| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aynen
Federal Guard and Recon Corporation
55
   |
Posted - 2017.04.02 13:22:52 -
[1] - Quote
So here's an idea:
What if the game assigned the following types of tasks with a reward in isk to semi-randomly assigned players in the game:
- destroy ship of player X (assigned to younger pilots, the target would be selected from a pool containing all players of similar skillpoint levels, who aren't in an NPC corp).
- defend player X (assigned to pilots of all sp ranges. the target to defend would be selected from a pool of players who aren't in the assigned pilot's contact list or alliance, but can be of any sp level, though preferably low sp level. The target should be a player who has been assigned the first task whenever possible. the target must not lose any ships for a determined period).
The design goal here is to create interaction between players that would otherwise not have interacted with each other. It's a way of creating interaction between individuals that are outside of each other's social 'sphere' that feels like it still has a purpose.
Assigning task 1 to younger players, giving them a target that isn't in an NPC corp brings these players into contact with players who likely already know what they want to do in the game, because they've taken steps to create a corporation. This also means that the player they are tasked to attack likely has connections to additional players, so the interaction can grow beyond the two players the task involved, more easily.
Assigning task 2 to players of all sp ranges further helps to integrate newer players with older ones. And furthermore, if the assigned player is in a player corp, this can easily lead to additional interaction between multiple players.
I would recommend that this mechanic comes with the following RP story:
An unknown entity is using encrypted channels to entice pod-pilots from all over the cluster to complete various tasks. Their agenda is unknown, but it is theorized by many that this entity is attempting to de-stabilize the cluster's pod-pilot population.
Other theories suggest that they're actually trying to do the opposite, to unite the pod-pilot population to form a single force that would be strong enough to completely dominate the empires. What is known is that the signals they're using to communicate with pod-pilots has so far been un-traceable. they are not using any names to identify themselves with, but the monetary transactions they promise as rewards for completing their tasks have been consistently honored. |
Zanar Skwigelf
Boa Innovations
Brothers of Tangra
117
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 00:51:41 -
[2] - Quote
Before every one else posts with troll posts / long winded love notes to EVE:
The players make the content, and CCP provides the tools for us to make content. Usually when that formula is followed things are good, and when it isn't (dailies) it's not as successful.
With that said:
No |
Aynen
Federal Guard and Recon Corporation
55
|
Posted - 2017.04.04 23:35:40 -
[3] - Quote
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:Before every one else posts with troll posts / long winded love notes to EVE:
The players make the content, and CCP provides the tools for us to make content. Usually when that formula is followed things are good, and when it isn't (dailies) it's not as successful.
With that said:
No
The problem I see with that is that that player-created content is usually either for personal use, or made by, and used by players who already have little difficulty getting involved with other players, or specifically made it to interact with players they already know or are otherwise connected to.
The feature I'm proposing isn't meant to interfere or compete with any of the existing player generated content beyond it's intended use. I'm trying to cater to a different portion of the playerbase. |
Will Killem
Omnia Faeces Inc.
8
|
Posted - 2017.04.04 23:56:47 -
[4] - Quote
I can only speak for myself. And for me to bother doing any of that there would have to be some serious ISK involved, and I doubt such a ISK faucet would have a positive impact on the games economy.
Quote:I'm trying to cater to a different portion of the playerbase.
To me it sounds like you are trying to cater to people who would better off playing a themepark game instead of a sandbox. |
Aynen
Federal Guard and Recon Corporation
55
|
Posted - 2017.04.04 23:58:39 -
[5] - Quote
Will Killem wrote:I can only speak for myself. And for me to bother doing any of that there would have to be some serious ISK involved, and I doubt such a ISK faucet would have a positive impact on the games economy. Quote:I'm trying to cater to a different portion of the playerbase. To me it sounds like you are trying to cater to people who would better off playing a themepark game instead of a sandbox.
For context, as what kind of Eve player would you describe yourself? |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
10732
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 01:03:28 -
[6] - Quote
As far as I'm concerned people can suggest whatever they want as long as it meets these criteria.
-No instances
-No gating
-Can be accessed by any player to do whatever they choose to do (help or hinder).
Mr Epeen 
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
61045
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 02:54:44 -
[7] - Quote
I think the OP's idea merits more thought and could possibly be worked into content for Bounty Agents.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Shae Tadaruwa
science and trade institute
Caldari State
1630
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 03:39:34 -
[8] - Quote
How do you defend a player in highsec?
How can you require players to attack other players, especially in highsec?
What if you were assigned to attack another player and are in the same Corp?
How would this account for timezone differences?
How would it account for people having different schedules and play times even in the same timezone?
How would this account for someone just not logging in? Do you get your protection ISK anyway, even if you actually can't find the person?
Why is this idea in General Discussion and not Player Features and Ideas?
etc.
etc.
etc.
Not saying it's a crap idea. Any idea that brings players together is a good idea. However, I have reservations over how this could actually work in practice because players as targets for attack or defence introduce so many more variables into the mix, none of which can be controlled by CCP.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
30559
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 05:26:06 -
[9] - Quote
Defeating player by a player is enough oportunity for a (hate filled) interaction already.
Defending player cant be recognized for now as defending by any system in open PvP game other than subjective human assessment. In how many games you see awards for defending other players? You see awards for healing or dps, for the most time. You see these machanics in arena types of matches. Maybe you could see defence mechanics in some matches but they are all timed for a cause. Ganking would perfectly destroy all of the opportunities to defend any player sitting in subcap.
Such regulated mechanics would be perfectly ok in arenas. EVE is about freedom.
Every part of a game helps to tell a story =ƒôò
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him
Osprey =ƒÜÇ
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
Zanar Skwigelf
Boa Innovations
Brothers of Tangra
138
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 14:18:58 -
[10] - Quote
Aynen wrote:The design goal here is to create interaction between players that would otherwise not have interacted with each other.
This is the purpose of the NPSI community, whether you are hunting in null on a Zarvox fleet or running incursions with TVP. I would argue that the true problem is lack of visibility of the NPSI community, because for a person that doesn't engage in out of game content it takes a lot of digging to even find them.
Aynen wrote:
The problem I see with that is that that player-created content is usually either for personal use, or made by, and used by players who already have little difficulty getting involved with other players, or specifically made it to interact with players they already know or are otherwise connected to.
The feature I'm proposing isn't meant to interfere or compete with any of the existing player generated content beyond it's intended use. I'm trying to cater to a different portion of the playerbase.
The other problem you are running into is the standard herding cats problem that high sec has. You can lead a high sec solo player to emergent gameplay, but you can't make him participate.
If I was in your shoes, I would put together a "news" article which is basically a collection of PvP & PvE NPSI groups, and throw it up on the different EVE news sites. More visibility hopefully leads to more participation, which gets more players interacting with each other.
I'm sure there's better ways to go about it, but I'm just brainstorming here.
|
Cade Windstalker
1229
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 14:37:20 -
[11] - Quote
Few quick and obvious problems with the basics of this idea:
- Station Trading alts. An appreciable fraction of the characters in the game, especially the low SP ones, never undock. They're station trading, refining, or similar alts. If they do undock they do so very infrequently.
- Of those who do undock regularly the majority are going to be nowhere near where the player is. This would be a significant barrier to any kind of new player. If they get sent out to the arse-end of Sov Null to kill someone's Cyno alt they're going to die stupidly and eventually start going "why did the game tell me to do this if it's impossible!?!?"
- If this creates a kill-right on the target then this would immediately be abused by older players by making alts for the express purpose of farming these free kills. If it doesn't create a kill right then it's basically worthless. A new player will never be able to kill someone in High Sec cost effectively via suicide gank on their own, if they can even kill them in the first place. This would mostly make this something to be abused by older players on their alt as a way to offset the cost of a suicide gank.
I really feel like this hasn't been well thought out.
The general idea has potential, in the form of "give players an assignment to get them moving around and exploring more" but the forced PvP aspect just doesn't work on multiple levels.
Oh and SP total is a terrible way of evaluating combat performance outside of a *very* loose framework. Someone with 25m SP (about 1 year, give or take) can either be very well skilled into a T2 or T3 hull or poorly skilled into all four races and a variety of T2 hulls. That is a *big* difference in combat performance, and that's ignoring non-combat skills like mining, refining, research, ect. |
Jenn aSide
Absolute Massive Destruction
Test Alliance Please Ignore
15540
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 14:51:40 -
[12] - Quote
It is always a mistake to think you can 'engineer' outcomes when people are involved. Every time it's been tried in EVE, it failed.
EVE has high sec, low sec, null sec and now WH space. Base rewards are higher the further you go from safety, yet to my knowledge the percentage of characters outside high sec has never exceeded 30% (lesson: many people would rather be safe than rich or famous)
The above applies to missions, you can make way way more blitzing burners in npc null, but it mainly just happens in high sec.
CCP put lvl 5 missions, FW PVE, DED complexes that used to be high sec only, clone soldiers and other rewarding content in low sec. Population didn't budge
CCP create Dominion Sov with specific goals in mind. The exact opposite happened.
CCP created Aegis Sov to break up the blobs. null sec is RIGHT NOW experiencing a Super Capital Proliferation Arms race....
CCP buffed and added safety features for 'non-pvp' types in high sec (Anchor rigs, a new warp function, buffed exhumers, all the crime watch stuff from 2012-13). If these forums are an indication, none of it 'helped.
CCp has gone through iteration after iteration of NPE stuff. Doesn't help.
And i could go on for a while. The ONLY thing that has ever proven to work in EVE online is "give people tools, tweak tools for balance maybe, then leave people to figure things out for themselves and watch the fireworks start". |
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
62
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 15:00:11 -
[13] - Quote
You may be assigned a mission to someone who never, ever logs in again, or is completely out of your timezone.
|
Aynen
Federal Guard and Recon Corporation
58
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 20:54:12 -
[14] - Quote
I'm seeing a lot of good feedback here!
Something a few of you pointed out has to do with how an assignment could remain impossible to complete for reasons such as that the target doesn't leave station, is otherwise hard to get to, or can simply log out for a while.
For what I want to accomplish, the actual achieving of the task is actually not important. The killing or protecting of another player isn't the intended product. But it'll be hard to create a system in which the player is ok with not achieving the task.
Way I see it, if the task is failed but in one way or another it has lead to the player interacting with other players in a lasting way without feeling frustrated about the outcome of the task, then the feature did what it was designed to do.
Judging by the responses I'm seeing, a lot of players would naturally assume that if they're given a task with an isk reward, and the task can't be completed, that's bad. So how do we make it so that the player is ok with not completing the task? |
Aaron
Eternal Frontier
592
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 21:26:29 -
[15] - Quote
I thought of Agents offering missions where a group of players have to go destroy something, at the same time another agent will offer a group of pilots the same mission to defend that something. Strict ship limitations and perhaps a time limit for both parties.
Fear no one, live life, be free, accept the truth, do not judge others, defend yourself, fight hard till the end, meditate on problems and be prosperous. Things to exist by. -- RAIN Arthie
|
Aynen
Federal Guard and Recon Corporation
58
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 21:30:32 -
[16] - Quote
Aaron wrote:I thought of Agents offering missions where a group of players have to go destroy something, at the same time another agent will offer a group of pilots the same mission to defend that something. Strict ship limitations and perhaps a time limit for both parties.
In what way should the group be composed? Do we want players to make their own groups or do you want the game to try and group people together? |
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
30627
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 21:52:52 -
[17] - Quote
Quote:Way I see it, if the task is failed but in one way or another it has lead to the player interacting with other players in a lasting way without feeling frustrated about the outcome of the task, then the feature did what it was designed to do.
Judging by the responses I'm seeing, a lot of players would naturally assume that if they're given a task with an isk reward, and the task can't be completed, that's bad. So how do we make it so that the player is ok with not completing the task?
Dont make them kill or defend other players, but try to interact with them and show you are a good person. Maybe you will get new friend in a game.
The reason players dont interact so much is not the game, its the people.
Every part of a game helps to tell a story =ƒôò
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him
Osprey =ƒÜÇ
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc.
LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
1434
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 22:33:44 -
[18] - Quote
Only way this will work is a noob starter system only sort of clause. Like an agent mission it is an SP and age limited factor to get new players into pvp. That being said it will likely be abused, heavily to prey on new players by better skilled alt roles of vets. Only way this would work is if more people are tasked to defend said player than attack them to give a heads up about having "friends" in game to watch your back.
Have you heard anything I've said?
You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
That's right.
Had to end sometime.
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
20956
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 22:54:43 -
[19] - Quote
You're literally describing Merc scene
See my sig for details
Murderers of Negotiable Motivations
=]|[=
|
Kaybella Hakaari
State War Academy
Caldari State
64
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 23:03:55 -
[20] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:It is always a mistake to think you can 'engineer' outcomes when people are involved. Every time it's been tried in EVE, it failed.
EVE has high sec, low sec, null sec and now WH space. Base rewards are higher the further you go from safety, yet to my knowledge the percentage of characters outside high sec has never exceeded 30% (lesson: many people would rather be safe than rich or famous)
The above applies to missions, you can make way way more blitzing burners in npc null, but it mainly just happens in high sec.
CCP put lvl 5 missions, FW PVE, DED complexes that used to be high sec only, clone soldiers and other rewarding content in low sec. Population didn't budge
CCP create Dominion Sov with specific goals in mind. The exact opposite happened.
CCP created Aegis Sov to break up the blobs. null sec is RIGHT NOW experiencing a Super Capital Proliferation Arms race....
CCP buffed and added safety features for 'non-pvp' types in high sec (Anchor rigs, a new warp function, buffed exhumers, all the crime watch stuff from 2012-13). If these forums are an indication, none of it 'helped.
CCp has gone through iteration after iteration of NPE stuff. Doesn't help.
And i could go on for a while. The ONLY thing that has ever proven to work in EVE online is "give people tools, tweak tools for balance maybe, then leave people to figure things out for themselves and watch the fireworks start".
Dominion sov was supposed to get people to take, hold, and use space. Now we have massive krabbing.
The reason for the supercap proliferation arms race is because Rorqals got crazy buffed and threatened to make all the older, smaller, cheaper stockpiles worthless, so everyone panicked and got massive numbers of Rorqals (and made CCP a lot of fast money because of all the injectors needed for a crash course in how to fly a rorq). |
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
541
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 23:05:33 -
[21] - Quote
I think the OP has some basic merits, as it appeals to the group of players some call 'themepark' players. However to me it seems more appropriate to improve the accessibility of corps. Make the group play easier to find somehow. In a corp your leadership can give you direction, if they are interested in that. All too many corps exist with no purpose behind them.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Aynen
Federal Guard and Recon Corporation
60
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 23:09:47 -
[22] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:...in a corp your leadership can give you direction, if they are interested in that. All too many corps exist with no purpose behind them.
Actually, you've touched on something very important there, I think.
All new players start out in an NPC corp. A corp with no human leadership, no goal or sense of direction. So any new player in such a corp who doesn't have their own sense of direction isn't going to be lead by a leader's sense of direction either.
So what if newbie NPC corps had leadership? |
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
30629
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 23:45:57 -
[23] - Quote
Kaybella Hakaari wrote:The reason for the supercap proliferation arms race is because Rorqals got crazy buffed and threatened to make all the older, smaller, cheaper stockpiles worthless, so everyone panicked and got massive numbers of Rorqals (and made CCP a lot of fast money because of all the injectors needed for a crash course in how to fly a rorq).
All those scams CCP pulled off... *shakes head*
They knew what will happen.
Every part of a game helps to tell a story =ƒôò
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him
Osprey =ƒÜÇ
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
30629
|
Posted - 2017.04.05 23:53:05 -
[24] - Quote
Aynen wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:...in a corp your leadership can give you direction, if they are interested in that. All too many corps exist with no purpose behind them. Actually, you've touched on something very important there, I think. All new players start out in an NPC corp. A corp with no human leadership, no goal or sense of direction. So any new player in such a corp who doesn't have their own sense of direction isn't going to be lead by a leader's sense of direction either. So what if newbie NPC corps had leadership?
You would have to flip everything on its head.
They have player run corporations already. They even can make their own. Freedom, you see?
Every part of a game helps to tell a story =ƒôò
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him
Osprey =ƒÜÇ
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
Ranzabar
Golden Ratio One Six One
187
|
Posted - 2017.04.06 00:42:20 -
[25] - Quote
Sorry. Nope.
Abide
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8306
|
Posted - 2017.04.06 05:06:20 -
[26] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:You're literally describing Merc scene
See my sig for details
Sad there's no merc mission agent for the NPE. Like a "Go out and kill this guy" mission but anybody taking that mission, another player will be getting a mission to kill the player who took the mission.
I think some noobs would get totally hooked on that. Challenging, unknown outcome, the works.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
20960
|
Posted - 2017.04.06 09:14:24 -
[27] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:You're literally describing Merc scene
See my sig for details Sad there's no merc mission agent for the NPE. Like a "Go out and kill this guy" mission but anybody taking that mission, another player will be getting a mission to kill the player who took the mission. I think some noobs would get totally hooked on that. Challenging, unknown outcome, the works.
Not really, the reason we don't take newbros in anymore is the frustration with targeted hunting.
Usually goes like this:
- grinds locate (which takes ages for a useful one I.e. l4)
- runs locate .... Waits.
- locate comes in (whoo) flies to system
- targets not there ... Feck
- flies back to locate ... Feck , cool down ... Waits
- runs locate , flies back
- locate comes in , in system
- looks at local, not there
- (a¦á_a¦á)
Murderers of Negotiable Motivations
=]|[=
|
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
30649
|
Posted - 2017.04.06 09:31:49 -
[28] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:You're literally describing Merc scene
See my sig for details Sad there's no merc mission agent for the NPE. Like a "Go out and kill this guy" mission but anybody taking that mission, another player will be getting a mission to kill the player who took the mission. I think some noobs would get totally hooked on that. Challenging, unknown outcome, the works.
You would have to add a mercenary tutorial. Mercenary gamepley is the end game type of play, you have to know a lot about the game system in EVE. You would have to teach people all those things, how to be mercenary and provide a target that is available. There are time, security status, and type of player costraints in all of this when you would want to implement it "for this guy" in EVE. This kind of targets would have to be NPC sadly, in those training missions. Maybe missions like that would have to be not about one particular player, but targets in general, but its already implemented in the form of FW. If you provide particular another new player as target, you risk that he will never be available when the new guy just resigns after day one, even without knowing he was a target. You have to take groups into account. CCP devs are not dumb.
Designated target mission may be normal for arena type PvP matches where you have people playing tanks, rogues, mages. In these matches you already "go out and kill", even by dozens. Open type PvP have different rules, here you are making people join fights by other means.
Here space is your map, fights are for objectives. Objectives provided by system have to contain non specific player targets in them. You fight for the systems and LP in FW for example.
Your personal vendettas are your personal, and may be shared vendettas for your friends or mercenaries.
Its ok that way.
Every part of a game helps to tell a story =ƒôò
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him
Osprey =ƒÜÇ
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |