These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

On the Role of NPCs
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Solo Player
#1 - 2011-10-29 15:51:56 UTC
In a recent dev blog, CCP Omen wrote:

Quote:
EVE Online should not be about bowing to NPC authority, it should be about player-to-player interactions and making the Customs Offices player owned is honoring that tradition.


Now I'm aware that this is taken out of context, but has me concerned to no end. I don't know if this is an official dogma of future EVE design or just a single CCP employees personal opinion?

On the surface this sure sounds good. After all, who wants to bow to anyone, right? And everything should indeed be in the hands of the players, not CCP's story writers...

...except that this has never been the case. CCP had set the rules and changes them much as they please (little player interaction there). Four huge NPC empires take up the center of the EVE cluster and enforce their rules (not much player interaction there...). The universe has a detailed backstory and hundreds of well-loved chronicles describing the setting. A somewhat half-baked feature called "Factional Warfare" exists whose factions are exclusively NPC controlled, while a large proportion of players earn their livelyhood completing NPC-ordained missions.

Like it or not, NPC authorities are an integral part of EVE's universe, and it wouldn't be an improvement if they were to go. Sure, we'd be left with a truer sandbox, but it would be just that, a box of sand players could fool around in, yet never build anything to last, just sand devoid of colour or flavour. Players might build pretty sand castles, but left to their own devices, it is questionable how if they ever achieve anything truly meaningful.

Once you accept the importance of NPCs in the game, it follows that you do them well. Committing to excellence and all that. Make them interesting. Make them reactive and dynamic. Make them plausible. Make them smart. EVE'll be a better game for it.

Some examples: give rats sleeper AI; have Pend act as any insurance would; allow us to interact with NPC factional or planetary economies for fun and profit; let empires defend their strategic interests; make pirates learn from being massacred, regroup and retaliate.

This takes nothing away from the players - it merely puts our actions within a more interesting setting, adding meaning and consequence where there'd only be arbitrariness.

TL:DR:
CCP, you created great empires among the stars. Let it not have been in vain. I'd really like to hear you elaborate on Omen's statement.
Veronica Kerrigan
Surgically Constructed L Feminist
#2 - 2011-10-29 17:24:50 UTC
What they are removing is NPC interaction where there is no faction controlling the space. The customs offices will still be in place in Empire, being monitored by NPCs and CONCORD, however, in the places where CONCORD has trouble operating, such as lowsec, or where they have no presence, WH and null, they will properly withdraw their vulnerable assets
Thebriwan
LUX Uls Xystus
#3 - 2011-10-29 17:44:15 UTC
NPC should govern the High-Sec and be there and then involved in Low. But not in 0.0. To put the customs offices in player hands outside of High-Sec is the very right thing to do. AND it opens the path to Dust ...
Solo Player
#4 - 2011-10-30 05:52:09 UTC
Thebriwan wrote:
NPC should govern the High-Sec and be there and then involved in Low. But not in 0.0. To put the customs offices in player hands outside of High-Sec is the very right thing to do. AND it opens the path to Dust ...


But low sec IS empire space. Why they would just hand over and important part of planetary control and an income source to boot to fickle, unscrupulous, notoriously disloyal capsuleers is beyond me. They might lease out the privilege of tariffing to loyal capsuleers of high standing for a steep fee and part of the proceedings, but then the gameplay mechanic would need to reflect that. If there were no takers, they would certainly leave their own installation in place, and so should they if the ability for corps to restrict access to their POCO remains. Again, it simply wouldn't make any sense to just hand over that much power to capsuleers, as they could effectively throttle planetary economies*.

Don't tell me it makes sense "because it's fun for players", because I think most of us will never get to use that feature, and those who care for lore will have (even) less fun for it.

(*speaking of which, I would really like there to BE planetary economies in the first place, with planetary populations being represented in some way and having some sort of supply and demand and a dynamic local "planetary market" supplied by NPC convoys and trader-type players)
Gingys Han
EVE Research
#5 - 2011-10-30 14:11:45 UTC
All offices should be conquerable from NPC and when they exit reinforcement in 0.1 - 0.4 space a COCORD fleet should be there to defent it and players within range with positive standing and no pirateing activity should be notified with a special mission to join forces. If they lose it then it can be replaced with a player owned office and from time to time CONCORD should try to gain control over it again informing players with that special mission.

The reward should be LP points or standing towards the faction that sent out the troops.

That would be more fair IMHO.