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

Check My IP Information

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 [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page

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.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2216	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:21:45 - [2] - Quote Why should you be allowed to flee from a fight you accepted? If you want to do thought experiments, how about if PvE content did not allow you to flee? 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.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 6929	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:22:50 - [3] - Quote Move out of high sec. Instant change. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Nat Silverguard Aideron Robotics 308	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:23:39 - [4] - Quote you're drunk OP, go home. Just Add Water
perseus skye Republic University Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:26:59 - [5] - Quote What if their was no ships ...discuss
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:27:59 - [6] - 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 - [7] - 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 - [8] - 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 - [9] - 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?
Takari Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 511	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:36:21 - [10] - Quote What you call a flaw, some of us consider a feature, and one that I rather enjoy. "Roll the dice, don't think twice. This is the way of things. Welcome to EVE." ~ CCP Falcon

Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:37:26 - [11] - 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 - [12] - 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 - [13] - Quote Even chasing would be better than lockdown.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2216	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:42:46 - [14] - Quote Fa Xian wrote: 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. But it isn't no-win when they accept the fight. People only undock when they think they have something to gain whether that is loot (from NPCs or other players) or a killmail. You are tempted with loot as an inducement to undock. If you don't want that risk, stay in station. You are not entitled to farm resources into the greater economy that effects us all while retaining the option to decline a fight. Your undocking is consent to fight. Fa Xian wrote: 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. Sounds good to me. Random resists, random spawns and random damage all very much more like the rest of Eve rather than the no-effort, read-a-website grindfest most of Eve's PvE has become.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1940	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:43:54 - [15] - Quote Fa Xian wrote: 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. 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. By awesome, I mean "********". 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. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:47:16 - [16] - 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.
Neuntausend GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 625	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:51:01 - [17] - Quote Fa Xian wrote: You should want to stay. Fleeing should mean losing whatever you were in space trying to get. How does this apply to haulers? Get caught, run away and fly a different route. Or log off for an hour and try again later. Not much of a loss. Miners? Just try another belt/another system. Ratters? Just try another anomaly. Even worse: 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. Also - to be in range of a warp disruptor is a consequence of a choice already. You decide to jump through a gate without a scout, you decide to be out in a slow ship during a war, you decide not to watch your directional scanner for combat probes... Once you are within 24km of someone who is out to kill you, you should not be able to just run away anymore. (although you still might be able to - ECM, Damps, Neuts, plain old speed - warp disruptors can be countered. Being able to do so is also a choice). If you get pointed and killed, it's almost always because you messed up somewhere. It's all about choices.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:51:26 - [18] - 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?
Nat Silverguard Aideron Robotics 309	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:53:32 - [19] - Quote Fa Xian wrote: Nat Silverguard wrote: you're drunk OP, go home. No, I'm a game designer. I'm just calling out design flaws. well, i guess, it's safe to assume that CCP will never hire you. this is a game about ship explosion, majority of people play this game because of ship explosion. limiting ship explosion in this game doesn't compute. if your "feature" and "brilliant ideas" are not about more ship explosions, then sorry, your "game design" is not for EVE, and as i've said earlier, you're drunk, go home. based on your kb, well, we can see where you are coming from. exploding is normal dude, suck it up. Just Add Water
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out 9614	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:54:01 - [20] - Quote This is probably a troll, but I'll bite. Fa Xian wrote: 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. Alternatively... you get MORE single purpose ships... that are designed to deal as much damage as possible in as short a time as possible... ... to destroy a target before it has a chance to escape... ... much like suicide ganking... ... and massive fleet warfare. Keep in mind that warfare in general is a "negative-ISK" activity. You gain nothing from doing it unless territory is at stake, a target is fat and juicy, or you want to do it. But even then, if the odds are not in your favor or you find yourself losing... you have no reason to stay. So you will leave regardless of the potential payoff you will be giving up. That's the point behind the warp disruption mechanics. To force people to commit to fights they go into and to make people more careful about where they go and how they do things (lest you be "grappled" and killed). How did you Veterans start? "Learn how things work. The intricacies, interactions, and hard limits... knowing these things will grant you far more power in the long run."

SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1943	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:55:40 - [21] - Quote Quote: 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. Answer the question about your PVP experience, please. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1312	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:56:48 - [22] - Quote When I started playing Eve I thought the same as the OP, still have a feeling that these modules are just too final, which is what I like about Elite Dangerous and the system suggested for Star Citizen, you can flee. Eve nope you are locked in unless you clear the attacker with the point. I would like points to have the same chance percentage as ECM, would make the game more interesting for the prey, but of course most people who play this game don't care about their challenge they just want sure and easy kills so they would go up the wall at this suggestion. Ella's Snack bar. The Hisec sandbox is basically a themepark for gankers
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:57:51 - [23] - 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.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2216	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:00:00 - [24] - Quote Fa Xian wrote: 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? You can be immune from other players as soon as agree to remove rewards from your PvE. You do not get to gain advatage in our shared economy while immune from me and the rest of New Eden. Pro-tip: if you hate the fact other players can affect your gameplay, your Eve subscription allows you access to the test server, Sisi. It is actually against the rules for other players to explode you there against your will. Please, feel free to run missions there to your heart's content, safe from the risk of non-consensual PvP.
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:02:07 - [25] - 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.
Nat Silverguard Aideron Robotics 309	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:02:28 - [26] - Quote Fa Xian wrote: I agree. I just find it very dull. Gate camps are boring game play. lol, let's be hones here, dull/boring? how high was your bp when campers caught you? Just Add Water
Fa Xian Furious Timewasters 41	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:03:09 - [27] - 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 - [28] - 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.
Grauth Thorner Vicious Trading Company 447	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:06:56 - [29] - Quote Fa Xian wrote: It's odd to think about how much thought went into strategy and tactics; generally, the game is quite shallow overall. That's why it exists for longer then you call yourself a game designer, people like shallow. 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. Create your own in-game shiplabels: >EVE Custom Ship Labeler application forum thread >iciclesoft.com
Lady Ayeipsia Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 1001	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:07:38 - [30] - Quote Why do I get the feeling i am playing a vastly different game than the OP? Look.... There's this teapot. It's sacred. We fight for the right to make pot noodles in it. The blues fight to not let others make pot noodles in the tea pot. It really is that simple. Scram, disrupt, doesn't matter. We fight because it's fun. We aren't alone either. A good many groups exist to fight for the fun of it. As for the notion that preventing people from running is poor game design... Yup... 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... Not buying that. There have been countless ways used to keep people in a fight. Just because you do not like it does not make it bad game design.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.