| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
22
   |
Posted - 2012.01.22 13:10:00 -
[91] - Quote
Professor Humbert wrote:Almost all activities in EVE have some element of competition; anomalies, mining high-end minerals, moonmining, securing a public copy slot, etc etc. Even trading in a small scale has fierce competition among the users.
These competitive elements lead to user conflicts, be it a direct shootout or just a matter of who can be online longer... These conflicts make EVE what it is.
However, missioning is the only activity that lacks any competitive element.
Currently all missions are handed out instantaneously when you ask an agent, leading to the unlimited resource issue OP mentioned.
How about if we change the mission system into public biddings?
For example:
An agent lists X number of his/her missions (along with the infos on the mission type, location, max. available reward budget, time limit, bonus reward, etc) every Y minutes open for Z minutes.
When the bid is closed, the pilot who submitted the lowest reward gets the mission.
What if instead of tracking all the lowest bids, you simply have the system we have going now, but making missions slowly less lucrative coupled with an increasing delay between offers.
To compensate, you add a feature where a player can always ask the agent "Hey man, have you heard of some more lucrative work in your corp?" to which the agent can then take a few minutes and send a mail with 3-5 better quality agents within that respective corporation.
It only makes sense they would know where the work is considering they are in that corporation!
I feel that's a feature that has been missing in EVE for a long time - agents referring you to better quality ones based on availability.
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
52
|
Posted - 2012.01.22 16:54:00 -
[92] - Quote
You should consider that those players who run missions are to a great extend people that worked the last 8-10 hours and are now relaxing, by shooting some npc in their full blown CNR..
What other soloable, anytime, anywhere content is there in eve that doesn't increase your stress level, but instead rewards you with some exploding pixels for pushing some buttons?
I don't think CCP has got this group of players in their books when they design stuff.. and I'd bet that approx 30-40% of the playerbase are exactly such players.. |
Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
509
|
Posted - 2012.01.22 16:57:00 -
[93] - Quote
I *really* like the idea, but this is such a complete overhaul of how null works that it could easily break more things than it fixes when implemented. |
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
26
|
Posted - 2012.01.22 20:13:00 -
[94] - Quote
Tres Farmer wrote:You should consider that those players who run missions are to a great extend people that worked the last 8-10 hours and are now relaxing, by shooting some npc in their full blown CNR..
What other soloable, anytime, anywhere content is there in eve that doesn't increase your stress level, but instead rewards you with some exploding pixels for pushing some buttons?
I don't think CCP has got this group of players in their books when they design stuff.. and I'd bet that approx 30-40% of the playerbase are exactly such players..
When we consider changes to income will be noticeable over a year or so, I doubt it will affect the casual players much more than relocating every once in a while around a general HQ. Not only that, but they will already get suggestions on where to relocate for better income if they so wish. Some might even get better rewards over time by already being in systems that are underfarmed. On another note, should balance really be based off "casual players" even if they compromise a significant portion of the playerbase? Casual players are just as likely to sub only 6 months during a year, just something to consider. Modelling the game for those who actively play the game seems more logical to me.
Akirei Scytale wrote:I *really* like the idea, but this is such a complete overhaul of how null works that it could easily break more things than it fixes when implemented.
Hence the discussion  - I will post actual changes proposed in a features and ideas thread if I we manage to tackle pretty much every aspect of EVE that would be affected. It would however certainly be a challenge to implement properly, relying rather on gross values and averages rather than every single digit being taken into the equation. The simpler the system the easier to program and observe. |
Hainnz
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
60
|
Posted - 2012.01.22 20:23:00 -
[95] - Quote
Thor Kerrigan wrote:Casual players are just as likely to sub only 6 months during a year, just something to consider.
Casual MMORPG gamers are a pretty hard core bunch, considering. We ain't talking Angry Birds here. :)
I think casual players generally just want a fair shake, and the feeling that the game is being designed with them in mind too. If they feel like they have nothing fun or "worthwhile" to do (in the game environment), they *will* move on, usually.
|
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
56
|
Posted - 2012.01.22 22:21:00 -
[96] - Quote
Mara Tessidar wrote:Even CCP, whose grasp of economics can be likened to that of a two-year-old holding on to a sippy cup...
If CCP's grasp of economics is this bad then what does that say about other MMO developers. I wonder if they are even aware of the concept... |
Professor Humbert
Project Fruit House
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 11:44:00 -
[97] - Quote
Thor Kerrigan wrote:Professor Humbert wrote:Almost all activities in EVE have some element of competition; anomalies, mining high-end minerals, moonmining, securing a public copy slot, etc etc. Even trading in a small scale has fierce competition among the users.
These competitive elements lead to user conflicts, be it a direct shootout or just a matter of who can be online longer... These conflicts make EVE what it is.
However, missioning is the only activity that lacks any competitive element.
Currently all missions are handed out instantaneously when you ask an agent, leading to the unlimited resource issue OP mentioned.
How about if we change the mission system into public biddings?
For example:
An agent lists X number of his/her missions (along with the infos on the mission type, location, max. available reward budget, time limit, bonus reward, etc) every Y minutes open for Z minutes.
When the bid is closed, the pilot who submitted the lowest reward gets the mission.
What if instead of tracking all the lowest bids, you simply have the system we have going now, but making missions slowly less lucrative coupled with an increasing delay between offers. To compensate, you add a feature where a player can always ask the agent "Hey man, have you heard of some more lucrative work in your corp?" to which the agent can then take a few minutes and send a mail with 3-5 better quality agents within that respective corporation. It only makes sense they would know where the work is considering they are in that corporation! I feel that's a feature that has been missing in EVE for a long time - agents referring you to better quality ones based on availability.
Well, I thought if there are too many pilots bidding for the same mission the reward will be so meaningless that people will be forced either to disperse across the universe or look for other profitable activities, making the in-game life more dynamic.
Also, this could motivate corps and alliances to keep their favorite agents out of reach from other pilots, be it simple gate/station camping in null/low secs or wardeck fest in highsecs.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt
Broken Toys
9
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 11:53:00 -
[98] - Quote
We already have limited resources in some areas of gameplay with max possible yields over time or in absolute quantity "written in stone". For example, T2 BPO's, Moon Minerals - neither of which is particularly good implementation in my opinion.
Moon minerals are most similar to your proposal.
I do not like your proposal.
Systems implemented in EVE should scale reasonably well and be sort of "self balancing". It is one thing to have dynamic true sec or "agent quality" (witch is sort of reasonable I guess) and entirely another can of forms having "hard cap" on the number of pilots EVE as a game can support. |
McRoll
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
26
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 13:27:00 -
[99] - Quote
I like the variable resource degradation approach. CCP kinda has implemented that in PI already, when you mine at the same spots on a planet for an amount of time, the yield decreases. It should be the same way with everything in Eve, for example when many capsuleers fly their missions in system x, the rat amount and their bounties should decrease and/or a new mission is avaiable only after x amount of time has passed. This forces players to either distrubute more equally around New Eden or to compete harder for resources.
The resources shouldnt deplete completely however. |
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
28
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 23:55:00 -
[100] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:We already have limited resources in some areas of gameplay with max possible yields over time or in absolute quantity "written in stone". For example, T2 BPO's, Moon Minerals - neither of which is particularly good implementation in my opinion.
Moon minerals are most similar to your proposal.
I do not like your proposal.
Systems implemented in EVE should scale reasonably well and be sort of "self balancing". It is one thing to have dynamic true sec or "agent quality" (witch is sort of reasonable I guess) and entirely another can of forms having "hard cap" on the number of pilots EVE as a game can support.
You don't seem to fully understand the concept of resource scarcity. I believe PI is most similar to what is being discussed - more people harvesting a resource in a area makes that resource more rare over time. A "soft cap", which is what most people seem to think would work best for EVE as it shifts areas of profit dynamically around the galaxy at a slow enough pace one can keep up. It's the kind of modularity associated with a fluctuating market rather than one-time only cosmos mission.
Moons (tech for example) are the exact case of how badly EVE needs resource scarcity imo. These moons being constantly drained should eventually yield less resources. I also know the CSM and CCP are looking at rebalancing r64 moons, something to keep in mind when faced with the tech bottleneck.
To state resource scarcity exists through "time investment" seems a little silly since everything is capped by "time investment", infinite or not. EVE already has hard caps: given a monstrous influx of players, it would be possible to deplete all static asteroid belts before downtime. Nodes could be at overcapacity everywhere. Those are the kinds of limits that bring nothing to gameplay value. Will resource scarcity make the game more dynamic by adding limits achievable within our lifetime? Yes. Will it reduce the hard cap of EVE players? Yes. Can CCP compensate by upgrading their servers and adding new content? Yes.
T2 BPO's are not a resource. They are a commodity like a limited-issue ship such as the Utu. One could almost consider blueprint copies as a resource, since it is consumed, but even then the ISK needed to produce them is the actual resource since it is the most basic element in the game needed to obtain them.
You may disagree with the concept, but you still have not presented a reason why the current system would be better. |
Jeveriah Zhuchowski
Open University of Celestial Hardship
Art of War Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 02:19:00 -
[101] - Quote
This thread is too big and long. Instead, I do a quick post-by, posting an idea that got rolling in my head when I read the first page a few days ago. Comments are welcome, but will likely not be read. :p
The resources in the game should be effectively unlimited... however, different skills should be required to "unlock" deeper deposits (much the way it is in the real world). For instance, you could take your mining skill to 5, and get all the usual benefits. However, the minerals players could get with this skill would be finite. But in addition to the usual benefits, mining 5 (along with maybe another skill?) would unlock the ability to create a skillbook: Tech 2 Mining.
The player that generated it could train it... but it would take an amount of time equivalent to learning a level six skill (not that such a thing exists... just extrapolate). However, in the hands of a player with no mining skills (new character?), they could learn Tech 2 mining 1 in the usual speed of the first level of a skill. They would have access to a whole new supply of minerals, unavailable to those who have only tech 1 mining.
This would simulate the turnover of generations, as the skills of old characters became obsolete, and young characters implement new methods to get at deeper/more difficult to extract deposits. New characters would, after a time allowing "early adopters" to have an advantage, be automatically given the new skill, rather than the old one... giving new players a small advantage.
Come to think of it, I'd love to play an EVElike game with a slow rolling CIV or MOOlike tech tree that gradually unfolded over the course of years. |
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
30
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 07:31:00 -
[102] - Quote
Professor Humbert wrote:Thor Kerrigan wrote:Professor Humbert wrote:Almost all activities in EVE have some element of competition; anomalies, mining high-end minerals, moonmining, securing a public copy slot, etc etc. Even trading in a small scale has fierce competition among the users.
These competitive elements lead to user conflicts, be it a direct shootout or just a matter of who can be online longer... These conflicts make EVE what it is.
However, missioning is the only activity that lacks any competitive element.
Currently all missions are handed out instantaneously when you ask an agent, leading to the unlimited resource issue OP mentioned.
How about if we change the mission system into public biddings?
For example:
An agent lists X number of his/her missions (along with the infos on the mission type, location, max. available reward budget, time limit, bonus reward, etc) every Y minutes open for Z minutes.
When the bid is closed, the pilot who submitted the lowest reward gets the mission.
What if instead of tracking all the lowest bids, you simply have the system we have going now, but making missions slowly less lucrative coupled with an increasing delay between offers. To compensate, you add a feature where a player can always ask the agent "Hey man, have you heard of some more lucrative work in your corp?" to which the agent can then take a few minutes and send a mail with 3-5 better quality agents within that respective corporation. It only makes sense they would know where the work is considering they are in that corporation! I feel that's a feature that has been missing in EVE for a long time - agents referring you to better quality ones based on availability. Well, I thought if there are too many pilots bidding for the same mission the reward will be so meaningless that people will be forced either to disperse across the universe or look for other profitable activities, making the in-game life more dynamic. Also, this could motivate corps and alliances to keep their favorite agents out of reach from other pilots, be it simple gate/station camping in null/low secs or wardeck fest in highsecs.
It seems too tedious for the cluster and for everyone involved to always function with a "auction for missions". Having the system automatically adjust itself based on supply/demand is probably easier to accomplish.
On a side note, your idea does however seem better suited for more unique missions such as storyline, escalations or epic arcs. "One-time only" missions with a high reward would appear in random stations (maybe a high-class citizen wanting a last-minute flight?) and using a mix of standings, sec status and lowest payout asked to determine the best candidate for the job. The name of said person could also appear to everyone involved making the task a tidy bit more challenging/risky to complete that mission knowing someone may be waiting for you to sabotage the mission (perhaps having himself been contacted by a rival association). The best such missions would be the equivalent of striking rich in a pirate plex final overseer/structure. A bit sidetracked from the main issue here but still, just some thoughts. |
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
37
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 00:07:00 -
[103] - Quote
I think it would be welcome to at least get CCP to play around with resource distribution after looking at stats every six months or so (during each expansion). Would truly contribute to an ever-changing universe.
|
JitaPriceChecker2
State War Academy
Caldari State
95
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 00:10:00 -
[104] - Quote
[quote=Thor Kerrigan]I came across a few posts on the forums referencing the concept of resource scarcity and thought it and entire pirate factions completely erased.
[\quote]
I would love this, and also ability for players to join pirate factions and protect them !! |
Degren
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
141
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 00:43:00 -
[105] - Quote
I approve this self-necromancy |
Leza Bo ManHater
Pyramid Celestial
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 00:48:00 -
[106] - Quote
eve isnt broken, stop trying to fix it |
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
41
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 08:58:00 -
[107] - Quote
Leza Bo ManHater wrote:eve isnt broken, stop trying to fix it
EVE isn't perfect either, stop trying to troll. |
Lord Dravius
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 10:55:00 -
[108] - Quote
They used to have much more limited resources. People cried and they doubled the asteroid spawn rate and added drone alloys. Now they're removing the drone alloys and I'm going "Told you so!". Hopefully they'll unbuff the roid spawn rate too now that mining is a thing again. What the OP is saying is pretty accurate. I used to mine back in beta because it was the only good way to make money. The rat bounties were pathetic and missions didn't exist yet. With the asteroid spawn rate we had at the time my corp would completely strip mine our little home system by the time the roids respawned. While we didn't have enough members to need a second system, we did PvP regularly to keep people out of the system we had so they couldn't take our arkanor. So from personal experience yeah resource scarcity does cause PvP. |
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 15:07:00 -
[109] - Quote
Lord Dravius wrote:They used to have much more limited resources. People cried and they doubled the asteroid spawn rate and added drone alloys. Now they're removing the drone alloys and I'm going "Told you so!". Hopefully they'll unbuff the roid spawn rate too now that mining is a thing again. What the OP is saying is pretty accurate. I used to mine back in beta because it was the only good way to make money. The rat bounties were pathetic and missions didn't exist yet. With the asteroid spawn rate we had at the time my corp would completely strip mine our little home system by the time the roids respawned. While we didn't have enough members to need a second system, we did PvP regularly to keep people out of the system we had so they couldn't take our arkanor. So from personal experience yeah resource scarcity does cause PvP.
It's good to have input from vets too as it can help to put things into perspective better. Resource scarcity would provide more justifiable reasons for PVP but it would also contribute to a more dynamic galaxy. When you can easily predict the outcome, the system tilts towards grinding and botting as opposed to opportunity and player choice. |
Lord Dravius
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 17:23:00 -
[110] - Quote
Thor Kerrigan wrote:Lord Dravius wrote:They used to have much more limited resources. People cried and they doubled the asteroid spawn rate and added drone alloys. Now they're removing the drone alloys and I'm going "Told you so!". Hopefully they'll unbuff the roid spawn rate too now that mining is a thing again. What the OP is saying is pretty accurate. I used to mine back in beta because it was the only good way to make money. The rat bounties were pathetic and missions didn't exist yet. With the asteroid spawn rate we had at the time my corp would completely strip mine our little home system by the time the roids respawned. While we didn't have enough members to need a second system, we did PvP regularly to keep people out of the system we had so they couldn't take our arkanor. So from personal experience yeah resource scarcity does cause PvP. It's good to have input from vets too as it can help to put things into perspective better. Resource scarcity would provide more justifiable reasons for PVP but it would also contribute to a more dynamic galaxy. When you can easily predict the outcome, the system tilts towards grinding and botting as opposed to opportunity and player choice.
I don't really care how dynamic the galaxy is. It would be nice if we had more reasons to fight though. One that I guess that would accomplish both would be sov systems changing hands more often. Why would they bother trying to take more though? The resources respawn fast anyway. I think they should also put a cap on how many rats spawn per week too. Give people an actual reason to want ever more space. |
Skydell
Space Mermaids
Somethin Awfull Forums
222
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 17:29:00 -
[111] - Quote
Why people don't PvP in EVE?
4 hrs to assemble a fleet, get everyone in an appropriate ship, fleeted, in the right wing and squad for bonus, in the right system.
bew, bew, bi-bip. Boom, you are dead, see you next week.
Shorter version, it isnt fun. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
435
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 17:31:00 -
[112] - Quote
Skydell wrote:Why people don't PvP in EVE?
4 hrs to assemble a fleet, get everyone in an appropriate ship, fleeted, in the right wing and squad for bonus, in the right system.
bew, bew, bi-bip. Boom, you are dead, see you next week.
Shorter version, it isnt fun.
I don't recall it taking that long. Maybe 30 mins depending n if there are enough people. A good system of comms/pre-announcing and a known set of fleet doctrines help a lot.
Take all the tech
Build all the titans
Drop all the POSes
Bees incoming, nerf ERRYTHING ERRYDAY |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
689
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 17:38:00 -
[113] - Quote
Perhaps a more effective resource scarcity would be to allow players to make claims, and there by deny others access. We have some of this with low sec POCOs, moons and POSes, but this does not extend to where the majority of players live, high sec.
Suppose that a corp could anchor a claim to a mining belt, and only members of that corp could get full use of it, any others mining there would get say 25% of normal yield. To remove a claim, one corp would war dec another and blow up their anchored claim marker(s). Allow POCOs in high sec as well - Even though this would cause something of a crash in PI prices, I suspect Dust is going to take care of that in the long run.
Could limit the number of claims/POCOs per corp by a skill on the CEO to something reasonable. Send a bill once a month to corps who have claims, something like one million ISK per claim.
Time is the only truly limited resource in Eve. Reducing the productivity of time and using that to drive conflict could provide for the sense of scarcity the OP has in mind. |
Adacia Calla
The Long Kiss Goodnight
23
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 17:43:00 -
[114] - Quote
@ OP
Player. Driven. Economy.
With the exception of PLEX, CCP cannot and will not 'devalue' an item.
Test signature....forum not applying settings :( |
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 18:11:00 -
[115] - Quote
Adacia Calla wrote:@ OP
Player. Driven. Economy.
With the exception of PLEX, CCP cannot and will not 'devalue' an item.
You either did not understand the thread or have no idea what you are talking about. Items are 100% driven by the value players are willing to pay for them. Some items are seeded by npc's at a fixed price, but we are not discussing that at all. We are discussing bounties and ore distrubution. |
Kengutsi Akira
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
423
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 18:12:00 -
[116] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Skydell wrote:Why people don't PvP in EVE?
4 hrs to assemble a fleet, get everyone in an appropriate ship, fleeted, in the right wing and squad for bonus, in the right system.
bew, bew, bi-bip. Boom, you are dead, see you next week.
Shorter version, it isnt fun. I don't recall it taking that long. Maybe 30 mins depending n if there are enough people. A good system of comms/pre-announcing and a known set of fleet doctrines help a lot.
that or blob vs your tiny fleet boom, see you next week
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1109909#post1109909
My stance on WiS
(updated) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
435
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 18:18:00 -
[117] - Quote
Kengutsi Akira wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Skydell wrote:Why people don't PvP in EVE?
4 hrs to assemble a fleet, get everyone in an appropriate ship, fleeted, in the right wing and squad for bonus, in the right system.
bew, bew, bi-bip. Boom, you are dead, see you next week.
Shorter version, it isnt fun. I don't recall it taking that long. Maybe 30 mins depending n if there are enough people. A good system of comms/pre-announcing and a known set of fleet doctrines help a lot. that or blob vs your tiny fleet boom, see you next week
No, that is about bringing a blob. Though we fill up fleets one at a time and send them out.
With mains in the staging system with a stack of drakes, for example, you can pretty quickly send out a couple of drake fleets. The problem with all undocking at once is you'll get TiDied, similar with jumping through gates too quickly.
Take all the tech
Build all the titans
Drop all the POSes
Bees incoming, nerf ERRYTHING ERRYDAY |
Lord Dravius
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 21:22:00 -
[118] - Quote
Skydell wrote:Why people don't PvP in EVE?
4 hrs to assemble a fleet, get everyone in an appropriate ship, fleeted, in the right wing and squad for bonus, in the right system.
bew, bew, bi-bip. Boom, you are dead, see you next week.
Shorter version, it isnt fun.
Which is exactly why I think we should have smaller alliances holding less space and that it should be easier for new alliances to claim sov. If it takes 4 hours to assemble a fleet you're either the most disorganized group in the history of gaming or you have more soldiers than the real navy. One thing that would really help is removing jump bridges. |
Paragon Renegade
Wyvern Operations
346
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 21:27:00 -
[119] - Quote
Secret option #3
Resources are quickly depleted in one area, and the game regenerates them in their original amounts somewhere else
The pie is a tautology |
betoli
Morior Invictus.
KRYSIS.
22
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 21:58:00 -
[120] - Quote
McRoll wrote:I like the variable resource degradation approach. CCP kinda has implemented that in PI already, when you mine at the same spots on a planet for an amount of time, the yield decreases. It should be the same way with everything in Eve, for example when many capsuleers fly their missions in system x, the rat amount and their bounties should decrease and/or a new mission is avaiable only after x amount of time has passed. This forces players to either distrubute more equally around New Eden or to compete harder for resources.
The resources shouldnt deplete completely however.
This sort of.
One might imagine that concord has a fixed budget per system for bounties. The budget is topped up every hour. Each rat rather than having a fixed bounty has a weight (F) on a scale 1-100, and the payout is available budget * constant * F
Compute the budget and constant from the current ratting rates and payouts for each system. Without population migration this should maintain - roughly - the status quo of isk income for each player.
Compared to the starting values;
If the system is under ratted, then the budget will grow, and the system becomes more profitable per player per rat
If the system is over ratted, then the budget will deplete, and the system becomes less profitable per player per rat
You can then tune the budget (creating a cap on the isk faucet) and the constant to drive competition as desired....
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |