, even solo is alive in EvE although not so common (unlike small gangs which are). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Rawr Cristina Naqam	Posted - 2008.06.04 12:33:00 - [24] agree with OP, NPCs are way too weak in their current form. Need to buff them up and for there to be less of them, IMO. They also need to tank more. When was the last time you saw a Drake take on 8 Battleships at once in PvP and win, killing all of them? moar realism plx! ...
Tesl	Posted - 2008.06.04 12:38:00 - [25] At the moment im a die hard mission runner, if you want to know what would make me PVP more its this. Most players who are die hard PVP'er (not high sec gankers) are in a corp out in 0.0 where they can make isk faster than a level 4 mission runner in the same amount of time. So i take on average about 4 days to make 100mill running level 4 missions, someone in 0.0 can possibly make the same amount in about 2 days. possibly less (skill depending) so i go get a Abaddon (as an example) kit it out with T2 gear of what i think would be a PVP victory or at least a good fighting set up. the head off into 0.0 looking for a fight. on the way i run into a gate camp. and lose my ship. OR i make it but then as I've found a lone pilot i initiate combat. say he doesn't call in support, and we battle, if he wins I'm now looking at another 4 days to recoup my lose. if i win, hes looking at possibly just heading to his nearest POS and refitting another ship instantly, or getting his spare ship refitting and hes ready to recoup his lose in half the time its taken me, possibly less Half the time the PVP'er out in 0.0 has been playing the game a lot longer than the care-bear trying to break into 0.0, so skill wise and knowledge wise its a safe bet that the PVP'er will already have amassed a large weather with which to supply his PVP'ing. Where as the mission runner has to work his / her ass off just for what could be a very short stint into 0.0 If the care-bear that's trying to break into 0.0 gets gate camped and podded before even making it a few jumps its very disconcerting. and the Risk vs reward system goes out the window. being gate camped by 5 or 6 ships, one of which flies that fast that you cant even target it in time before its out of range is a serious turn off for PVP in eve. I'm not saying that EVE should be made fairer. but this game favours those who have been playing a lot longer, are already established out in 0.0 and have a big and good corp to back them up. there is no middle ground in eve. your either fighting PVE or PVP. A mission runner doesn't want to risk losing his ship because although the cost of the ship is insured. the cost of the items are not, this is a big hit when you factor in the cost of Rigs / T2 gear on a level 4 mission runners budget, compared to a PVP 0.0 sec players budget. But this is my view on it.
The Tzar Malicious Intentions Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.06.04 13:09:00 - [26] Originally by: Venkul MulWe are speaking 2 differnt languages so I dubt you can get whatr I mean but I will try the same[/quote Apologies Venkul, I misunderstood what you were saying here. (slightly more sheepishly now) Whilst I see your point, I personally find the tactics in PvP more interesting than PvE, mostly from the variety of ships that are used in small and larger gangs. For me the only PvE I have done is to earn ISK in the early days and this involved sitting in a drake that didn't really need to move, worry about transversal, range or anything really. I can see how some people might find it boring taking instructions from an FC though. __________________________________________ 'Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear intelligent until they speak' __________________________________________
Hanneshannes	Posted - 2008.06.04 13:17:00 - [27] Edited by: Hanneshannes on 04/06/2008 13:19:55 Missions aren't meant to be challenging, they're like mining or a trading a way to fund whatever else you wanna do. The only difference is the skills you train. Quote: there is no middle ground in eve. your either fighting PVE or PVP. Very good point imo, you either PvP or PvE or use an alt and do both but you can't do both on one account.
Vicis Tractus	Posted - 2008.06.04 13:23:00 - [28] The reason why PVE is a lot easier is because the ships you kill are not pod pilots. A good suggestion would be to fight NPC capsuleer pilots, also you would need to make it so the acceleration gate "degraded after max 2 ppl did the mission" reason being these missions woudl be farmed as they take less time to complete in theory. Love your lost love the ideas tho
Pirokobo Orion Academy THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY	Posted - 2008.06.04 13:27:00 - [29] Edited by: Pirokobo on 04/06/2008 13:28:35 PvP combat suffers from the problem of being highly asymmetric. The winner is usually obvious before the fight begins, either because of numbers, equipment, or sp. Losing in a fair fight is occasionally fun (hence why alliances are so enthusiastic to bludgeon each other), but solo engagements are very rarely fair. The sad fact is that small scale pvp in EVE is not about honorable combat between competent pilots. It's about blowing up someone who's weaker then you are and looting their wreck to pay the bills. You don't encounter anything approaching civility until you get into 0.0, where overt anarchy gives way to feudalism.
Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.04 13:46:00 - [30] Edited by: Exlegion on 04/06/2008 13:46:44 Originally by: Novemb3r The problem with PVE has nothing to do with setups and everything to do with people who do PVE being adverse to losing things. They don't PVP because they don't want to have their ships blown up. They aren't interested in risk versus reward, they are interested in no risk at all. You can come up with all the suggestions you want but you can't change human nature. Short of forcing them out of high sec, they won't leave unless they want to. Think about it. If you are running missions in your uber pimped CNR you can probably afford to lose a few ships without too much pain yet these are the people who are least likely to engage in behavior that will result in lost ships. tl;dr the people who want to PVP are already doing it. You must be one of those haters that don't understand (and probably don't even care) how missions work but you'll spew your opinions of hate and insults anyway because, well, it's just so much easier. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.