Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Marc Callan
Nuclear Manhattan Limited
459
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 14:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
Most of you remember the initial chain of missions you got when you first started EVE, right? Go out in your pod, collect your first rookie ship, then get your first weapon, your first defensive module, and begin working your way up from the bottom?
And there are always complaints about newcomers to EVE whining about being caught off-guard by the Darwinian take-no-prisoners attitude of New Eden, as opposed to the more forgiving game worlds one can find elsewhere.
So the thought hit all of a sudden:
What if, in the first string of missions a new character gets from Aura, before that character's accumulated much beyond a rookie ship and a basic gun, there's a mission where the character is given a fairly straightforward objective, but somewhere along the way, in a scripted event, the new character gets ganked?
And not just ganked, but podded, to boot. Ship gone, escape pod destroyed, wake up in the home station with the mission failed.
Then Aura explains that this is an occupational hazard for capsuleers in New Eden, that they'll sometimes be hunted down and killed for no apparent reason at all, that the ship and equipment and cargo are essentially lost beyond recovery, but luckily the rookie ship and gun are easily replaced ... this time.
Advantages: the shock might give new players an honest view of what might be waiting for them out there. This would only require the scripting of one simple mission (and variations for the various empires). Losses for the new player would be relatively minor at this point, and easily replaced within the framework of the tutorial, while driving home the point that anything a player loses in battle is gone.
Possible problems: if not properly programmed, the mission might not result in the destruction of the player's ship and pod, and might break the tutorial chain. Can NPC hostiles be programmed to engage a player in such a way that survival is impossible, and also engage and destroy the player's pod? (Say, rats using CONCORD parameters, but can CONCORD engage pods?) "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegurt |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
762
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 14:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
There is already a mission where the player loses his or her ship. It is then explained in the debrief that while NPCs will never target your capsule, other capsuleers will.
EDIT: thats how I remember it at least... it's been a while Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul |
Marc Callan
Nuclear Manhattan Limited
459
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 14:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
That's in one of the military career missions, I think, and you're told up front that your ship is expendable. My idea is that the lesson might be more memorable for new players if it comes as a shock and a surprise, including the pod kill, while being early enough in the tutorial chain that it's easily recoverable. "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegurt |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
903
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 14:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:There is already a mission where the player loses his or her ship. It is then explained in the debrief that while NPCs will never target your capsule, other capsuleers will.
EDIT: thats how I remember it at least... it's been a while It comes during careers This one would be in the aura chain which means most people would get it
I approve of it Would be a nice way to say oh hey EVE is not WOW, when you die its in a wonderful cataclysmic thing for the first few times Then you do these things and its not so bad. |
Velicitia
Arma Artificer
2491
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 14:34:00 -
[5] - Quote
Yeah, that might be useful ... but as an Aura mission, and not one of the tutorial agent missions.
Let her have a laugh at your expense -- re-work the "go get a noobship" one, so you get in, and are immediately nuked One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia |
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 14:46:00 -
[6] - Quote
its pretty sad that this suicide ganking activity has grown to be so popular. I guess I can't blame people since its one of the only high profit, low cost, zero risk activities in the game. Pretty disgusting that CCP does nothing about it.
No way in hell would they be promoting 'the scammer" or the "suicide ganker" as one of their featured professions. This is nothing more than an embarassment gameplay mistake that they don't have the spine to get rid of. I can't fathom why CCP thinks its a good idea to continue to cater to risk averse degenerates who spend countless hours waiting around just to **** in someones corn flakes in a video game. Sad that this is now one of the most popular activities in EVE, it really says something about the poor game design. |
Marc Callan
Nuclear Manhattan Limited
459
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 14:54:00 -
[7] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:its pretty sad that this suicide ganking activity has grown to be so popular. I guess I can't blame people since its one of the only high profit, low cost, zero risk activities in the game. Pretty disgusting that CCP does nothing about it.
No way in hell would they be promoting 'the scammer" or the "suicide ganker" as one of their featured professions. This is nothing more than an embarassment gameplay mistake that they don't have the spine to get rid of. I can't fathom why CCP thinks its a good idea to continue to cater to risk averse degenerates who spend countless hours waiting around just to **** in someones corn flakes in a video game. Sad that this is now one of the most popular activities in EVE, it really says something about the poor game design.
I'm not much of a fan of organized and subsidized suicide ganking, or scamming, myself, but that's not really the point; my point is that perhaps newcomers to EVE need a surprising, shocking introduction to just how vulnerable any player can be, and it might be best if that introduction comes within the first chain of tutorial missions, as a teaching moment. "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegurt |
Lair Osen
100
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 14:58:00 -
[8] - Quote
The shocking thing about suicide ganking is not that you get killed, it's that you can and will get killed by actual players in highsec 'safe' areas (no rats, i.e. gates and stations). So getting killed by NPCs while in a 'dangerous' mission area will really do nothing to prepare newbies for the realities of ganking. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12725
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 14:59:00 -
[9] - Quote
When I started I was given a ship and 5000 isk and told to get on with it. When I died Aura laughed at me and called me a clumsy pilot.
Good times. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Marc Callan
Nuclear Manhattan Limited
459
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 15:09:00 -
[10] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:When I started I was given a ship and 5000 isk and told to get on with it. When I died Aura laughed at me and called me a clumsy pilot.
Good times.
"Those were the good old days ... I hope they never come again!" - W. C. Fields "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegurt |
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
142
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 16:34:00 -
[11] - Quote
Marc Callan wrote: Possible problems: if not properly programmed, the mission might not result in the destruction of the player's ship and pod, and might break the tutorial chain. Can NPC hostiles be programmed to engage a player in such a way that survival is impossible, and also engage and destroy the player's pod? (Say, rats using CONCORD parameters, but can CONCORD engage pods?)
"I don't believe in the no-win scenario", James T. Kirk the Code ALWAYS wins |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
321
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 17:48:00 -
[12] - Quote
This has been suggested many times.
A new way to get a t it would be to gank someone else. No rules have to be changed, you lose your ship and realize, that if you can engage anyone, so can others and you learn about the repercussions and it teaches you about the safety settings. 3 in 1 - now that's a fine aura mission.
Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
Lugia3
Intentionally Dense Easily Excited
1138
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 18:21:00 -
[13] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:its pretty sad that this suicide ganking activity has grown to be so popular. I guess I can't blame people since its one of the only high profit, low cost, zero risk activities in the game. Pretty disgusting that CCP does nothing about it.
No way in hell would they be promoting 'the scammer" or the "suicide ganker" as one of their featured professions. This is nothing more than an embarassment gameplay mistake that they don't have the spine to get rid of. I can't fathom why CCP thinks its a good idea to continue to cater to risk averse degenerates who spend countless hours waiting around just to **** in someones corn flakes in a video game. Sad that this is now one of the most popular activities in EVE, it really says something about the poor game design.
Found the carebear. "CCP Dolan is full of ****." - CCP Bettik
Remove Sov! |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
904
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 18:40:00 -
[14] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Marc Callan wrote: Possible problems: if not properly programmed, the mission might not result in the destruction of the player's ship and pod, and might break the tutorial chain. Can NPC hostiles be programmed to engage a player in such a way that survival is impossible, and also engage and destroy the player's pod? (Say, rats using CONCORD parameters, but can CONCORD engage pods?)
"I don't believe in the no-win scenario", James T. Kirk Simple use Recon 3 mission logic and just have the ship and pod take massive damage simulating the pirate attack
I mean its happened before where the logic goofs and dumps all the damage on a player at once and instablaps people no matter how good the tank |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
904
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 18:44:00 -
[15] - Quote
Lugia3 wrote:NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:its pretty sad that this suicide ganking activity has grown to be so popular. I guess I can't blame people since its one of the only high profit, low cost, zero risk activities in the game. Pretty disgusting that CCP does nothing about it.
No way in hell would they be promoting 'the scammer" or the "suicide ganker" as one of their featured professions. This is nothing more than an embarassment gameplay mistake that they don't have the spine to get rid of. I can't fathom why CCP thinks its a good idea to continue to cater to risk averse degenerates who spend countless hours waiting around just to **** in someones corn flakes in a video game. Sad that this is now one of the most popular activities in EVE, it really says something about the poor game design. Found the carebear. Which is funny because I do indie a lot and have been ganked before My solution was to tank, then when I got ganked again look through why, swapped ships entirely and am currently in a darwinian fight with the gankers to survive. They are now down 5 vexors, 2 tornados, 5 thrashers, 2 catalysts, and a very bizarre moa incident, to my continuing badger And when that dies I have a super nereus (over 1k dps tank) |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2453
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 21:55:00 -
[16] - Quote
I absolutely agree that this should happen during the Aura missions. It should be sudden and bright and violent and it should violate their eyes and shock their minds. There should be no doubt afterward that EVE is a place where you can and will find yourself absolutely killed to death.
It was deliberate. Hush.
However, I absolutely disagree that it should result in a mission failure. Losing your ship during a mission is never a failure to start with and you don't want to go giving newbies the impression that losing their ship to a gank is the end of everything, because it isn't.
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:its pretty sad that this suicide ganking activity has grown to be so popular. I guess I can't blame people since its one of the only high profit, low cost, zero risk activities in the game. Pretty disgusting that CCP does nothing about it.
No way in hell would they be promoting 'the scammer" or the "suicide ganker" as one of their featured professions. This is nothing more than an embarassment gameplay mistake that they don't have the spine to get rid of. I can't fathom why CCP thinks its a good idea to continue to cater to risk averse degenerates who spend countless hours waiting around just to **** in someones corn flakes in a video game. Sad that this is now one of the most popular activities in EVE, it really says something about the poor game design.
The mad is incredibly strong in this one. Tell us, mad one, what did you lose to gankers? |
Linkxsc162534
Traps 'R' Us
93
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 22:59:00 -
[17] - Quote
I firmly support the idea of moving the mission to aura, or actually adding a few more instances of it into the tutorial/career missions. And don't give a blatant warning that their ship is expendable. Let them go in just like they did the last 1 thinking it'll be EZmode. Don't make it so their ship gets blapped, just make them face off with a ship that scrams them and is clearly stronger and have them sit there and watch as their HP drains away while they pitifully try to survive. Have it neut them too so it is an inevitable death. Also don't make it happen to a rookie ship, have it kill their condor or merlin that was given to them by the chain earlier. After they die and the game tells them to warp out and run off, it brings them back, gets them set up with another ship and starts the explanation of heres how to tank your ship and a couple fitting pitfalls to avoid. Then a few missions later after we've learned that ABs and tank are good and important, KILL THEM AGAIN. Nothing in Eve is unkillable. Have it be at this moment that they introduce you to the other ship lineup (like going with caldari so far. Before you had a merlin, gunboat, have this mission kill you by a fast tackle that orbits under your guns. Introduces you to the concepts of tracking, and in the case of factions that have them, the other weapon system lineup. Missile/drones). I think at least 4 deaths over the course of the tutorial and all the career agents might be a good start.
As a side note I am seriously looking forward to the new "Burner" missions. Heck a mission that I might lose my ship. Can't wait, too bad I can't get on the test server.
NEONOVUS wrote: Which is funny because I do indie a lot and have been ganked before My solution was to tank, then when I got ganked again look through why, swapped ships entirely and am currently in a darwinian fight with the gankers to survive. They are now down 5 vexors, 2 tornados, 5 thrashers, 2 catalysts, and a very bizarre moa incident, to my continuing badger And when that dies I have a super nereus (over 1k dps tank)
Lol, fit em right, and badgers r tough as nails |
Marc Callan
Nuclear Manhattan Limited
460
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 06:03:00 -
[18] - Quote
Gang, there's plenty of threads around to argue the pros and cons of player suicide ganking. Any chance we could avoid getting this thread flooded with the same old argument?
The point of this suggestion was simple: if abrupt, costly death is one of the major elements that distinguishes EVE from most other MMO environments, then it can be argued that the concept should be introduced to new players as early as possible, in a manner that will make a profound impression. The fundamental element in my idea wasn't being attacked without warning, but rather getting killed without warning: the Aura chain introduces a number of fundamentals of EVE, and death should be one of them.
As for the idea that a player should be ordered to execute a gank and suffer the consequences: to my point of view, that's pushing the player down a particular career path, which is the job of the mission agents, not Aura's initial series (which is about teaching new players the ground-level basics). Perhaps a "pirate mission agent" could be added, but that's a completely different discussion. "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegurt |
Enrique d'Ancourt
Eagle's Warrior's Eyrie Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 10:13:00 -
[19] - Quote
Marc Callan wrote:Gang, there's plenty of threads around to argue the pros and cons of player suicide ganking. Any chance we could avoid getting this thread flooded with the same old argument?
The point of this suggestion was simple: if abrupt, costly death is one of the major elements that distinguishes EVE from most other MMO environments, then it can be argued that the concept should be introduced to new players as early as possible, in a manner that will make a profound impression. The fundamental element in my idea wasn't being attacked without warning, but rather getting killed without warning: the Aura chain introduces a number of fundamentals of EVE, and death should be one of them.
As for the idea that a player should be ordered to execute a gank and suffer the consequences: to my point of view, that's pushing the player down a particular career path, which is the job of the mission agents, not Aura's initial series (which is about teaching new players the ground-level basics). Perhaps a "pirate mission agent" could be added, but that's a completely different discussion. actually, there is already a security mission chain that allows you to sit on a gate and gank a scout coming through. Seems the amount of players that revisit lvl 1's is skimpy in this thread. |
Marc Callan
Nuclear Manhattan Limited
460
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 09:36:00 -
[20] - Quote
Enrique d'Ancourt wrote:Marc Callan wrote:Gang, there's plenty of threads around to argue the pros and cons of player suicide ganking. Any chance we could avoid getting this thread flooded with the same old argument?
The point of this suggestion was simple: if abrupt, costly death is one of the major elements that distinguishes EVE from most other MMO environments, then it can be argued that the concept should be introduced to new players as early as possible, in a manner that will make a profound impression. The fundamental element in my idea wasn't being attacked without warning, but rather getting killed without warning: the Aura chain introduces a number of fundamentals of EVE, and death should be one of them.
As for the idea that a player should be ordered to execute a gank and suffer the consequences: to my point of view, that's pushing the player down a particular career path, which is the job of the mission agents, not Aura's initial series (which is about teaching new players the ground-level basics). Perhaps a "pirate mission agent" could be added, but that's a completely different discussion. actually, there is already a security mission chain that allows you to sit on a gate and gank a scout coming through. Seems the amount of players that revisit lvl 1's is skimpy in this thread.
The number of players that revisit L1 missions is probably quite skimpy throughout the entire game, I imagine. In any case, not every new player will run L1 missions even once - which is why the proposal puts the introduction-to-death mission in the initial Aura chain, before the career agents are even offered. "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegurt |
|
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5317
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 10:27:00 -
[21] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:When I started I was given a ship and 5000 isk and told to get on with it. When I died Aura laughed at me and called me a clumsy pilot.
And it was amazing.
... er, I mean... EVE has sound? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
511
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 10:33:00 -
[22] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:its pretty sad that this suicide ganking activity has grown to be so popular. I guess I can't blame people since its one of the only high profit, low cost, zero risk activities in the game. Pretty disgusting that CCP does nothing about it.
No way in hell would they be promoting 'the scammer" or the "suicide ganker" as one of their featured professions. This is nothing more than an embarassment gameplay mistake that they don't have the spine to get rid of. I can't fathom why CCP thinks its a good idea to continue to cater to risk averse degenerates who spend countless hours waiting around just to **** in someones corn flakes in a video game. Sad that this is now one of the most popular activities in EVE, it really says something about the poor game design. U wot m8
It's become popular because CCP is removing other ways to have non consensual pvp in forms of removing reasons to fight for for risk averse people.
It is a GREAT game mechanic. You obviously play some other game, what you are describing isn't eve online.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything. |
Marc Callan
Nuclear Manhattan Limited
460
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 12:27:00 -
[23] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:its pretty sad that this suicide ganking activity has grown to be so popular. I guess I can't blame people since its one of the only high profit, low cost, zero risk activities in the game. Pretty disgusting that CCP does nothing about it.
No way in hell would they be promoting 'the scammer" or the "suicide ganker" as one of their featured professions. This is nothing more than an embarassment gameplay mistake that they don't have the spine to get rid of. I can't fathom why CCP thinks its a good idea to continue to cater to risk averse degenerates who spend countless hours waiting around just to **** in someones corn flakes in a video game. Sad that this is now one of the most popular activities in EVE, it really says something about the poor game design. U wot m8 It's become popular because CCP is removing other ways to have non consensual pvp in forms of removing reasons to fight for for risk averse people. It is a GREAT game mechanic. You obviously play some other game, what you are describing isn't eve online.
It's also well outside the scope of the suggestion I was trying to put forward. Does that argument have to come in here as well? It's been talked to death on half the forums already... "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegurt |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |