| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Vito Antonio
State War Academy
Caldari State
71
   |
Posted - 2015.05.12 07:10:26 -
[1] - Quote
My suggestion for security missions:
Level 1 - for rookie ships
Level 2 - for t1 frigates
Level 3 - for t1 destroyers
Level 4 - for t1 cruisers
Level 5 - for t1 battlecruisers
Level 6 - for t1 battleships
Level 7 - for t2, pirate battleships
Level 8 - for t2, pirate battleships, max skills and/or creative tactics
Level 9 - (current level 5 missions)
Level 10 - ???
Now you might be wondering where do burner missions come in?
It's simple, they will be new storyline missions. Lets say you are doing level 3 mission and get a storyline burner mission, where you will have to fight a t1 destroyer. |
Kira Kaliandra
EON-Tech Corporation
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 07:16:29 -
[2] - Quote
Wrong forums?
Also, why? |
Kashadin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 07:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
I am wondering why you made this suggestion and what problems it will fix or what things it will add to the game?? |
Ferni Ka'Nviiou
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
14888
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 07:42:52 -
[4] - Quote
Why? why-why... why?
Why when you can do Level IIs in a Reaper?
Why when you can do Level IVs with a Garmur?
Why make a bigger difficulty scale when it is not needed?
What's the point, OP? You didn't even suggest what Level Xs should be.
#GDshiptoastalertfleet
Fight Cloaked!
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 08:10:05 -
[5] - Quote
Ferni Ka'Nviiou wrote:Why? why-why... why?
Why make a longer difficulty scale? That's not adding anything new to the game. What would even be the point in developing it?
The current mission system is severely dated by now, yes eve is a pvp game but ships ain't going to buy themselves so pve should get some more attention. I don't know about further splitting up difficulties below battleship level but some more engaging/ difficult missions that require group work would be good for the game. CCP has a good chance with the new drifter npcs for some seriously tough pve encounters I hope they make the most of it. |
Lan Wang
Stillwater Corporation
That Escalated Quickly.
570
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 08:16:51 -
[6] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Ferni Ka'Nviiou wrote:Why? why-why... why?
Why make a longer difficulty scale? That's not adding anything new to the game. What would even be the point in developing it? The current mission system is severely dated by now, yes eve is a pvp game but ships ain't going to buy themselves so pve should get some more attention. I don't know about further splitting up difficulties below battleship level but some more engaging/ difficult missions that require group work would be good for the game. CCP has a good chance with the new drifter npcs for some seriously tough pve encounters I hope they make the most of it.
you mean like lvl 5's which can be done in a group? didnt they just add burner missions then add more burner missions and change aggro mechanics on npc's?
something tells me you dont want to travel to lowsec and risk something for doing better missions and you just want to live in highsec and have all the payouts?
why not try pirate missions? having to watch dscan for neuts is quite engaging and difficult
EVEALON Creative - Logo Design & Branding | Digital Design
|
Kashadin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 08:23:14 -
[7] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:Ferni Ka'Nviiou wrote:Why? why-why... why?
Why make a longer difficulty scale? That's not adding anything new to the game. What would even be the point in developing it? The current mission system is severely dated by now, yes eve is a pvp game but ships ain't going to buy themselves so pve should get some more attention. I don't know about further splitting up difficulties below battleship level but some more engaging/ difficult missions that require group work would be good for the game. CCP has a good chance with the new drifter npcs for some seriously tough pve encounters I hope they make the most of it. you mean like lvl 5's which can be done in a group? didnt they just add burner missions then add more burner missions and change aggro mechanics on npc's? something tells me you dont want to travel to lowsec and risk something for doing better missions and you just want to live in highsec and have all the payouts? why not try pirate missions? having to watch dscan for neuts is quite engaging and difficult
Or even WHs, you can solo C1-3 sites pretty easy with the right ships and the pay outs are not half bad, throw in a salvage alt to get the nano-ribbons for a better pay out and you can make better ISK than you could running missions any day of the week. |
Lan Wang
Stillwater Corporation
That Escalated Quickly.
570
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 08:26:00 -
[8] - Quote
well you also have c5-c6 wh's if you really want hard group pve, nothing really matches capital escalations, complaining highsec missions are easy just means you need to get out of highsec
EVEALON Creative - Logo Design & Branding | Digital Design
|
Stacy Lone
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 08:36:56 -
[9] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Ferni Ka'Nviiou wrote:Why? why-why... why?
Why make a longer difficulty scale? That's not adding anything new to the game. What would even be the point in developing it? The current mission system is severely dated by now, yes eve is a pvp game but ships ain't going to buy themselves so pve should get some more attention. I don't know about further splitting up difficulties below battleship level but some more engaging/ difficult missions that require group work would be good for the game. CCP has a good chance with the new drifter npcs for some seriously tough pve encounters I hope they make the most of it.
Yes, the current system is dated, and yes, it has it's issues, but what exactly would your proposal fix?
For more difficult missions, we already have burner missions, and we will soon get cruiser-size burner missions (or are they already in? don#t know, I don't do high sec pve anymore).
Also, there are L5's, which can also be done in a group. if you want to stay in high sec and want group content, there are incursions.
Also, there is anoms in 0.0, sanctums are usually done with 2-3 ppl (or one multiboxer, or one person in an expensive ship).
Besides, spliiting up the difficulty in hull sizes wouldn't do any good. I know a lot of ppl who do L4s in pirate BS. I have done L4s in T3 cruisers and even in an blinged cynabal. being able to choose the hull size is important, it adds more variety to the game. You can either have it easy (for example, when you are a new or simply bad at it) when using a hull that is a little bit Op for the mission, or you can have it difficult, especially as a new player, by using smaller hulls for higher missions. Doing L4s in cruiser was a big step up for me back in the days when I was new to EVE, both difficlty wise but also payout-wise.
Other group content, aside from incursions, can be found in WHs. C4s are usually run in small gangs in T3s. In C5/C6, you can run solo/duo marauder or T3s with logi to do the normal sites, but C5/C6 wormholes also have the unique feature of capital escalations which require dreadnaughts and carriers and at least 6 chars, but to do it effiiciently up to 10.
So yeah, we have a multitude of PvE options, in different difficulties, for very different amounts of ppl. I don't really see how splitting up missions more would help with any of the problems that are curently present in PvE. |
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 10:00:42 -
[10] - Quote
Yes I know that there is more difficult and more rewarding pve content in the form of L5s in low, incursions, and whs. I've done all of these beside the L5s and none are particularly challenging. I should also point out that the OPs suggestion isn't my proposal in any way I just thought this would/ could be a thread where we discuss how they can improve the pve content, if the difficulty of the "hard" pve comes from hiding from other players I don't think that counts as hard pve.
Having some more difficult missions in highsec that require a group to manage, but pays less than low/ null/ whs, could provide some fun to people who only run highsec missions without breaking the risk reward balance that we already have. The difficulty would be balancing them in such a way that each pilot in the group makes some isk but that it couldn't be done by a single pilot. Isk/ hr is an important factor but fun/ hr is equally important, as missions stand right now the fun/ hr is next to 0 and I can't believe anyone would argue that pve in general couldn't do with some kind of rework. |
|
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4547
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 10:32:21 -
[11] - Quote
This thread has been moved to Features & Ideas Discussion.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Lan Wang
Stillwater Corporation
That Escalated Quickly.
570
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 10:37:23 -
[12] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Yes I know that there is more difficult and more rewarding pve content in the form of L5s in low, incursions, and whs. I've done all of these beside the L5s and none are particularly challenging. I should also point out that the OPs suggestion isn't my proposal in any way I just thought this would/ could be a thread where we discuss how they can improve the pve content, if the difficulty of the "hard" pve comes from hiding from other players I don't think that counts as hard pve.
Having some more difficult missions in highsec that require a group to manage, but pays less than low/ null/ whs, could provide some fun to people who only run highsec missions without breaking the risk reward balance that we already have. The difficulty would be balancing them in such a way that each pilot in the group makes some isk but that it couldn't be done by a single pilot. Isk/ hr is an important factor but fun/ hr is equally important, as missions stand right now the fun/ hr is next to 0 and I can't believe anyone would argue that pve in general couldn't do with some kind of rework.
the best pve is pvp, you are correct hiding is not hard so dont hide, what makes red crosses different to red boxes, its adding difficulty to the situation
EVEALON Creative - Logo Design & Branding | Digital Design
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 14:59:10 -
[13] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:
the best pve is pvp, you are correct hiding is not hard so dont hide, what makes red crosses different to red boxes, its adding difficulty to the situation
The best pve is pvp? You know that doesn't make sense right? People pve all the time to make isk and most of the time the "interaction" with other players is you taking steps to make sure you don't get ganked. Sure sometimes pvp comes along while you're pve ing and you can drop what you're doing to go after them or you can pretend you've not noticed and be bait and all of that can be good fun but what I'm saying is that the actual pve content itself, especially in highsec where the pvp element is minimised, could do with some changes.
I don't have a perfect answer to what should be changed but I think more dynamic missions would increase the fun factor and as an aside I also think that rats should be adjusted to give people more realistic expectations of the kind of things they could face in pvp. It doesn't make sense that you can tank dozens of battleships in a level 4 mission and then go out to pvp and find that even one or two battleships would melt your tank. Perhaps missions could follow a tree like structure where you are never sure which branch the mission will take giving more variety and unexpectedness to what has become stale and well documented content. |
Lan Wang
Stillwater Corporation
That Escalated Quickly.
570
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:14:03 -
[14] - Quote
yeah it doesnt really make sense but ill explain what i mean...
"if the difficulty of the "hard" pve comes from hiding from other players I don't think that counts as hard pve" - this doesnt make sense either, you make the missions more difficult by adjusting them to act like players but yet you add players and people hide, i dont get it, the outcome is the same regardless if its players or npc's, you either win or you die.
the issue is people dont want to risk anything if they are missioning in highsec, they dont want to lose the blingy mission boat to players or rats they just want easy isk and fast, if they wanted a challenge they would go to null and try and solo a 10/10 or do missions in curse, or lvl 5 missions or wormholes but they dont because its risking something which is making it harder for them.
as said what is the difference between an npc that acts like a player and a player?
EVEALON Creative - Logo Design & Branding | Digital Design
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:48:55 -
[15] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:yeah it doesnt really make sense but ill explain what i mean...
"if the difficulty of the "hard" pve comes from hiding from other players I don't think that counts as hard pve" - this doesnt make sense either, you make the missions more difficult by adjusting them to act like players but yet you add players and people hide, i dont get it, the outcome is the same regardless if its players or npc's, you either win or you die.
What I was saying is that claiming that pve is hard because you might run into other players isn't really anything to do with the pve being hard or not, surely nobody would claim that mining is hard pve but miners are getting ganked all over the place. No matter how improved NPCs get they won't ever be as good as players but there is plenty of middle ground between where they are now and the level that players are at.
Lan Wang wrote:
the issue is people dont want to risk anything if they are missioning in highsec, they dont want to lose the blingy mission boat to players or rats they just want easy isk and fast, if they wanted a challenge they would go to null and try and solo a 10/10 or do missions in curse, or lvl 5 missions or wormholes but they dont because its risking something which is making it harder for them.
I think it is unfair to assume that people who run missions in highsec are totally opposed to risk, after all they are still playing Eve. The risk / reward could be balanced so that L5s, anoms, WHs, what have you, are still better isk / hr; all I am saying is that mission PvE has been largely unchanged for a long time and that making them more interactive and engaging by making them less predictable would increase the fun of an activity players could choose, or not, to do. Surely it is possible to improve the mechanics of shooting crosses without taking it so far that they are essentially players.
Lan Wang wrote:
as said what is the difference between an npc that acts like a player and a player?
Well for one players have brains and come up with all sorts of new ways to mess with each other, NPCs will never be this good but that doesn't mean they can't be better than they are.
|
Kashadin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:13:48 -
[16] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Yes I know that there is more difficult and more rewarding pve content in the form of L5s in low, incursions, and whs. I've done all of these beside the L5s and none are particularly challenging. I should also point out that the OPs suggestion isn't my proposal in any way I just thought this would/ could be a thread where we discuss how they can improve the pve content, if the difficulty of the "hard" pve comes from hiding from other players I don't think that counts as hard pve.
Having some more difficult missions in highsec that require a group to manage, but pays less than low/ null/ whs, could provide some fun to people who only run highsec missions without breaking the risk reward balance that we already have. The difficulty would be balancing them in such a way that each pilot in the group makes some isk but that it couldn't be done by a single pilot. Isk/ hr is an important factor but fun/ hr is equally important, as missions stand right now the fun/ hr is next to 0 and I can't believe anyone would argue that pve in general couldn't do with some kind of rework.
They exist, they are called sansha incursions, and the loot pay out is already set up to be even across all the pilots that are involved and they are set up to scale from solo all the way up to 40 man fleets. You even get LP from CONCORD itself that you can transfer over to other NPC corps. You also get to move around the cluster following the incursions as they pop up so you can see more of New Eden than any other type of high sec PvE. Add into that you can always eventually take up the challenge of doing the incursions in low sec if you feel like it then you can get quiet a bit of cool content out of this activity.
|
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden
Workers Trade Federation
284
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 21:59:09 -
[17] - Quote
Vito Antonio wrote:
Level 8 - for t2, pirate battleships, max skills and/or creative tactics
.
As you noted, the "creative tactics" would involve me warping in with my Marauder and blowing everything apart. Easy as that. |
Vito Antonio
State War Academy
Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 06:20:05 -
[18] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:Vito Antonio wrote:
Level 8 - for t2, pirate battleships, max skills and/or creative tactics
.
As you noted, the "creative tactics" would involve me warping in with my Marauder and blowing everything apart. Easy as that.
This is exactly what eve suffers from.
PVE mechanics havent moved much.
CCP should learn from Blizzard how to make interesting PVE encounters. |
Traejun DiSanctis
Astro Technologies
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
112
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 06:48:03 -
[19] - Quote
Vito Antonio wrote:Celthric Kanerian wrote:Vito Antonio wrote:
Level 8 - for t2, pirate battleships, max skills and/or creative tactics
.
As you noted, the "creative tactics" would involve me warping in with my Marauder and blowing everything apart. Easy as that. This is exactly what eve suffers from. PVE mechanics havent moved much. CCP should learn from Blizzard how to make interesting PVE encounters.
Blizzard? Wut? Those hacks haven't made interesting PvE mechanics in years. It's been the same old, group up, spread out, tank-swap, don't stand in the fire bullshit for the last 10 years. The only thing that changes is the scenery.
As for PvE mechanics, I agree, they've grown stagnant. I'd love some changes here, but expanding the mission tiers is probably not the answer. Incursions and Wormholes were a nice change of pace because it was PvE that you were forced to group up for. You had to plan, fit right, think and execute - all as part of a group.
Reworking L5's is a good, quick solution (since they already exist). More agents, a wider array of missions and multi-step mission sites. Make them story-driven, like mini-escalations. At the end of one of the sites, you get pop-up text that directs you to another location, but within the same system. Only once you've cleared the 2-4 sites/complexes is the mission deemed complete. Make them difficult, something that requires 2 or more properly fitted vessels to complete successfully. Make the rewards such that they are worth doing - i.e. tons of LP/ISK or even navy BPC/module if you finish within x amount of time.
Long term, more Incursion-style things. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |