| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
murder one
Gallente
Death of Virtue
Vigilance Infinitas
   |
Posted - 2007.05.10 03:53:00 -
[1]
Let's begin by establishing that Eve is a PVP centric game. That is, it's sole purpose for existance is PVP. No other MMO on the internet today is so completely player driven than Eve: it's markets are player driven, the raw materials are generated 100% by players, the large majority of items are created by players, etc. etc..
That out of the way, what if missions were completely removed from the game, and while NPCs would still be in the game, they were only available through encounters that could only be accessed by probing them out, similar to current encounters are now, but more common and with more variety.
Eve wouldn't exist exactly the same as it is now, minus the missions, but be rebalanced completely to take into account the complete lack of missions. Belts would be converted to scannable/probeable areas and NPCs would still reside there as usual, but there wouldn't be any more missions to be run, of any sort, in high sec, so the only way to generate income in Eve from a non-player related activity would be through mining or fighting NPCs in encounters that players would have to actively go find for themselves.
One key thing here is that mission running spawns NPCs on an as needed basis for each player. Encounters would simply be available to anyone and everyone capable of probing them out, and it would be on a "first-come, first-served basis", so to speak.
This would naturally apply player population pressure to NPCing activities. Population pressure will in turn force the bulk of the player population to spread out around the galaxy in order to farm the NPCs for ISK, which is exactly what we are *not* seeing with the current system.
Furthermore, with no way to generate ungodly amounts of ISK in empire/high sec anymore, players would have to move into low sec and 0.0 systems in order to find NPC encounters that would be of high enough value ISK/hour to be profitable. This in turn would lead to more pirating opportunities, and more team play and cooperative opportunities for players to coordinate between themselves to successfully farm the NPCs and not get pirated.
Removing as much of the PVE element from Eve as possible will only further improve it as a PVP game. Sure, a lot of PVE players will leave the game, but there are dozens of PVE centric MMOs out there for them to play (WoW for instance).
Eve is a truely PVP oriented game, and as such should (IMO) have a purity of purpose. By making belt locations dynamic, it's going to be a huge help in combating macro miners, which horribly ruin the Eve economy. By removing missions as they are now, it would be one more step in breaking the PVE chain that exists in Eve, and bringing it closer to the pure PVP ideal.
As for what to do with the concept of agents and similar fluff: why not repurpose them into factional warfare so that they can be used by ISD to direct players in the galactic conflict?
Because I said so...
|
Janu Hull
Caldari
Order of Z Industries
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 04:01:00 -
[2]
I think I'd celebrate by stamping the worder "PvPer" on the head of mannequin and ceremonially slitting its throat.
This is my sig, there are many others just like it. With me, my sig is worthless. Without (or with even) my sig, I am worthless... |
Magnum III
Journey On Squad
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 04:03:00 -
[3]
We would not loose much as it is.
Right now missions are another way to mine.
Right now missions are pretty simplistic compared to other games missions.
|
Janu Hull
Caldari
Order of Z Industries
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 04:05:00 -
[4]
Seriously, I'd demand that PvP become completely consentual, because if PvP jackholes are going to rob PvE players of their game, we should be able to do the same to them.
Life isn't fair for anyone, in that, we are all equal.
This is my sig, there are many others just like it. With me, my sig is worthless. Without (or with even) my sig, I am worthless... |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 04:06:00 -
[5]
you do realize that to remove pve you would need to rework not only the way the ENTIRE GAME WORKS
but the sales pitch and about everything else that even concerns eve ?
____ __ ________
_sig below_
the jet cans are made so that people that dont mine can get free ore
miners ritually donate the ore to anyone wishing to take some |
murder one
Gallente
Death of Virtue
Vigilance Infinitas
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 04:10:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: SiJira
you do realize that to remove pve you would need to rework not only the way the ENTIRE GAME WORKS
but the sales pitch and about everything else that even concerns eve ?
The game wouldn't need to be 'entirely reworked'. Not at all. The three main income streams in Eve, besides killing other players or manufacturing stuff are: mining, belt ratting and mission running.
Removing mission running leaves belt ratting, which as above would be buffed/improved to replace mission running as far as ISK/hour income stream into the Eve economy, and mining, which has already been said it *will* be changed/improved along the ideas also discussed above.
The income in the game would remain comparable, just one of the avenues would be removed.
Because I said so...
|
Janu Hull
Caldari
Order of Z Industries
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 04:13:00 -
[7]
Originally by: murder one
The income in the game would remain comparable, just one of the avenues would be removed.
Not quite, chooch. You just eliminated about 80% of the income in Empire space.
This is my sig, there are many others just like it. With me, my sig is worthless. Without (or with even) my sig, I am worthless... |
murder one
Gallente
Death of Virtue
Vigilance Infinitas
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 04:16:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Janu Hull
Originally by: murder one
The income in the game would remain comparable, just one of the avenues would be removed.
Not quite, chooch. You just eliminated about 80% of the income in Empire space.
No kidding. That's the whole point. Of course, ore would be redistributed so that more/better quality ore would be available in easier to get to low security systems (not high sec of course).
Because I said so...
|
Magnum III
Journey On Squad
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 04:18:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Magnum III on 10/05/2007 04:17:59
We would not loose much as it is.
Right now missions are another way to mine.
Right now missions are pretty simplistic compared to other games missions.
Too bad trying to turn real life players into some thing as good as missions should be, would not work.
Because real life people are not involved in the story like NPC's are written to be.
One reason is real people playing the game are only on for a small time or popping in and out, not like real life.
That is why we need ways to get involved into the story of the game personally, but that obviously is really hard to do.
Maybe walking in stations will help with the immersion.
What is the story with real players in the game? They are mining in your system, let's kill them! Gee wiz...
Or how about those guys who pretend to protect the roids and give it as a reason to PvP???? That shows the game actually does not have the right tools for players to even replace lame missions let alone good missions that are not simplistic.
Missions are repetitive and lame but people are even worse for any real immersion into the game.
|
Janu Hull
Caldari
Order of Z Industries
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 04:21:00 -
[10]
Originally by: murder one
Originally by: Janu Hull
Originally by: murder one
The income in the game would remain comparable, just one of the avenues would be removed.
Not quite, chooch. You just eliminated about 80% of the income in Empire space.
No kidding. That's the whole point. Of course, ore would be redistributed so that more/better quality ore would be available in easier to get to low security systems (not high sec of course).
You wouldn't have one more person in low sec then than you do already. I don't know if its settled between those dense skull walls or not, but people who lack a lot of skill development have an inherent aversion to subjecting themselves to the whimsy of bored PvP players.
You might have to sit there in low sec and drool for a while, but people aren't going to step out of the relative sandbox of Empire until they're damned good and ready. SO all you do by withdrawing the ability to attain wealth in high sec is punch yourself in the balls by dragging out the readiness of new players to work the more difficult zones to several times the current length of time.
You accomplish nothing but further frustrating yourself.
This is my sig, there are many others just like it. With me, my sig is worthless. Without (or with even) my sig, I am worthless... |
murder one
Gallente
Death of Virtue
Vigilance Infinitas
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 04:28:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Magnum III
Edited by: Magnum III on 10/05/2007 04:17:59
We would not loose much as it is.
Right now missions are another way to mine.
Right now missions are pretty simplistic compared to other games missions.
Too bad trying to turn real life players into some thing as good as missions should be, would not work.
Because real life people are not involved in the story like NPC's are written to be.
One reason is real people playing the game are only on for a small time or popping in and out, not like real life.
That is why we need ways to get involved into the story of the game personally, but that obviously is really hard to do.
Maybe walking in stations will help with the immersion.
What is the story with real players in the game? They are mining in your system, let's kill them! Gee wiz...
Or how about those guys who pretend to protect the roids and give it as a reason to PvP???? That shows the game actually does not have the right tools for players to even replace lame missions let alone good missions that are not simplistic.
Missions are repetitive and lame but people are even worse for any real immersion into the game.
Agent could become the avenue by which players choose sides in factional warfare, and you earn additional income/brownie points etc. for killing players of opposite faction.
This would be a great way to add immersion to the game while making the players the fundamental units in the game, not NPCs. Players could even join pirate factions like Serpentis etc., and get extra money from killing *any* of the other established factions (Caldari, Gallente, etc.).
It would be like the NPCs placing bounties on each player, depending on what faction they side with. And all players would HAVE to side with a faction of some sort or another.
The more SP a player has, the larger his bounty is, relative to what side/faction he is flying for. Pirate factions could even have a higher bounty factor in comparison to non-pirate factions, due to the Pirates being able to get bounties from a larger number of players. Pirates would have more targets to procure bounties from, but Pirates would also provide a bigger payday for other players of the other factions, in comparison to just shooting their normal enemy factions.
Because I said so...
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 04:30:00 -
[12]
Originally by: murder one
Originally by: SiJira
you do realize that to remove pve you would need to rework not only the way the ENTIRE GAME WORKS
but the sales pitch and about everything else that even concerns eve ?
The game wouldn't need to be 'entirely reworked'. Not at all. The three main income streams in Eve, besides killing other players or manufacturing stuff are: mining, belt ratting and mission running.
Removing mission running leaves belt ratting, which as above would be buffed/improved to replace mission running as far as ISK/hour income stream into the Eve economy, and mining, which has already been said it *will* be changed/improved along the ideas also discussed above.
The income in the game would remain comparable, just one of the avenues would be removed.
ah so you are against LP
because you arent removing macros...
anyways - if people dont want risk they wont play eve with your change
ccp might not be doing the best thing to do to get more players (yes i know they arent trying to ive made a thread about it)
but if you were ever in control eve wouldnt even have a total of 20 000 active subscribers
____ __ ________
_sig below_
the jet cans are made so that people that dont mine can get free ore
miners ritually donate the ore to anyone wishing to take some |
Ta chaina
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 04:39:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Ta chaina on 10/05/2007 04:37:15
Well after reading two of your threads Im starting to think you don't like EVE, So why don't you go play some other MMO thats PVP only and leave this game alone.
|
Mogrin
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 04:42:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Mogrin on 10/05/2007 04:40:19
ratting and mining is pve too
remove them
then we'll all pvp in the freebie ships
oh wait so remove missions but leave mining and ratting
I see.
You are an idiot.
_______________
Rokh vs. Hyperion |
Ezekial Crow
Gallente
Team Machine Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 04:43:00 -
[15]
My first question is, why do you wanna remove pve? There is no reason to. Second being do you wanna force people to play like you... people play this game because they like it. If they wanted to leave they would have by now... People dont like wow and other games so they left.
|
murder one
Gallente
Death of Virtue
Vigilance Infinitas
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 05:01:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Mogrin
Edited by: Mogrin on 10/05/2007 04:40:19
ratting and mining is pve too
remove them
then we'll all pvp in the freebie ships
oh wait so remove missions but leave mining and ratting
I see.
You are an idiot.
I'm an idiot? Ok, you're entitled to your opinion, but please explain to me why you think I'm an idiot.
How does my suggestion of removing mission running, but not belt (really exploration after it gets sorted) NPCs and mining make me an idiot?
I'm not saying remove *all* PVE, just remove mission running.
Because I said so...
|
CrestoftheStars
Deviance Inc
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 05:21:00 -
[17]
1) for starters ALOT of people would leave because of the NON exsisting things to do if your not up for risking your ship this playing day (if you put in a no-risk arena yer maybe, but still losing alot of players because no way to make isk if your not a risky 0.0 person).
2) it would remove some content from the game and make it even more one sided...
what is there to do in eve now?!
annoy other players by stealing, killing, and scamming them (which destroyes the game slowly but surely)
do missions (aroun 4 missions which is almost the same at each agent, gets borring REALLY fast).
do mining (if you have tryid, not the most exciting game time of your life and no stills involved, just afk time).
0.0 things, well if your not up for losing everything you have in a VERY short time, don't even consider it.
soo... they actually need more that people can do risk free...
or else they will end up with a few hardcore pvpers and that would be NO fun for any of them
peace out..
PS: your idea is not bad but why not just put it in as a exstra?
i see no point in removing missions
and you would make it so only high skilled peops could do it... hmm thats wrong
___________________________________________
if eve had This kind of control system combinet with it's SP and advanced weaponry system it have.
http://sco.gpotato.com/ |
Talkie Toaster
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 05:32:00 -
[18]
i would have to say a lot of people wouldnt want to play the game. As it stands certain alliances control certain parts of space. thats cool, thats what hey want to do. I'm not interested, i log on to have a laugh with my mates, run a few missions, get all giddy when i hit 150mill (not there yet) and then spend it on new toys.
I dont log on to be engaged in a epeen fest over who can muster the the strongest army to control these areas where you can play the game. some do, many dont.
|
Curzon Dax
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 05:33:00 -
[19]
Originally by: murder one
Let's begin by establishing that Eve is a PVP centric game. That is, it's sole purpose for existance is PVP.
Well, since your first assumption is quite flawed, the rest of your argument is based on a faulty principle. Eve is FOCUSED around PvP, but no solely dedicated to it.
COUNTERSTIKE, Quake, and any other first person shooter is solely dedicated to PvP. Eve is not an FPS.
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Frontier Trade League
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 06:02:00 -
[20]
Bad idea really.
You'd lose to many subscriptions to be viable economically to make such a change.
There are also some game mechanics that are based upon mission running. For instance Jump Clones require a standing of 8.0 with the NPC corp owning the station. Another example is that you need approximately a 6.66 standing to remove the refining tax.
If you remove mission running, you also remove an activity a casual gamer can get into immediately. That means fewer casual gamers playing, and thus more problems.
In all removing missions would hurt EVE more than it would help. I assume you are hoping more folks would leave empire but they wouldn't, they'd just leave EVE.
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. |
murder one
Gallente
Death of Virtue
Vigilance Infinitas
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 06:08:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Curzon Dax
Originally by: murder one
Let's begin by establishing that Eve is a PVP centric game. That is, it's sole purpose for existance is PVP.
Well, since your first assumption is quite flawed, the rest of your argument is based on a faulty principle. Eve is FOCUSED around PvP, but no solely dedicated to it.
COUNTERSTIKE, Quake, and any other first person shooter is solely dedicated to PvP. Eve is not an FPS.
You are completely wrong. Eve is indeed a PVP centric game. It is 100% focused on PVP. That is it's *main intent*. If it were otherwise, it's game structure would look more like WoW.
My suggestions do *not* remove PVE at all. I simply suggest removing missions. PVE would still be plentiful and profitable. People seem to be ignoring the post entirely and responding only to the thread title.
Allow me to clarify: the ISK stream that is missions would be *replaced* by encounter (exploration) style NPC content and improved exploration style mining.
You would still be able to generate the same ISK/hour as you would running missions or whatever else you're doing, but you would now simply do it through different game design. No longer would players be able to simply have missions handed to them to farm endlessly in high sec space.
Dynamic content that players have to compete for is a much better solution for player income than static content (complexes as they are now) or player-specific encounters spawned on a per-player basis as needed by the player.
There is *zero* PVP in missions. Even complexes and exploration content have PVP in their design because multiple players compete for the content, regardless of the security status.
Even MINING is more PVP than missions. Missions are detrimental to Eve for a myriad of reasons: it screws up the economy (generates huge amounts of ISK without any real degree of removal, thereby creating unneeded inflation), stresses the server cluster (stop by motsu and see how lagged it is), etc. etc.
Missions (as they are now) are completely devoid of any PVP principle or concept and don't fit guiding principle of Eve: PVP.
Because I said so...
|
Derovius Vaden
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 06:10:00 -
[22]
Just off the top of my head:
THERE WOULD BE NO MORE INVENTION, AND THE MICROSOFT MONOP... I mean, BPO MONOPOLY WILL ONCE AGAIN OWNZ T2!
|
murder one
Gallente
Death of Virtue
Vigilance Infinitas
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 06:16:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Mecinia Lua
Bad idea really.
You'd lose to many subscriptions to be viable economically to make such a change.
There are also some game mechanics that are based upon mission running. For instance Jump Clones require a standing of 8.0 with the NPC corp owning the station. Another example is that you need approximately a 6.66 standing to remove the refining tax.
If you remove mission running, you also remove an activity a casual gamer can get into immediately. That means fewer casual gamers playing, and thus more problems.
In all removing missions would hurt EVE more than it would help. I assume you are hoping more folks would leave empire but they wouldn't, they'd just leave EVE.
I think it's really obvious that if missions were removed as we know them, small details like standing requirements derived from mission running of course have to be refined in order to accommodate such a thing.
High security systems with exploration style belts and NPCing (ratting?) would be the obvious first step/choice for the new players. New players would have absolutely zero problem getting started in Eve without missions. NPCs similar to agents could very easily be adapted to help direct players to the new content of exploration style NPCs and mining etc.
FFS people. *Someone* -PLEASE- give me a valid arguement as to why removing missions as they are now would be a bad idea. So far all I've heard is "people would leave". Quite frankly I don't think that the overall subscription numbers would be reduced if you compared the annual numbers two to three months after the change was initiated.
Sure, some may leave at the beginning, but I'd bet that the population would stabilize and return to normal in only 2-3 months, and that's probably worst case.
Eve should focus on what it does best: PVP, and refine and support that design in all aspects of the game. Eve's market is PVP, not PVE. There are already far too many PVE MMOs out there, and Eve can't compete in that market. PVP is Eve's niche. It should be focused on that.
Because I said so...
|
ArmyOfMe
Exotic Dancers Club
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 06:18:00 -
[24]
Do you really feel that 0,0 needs more blobs?
Cause thats what would happen if you forced ppl out of empire like that
|
murder one
Gallente
Death of Virtue
Vigilance Infinitas
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 06:20:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Just off the top of my head:
THERE WOULD BE NO MORE INVENTION, AND THE MICROSOFT MONOP... I mean, BPO MONOPOLY WILL ONCE AGAIN OWNZ T2!
How would there be no more invention? Simply re-design the invention requirements so as not require (or require in a different way) LP and research agents etc.
Research agents *are not* the same as typical mission agents. You people need to stop the narrow minded thinking and stop assuming that if missions were removed that nothing else would be changed/added. Of course a few game design elements would have to be altered to accommodate such a change. Research agents among them.
Because I said so...
|
ArmyOfMe
Exotic Dancers Club
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 06:32:00 -
[26]
Edited by: ArmyOfMe on 10/05/2007 06:28:55
Originally by: murder one
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Just off the top of my head:
THERE WOULD BE NO MORE INVENTION, AND THE MICROSOFT MONOP... I mean, BPO MONOPOLY WILL ONCE AGAIN OWNZ T2!
How would there be no more invention? Simply re-design the invention requirements so as not require (or require in a different way) LP and research agents etc.
Research agents *are not* the same as typical mission agents. You people need to stop the narrow minded thinking and stop assuming that if missions were removed that nothing else would be changed/added. Of course a few game design elements would have to be altered to accommodate such a change. Research agents among them.
You still need the best named modules to get the best possible chance of success in invention. And if those modules became harder to come by the price on the invented stuff will go up again
|
murder one
Gallente
Death of Virtue
Vigilance Infinitas
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 06:35:00 -
[27]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
Edited by: ArmyOfMe on 10/05/2007 06:28:55
Originally by: murder one
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Just off the top of my head:
THERE WOULD BE NO MORE INVENTION, AND THE MICROSOFT MONOP... I mean, BPO MONOPOLY WILL ONCE AGAIN OWNZ T2!
How would there be no more invention? Simply re-design the invention requirements so as not require (or require in a different way) LP and research agents etc.
Research agents *are not* the same as typical mission agents. You people need to stop the narrow minded thinking and stop assuming that if missions were removed that nothing else would be changed/added. Of course a few game design elements would have to be altered to accommodate such a change. Research agents among them.
You still need the best named modules to get the best possible chance of success in invention. And if those modules became harder to come by the price on the invented stuff will go up again
How so? The total drop rates of named modules will obviously be adjusted to continue to meet the current drop rate.
You get a 1 out of 10 for creativity. Try again.
Because I said so...
|
Dangerously Cheesey
Anqara Expeditions
The OSS
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 06:39:00 -
[28]
Originally by: murder one
Let's begin by establishing that Eve is a PVP centric game. That is, it's sole purpose for existance is PVP.
Well theres your problem. Your assumption that eve is ALL about pvp is, quite simply, incorrect. I know plenty of people who get the majority of their enjoyment in game from non-pvp activities such as manufacturing and mining, trade and mission running. Your starting off with a faulty premise that many, many people would disagree with.
|
Blue Pixie
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 07:25:00 -
[29]
What if... murder one learned to accept CCP's game as they designed it?
Just what problem are you trying to solve here?
If you replace static belts and missions with exploration... AND make it equally as profitable... what's the difference? Okay, so you screw over new players and those who haven't trained up probe skills... temporarily. Then what?
If there's still a profit to be made in Empire, people will continue to play there. How's that increasing the PvP-centric ideal you're so obsessed with?
And if your ultimate goal is to eliminate profit from Empire, why not just cut to the punch and eliminate Empire?
I think you're trying too hard to be clever. You get a 3 out of 10 on the troll scale. Keep trying.
Because I said so...
|
Tanaka Nari
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 07:28:00 -
[30]
@OP: nope
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |