EVE Search - Always able to run? And no Concord? Unknowable missions?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Always able to run? And no Concord? Unknowable missions?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:09:58 - [1] - Quote What if there were no warp scramblers or disruptors? It seems to me you'd have vastly fewer kills. Anyone losing a fight would flee; neither hardcore PVP nor hardcore carebear would stick it out to the bitter end. PVP would be less about unfair, one sided ambushes... which to me seems to be almost the entirety of it. You'd have to use bait and tricks to win. And the game would have to encourage players to choose to fight - avoiding cookie cutter fits and single purpose ships. Preventing players from fleeing is generally bad game design. It is a simple, hard counter, neither tactical nor strategic. You make almost no sacrifices to fit it. There's no point in trying to fit around it. The modules offer no value in other situations, making them boring. It's odd to think about how much thought went into strategy and tactics; generally, the game is quite shallow overall. PVE encounters lack any kind of dynamic configuration - the enemies are static strategy (resists, damage) and even static position and composition. Much like this could really use a boost, it seems like PVP could also benefit from a change. Let's think about it in general - to be out in space, vast, unknown... and the cops show up? It seems rather I should have a reason to be there, to stay out in space. And by staying there, I get benefits and incur risks. I fight NPC pirates - their loot is in space. If I flee, I lose the loot. If I want my loot, I fight to defend it. Imagine building a ship in space; perhaps with a minigame like hacking where you Tetris parts together using your construction ship. If you flee, your parts are stolen. If you want your assembly, you defend it. Mining? It goes into a can. If you flee, your ore is taken. If you want your ore, you defend it. This seems more inline with the intended play style of the game. Pirates actually steal things not by blowing up helpless transports but by raiding. Nothing happens - save perhaps the market - in the safety of stations. In return for more dynamic play, restraints must be removed. People cannot be stopped fleeing. Godlike space police cannot show up to kill pirates in moments. Encounters cannot be canned. I admit this is too much change for anyone to entertain. I believe it would be good change though. The spirit of the thought is some simple principles; 1) Choice over force 2) Risk versus reward 3) Dynamic over static There's so much room to make a better game here. With all the baggage this game has, perhaps someone else will rise to the occasion. It seems unlikely EVE would be allowed to.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:27:59 - [2] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Why should you be allowed to flee from a fight you accepted? You should want to stay. Fleeing should mean losing whatever you were in space trying to get. Quote: If you want to do thought experiments, how about if PvE content did not allow you to flee? This is going in the wrong direction. People confronted with no win situations don't accept risk. Instead, consider a situation where they know they can flee, but can't profit unless they stay. Choice. Not limit. Tempt. Not force. Quote: Say every NPC dropped a point on you the second you applied damage to them. I think that would force you to commit to a mission before you enter it, and have backup on standby to rescue you in case you bite off more than you can chew. That would seem to me to be more in keeping with the way the game was conceived of as you would be forced to put something on the line in pursuit of a reward. Nope. People would just bring enough to win via EVE Survival... many missions already have what you're suggesting. It does nothing. You want people to have mission risk? Every ship in a mission is random resists, random damage, random starting position. Now, players are confronted with figuring out how to approach it, not just fly in and follow the guide.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:29:43 - [3] - Quote ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote: Move out of high sec. Instant change. Meh. In a game composed of winning by numbers, there's little incentive to go alone. I spend a lot of time in null, low, and wh... boring. Watch dscan. Cloak. Flee. Wouldn't you like more?
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:30:29 - [4] - Quote Nat Silverguard wrote: you're drunk OP, go home. No, I'm a game designer. I'm just calling out design flaws.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:35:44 - [5] - Quote Fa Xian wrote: Choice. Not limit. Tempt. Not force. Just about the best in game system now is exploration. Here, you are distracted, hanging in space. Providing content for others. Earning a risk versus reward with even a jackpot payoff, too. This actually works. Even with scram, though the fight bit is a little sad. How about this? If you chase a guy who has hacked a can out of a site, it despawns and you get a bounty from the organization owning it? Say, 50% the market value of the remaining cans?
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:37:26 - [6] - Quote Fa Xian wrote: How about this? If you chase a guy who has hacked a can out of a site, it despawns and you get a bounty from the organization owning it? Say, 50% the market value of the remaining cans? A guy is in a mission. You chase him off? It despawns and you get - immediately - half the remaining value of the ships there.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:39:58 - [7] - Quote Takari wrote: What you call a flaw, some of us consider a feature, and one that I rather enjoy. I think you only find it that way as you've not had better. Unless you're into one sided, boring fights so lopsided the only way to make them work is that you have to force the loser to keep playing to get your enjoyment. Or did you mean you like Concord showing up to defend you?
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:41:55 - [8] - Quote Even chasing would be better than lockdown.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:47:16 - [9] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: So basically, you've just devised a way for me to grab half the value of a mission as quickly as I can accept them on my alt. Sounds pretty awesome. Sounds like you've mistaken an off the cuff observation for balance tested code. It's an easy mistake to make when being snide online is more important to you than honest contributions.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:51:26 - [10] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Your undocking is consent to fight. And you'd still have it. You just can't force it on me. You're free to attack me. If I hide in a station, I get nothing. In fact, I'm much more willing to risk leaving as I know I can keep my ship and flee. For my lesser risk, I'm expecting lesser, diwn to no reward. You own space unless I want to fight you for it. You already have play like this on an alliance scale. Why not play like that on a small scale?
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:57:51 - [11] - Quote Neuntausend wrote: How does this apply to haulers? Get caught, run away and fly a different route. Pretty much. Why do you want to fight haulers? Quote: Miners? Just try another belt/another system. Ratters? Just try another anomaly. And get followed by the pirate. Quote: What about "Pirates" - people who are out and about harassing Ratters and Miners? They'd not risk anything doing so. Attack someone and either kill him or run away. And get nothing. New net? An exciting encounter. More frequently happening. More people willing to risk more in more encounters of a greater variety. Quote: If you get pointed and killed, it's almost always because you messed up somewhere. It's all about choices. I agree. I just find it very dull. Gate camps are boring game play.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:02:07 - [12] - Quote Nat Silverguard wrote: well, i guess, it's safe to assume that CCP will never hire you. Quite. I noted above I'd get nothing but flak for even opening my mouth. The community isn;t interested in new ideas or alternate approaches. Quote: If your "feature" and "brilliant ideas" are not about more ship explosions, then sorry, your "game design" is not for EVE... I was anticipating more exciting encounters. I can see the only thing you value is one sided fights you win completely. "It is not enough Nat wins. Others must lose." Quote: based on your kb, well, we can see where you are coming from. exploding is normal dude, suck it up. I don't hunt. It's too dull.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:03:09 - [13] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Maybe you should give us some background on your experience in Eve PvP, OP. I suspect it is vanishingly little, and your opinions are predicated on a general lack of knowledge. Killboards are public. You can look it up like everyone else.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:05:21 - [14] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: You can be immune from other players as soon as agree to remove rewards from your PvE. A lot of this would take a lot of rebalance. It is likely that everything would pay out a lot less.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:07:55 - [15] - Quote Nat Silverguard wrote: lol, let's be hones here, dull/boring? how high was your bp when campers caught you? Last night I lost 700m in a Nereus in low. Saw it coming, too. Didn't even phase me. Less than 15% net worth. All earning ships still intact. Gave away more than that in the last month. But let's continue to make it about me. It shows you can't defend your ideas when you resort to such.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:10:25 - [16] - Quote Grauth Thorner wrote: That's why it exists for longer then you call yourself a game designer, people like shallow. Yes, yes they do. Quote: I agree about the NPC part though, but EVE Online is more about the PvP than the PvE. The good part about PvE being rather dull is that it more or less forces more (high-sec) missioners to go do some PvP instead, generating more PvP content. I do see a lot of whining about getting people out of high... but yeah. It's the only long game, I suppose.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:12:22 - [17] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Should I assume that your KB tells the full story of your experience, then? It can't. It doesn't show my wins. I win by avoiding and escaping. Your precious metric for judging doesn't define me or my playstyle. But you think it does. If I'm not exactly like you, I'm worthless. That attitude has done a lot of good in the world.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:16:12 - [18] - Quote Lady Ayeipsia wrote: We fight because it's fun. I'm just exploring ideas intended to get you more fun. Quote: Every slow spell, ice beam, vine trap, stasis field, stun ray, ion disruptor, spike strip, deployable mine field, emp pulse, web spell, or any other method present in countless games, yup, all poor design... Temporary. Points aren't. The ECM style point above is a great idea. Taking out points completely isn't a proposal. It's a conversation. A start, not an end. Quote: Just because you do not like it does not make it bad game design. It's not about what I like. It's about what you might like more.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:19:40 - [19] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Uh, I asked you to tell us about your experience. You're the one that said to check your KB, making it your metric. I am an explorer. 30m sp. I spend a lot of time dodging people in low. Been in null alliance. Solo'd sleepers. Run combat sites in low. Mined. Hauled. Was that useful to you?
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:28:11 - [20] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: There are myriad ways to break an application, or prevent a reapplication, including pulling range, neuting them out, or using ECM (burst, standard, or drone), and, where applicable, session changing. You can also negate them through the use of warp core stabilizers. I suppose. People like their chess match strategy. I guess I'd like more tactics. Less decision at undock, more in space. More chance based things would be more dramatic.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:30:26 - [21] - Quote Lady Ayeipsia wrote: In the end, you just see N+ scenarios... I see a lot of assertions that that is already true.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 43	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:11:52 - [22] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: You can't undock completely unprepared ... My recent loss is only the starting point for thinking about it. Honestly, there's so much whining on these forums you can't get any signal through the noise. Do I sound upset about my loss? I should have a transcript of chat with a corpmate. I'll tell you now what I said then. I probably made their night. I saw it coming and jumped anyway. To see if they'd catch me - they're lucky they did. The two I saw had 3 more on the other side of the gate. I even tried to dump my 700m cargo so it would not be half destroyed and someone would get it. After, all I could think about was how lame their game choice was. Sitting on a gate. Hoping. And jump on a hauler. Which likely would be empty and no challenge. Nothing to brag about in corp chat. Well, now they have at least loot to enjoy from it. But they didn't get a fight. Neither did I. We could have saved everyone time by my just sending them money. Then they could go enjoy some real PVP. That loss is not me here crying about it. It's me here crying about how lame the entire situation was. Mostly for them.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 45	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:18:27 - [23] - Quote Lady Ayeipsia wrote: With points, I can hold an enemy fleet in space. Interesting point about it being an escalation tool. A lot of times I don't think it works out that way. Fights seem too small and too short to be opportunities to escalate, but then I dont do fleets of dozens in null. But it's a good point. I'm just suggesting I'd rather see fighting over territory, assets. But if fights could be long enough to allow escalation, that'd be good too.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 45	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:28:44 - [24] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: [You would like more tactics. Fine. What tactics did you actually employ? It seems pretty disingenuous to say, "I would like more tactics," and then claim that you basically intentionally suicided yourself into a gatecamp. I was in a fine ship. 3 stabs. Heavy tank. Drones, gun, neut. But you can only do so much. 5 to 1 and it's my fit, eh? The only tactic was to turn back when I saw them on the near gate side. The only tactical option was to turn back. I gambled it was two; it was FW space, and large groups are rare. They attract fights. To be fair,, they probably were hunting, not camping. I didn't stick around to chit chat. No need to add a pod to the list. I was ready for a fight to escape. You're right. I should not escape that. They didn't need stabs really anyway... It only took 3 volleys to end it. But it is as I said, not really about my loss. That was inspirational. Not the point. Indeed, points (disrupt) aren't the end of the point (idea).
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 45	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:36:13 - [25] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: ... then claim that you basically intentionally suicided yourself into a gatecamp. To be clear, I took my chances against what could have been two, turned out to be 5. I also made the tactical decision to give them 2 minutes after they jumped to follow them, expecting if they weren't camping they'd likely be gone by then. It is rare for people in low to hang on a gate. So; tactical? Jump or not. Pause or not. No time after jump for more, but could have chosen fight back in a 5:1. Strategic? Fitting. Which didn't come into play. Coulda made a different ship choice. Cloak perhaps.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 45	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:55:07 - [26] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: That gun is the epitome of useless (And, really, a faction blaster?). Meh. Junk you have laying around the hangar. Quote: Problem #1: You warped directly to the gate. Nope. I jumped. They weren't on the side you warp to. They were on the blind side. Quote: A scout is obviously better. Its easy to solve every problem by adding more people. Quote: I'm betting you jumped through as soon as you landed. Nope. Told you I waited. Quote: There's a VERY good chance you could have escaped if you had fit a cloak and MWD. I could have gone cov ops. I could have gone through wh space. All this is academic and not the point.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 45	Posted - 2016.02.15 20:04:24 - [27] - Quote Annemariela Antonela wrote: Bro you just got some of the most rock-solid advice you are ever gonna get. Maybe you should heed it, instead of wishing the game was changed for your sake. Thanks for the tip. I had no idea.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 45	Posted - 2016.02.15 20:11:07 - [28] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Well, no, a cov-ops isn't really a replacement good for a Nereus. Different ship of course. Quote: You can't completely fail to employ any degree of strategic or tactical thinking and then complain that there aren't any tactical options. There are. You're not good at taking advantage of them. I give up. I'm not getting my message across and this is turning into a silly thread about telling me things I already knew. I don't need fitting advice; I have MWD cloak ships in hangars now. I was set up for a different kind of engagement. I'm not complaining about my loss... I'm not interested in even preventing it. Wasn't then. Still don't care now. If you think this is about one encounter, you're sadly mistaken and I've failed to be clear. Enjoy the game.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 46	Posted - 2016.02.15 22:42:56 - [29] - Quote Memphis Baas wrote: 3. Game is 13 years old... kinda late to be suggesting changes to the core gameplay, don't you think? Read the last section, first post.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 47	Posted - 2016.02.16 23:00:12 - [30] - Quote It's interesting we'd go the whole thread and all people do is talk about points. No interest in the other points in the subject? Still plenty of opportunity to flame me for thinking about changing PVE. I'm sure there's fire aplenty somewhere for all my heresy that'll never get implemented and wasn't even a request for change. But. Points. That was the whole message.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 49	Posted - 2016.02.17 20:18:02 - [31] - Quote Malcanis wrote: No you aren't a game designer... I am. Not computer games though. Published and everything. I'd link to it, but I'm so disenchanted with the hostility and shallowness of the discourse that I can only believe people would out of spite trash my other arts. And what good would that do? Look at you here? All anger and spite, flaming some stranger on the net. This encourages a belief in discourse? Quote: , and no you aren't "calling out design flaws", you're just bitching that you can't endlessly grind without fear of loss. I've said it before. In this thread. I lose things all the time. I don't care. I'm not even upset about losses. I frequently take risks. I don't find them bothersome... this is my main. Go look it up, killboard worshipper. I owned that Lachesis for 30 minutes, 230M down the drain just to test out recons. See that's what's wrong here. Instead of talking, I'm written off. You assume that since you'd be upset if you lost isk, I must be too. And when I'm not, it's just confusing... And you don't have time to be confused. Or learn. Or consider. Just flame and move on.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 49	Posted - 2016.02.17 20:37:59 - [32] - Quote Fa Xian wrote: And when I'm not, it's just confusing... And you don't have time to be confused. My thinking went like this; * Got a lot of junk to haul back to hub, but it's late and not a lot of time * Fit a Nereus with junk I have laying around to pick up my empty beer cans over 12 systems Fit is similar to fit I use in a Helios to escape decloaking solo ambushers in data and relic sites... not gonna survive a gate camp. And weejend night, so gate camp is likely... but no worries, its not stuff I need or care about. * Notices 2 flashing red on local. Common for people to lay traps in pipes as I'm moving through. Maybe there's two. Two would likely have maybe 3 points between them. I got 3 stabs. I'll make it. And if not, I don't need this stuff. * Jump... 5 guys. Well I'm toast. Burn back to gate? Won't make it. Guess I take my medicine... Perhaps I'll try to dump my cargo and these guys can have it. Too bad there's no piracy in the game; they'll not talk so a fun social arrangement will not happen... "Odd. Who sits on a gate? Why? For money? I suppose that was good payout for them. What a yawdry way to make profits. I could have gotten away if I cared. Different fit, different path, different time..." "Their game play depends on points. If I had a way to move away, they'd get nothing. Would there even be camps - a play style that seems to me unfun - if that was true? How would they play? What would it be like? How would the game empower their play style, a different play style?" See I don't care. Its just a game.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 49	Posted - 2016.02.17 20:43:54 - [33] - Quote Cidanel Afuran wrote: How do you account for the fact that EVE has been one of the top ranked MMOs for well over a decade, if the design is flawed? It's pretty arrogant to say that, eh? I mean I don't even make games like this. I'm not very qualified. But it's what you do in this situation as a designer? What would I do differently? I tried to outline it above. But the best I can do is principles. Obviously, they're doing pretty well without semi-pro/amateur help from me. But, I thought, it would be a lot like exploration. You'd have to ambush people doing stuff in space. A hard counter is basically dull; you point, I stab. Those don't require thought. Or choice. Like say, how close do you orbit? Do you switch ammo? The biggest thing I've learned in the thread is that the game isn't really meant to be about on grid during encounter choices - what I call tactics. It's mostly meant to be strategic. That's cool... seems a bit flat maybe, but hey....
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 49	Posted - 2016.02.17 20:45:18 - [34] - Quote Takari wrote: I'm lazy but your points were No Concord, No points/scrams, change PVE? The point was really thinking about slaying sacred cows and seeing if they made good hamburger.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 49	Posted - 2016.02.17 20:47:59 - [35] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: They would sit on the same gate with SEBOed tornadoes and instantly blap you. You would come back here the next day and... Think about how their play style could be more enjoyable for them.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 49	Posted - 2016.02.17 20:56:39 - [36] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: ... they must have been very bored and were surely not enjoying themselves at all. To me it seems boring. But hey, maybe they like it. It's a high traffic zone, perhaps they like instantly destroying a lot of cheap FW frigates? It doesn't seem to take a lot of skill, coordination, or execution. As you pointed out, there's merit in fitting well for it and the proof is in the doing. But you're right. I shouldn't assume that just because it looks dull, hanging on a gate, not moving, waiting for something to jump so you can pounce and automatically win a "fight" that thats not the epitome of all possible fun. Those are just my values.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 49	Posted - 2016.02.17 20:57:27 - [37] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: You idly wondered, "Would there even be camps?" I answered that question. Yup. You did. Rather well.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 49	Posted - 2016.02.17 20:58:17 - [38] - Quote Lan Wang wrote: exploration is boring, i like shooting people You should try hunting explorers.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 49	Posted - 2016.02.17 21:18:58 - [39] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: In short: It probably won't work. You still think it's a discussion about fits or me personally. I don't know why I enable you. Maybe you seem to me like you'd be good at talking about the original idea. But you really are enamored of talking about fits and strategy. Stabs are pretty limited. It's really about one ship escaping from one other ship. Some good uses; * cov ops explorers * miners You have to not care about range or fighting. But you see me putting them on a ship that isn't one of those and you lose it. I'm a terrible player... and will be forever. So why do you persist? Obviously I'm too stupid to learn, eh?
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 49	Posted - 2016.02.17 21:20:51 - [40] - Quote Malcanis wrote: The game design issue there isn't warp scramblers; it's PvE that rewards and encourages bot-aspirant behaviour. Agreed. I mentioned it up front. Canned encounters are bad. Hence, "unknowable missions" in the title.

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.