These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

[Discussion] Bridging the PVE/PVP gap (winter exp?)

Author
Draqone an'Alreigh
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2013-05-07 11:26:54 UTC
Give us special missions we can freely decline every 3 normal missions where you would ask us to use Logi, scrams a certain ship or a certain kind of ammo. There already are missions like this in tutorials so it IS possible and wouldn't take that much development.

Basically:

1) Improve NPC AI in all missions
2) Give us some bonus missions with
- NPC companions that we can rep/create logi chains with/boost
- NPC enemies that require a certain trick to kill

Inducing the proliferation of common sense throughout EVE Official forums since April 27th, 2013.

Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#22 - 2013-05-07 11:52:48 UTC
Good post EVE definitely needs this. Low sec will be lost cause if something is not done.
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#23 - 2013-05-11 03:49:22 UTC
Friday night bump.
Orion Wolff
Fukushima Industries
#24 - 2013-05-11 13:26:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Orion Wolff
Claire Raynor wrote:
Missions will get an overhaul soon. I really beleive that. I also think Ines Tegator's ideas will be a part of this.

I beleive that NPC's need to have the stats of actual ships. I beleive that they should drop loot like actual ships. That they should have cap and be able to be neuted out. I beleive that they should have the attributes of actual ships.

Now the "Easy" isk farming - I beleive that this could be mitigated, (at least as much as it is now), by the NPCs being setup by the devs to come at you in nasty ways. Tacklers, DPS, EWar, Reppers. Making spawns do their jobs as people have setup existing doctrines would work. Especially if enemies would make an attempt to warp away if they get too battered.

Going up against NPCs who will do these things will also help carebears like me get used to using neuts, to understanding more about the mechanics of small gang conflict, etc, (Maybe).



I like the idea of bringing PvE and PvP together, but due to cap usage, 1v1 or small fleet PvE'ing being like PvP will bring drones out front, and would increase the usage of autocannons due to cap usage of EWar. I'm a fan of changes, but keep in mind how its going to effect the different racial doctrines. Hybrids would all but die off. And while this is off the subject, active armor tanking needs dire help. Active shield tanking is so far superior it's absurd. A Maelstrom would take multiple Hyperion's with it's active tank. I don't want nerf, I want buff.
Asmodai Xodai
#25 - 2013-05-11 14:22:39 UTC
Don't know if this was already proposed (didn't read the whole thread), but one idea would be to actually put PvP inside PvE. Maybe create some special wormhole thing which people could fly into. It would then spew you out into an area where PvE is being conducted, and you would essentially be like an NPC rat to the player doing the PvE. Players could attack players with impunity, of course (no Concord intervention).

The system could be set up to examine your ship and throw you into an appropriate area, i.e. if you've got some blinged-out battleship you wouldn't be thrown into some guy's level 1 mission.

An alternative would be that you are only allowed to fly your CAPSULE into the special wormhole thingy. It would then stick you into the appropriate NPC rat ship when it spit you out on the other side, complete with appropriate modules. My guess is, lots of folks would be interested in doing this sort of thing.

This could all be summed up as "Yo dog, I heard you like PvP, so I put PvP in your PvE so you could...."
Xavier Thorm
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#26 - 2013-05-11 14:32:15 UTC
Some relatively simple changes to make PvE "more like PvP" in a good way.

1). The "silence the informer" type missions where your goal is to go kill a specific guy could have relatively weak NPCs other than your particular target, and have that target actually warp off if you don't chase him down and scram him quickly.

2). Have fewer missions force you to kill every NPC in an area, and instead make the target a building (there's almost always buindings in that type of mission). Alternatively, make the goal "clear this area out" and have the NPCs warp out (thus triggering mission success) if you are slaughtering them.

3). For nullsec, have less NPCs overall, but more faction/officer spawns (yes I know this would lower the value of their loot) and also have those spawn move around and try to avoid dying. Possible alternative/addendum. Remove bounties for officers/faction spawns (or even all NPCs) and give them a drop like tags or personal effects that must be collected and sold to CONCORD or the Empires (or enemy pirate factions).
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#27 - 2013-05-11 18:08:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ines Tegator
Orion Wolff wrote:

I like the idea of bringing PvE and PvP together, but due to cap usage, 1v1 or small fleet PvE'ing being like PvP will bring drones out front, and would increase the usage of autocannons due to cap usage of EWar. I'm a fan of changes, but keep in mind how its going to effect the different racial doctrines. Hybrids would all but die off. And while this is off the subject, active armor tanking needs dire help. Active shield tanking is so far superior it's absurd. A Maelstrom would take multiple Hyperion's with it's active tank. I don't want nerf, I want buff.


All of that is true, but I want to clarify the main point. A pilot who is engaged in the midst of a mission will be at a severe disadvantage. That's not new and not going to change. Remember, the idea isn't necessarily to promote pvp within missions (that's what FW is for); the idea is make PVE ship fittings and PVP ship fittings more closely match. If a ninja looter shows up to bait, or a mission leads to lowsec and they meet on a gate, or their corp is at war, this would give the missioner a choice to engage. Currently, their choices are run or die.

Once this choice is available, a pile of lowsec play becomes possible. Solo mission runners would be able to isk efficiently in lowsec, without risking billions of isk in shiny ships, and groups or corps could even form up. Picture a lowsec roam finding a trio of mission runners heading home (say, two BC and a logi) and instead of safe-ing up, the missioners turn and battle. Miner escorts can run anomalies or missions while waiting, and leap into action when hostiles show up instead of sitting around bored to death while other people isk. Not everyone WILL do this of course, but without the option to do so, lowsec will remain dead except for the handful of pirates and ninja probers currently there. Once this gap is closed, a revamp of lowsec gameplay can be realistically tackled.
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#28 - 2013-05-15 20:12:08 UTC
Suzuka A1
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#29 - 2013-05-17 05:44:13 UTC
Ines Tegator wrote:

-Make missions smaller, with fewer, stronger enemies.
-Stop giving NPC's huge advantages (150km Stasis Towers, etc), so that the counter-strategies that work vs NPC are the same strategies that work vs Players.


I agree with these suggestions and I personally think some missions should require 3-5 people to complete (they could even throw in a warning in the mission description so all the solo-ers wont die painful deaths). After all EVE is an MMO.

Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H  What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626

Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#30 - 2013-05-17 05:52:46 UTC
Ines Tegator wrote:
Friday night bump.


Your character looks so much like my ex wife, it's disturbing. Minus the facial tattoo's, of course.


On an aside, the upcoming release for hacking sites which reward a single player well, but also reward several players simultaneously, is a step in the right direction in my eyes.

I'm specifically referencing Ines Tegator's comment earlier, about smaller missions and more players.

CCP obviously sees the hindrance of rewarding multiple characters in a 'more is better' way, as by adding content which must be accessed simultaneously, your removing the capability of one player = multiple accounts from the equation.

I wish this would also reflect in missions and other content, though. All in all, most of CCP's additions have been along the breadth of 'if one can do it, two can do it better'. But they haven't really rewarded simultaneous teamwork yet.

Because if one character can do it, as all playstyles currently stand, two or three characters from different accounts (all multi-boxed, of course) can do it better.

I hope CCP further adds a difference between players and characters in future updates, without taking away from current capabilities to do so.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?

Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#31 - 2013-05-31 20:46:52 UTC
Long time no bump.
Korah Arnelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2013-05-31 20:59:46 UTC
Draqone an'Alreigh wrote:
Give us special missions we can freely decline every 3 normal missions where you would ask us to use Logi, scrams a certain ship or a certain kind of ammo. There already are missions like this in tutorials so it IS possible and wouldn't take that much development.

Basically:

1) Improve NPC AI in all missions
2) Give us some bonus missions with
- NPC companions that we can rep/create logi chains with/boost
- NPC enemies that require a certain trick to kill



Pretty much this, plz. Seriously. If Eve is "Real" then why the hell aren't the NPCs doing their own thing? It always bugged me that game developers refuse to make complex or subtle AI mechanics. It's like a bane to them, but in reality for the most part it's just a glorified FSM with maybe a stack to make it into a PDA. Don't worry about the acronyms there if you don't have a compsci degree. Just know that those terms go back to the 1950s/60s during the genesis of modern computing. So, that means the essential concepts are already there, it's just programmers (game devs as well) are too damn lazy to use them. It was hard enough to get programmers to create GUIs, packet-switched networking, and etc. I swear at this rate we'll have self-driving cars when the universe has expended its last bit of hydrogen as stars. /rant
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#33 - 2013-06-15 18:35:28 UTC
Post-Odyssey bump.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#34 - 2013-06-16 01:44:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
I see you frequently on the help chat channel and have grown to respect your opinions and consider you after Keith and Azmorian the most helpful person in the help channel, that being said....

There is a belief that everyone that plays EVE is someday dreaming of pvp fame and fortune, I am here to set the record straight there are many of us that NEVER want to pvp, not today, not tomorrow, not 10yrs from now if we are still playing.

With that in mind, changing the game to suit the pew, pew crowd (a general slide the game has already been taking a long time as far as i can tell) does nothing but hurt those of us only interested in pve.

We DON"T want low/nullsec and we would like our pve missions left as pve challenges. Let those interested in PVP go to the RvB crowd and learn as so many have before, there really is no substitute for learning pvp from real players and destroying pve to meet a pvp goal is selfish.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#35 - 2013-06-16 17:43:45 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
*snip for space*


Thanks for the vote of confidence, and you bring up a good point I hadn't considered.

The change is not intended to make missions PVP style (although some of that is required), but simply to make PVP FITTED SHIPS viable mission runners. Emphasis on viable. A PVE specialized ship would still be optimal, and theres no way to change that because people will discover what optimal is and adapt to it. There are two goals that I hope to accomplish with this change: to make missions more fun (face it, they are boring and predictable; and they are not a challenge), and more importantly, to pave the way for changes to low and/or nullsec. Changes that, I hope, would allow PVE people to live there. EVE is a pvp game- whether you're pew pewing, competing on the market, or dodging people that are hunting you while you make piles of isk, everything in EVE involves dealing with other players trying to achieve their own goals at your expense. This is the first change in what I hope will be a world-opening revamp of lowsec, turning it into a space with a robust community (PVE and PVP) living there, instead of the handful of pirates circle jerking to each other's killboards that it's limited to now. (see this thread for a discussion of this).

I don't want to see missions moved away from a PVE focus, or from a solo focus. These are important gameplay areas that need to be preserved. Want I want is simply to see the gap between PVE fittings and PVP ship fittings become smaller. The gameplay that is opened up by this change is immense, for both PVE and PVP players, and that's what it's meant for. As a gateway to greater things. Also, missions are boring, and due for an overhaul anyway. This is the ideal time to get started.


PS. I'm going to be unsubbed for a while due to RL. If someone would bump this thread once a week or so for the rest of the month I'd appreciate it.
Praxis Ginimic
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2013-06-16 21:18:45 UTC
Instead of making missions "like" pvp why not actually make them pvp?

I want to see a new set of agents. PvP agents!
When you accept a mission some one else is accepting your anti-mission. Both pilots are sent to the same mission pocket to retrieve the same object (or whatever) and have to duke it out then race back home before their opponent reships.

Maybe one pilot is sent out to defend a convoy while the other must destroy it.

Even better, once you start to accept "PvP missions" others can be sent to your current location on assassination mission.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#37 - 2013-06-16 23:12:31 UTC
Xavier Thorm wrote:
Some relatively simple changes to make PvE "more like PvP" in a good way.

1). The "silence the informer" type missions where your goal is to go kill a specific guy could have relatively weak NPCs other than your particular target, and have that target actually warp off if you don't chase him down and scram him quickly.

2). Have fewer missions force you to kill every NPC in an area, and instead make the target a building (there's almost always buindings in that type of mission). Alternatively, make the goal "clear this area out" and have the NPCs warp out (thus triggering mission success) if you are slaughtering them.

3). For nullsec, have less NPCs overall, but more faction/officer spawns (yes I know this would lower the value of their loot) and also have those spawn move around and try to avoid dying. Possible alternative/addendum. Remove bounties for officers/faction spawns (or even all NPCs) and give them a drop like tags or personal effects that must be collected and sold to CONCORD or the Empires (or enemy pirate factions).



1. You are tyhing down the servers with missions now generating 2 or more times the amount of deadspace. Your rats exists in that space because that is where ccp is staging them. For them to leave they need a new deadspace. Belts rats have this feature becasue thier code says if player A is taking too long to kill them, go to belt n+1. They have code to hit belts only.

The answer is not probing them down to not have more deadspace. If zor was to leave the mission room and hide out somewhere else in system you are now probing down every raven in system and hitting each contact. There is already a careeer in eve that does this...its called being a vulture/ninjya loot and salvager. Its already fun dealing with them. having 5 people land in your deadspace over times and saying "oops, sorry, I am looking for my run away zor" would be needlessly annoying.


2. Exists in game already. Lots of mssions can be blitzed by the wise choice of killing only certian rats and or raiding certian buildings. I can do blockade in minutes flat for example. I only hit trigger rats, speed tank the rest of the ships until I get the final trigger rat and pop him then leave. This teaches 2 things. To counter damps you have to close to where you cna actually target a ship. And bring the right tool for the job. Hac/ t3//pve spec CS/BC can speed tank this mission and close to kill faster. A bs moving slow as hell a poor choice against damps...its a no crapper they take forever to run this mission.



3. Officer spawns already try to run away. If you take too long to kill them they fly off and disappear. And why would loss of bounty and use of tags be a good thing? They already drop tags...and they can be worthless. I have an officer tag from an officer kill. I guess no love for raysere....the tag i got from him is worth crap isk.
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#38 - 2013-06-17 03:33:25 UTC
Praxis Ginimic wrote:
Instead of making missions "like" pvp why not actually make them pvp?

I want to see a new set of agents. PvP agents!
When you accept a mission some one else is accepting your anti-mission. Both pilots are sent to the same mission pocket to retrieve the same object (or whatever) and have to duke it out then race back home before their opponent reships.

Maybe one pilot is sent out to defend a convoy while the other must destroy it.

Even better, once you start to accept "PvP missions" others can be sent to your current location on assassination mission.


This already exists, more or less. It's called Faction Warfare.
Dr Ted Kaper
Arondight
#39 - 2013-06-17 03:42:02 UTC
Gimme more Cynos wrote:
I like how missions are. A relaxing activity to make ISK.

Instead of a questionable improvement to solo-able missions, I would rather like to see new group activities for small gangs (2-4 ships).

Let's let mining and industry be relaxing, if your gonna shoot something it should be a little less relaxing than mining a rock. As for non soloable missions perhaps lvl 5s can be moved.to hi sec: without a carrier it requires teamwork
Dr Ted Kaper
Arondight
#40 - 2013-06-17 04:14:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Dr Ted Kaper
Ines Tegator wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
*snip for space*


Thanks for the vote of confidence, and you bring up a good point I hadn't considered.

The change is not intended to make missions PVP style (although some of that is required), but simply to make PVP FITTED SHIPS viable mission runners. Emphasis on viable. A PVE specialized ship would still be optimal, and theres no way to change that because people will discover what optimal is and adapt to it. There are two goals that I hope to accomplish with this change: to make missions more fun (face it, they are boring and predictable; and they are not a challenge), and more importantly, to pave the way for changes to low and/or nullsec. Changes that, I hope, would allow PVE people to live there. EVE is a pvp game- whether you're pew pewing, competing on the market, or dodging people that are hunting you while you make piles of isk, everything in EVE involves dealing with other players trying to achieve their own goals at your expense. This is the first change in what I hope will be a world-opening revamp of lowsec, turning it into a space with a robust community (PVE and PVP) living there, instead of the handful of pirates circle jerking to each other's killboards that it's limited to now. (see this thread for a discussion of this).

I don't want to see missions moved away from a PVE focus, or from a solo focus. These are important gameplay areas that need to be preserved. Want I want is simply to see the gap between PVE fittings and PVP ship fittings become smaller. The gameplay that is opened up by this change is immense, for both PVE and PVP players, and that's what it's meant for. As a gateway to greater things. Also, missions are boring, and due for an overhaul anyway. This is the ideal time to get started.


PS. I'm going to be unsubbed for a while due to RL. If someone would bump this thread once a week or so for the rest of the month I'd appreciate it.


This could devalue a number of items and even make some ships and items obsolete. Also this walks a fine line of seriously disrupting the difference between exploration, missions, pvp, etc. If missions are unpredictable than what is exploration? Also at this point in the game almost everything is predictable given enough research into a topic, only emergent gameplay is unpredictable. Ultimatley this would be a change that takes a lot of planning because there are many strings attached

Edit: Details and all the potential issues aside I like the idea...

Edit 2: perhaps missions are fine... Just change exploration PvE and make that stuff more like the type of missions described
Previous page123Next page