EVE Search - [Proposal] Rebalance low sec PVE content.

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] Rebalance low sec PVE content.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Gallians	Posted - 2011.01.12 21:21:00 - [1] Issue: Low sex is an unhabited wasteland that is used as a dangerous highway to get between point A and B with no compelling reason to stay there. Activities that before used to occur in Lo Sec such as missions and mining have all but disappeared and even pirates are starting to feed on each other out of sheer boredom. Proposed solution: Rebalance all PVE content in Lo sec to be doable with PVP fits, and to better reflect a PVP environment. This means a reasonable amount of PVP fitted buffer tanked, not too isk intensive ship setups should be viable for completing Lo Sec missions. Also upgrade the payouts and spawns in them to make them more worthwhile, and perhaps most important: Give all Lo sec mobs Sleeper AI which does NOT stick with the first thing targeted forever and targets on the base of threat, health, etc. Rationale: The proposals that I have seen here to fix lo sec tend to focus on downgrading high sec, and to come from self righteous "pirates" that think they are somehow entitled to shoot defenseless PVE setups. This, I believe, misses the main problem with the PVE content that makes participation in it so unrewarding: The mission balance is ill thought off, making PVE content both unrewarding, and requiring massive isk investments in ships to complete, ships which are for all purposes defenseless against a decently fit PVP setup. Consequently, nobody not in an unprobeable T3 tends to participate in this content. My proposal is to rebalance the missions to be in line with the territory, favoring buffer tanks and standard PVP setups, and making such fits bot able to complete the content and to do so in a reasonable time frame. Furthermore, the situation where mobs stick with the first thing they target is ridiculous, resulting in an automatic gang bang for whoever had the aggro when the pirates warp in. The proposal would address this, since barging in in a mission would no longer be a mindless affair where the missioner is usually pre engaged, pre damaged, and sometimes pre scrammed, but a fluid battlefield with risk for both the missioner AND the attacker. Why this should be done: I know of a lot of people that enjoy PVP and would enjoy participating in Lo Sec content such as L5 missions, however at this time, engaging in those activities is akin to a death wish; a plump turkey flying into the wolfs den. I contend that making the content reflect the area and the reasonable setups for that area as well as transforming static death traps into compelling fluid battlefields where there is a risk for the attacker as well and a possibility to defeat them, would go a long way towards reinvigorating the area. Furthermore it would provide a compelling and alluring experience for players; which would be distinctive both from Hi sec missions, and null belt ratting, just as it should be, delivering more small gang warfare, and more population across lo sec as a whole, as the risk and rewards would be in harmony and the ship setups would be reasonable and balanced. And by the way, I think you are forgetting just how annoying these sigs are.
Anubis Xian Word Bearers of Chaos	Posted - 2011.01.12 21:25:00 - [2] The only problem with lo sec is hi sec. The entire spectrum needs to be worked on. Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal. CINA
Seamus Donohue	Posted - 2011.01.12 22:09:00 - [3] Edited by: Seamus Donohue on 12/01/2011 22:09:23 Edited by: Seamus Donohue on 12/01/2011 22:09:11 Changing High Security missions isn't going to affect Low Security missions significantly. Gallians is right, I would never fly a plump turkey into a wolf's den. I support the original proposal. __________________________________________________ Survivor of Teskanen, fan of John Rourke.
Maxsim Goratiev Imperial Tau Syndicate	Posted - 2011.01.12 22:20:00 - [4] Quote: Low sex Because Sex is too low.
Anubis Xian Word Bearers of Chaos	Posted - 2011.01.12 22:24:00 - [5] Originally by: Seamus Donohue Edited by: Seamus Donohue on 12/01/2011 22:09:23 Edited by: Seamus Donohue on 12/01/2011 22:09:11 Changing High Security missions isn't going to affect Low Security missions significantly. Gallians is right, I would never fly a plump turkey into a wolf's den. I support the original proposal. The problem is that people have this idea that low sec can compete with hi sec. Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal. CINA
Biocross	Posted - 2011.01.13 06:56:00 - [6] This is the best proposal I've seen to fix Lo Sec. Very supported.
Korg Leaf Time Bandits.	Posted - 2011.01.13 08:49:00 - [7] Originally by: Anubis Xian Originally by: Seamus Donohue Edited by: Seamus Donohue on 12/01/2011 22:09:23 Edited by: Seamus Donohue on 12/01/2011 22:09:11 Changing High Security missions isn't going to affect Low Security missions significantly. Gallians is right, I would never fly a plump turkey into a wolf's den. I support the original proposal. The problem is that people have this idea that low sec can compete with hi sec. Isk/hour low sec is actually better than high just unfortunately its filled with guys who think they are 'pirates' who just gank everything they can.
Aineko Macx	Posted - 2011.01.13 09:27:00 - [8] Yes, and make NPC ships happy at changing targets. ________________________ CCP: Where fixing bugs is a luxury, not an obligation.
Anubis Xian Word Bearers of Chaos	Posted - 2011.01.13 16:33:00 - [9] Originally by: Korg Leaf Originally by: Anubis Xian Originally by: Seamus Donohue Edited by: Seamus Donohue on 12/01/2011 22:09:23 Edited by: Seamus Donohue on 12/01/2011 22:09:11 Changing High Security missions isn't going to affect Low Security missions significantly. Gallians is right, I would never fly a plump turkey into a wolf's den. I support the original proposal. The problem is that people have this idea that low sec can compete with hi sec. Isk/hour low sec is actually better than high just unfortunately its filled with guys who think they are 'pirates' who just gank everything they can. The problem isn't the ISK per/hr. It is the lack of relative safety that will always mean lo sec is avoided. You could eliminate all mining, missions, and resources from hi sec and people would quit rather than step into lo sec. Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal. CINA
Ogogov Gallente Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.01.13 17:29:00 - [10] Originally by: Anubis Xian You could eliminate all mining, missions, and resources from hi sec and people would quit rather than step into lo sec. This.
Gallians	Posted - 2011.01.13 19:42:00 - [11] Originally by: Anubis Xian Originally by: Korg Leaf Originally by: Anubis Xian Originally by: Seamus Donohue Edited by: Seamus Donohue on 12/01/2011 22:09:23 Edited by: Seamus Donohue on 12/01/2011 22:09:11 Changing High Security missions isn't going to affect Low Security missions significantly. Gallians is right, I would never fly a plump turkey into a wolf's den. I support the original proposal. The problem is that people have this idea that low sec can compete with hi sec. Isk/hour low sec is actually better than high just unfortunately its filled with guys who think they are 'pirates' who just gank everything they can. The problem isn't the ISK per/hr. It is the lack of relative safety that will always mean lo sec is avoided. You could eliminate all mining, missions, and resources from hi sec and people would quit rather than step into lo sec. I think the problem at this time is that there is an inability to fight back in Lo Sec while engaging in the PVE content. This is not really true of 0.0 (which should be in theory, less secure!) due to the ability to hold and patrol space, distribute intel and whatnot. Lo sec is not designed to have such intel, or territory control, and more to be about hit and run, free form, small gang, small operation, skirmish warfare. The proposal deals with the disconnect between those design goals and the actual content there. The missions and content are NOT designed for ships that could survive the Lo sec environment reducing every encounter to a very predictable: be found and die. This is compounded by the current AI (or lack thereoff) which renders every mission into a gang bang on whoever has aggro, or requires vast amount of time to complete in a "safe" way. This is why I think this proposal is the way to go, the answer is not to make low sec safe, but survivable, and competitive. Right now the problem is that to have any chance of isk/hr in lo sec you are completely helpless and flying things that will take many lucky lack of encounters to repay. And that there is no possibility of even a fight, every encounter ending predictably in the death of the misioneer. Now, since this is a game played by human beings that do not particularly enjoy standing helplessly while being blown up with no possibility of retaliation instead of say, birds, cows, or hares, this land is an unhabited wasteland. Change the system into one where there is a fighting chance, and see the land flourish, full of small gangs that would participate in the content, and skirmish with one another in competitive and unpredictable ways. That is the solution for a thriving Low Sec. And one I'd love to see.
Goose99	Posted - 2011.01.13 20:07:00 - [12] Make all lowsec missions FW style missions, designed for sb instead of a big fat bs.
Takashi X2	Posted - 2011.01.13 20:27:00 - [13] Originally by: Gallians Issue: Low sex is an unhabited wasteland that is used as a dangerous highway to get between point A and B with no compelling reason to stay there. Activities that before used to occur in Lo Sec such as missions and mining have all but disappeared and even pirates are starting to feed on each other out of sheer boredom. Proposed solution: Rebalance all PVE content in Lo sec to be doable with PVP fits, and to better reflect a PVP environment. This means a reasonable amount of PVP fitted buffer tanked, not too isk intensive ship setups should be viable for completing Lo Sec missions. Also upgrade the payouts and spawns in them to make them more worthwhile, and perhaps most important: Give all Lo sec mobs Sleeper AI which does NOT stick with the first thing targeted forever and targets on the base of threat, health, etc. Rationale: The proposals that I have seen here to fix lo sec tend to focus on downgrading high sec, and to come from self righteous "pirates" that think they are somehow entitled to shoot defenseless PVE setups. This, I believe, misses the main problem with the PVE content that makes participation in it so unrewarding: The mission balance is ill thought off, making PVE content both unrewarding, and requiring massive isk investments in ships to complete, ships which are for all purposes defenseless against a decently fit PVP setup. Consequently, nobody not in an unprobeable T3 tends to participate in this content. My proposal is to rebalance the missions to be in line with the territory, favoring buffer tanks and standard PVP setups, and making such fits bot able to complete the content and to do so in a reasonable time frame. Furthermore, the situation where mobs stick with the first thing they target is ridiculous, resulting in an automatic gang bang for whoever had the aggro when the pirates warp in. The proposal would address this, since barging in in a mission would no longer be a mindless affair where the missioner is usually pre engaged, pre damaged, and sometimes pre scrammed, but a fluid battlefield with risk for both the missioner AND the attacker. Why this should be done: I know of a lot of people that enjoy PVP and would enjoy participating in Lo Sec content such as L5 missions, however at this time, engaging in those activities is akin to a death wish; a plump turkey flying into the wolfs den. I contend that making the content reflect the area and the reasonable setups for that area as well as transforming static death traps into compelling fluid battlefields where there is a risk for the attacker as well and a possibility to defeat them, would go a long way towards reinvigorating the area. Furthermore it would provide a compelling and alluring experience for players; which would be distinctive both from Hi sec missions, and null belt ratting, just as it should be, delivering more small gang warfare, and more population across lo sec as a whole, as the risk and rewards would be in harmony and the ship setups would be reasonable and balanced. Easy fix to all missioning to balance risk vs reward. Sleeper AI on all NPC's. This also fixes ganking mission runners in low sec and the rediculous nearly 0 risk mission running in high sec.
Teranul	Posted - 2011.01.13 23:35:00 - [14] I really like this one. The rationale is sound. The real problem with low sec is really the fact that you're completely helpless no matter what you do, unless you sabotage your own income in such a way that you may as well go run in high-sec instead. Making lowsec missions unique instead of carbon-copies of high-sec missions and making the AI not quite so terribly stupid is certainly a good way to go about fixing that.
Dr BattleSmith PAX Interstellar Services	Posted - 2011.01.14 00:48:00 - [15] FW complex are an awesome mechanic for this type of thing. Unfortunately the system is broken and stops working within 3 hours after downtime. Fix FW plex spawning.
Bunyip Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2011.01.14 07:07:00 - [16] I support this measure, but it should apply to all missions which low-sec agents give out. A person in high-sec isn't likely to go to low-sec to run a mission, and the person in low-sec can use their PvP fitted ship to go to high-sec for the mission. This won't affect a majority of mission runners, but it'll at least allow the option of missions in low-sec. I don't think the sleeper AI should automatically retarget anything as quickly (to allow droneboats to still have an impact), but the core idea is solid. Supported. ======== "The civilized man is rude, for he knows that laws protect him from recompense; whereas the savage is not, for his actions can meet a bloody end." - Robert E. Howard
Korg Leaf Time Bandits.	Posted - 2011.01.14 09:40:00 - [17] Originally by: Teranul I really like this one. The rationale is sound. The real problem with low sec is really the fact that you're completely helpless no matter what you do, unless you sabotage your own income in such a way that you may as well go run in high-sec instead. Making lowsec missions unique instead of carbon-copies of high-sec missions and making the AI not quite so terribly stupid is certainly a good way to go about fixing that. You can quite easily run missions in low sec, the problem is people expect to be able to run them how they do in high sec. So when that pirate comes into local, scans them down, warps to there mission. They are there sitting at 0 on the warp in, not aligned out. To run missions in low sec is just like ratting in non-sov 0.0, or 0.0 owned by other people. Watch local (its essentially free intel) Stay aligned (not always possible, mining for example but mining in low sec is stupid for other reasons than pirates) Use your d-scan (set it to 447,000,000km thats roughly 3au distance, use this to keep an eye out for probes) I have run (on an alt) missions and plexes in low sec for a while now, its not difficult to stay safe.
Mishikaii	Posted - 2011.01.14 19:02:00 - [18] Originally by: Korg Leaf Originally by: Teranul I really like this one. The rationale is sound. The real problem with low sec is really the fact that you're completely helpless no matter what you do, unless you sabotage your own income in such a way that you may as well go run in high-sec instead. Making lowsec missions unique instead of carbon-copies of high-sec missions and making the AI not quite so terribly stupid is certainly a good way to go about fixing that. You can quite easily run missions in low sec, the problem is people expect to be able to run them how they do in high sec. So when that pirate comes into local, scans them down, warps to there mission. They are there sitting at 0 on the warp in, not aligned out. To run missions in low sec is just like ratting in non-sov 0.0, or 0.0 owned by other people. Watch local (its essentially free intel) Stay aligned (not always possible, mining for example but mining in low sec is stupid for other reasons than pirates) Use your d-scan (set it to 447,000,000km thats roughly 3au distance, use this to keep an eye out for probes) I have run (on an alt) missions and plexes in low sec for a while now, its not difficult to stay safe. I think thats exactly what this proposal is about and why I don't go to low sec to run missions: If the pirate warps in and you arent warping out, you are dead in a expensive mission setup. Very supported, this would get me in low sec, I don't want the only possibility to be running or dying in a very expensive ship, I want to fight back and the content to be designed so I can.
Riven Starkill Covert Agenda	Posted - 2011.01.14 19:08:00 - [19] Supported!
Joss56 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.01.14 19:28:00 - [20] Originally by: Anubis Xian You could eliminate all mining, missions, and resources from hi sec and people would quit rather than step into lo sec. My question is: Wy? I have my personal opinion on this matter, but i would like to know what makes you say this. What, who, wy people come to high sec in NPC corporations and would choose to stop the game rather than join low/null sec corps. ________________________________________________ "You do realise you live on a globe, right? And that there places outside the USA/UK?"
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.14 20:04:00 - [21] Originally by: Joss56 Originally by: Anubis Xian You could eliminate all mining, missions, and resources from hi sec and people would quit rather than step into lo sec. My question is: Wy? I have my personal opinion on this matter, but i would like to know what makes you say this. What, who, wy people come to high sec in NPC corporations and would choose to stop the game rather than join low/null sec corps. Because the majority of people are very weak and abhor violence - even in video games. They probably can't imagine themselves killing other people in space ship. All they think about is that their space ship will be killed and it gives them great fear. So they'd rather quit and join WoW or Hello Kitty Online where nobody can touch their precious
Anubis Xian Word Bearers of Chaos	Posted - 2011.01.14 20:11:00 - [22] Originally by: Joss56 Originally by: Anubis Xian You could eliminate all mining, missions, and resources from hi sec and people would quit rather than step into lo sec. My question is: Wy? I have my personal opinion on this matter, but i would like to know what makes you say this. What, who, wy people come to high sec in NPC corporations and would choose to stop the game rather than join low/null sec corps. Because hi sec exists in the first place. If EvE had stayed true to itself, hi sec as we know it today would not have existed at all. And once you open that box, closing it is impossible without massive repercussions. Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal. CINA
Cearain Caldari The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION	Posted - 2011.01.14 20:42:00 - [23] Look no further than fw missions. They are actually the perfect low sec mission model. Make special "low sec lp" that you get when doing missions in low sec. These low sec lp would allow you to buy items you can't buy with the regular lp. -Cearain Make fw occupancy pvp instead of pve: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1329906
Doctor Invictus	Posted - 2011.01.14 22:13:00 - [24] It seems like the thing to do would be to assign a price to the security provided by CONCORD. I mean, they create a huge incentive to stay in hi-sec, because you can still make a profit in a nearly perfectly safe environment. In the real world, that costs money.
Laechyd Eldgorn Certified Household Sweeping Consulting	Posted - 2011.01.14 22:34:00 - [25] FW missions are not anwswer. Not everyone cares about fw. Also not every region has fw at all. Doing missions requires way too much effort. Base mechanics is same than in hi sec but 1000x more dangerous and exhausting. Stay aligned. Watch for probes. Look local. All that crap. Especially for casual player it's pain. Even someone who knows the stuff doesn't usually bother. Cos it's just easier and more interesting to do something else like rat in 0.0 where you can make similar amount of money or more and actually defend yourself. I think it is just comfortable to forget whole low sec and fix fleet fight lag or jita lag instead of making low sec more interesting. When people ramble about supercap hotdrops they hardly give any thought on how it works in low sec. etc. At least in 0.0 there is cyno jammers. Anyhow supporting the idea. Cos it sounds cool.
nugget906	Posted - 2011.01.14 23:29:00 - [26] Edited by: nugget906 on 14/01/2011 23:31:19 Originally by: Laechyd Eldgorn FW missions are not anwswer. Not everyone cares about fw. Also not every region has fw at all. Doing missions requires way too much effort. Base mechanics is same than in hi sec but 1000x more dangerous and exhausting. Stay aligned. Watch for probes. Look local. All that crap. Especially for casual player it's pain. Even someone who knows the stuff doesn't usually bother. Cos it's just easier and more interesting to do something else like rat in 0.0 where you can make similar amount of money or more and actually defend yourself. I think it is just comfortable to forget whole low sec and fix fleet fight lag or jita lag instead of making low sec more interesting. When people ramble about supercap hotdrops they hardly give any thought on how it works in low sec. etc. At least in 0.0 there is cyno jammers. Anyhow supporting the idea. Cos it sounds cool. Unlike sov null, no one actually lives in lowsec those days, so, less whining. Pretty straight forward. Make all lowsec missions FW style missions, and people will do them. It has nothing to do with reward amount, it's safety. If you fail missions due to getting caught in lowsec, pretty soon you'll lose enough agent standing to not be able to keep going even if you want to, and be forced to move to highsec. No amount of reward buff will change this, only increased safety.
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.14 23:42:00 - [27] I have to agree that low sec agents have to be much more tolerant of failure. And the missions themselves should be different, like FW missions or some new design. would be nice if NPC had sleeper AI. At least when some pirates warp in to kill a mission runner, the NPCs in the mission would switch aggro and attack pirate ships. That would even things out
Tres Farmer Gallente Federation Intelligence Service	Posted - 2011.01.15 07:38:00 - [28] Attacker flies into a mission of someone, mission can't be completed any more << major problem. No standing loss for turned down missions in low sec would be start. Then you'd need a mechanic, that any additional ship that appears in a low sec mission spawns another batch of rats to engage that new threat along with the rats already on grid. And the response would need to be dangerous for the additional attacker. However.. this discussion is moot as CCP can't/wont obviously put more CPU cycles into NPC as the servers would probably die. If it were possible we'd already have this (Sleeper AI for Mission NPC). support Public Idea Tracker \| 24hr PLEX
Mishkaii	Posted - 2011.01.15 17:18:00 - [29]
Sig Sour	Posted - 2011.01.15 18:49:00 - [30] Originally by: Gallians Issue: Low sex is an unhabited wasteland that is used as a dangerous highway to get between point A and B with no compelling reason to stay there. You don't know what you are talking about.

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.