Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

TekGnosis
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 20:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
It's always bothered me that NPC don't follow the rules, or more importantly don't have equipment that makes any sense at all. My real issue with this is that it creates a complete disconnect from reality when a newer player first starts to PVP with their corp, and it only gets more bizarre as new tiers of content are attempted.
Frigates that can't hit a AB Cruiser at 3km? Battleships that can be 3-shotted with anything? Super-MWD speeds, unlimited lock ranges, perma-jamming BS, super-neuts, all from the same factions that field fleets of *dozens* of ships incapable of killing a single cruiser a few systems over...
This generates unrealistic 'knowledge' of how to survive/deal with different ship types in the game.
It would be an awesome challenge for a level 4 mission to be made up of a CS, a curse, a BS, two HAC, a couple Interceptors... But real fitted ones with known properties the same as the ones the player has to use. I can see arguments against the 'blitz-ability' of a structure like this, but smarter AI should at least partly mitigate this. Current NPC don't exactly try to stay alive...
Dropping on-grid for a level 3 and finding your tanked BC is facing a brick tackle maller, 2 Retributions, and a logi cruiser sitting 50km away....
Imagine the thrill of going in to a level 2 mission to find it's just single ship to fight, then having to deal with a t2 fit blaster harpy like you might in a real lowsec encounter.... learning to deal with a couple realistic-fit rail incursis or other 'real' fits in your Destroyer would be a strong learning experience for the consumers of this level of content, and being successful at it would actually make them more useful to their corps in other ways.
It would be nice to have to slingshot, tackle, separate, and otherwise think about the fight during a mission.
There have likely been other posts of this type, but I'm wondering if there is some body of knowledge that says PVE can't be modeled after PVP content? I haven't found the right post maybe, but I'm wondering if this has ever had a dev response? |

Master Taron
International Future Of Eve Gaming
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 20:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
I second this. It's the way it should be be |

Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
207
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 20:47:00 -
[3] - Quote
Thirded. You learn a lot of otherwise useless things about ship combat doing PVE as it stands.
While NPCs will never be as good or as unpredictable as PCs are, they can at least play by the same rules. |

Mistah Ewedynao
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
141
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 21:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
This idea certainly has some merit.
Just kinda wondering how it should be implemented for bounties and the inescapeable fact that CCP would just add a bunch of eWar ships to the existing missions.
Would take a serious rework of the AI, although AI in missions is a serious strech of the term as it is now.
Oh.... and in before "But I could never solo these in my pimped fit navy Domi".
Certainly would encourage teamwork. |

TekGnosis
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
5
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 22:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
I don't think teamwork and PVE in the mission context should be something enforced by the gameplay model at all, just that we should be fighting less ships that behave like real ones.
There is essentially zero chance this would ever work as a re-work of existing missions, the balance would invariably be skewed to easy or hard or less/more rewarding.
The player base is always asking for more content though, so it's not like a new type of mission (*cough* bounty hunting *cough*) is out of the question... Heck, even just updating the roaming belt rats to behave like this would shake up a ton of things.
Some form of PVE content that encouraged teamwork would be fun actually (in addition to normal missions). Somewhat off-topic but right now there is really only WH content that requires a Ton of prework/logistics and dedication, or incursions which are sort of like the EvE equivalent to synthetic dps benchmarking. Nothing some corp buddies can jump in 3 ships and go do as a group for moderate reward/fun in a 30 minute gameplay nugget. PVP roams generally require significant time commitment and don't often generate isk....
Just think, if belt ratting involved a disrupt/scram so the NPC can't warp away and save their bounty... you'd already be fit for PVP!
Also, less macros... And lots of folks trolling belts looking to fight something. I can dream... |

Anneliese Pollard
University of Caille Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 22:13:00 -
[6] - Quote
Or you know... you could actually go do "real" PVP. Lots of corps out there I hear that will help you learn. Making PVE into some faux PVP is not a solution. The idea has merit, but no...
The risk vs reward has to be changed drastically to accommodate this, and it will probably turn the market on its head, making lots of ships and modules obsolete. |

Rain6637
Team Evil
4
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 22:25:00 -
[7] - Quote
BECAUSE the value of mission item drops/salvage.
why would they have this glaring flaw with NPC's for so long? because it's intentional. spontaneous ISK is kept scarce. higher-value drops exist, in null and wh space. $$ drops in high sec, in mission volumes, would produce too much spontaneous ISK, I think.
I hold a personal belief that CCP has an active interest in making sure most pilots don't end up with too much ISK, because if they did, they lose money from subscriptions
you as the player mostly feel the gameplay only, but CCP... is a for-profit company. maybe I'm wrong and NPC AI is an afterthought they wish didn't exist, so they neglect it.
if ISK was too easily had, they would lose PLEX purchase income, and players should be charged a subscription fee regardless of ISK wealth.
if ISK is too scarce, EVE should become free-to-play (for everyone)
as it is I think CCP is double dipping |

TekGnosis
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
5
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 22:28:00 -
[8] - Quote
To be sure, modifying belt rats like this would kinda be getting off in the weeds vs improving the mission experience to jive with the rest of gameplay.
Its just that one has to make isk somehow to pay for that PVP, and if you' don't have an industry alt it generally involves shooting some form of NPC. It always feels terribly 'not eve' to slay 3 waves of 20 BS/BC/Cruisers et all in my weird DPS/Tank drag racing ship that can't be used in any other context (especially true for incursions).
Of course there are non-mission isk fountains, and doing exploration/WH content is generally the right answer. This isn't an 'adapt or die' thing, more like a 'fun' thing. You know, the reason you play games instead of work a 2nd job.
|

Rain6637
Team Evil
4
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 22:30:00 -
[9] - Quote
can you imagine a level 2 mission dropping a T2 blaster fit harpy?
consider how valuable that drop would be. in a level 2? c'mon, they're not going to give you that kind of ISK. |

TekGnosis
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
5
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 22:38:00 -
[10] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:can you imagine a level 2 mission dropping a T2 blaster fit harpy?
consider how valuable that drop would be. in a level 2? c'mon, they're not going to give you that kind of ISK.
I think my OP is/was mainly posed as a function of the gameplay experience, the actual challenge or activity you the player perform on your way to the reward.
It's not like that "T2 blaster fit harpy" NPC has to drop the same loot or even have a t2 wreck, but it would be nice if it had similar EHP/cap/DPS/range/tracking to a real ship. It just seemed like a good example in contrast to a normal l2 mission where you slay 10 frigates and 3 destroyers without a thought.
Ofc any implementation of this structure would find more middle ground, like 3 merlins and a logi frig for example in a l2.
|
|

TekGnosis
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
5
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 22:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote: if ISK was too easily had, they would lose PLEX purchase income, and players should be charged a subscription fee regardless of ISK wealth.
This is off-topic but...
All PLEX entering on to the market cost more than a months sub for someone else to buy with real money and trade for a virtual good (isk). When I PLEX for a month, it makes them more real world money than if I have a normal sub. Particularly, since I normally sub for 6 months at a time and pay much, much less than a PLEX per month.
Double dipping is right. ;) |

Rain6637
Team Evil
4
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 22:45:00 -
[12] - Quote
I assume that CCP has the programmer skill to give you any NPC experience it wants.
assuming the NPC AI is intentional, I ask why they want to give you this hollow NPC experience had currently
and then I figure it comes down to irl money. or maybe server CPU resources.
I assume it's intentional, and has a very real-world reason (and gameplay is the least important consideration). |

TekGnosis
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
5
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 22:55:00 -
[13] - Quote
I just hope that somewhere in their internal CVS tree there is a 'belt pirate' AI script that actually ransoms your silly carebear ship if you can't kill it. Right now 'belt pirates' are more like 'cattle' :p
Further, someday I hope they flip it on for a dev event... just for the tears... |

Rain6637
Team Evil
4
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 22:58:00 -
[14] - Quote
server load is a big consideration, I think. it's the reason for reinforced servers, and time dilation. any increase in mission complexity would cause higher server load thousands-fold. |

Delphineas Fumimasa
Overpowered Noobs
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 06:27:00 -
[15] - Quote
Because this is an MMO, no League of Legends.
They would lose a LOT of customers if levels 1s and 2s required a fleet to survive as a 2 week toon. |

TekGnosis
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
5
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 07:25:00 -
[16] - Quote
Delphineas Fumimasa wrote: They would lose a LOT of customers if levels 1s and 2s required a fleet to survive as a 2 week toon.
I think my examples were a little off... maybe a blarpy shouldn't be encountered in a l2, but certainly a 2-week old toon in a destroyer can fight a couple NPC piloted meta-3 fit t1 frigate and come out on top feeling good about the challenge.
I guess I just don't see the problem with taking {e.g} 5 'frigates' with 500 ehp and making them one 2500ehp object. It's the same EHP chunk to chew through, but at least it feels like you're killing a ship and not swatting flies.
|

Maelle LuzArdiden
University of Caille Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 08:10:00 -
[17] - Quote
This is what they are doing now, CCP's stated purpose is to redesign PVE to resemble real PVP more.
They started by making the AI target drones as well, just like players do.
|

Ahn Tee Mahtur
13
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 09:51:00 -
[18] - Quote
errr...*stomach grumbles* PvE and PvP should be two different elements in a video game >.< |

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
2299
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 12:39:00 -
[19] - Quote
Maelle LuzArdiden wrote:This is what they are doing now, CCP's stated purpose is to redesign PVE to resemble real PVP more.
They started by making the AI target drones as well, just like players do.
Never had a player target my drones... I don't fly drone boats. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |

Maelle LuzArdiden
University of Caille Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 14:09:00 -
[20] - Quote
Well, I guess that was relevant and valuable information in some way then. What do you fly in PVP?
|
|

Grombutz
Treasures Collectors Solar Citizens
14
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 14:18:00 -
[21] - Quote
Think about 2 Logi-NPC's in a mission and how to break such a tank on proper fitted ships with just one BS / T3... then you have the answer why PvE is different from PvP.
Missions need to be solo-able - if they would have setup's with logis and proper fitted ships, this wouldn't be possible at all. Think about officer-spawns and their tank and dps numbers, or even the end-boss of Lv1 Epic ARC which do have more realistic "fits".
It's not that hard at all... |

Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
204
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 16:12:00 -
[22] - Quote
Anneliese Pollard wrote: The idea has merit, but no...
its been brought up before, and the devs would like to head in a direction that that blurs pvp/pve fits towards a common setup.
I'll dig out the link to the devpost and link it --> here soonGäó |

Kasutra
Tailor Company Hashashin Cartel
89
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 17:23:00 -
[23] - Quote
I agree with the sentiment. The current PvE experience, where NPCs are suicidal, stupid, a disgrace to their ship class, ridiculously numerous, and simply not playing by the same rules as players, could be improved a lot by making it more like PvP.
I think everyone is overreacting a bit to the perceived difficulty increase, though. This doesn't have to result in missions requiring more ships or more pimped out ships to complete. It might result in people having to engage more than a handful of brain cells when tackling the missions, but I'm fine with that.
That being said, I have some, uh lore (LolLore?) objections to the NPCs flying ships that are exactly the same as player ships. While I think they should behave more like player ships and work in the same way as player ships do, I think they should be restricted to having mostly mass-produced modules (read: meta 0) and have ****-poor skills affecting those modules. Buying high-tech and prototype modules, as well as having skills injected into their brains should be the players' (capsuleers') competitive advantage. But "only" that should be plenty to keep us afloat and ahead of small gangs of NPCs. |

TekGnosis
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 17:44:00 -
[24] - Quote
Kasutra wrote: That being said, I have some, uh lore (LolLore?) objections to the NPCs flying ships that are exactly the same as player ships. While I think they should behave more like player ships and work in the same way as player ships do, I think they should be restricted to having mostly mass-produced modules (read: meta 0) and have ****-poor skills affecting those modules. Buying high-tech and prototype modules, as well as having skills injected into the brain should be the players' (capsuleers') competitive advantage. But "only" that should be plenty to keep us afloat and ahead of small gangs of NPCs.
This is a pretty interesting point, alluding to what the difference between a pod-pilot and an NPC really is.
For something like this to work it'd really need to be baseline stats distilled down from some kind of fitting with e.g. 'average sansha pilot' skills applied to it. As previously noted, CPU/memory should be considered.
In the end, I'm really just looking for a PVE experience where ewar, cap, mwd mechanics, etc all behave as expected. You should be able to cap out NPC, shut off their MWD and tackle them down, etc. At a minimum, it would allow neuting to be a valid defense vs tackle frigate NPC since drones can/will get popped...
I suppose all of this is academic, but the discussion points are interesting food for thought. Having done some AI scripting in LUA, this sort of thing pops out of any game at me.... |

Grombutz
Treasures Collectors Solar Citizens
15
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 20:04:00 -
[25] - Quote
Kasutra wrote:Grombutz wrote:Think about 2 Logi-NPC's in a mission and how to break such a tank on proper fitted ships with just one BS / T3... then you have the answer why PvE is different from PvP. I think the solution to that should be to neut out one of the logis, or to force them to fly apart, or to alpha them between cycles. You know, as if this weren't dumb NPCs you are dealing with. 
In a missionboat? Good jokes dude, good jokes :D |

Taoist Dragon
Forced Penetration Reckless Faith
90
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 21:39:00 -
[26] - Quote
I like the idea of making NPC have 'proper' fits and abilties this would go a long way to close the gap in between pve and pvp.
One thing I would suggest though would be the loot table follow player drops and that for missions/belts/anoms the actual number of npc's scale depending on the number of players active in the area.
For example: I'm running a level 2 mission in my destroyer and have to fight 2 decent mets 2-3 fit combat frigs and on attack frig. I'm fully T2 fit this would be a pretty easy task. But the npc's may warp out to a 'holding point' 1mil km from the mission if they are hurt but have time to warp off or if I have no tackle. Now if a corp mate joines me then the npc's call for back up and another couple of frigs warp in from the 'holding point'
This would give them a much more 'alive' feeling and prepare pve'ers more for pvp combat. It would also make pve combat more 'interactive' and ensure you need to really think about your fits rather than having a generic mission fit if solo. Sure you could fleet up with specific mission fits and just burn everything down really quickly.....oh wait isn't that the purpose of fleet composition! wow it really would be more like pvp!
The bounties would have to be adjusted to level them against the meta item drops though. That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |

Velarra
Ghost Festival Naraka.
141
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 23:02:00 -
[27] - Quote
You might want to try Incursion Scout sites.
Which can be run solo or in a group of new-ish pilots, and are remarkably educational, particularly if you're in a pvp fit ship.
There's absolutely no return of note in them in terms of isk/lp etc. - but the educational value, -Transversal training/practice i'm looking at you ;) is really quite engaging. |

TekGnosis
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 02:23:00 -
[28] - Quote
Velarra wrote:You might want to try Incursion Scout sites.
Which can be run solo or in a group of new-ish pilots, and are remarkably educational, particularly if you're in a pvp fit ship.
There's absolutely no return of note in them in terms of isk/lp etc. - but the educational value, -Transversal training/practice i'm looking at you ;) is really quite engaging.
Scout sites seem almost like some kind of unfinished content. Returns are so low even folks who would be doing level 1 missions don't make any isk doing them, so right now there isn't much point. It's unfortunate, as the slightly smarter/better/faster NPC there would otherwise be good to gnaw on for t1 frig pilots.
When they were first described I thought it would be some kind of thing that continuously popped up and had to be fought down or the system control level would shift. It's too bad, as it's another thing lower level pilots could be doing and currently aren't.
|

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1222
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 02:27:00 -
[29] - Quote
eve's pve is old. very old. The AI was very stupid, what it did is to appear, fly around and activate the modules. They have no cap management, activation and deactivation is all time/probability based, no fitting requirements etc. What CCP did to make it more interesting was to increase the amount of NPCs... since more equals more difficult. Was that an mistake? Don't know.
CCP is now slowly catching up with making the NPCs a bit more intelligent, first step was to unify the AI code... just take a look around how much "bring the old npcs back" threads it created.
I agree with OP but i don't expect miracles. a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105
You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |

Kasutra
Tailor Company Hashashin Cartel
93
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 19:10:00 -
[30] - Quote
Grombutz wrote:In a missionboat? Good jokes dude, good jokes :D Obviously, the "missionboat" concept would have to change. |
|

TekGnosis
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 19:56:00 -
[31] - Quote
Bienator II wrote: CCP is now slowly catching up with making the NPCs a bit more intelligent, first step was to unify the AI code... just take a look around how much "bring the old npcs back" threads it created.
True; however this is because the implementation of said unification was done without regard for the type/numbers of NPC in missions/anoms actually doing those things with the new higher efficacy.
Before, 5 TD/ECM/damp frigs that only sometimes proc was semi-balanced. Now, they always use it and the entire field primaries drones... yay for playtesting.... This really should have rolled alongside a revision of all missions to send 'x desired total ewar and DPS' at the player given the new mechanisms. The new hate mechanics make some missions almost untankable even in a faction SNI due to whole-field aggro where it didn't exist before, etc.
New AI with corresponding balanced missions? Win. Just port the subroutines over and pray? uhm....
Regardless, I'm semi off topic and think the changes should stay, just with fixed NPC counts to match. |

Anselm Cenobite
Gold Ring Enterprises Enigma Project
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 21:02:00 -
[32] - Quote
The main reason PvE is so different from PvP is that none of the current PvP missions require you to fit a warp scrambler to stop an NPC from warping off, at which point you fail the mission, nor do the current PvE missions require you to use certain useful PvP skills like combat probing, safespots, and breaking gate-camps.
The need to fit a point on a PvP ship necessitates very different fitting strategies from PvE ships. The need to use these other skills require very different playing strategies. If CCP wants to blur the distinction between PvP and PvE, or at least use PvE as a stepping stone toward PvP skills, they should add missions akin to these:
(1) An L1 mission where the pilot must fit a tackler ship and tackle a fast-moving NPC target--one that microwarps back and forth across the complex. One it is tackled, he must survive its drones and counter-fire long enough for slow NPC allies to appear and kill the main ship. (At higher versions, like L3, he doesn't have any NPC allies to help kill the ship--he must bring buddies or kill it himself).
(2) An L2 mission where the pilot must maneuver his unarmed stealthy ship through an artificial NPC gate-camp. Once he hops through the fake gate, he has the normal temporarily cloak, but must get away from a dozen or so NPC tacklers in position and trying to get fast locks on him.
(3) An L3 mission in which the pilot has to use combat probes to locate a single target NPC ship in deep space. The NPC ship has three randomly positioned safespots, and it warps between them every 3-5 minutes. He must scan it down and tackle it--if he engages in combat with it untackled, it warps off and creates a new three safespots to switch between.
(4) An L3 mission in which the pilot is assigned a bounty target to destroy. The L3 version is a NPC located somewhere in the same region and on the move. This mission pays a little extra cash so the pilot can use locator agents to find him. An L4 version is one in which the bounty target is an actual player with an existing bounty--but the player has extra cash in the reward from the NPC agent, since that player has -5 standings with the NPC faction for whatever reason.
(5) An L2 mission in which the pilot must scan down and enter a special wormhole in a cloaky ship. Once he enters it, he is randomly kicked out into deep nulsec. He must get out of nulsec and back into high-sec with his ship intact to gain the cash reward. An L3 version might be one in which he can only use non-cloaky ships to complete the mission.
(6) An L2 mission in which a cloaky pilot must maneuver toward and tackle a target NPC mining barge mining illegally in the midst of a crowded asteroid field--one in which the asteroids and other non-targetted NPC ships are moving back and forth. He must keep his cloak and avoid coming within 2 km of objects until he is in tackling position of the barge, then hold it for ransom and /or destroy the barge.
(7) A mission in which the pilot must not only destroy an NPC ship, he must tackle and capture escape pods emerging from them.
You get the idea.
|

Maelle LuzArdiden
University of Caille Gallente Federation
31
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 21:38:00 -
[33] - Quote
Those are fantastic ideas <3 |

Anneliese Pollard
University of Caille Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 06:35:00 -
[34] - Quote
Anselm Cenobite wrote:The main reason PvE is so different from PvP is that none of the current PvP missions require you to fit a warp scrambler to stop an NPC from warping off, at which point you fail the mission, nor do the current PvE missions require you to use certain useful PvP skills like combat probing, safespots, and breaking gate-camps.
The need to fit a point on a PvP ship necessitates very different fitting strategies from PvE ships. The need to use these other skills require very different playing strategies. If CCP wants to blur the distinction between PvP and PvE, or at least use PvE as a stepping stone toward PvP skills, they should add missions akin to these:
(1) An L1 mission where the pilot must fit a tackler ship and tackle a fast-moving NPC target--one that microwarps back and forth across the complex. One it is tackled, he must survive its drones and counter-fire long enough for slow NPC allies to appear and kill the main ship. (At higher versions, like L3, he doesn't have any NPC allies to help kill the ship--he must bring buddies or kill it himself).
(2) An L2 mission where the pilot must maneuver his unarmed stealthy ship through an artificial NPC gate-camp. Once he hops through the fake gate, he has the normal temporarily cloak, but must get away from a dozen or so NPC tacklers in position and trying to get fast locks on him.
(3) An L3 mission in which the pilot has to use combat probes to locate a single target NPC ship in deep space. The NPC ship has three randomly positioned safespots, and it warps between them every 3-5 minutes. He must scan it down and tackle it--if he engages in combat with it untackled, it warps off and creates a new three safespots to switch between.
(4) An L3 mission in which the pilot is assigned a bounty target to destroy. The L3 version is a NPC located somewhere in the same region and on the move. This mission pays a little extra cash so the pilot can use locator agents to find him. An L4 version is one in which the bounty target is an actual player with an existing bounty--but the player has extra cash in the reward from the NPC agent, since that player has -5 standings with the NPC faction for whatever reason.
(5) An L2 mission in which the pilot must scan down and enter a special wormhole in a cloaky ship. Once he enters it, he is randomly kicked out into deep nulsec. He must get out of nulsec and back into high-sec with his ship intact to gain the cash reward. An L3 version might be one in which he can only use non-cloaky ships to complete the mission.
(6) An L2 mission in which a cloaky pilot must maneuver toward and tackle a target NPC mining barge mining illegally in the midst of a crowded asteroid field--one in which the asteroids and other non-targetted NPC ships are moving back and forth. He must keep his cloak and avoid coming within 2 km of objects until he is in tackling position of the barge, then hold it for ransom and /or destroy the barge.
(7) A mission in which the pilot must not only destroy an NPC ship, he must tackle and capture escape pods emerging from them.
You get the idea.
And that's where PVP fits come into play. Notice how you're looking at one NPC ship and not an entire room. That would work.
Making existing PVE like PVP is not going to work IMO. You would need a fleet almost all the time, given the number of NPCs. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |