These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page12
 

How to buff 0.0 PVE: Havens & Sanctums
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#21 - 2014-02-18 20:17:15 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
im hesitant to agree with the increased payouts of null, not because it shouldnt pay out, it really should when compared to hi-sec. but its very easy to avoid being attacked in null thanks to local, and a lot of ppl will say to u that ratting in null is even safer than ratting in hi-sec.

so id agree reward needs to go up in order for null to live up to its reputation, but so does risk from other players.


I'm going to try and phrase this question the same way I would for HighSec miners who want HighSec to be safer.

How much risk is enough to warrant an increase in income? And when I say "income", I am not referring to faucet ISK from bounties but overall. I don't think now is the right time to increase bounty payouts. But having something else to supplement the existing bounty ISK can work imho.

Also, how does that added risk manifest itself? I think Aliventi has some good concepts to start from and I really like the idea of the NPC AI going after new targets on grid. I think his ideas are a good start for this.

I also appreciate everyone's constructive comments in this discussion. This discussion has been had many times in GD but ends up being run down by people not being constructive. So thanks for that! Smile

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Guillaume Conquerant
#22 - 2014-02-26 01:34:48 UTC
Batelle wrote:
Guillaume Conquerant wrote:
Basically, I think Havens should require ~5 people to run them effectively and Sanctums should require ~10. Isk/hr per person should also be buffed.


None of your suggestions is even close to making this part of your proposal a reality.



I think if you greatly increased the number of BSs / wave that may force more people to run them safely.
Alternatively, for havens and sanctums - you can just make the AI harder and buff their stats ... like incursions
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#23 - 2014-02-26 03:02:19 UTC
Havens and sanctums should get capital escalations like wormholes do where each capital ship warped to the site causes some additional number of battleships to spawn. This might give people some incentive to rat together without completely destroying their isk/hr
Guillaume Conquerant
#24 - 2014-02-26 03:21:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Guillaume Conquerant
Daichi Yamato wrote:
im hesitant to agree with the increased payouts of null ...
so id agree reward needs to go up in order for null to live up to its reputation, but so does risk from other players.


Ok, I think I wasn't clear.

I'm not talking about more absolute payouts .. I'm talking about better SCALING of payouts and a higher upper bound on that scale based on more resources committed (corp mates, isk, sp, etc) ... more risk, more reward . Part of that risk will be non-consensual PVP ;) I believe that's what was Andrea was also referring to when she said ...
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
Havens and sanctums should get capital escalations like wormholes do where each capital ship warped to the site causes some additional number of battleships to spawn. This might give people some incentive to rat together without completely destroying their isk/hr


So - as an interim step towards more PVP focused PVE in 0.0, having sanctums and havens run a similar AI & NPC difficulty as incursions/WH might be a positive stepping stone towards a better pvp-like- PVE experience. If 0.0 corps have a meaningful PVE reason to put several bill isk worth of assets in a sight for PVE, then that offers up more PVP opportunities.

Effects:
1) You'll start to see 0.0 PVE concentrating into tight pockets which would represent nice PVP targets who might be better prepared to offer a good fight back ... more good fights

2) If you can combine this with a increase in sov bills based on a lack of player activity (mining, anoms, sights, pvp kills, etc), larger alliances may divest themselves of unused space. Optionally, if alliances could change tax rate based on the system in order to increase activity levels (and reduce sov bills) - you'll get more PVP targets further away from the PVE clusters ... again, more good fights.

3) Increase scaling will result in increase tax revenue streams for 0.0 alliances so that ship replacement plans can again be a near given for 0.0 alliances ... again, more good fights


Kimmi Chan wrote:

I also appreciate everyone's constructive comments in this discussion. This discussion has been had many times in GD but ends up being run down by people not being constructive. So thanks for that! Smile

Completely agree! Now we just need to get some broader exposure. I think there's a reply limit you have to reach in order to get Devs to read your thread ;)
Guillaume Conquerant
#25 - 2014-02-26 03:38:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Guillaume Conquerant
TehCloud wrote:
Nullsec ISK Faucets are not in need of a buff.



Think of it this way, nerfs to passive 0.0 income need to be made up from somewhere in order to drive 0.0 SRPs and conflict. Don't believe me? As anyone from TEST or N3 if having an SRP influences their desire to fight ...

The best way is to make up for it is in active 0.0 income .... which can then be taxed to fund SRPs and conflict. Additionally, those actively generating 0.0 income are at risk for non-consensual pvp while those passively generating 0.0 income are not (by definition)
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#26 - 2014-02-26 06:07:51 UTC
Aliventi wrote:


More empty systems is great for Eve. There have been mass debates in Failheap about what a new SOV system should entail. The general consensus is large empires should still be possible, but they shouldn't be able to easily control half of nullsec. The idea is to make it so the smaller alliances can get in to nullsec without sucking enough **** to be blued by this or that coalition. They are ways to make it so say the CFC or N3 or RUS can't reasonably control the vast amounts of space they already do. That will make it so more dedicated smaller alliances can enter SOV. This will bring a sorts of "balkanizing" of nullsec where you may have a dozen different alliances owning SOV, living (Unlike now where there are vast amounts of owned but not lived in space), PvPing, and PvEing in the same region. That is for another thread.
The idea is great, the implementation somewhat more difficult.
As long as the Mega Coalitions can drop hundreds to thousands of ships into a system there will never be space for the small independent alliances. It is way too easy for the likes of PL/N3 and the CFC to simply decide - we don't want them there. Once that decision is made, anyone trying to defend their right to be in nulsec either blues or leaves. It is no longer "SOV Warfare", it has simply come down to - the biggest bully wins.

An infamous leader of 1 of the large coalitions recently said - We don't want it but will stop them from having it. (not the exact quote but you get the idea)

I can think of nothing better than each alliance having to defend the SOV they hold but as long as mega coalitions exist that will never happen.


Quote:
That is for another thread
Really it is part of this thread. What is considered "good" nulsec will always be more highly sought after. Any changes to nulsec, whether income sources, the way income is generated, revolves to a very large extent around mega coalitions. Increasing the difficulty to earn income in nulsec only serves the large entities.

Until SOV becomes less about who is biggest - all the buffs or nerfs in the universe will mean nothing.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Tragot Gomndor
Three Sword Inc
#27 - 2014-02-26 09:21:32 UTC
0.0 need more nerfs not more buffs. Eve needs more interessting pve content anyway, not just higher numbers. Currently eve pve is the worst pve of all games i know.
And yes, fix sov too. Tidi/lag/crash and sovwarfare made me go away from 0.0 forever. And bad alliances. 0.0 is dead.

NONONONONONO TO CAPS IN HIGHSEC NO
Arh Mezz
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2014-02-26 09:34:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Arh Mezz
I only read the OP post.

really bad idea. that increases the sov holders isk/hour even more. they just drop a thanny (like they do today) and do at minimum 100m isk per hour. when you increase the difficulty, nodody who not sits in a carrier will do pve sites (lets say drakes, drone boats, marauders and tengus). it forces players to skill into carriers.
keep it as it is.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#29 - 2014-02-26 10:42:09 UTC
Arh Mezz wrote:
I only read the OP post..


Could you read the rest of the thread and then let us know if you still feel this way?

Not being an ass. I think it's a complex situation and should not be dismissed immediately.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Arh Mezz
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2014-02-26 11:26:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Arh Mezz
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Arh Mezz wrote:
I only read the OP post..


Could you read the rest of the thread and then let us know if you still feel this way?

Not being an ass. I think it's a complex situation and should not be dismissed immediately.

so i did now. doesnt change anything. a few good arguments, but the OP's statements stay.
he said make certain sites only doable with 5-10 groups. or in other words, drop one carrier.

but some people enjoy to rat alone in their tengus, marauders, carriers and whatnot.

it's sadly the mechanics of carriers, being excellent in destroying anything from frigs to battleships, while having a shi*ton of ehp and cap, while not costing more isk than marauders and pirate faction battleships.


personally i would say, IF you make certain sites harder in any way, change the payout like in incursions. less people wont get more isk, the payout is fixed to a max number of people participating (for example: a completed site gives max payout for up to 5 people. with more people, the payout decreases). in that way, carrier pilots can still solo their stuff, sub cap pilots too (marauders), but dont have any advantage of doing so, when the site is designed for 5 peoples.
the sites can be made "harder" in making the rats more tanky or having more waves. im not sure about that point.

exclude thanny pilots from having escalations is a bit unfair. apart from pve'ing, no one really uses thanatos's.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#31 - 2014-02-26 11:29:50 UTC
Arh Mezz wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Arh Mezz wrote:
I only read the OP post..


Could you read the rest of the thread and then let us know if you still feel this way?

Not being an ass. I think it's a complex situation and should not be dismissed immediately.

so i did now. doesnt change anything. a few good arguments, but the OP's statements stay.
he said make certain sites only doable with 5-10 groups. or in other words, drop one carrier.
he didnt say "make the payout like the payout in incursions: a certain payout to a certain number of people, where less people dont have any isk bonus."

but some people enjoy to rat alone in their tengus, marauders, carriers and whatnot.

it's sadly the mechanics of carriers, being excellent in destroying anything from frigs to battleships, while having a shi*ton of ehp and cap, while not costing more isk than marauders and pirate faction battleships.


personally i would say, IF you make certain sites harder in any way, change the payout like in incursions. less people wont get more isk, the payout is fixed to a max number of people participating (for example: a completed site gives max payout for up to 5 people. with more people, the payout decreases). in that way, carrier pilots can still solo their stuff, sub cap pilots too (marauders), but dont have any advantage of doing so, when the site is designed for 5 peoples.
the sites can be made "harder" in making the rats more tanky or having more waves. im not sure about that point.

exclude thanny pilots from having escalations is a bit unfair. apart from pve'ing, no one really uses thanatos's.


Thank you for taking the time and providing really good feedback!

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Luwc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#32 - 2014-02-26 13:40:18 UTC
They will just nerf it more since 0.0 OP right....

http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif
Guillaume Conquerant
#33 - 2014-02-27 03:49:38 UTC
Arh Mezz wrote:

so i did now. doesnt change anything. a few good arguments, but the OP's statements stay.
he said make certain sites only doable with 5-10 groups. or in other words, drop one carrier.


I agree, that would be a bad idea. I also quoted on person's perspective of doing this like WHs where if you drop a capital, the rats escalate. This would solve that problem. You just need to worry about the scaling .


Arh Mezz wrote:

but some people enjoy to rat alone in their tengus, marauders, carriers and whatnot.

nothing proposed prevents them from running other sites solo. agian, we're concerned with the scaling up of risk vs reward and giving PVE folks an opportunity to have more risk and more reward.


Arh Mezz wrote:

personally i would say, IF you make certain sites harder in any way, change the payout like in incursions. less people wont get more isk, the payout is fixed to a max number of people participating (for example: a completed site gives max payout for up to 5 people. with more people, the payout decreases). in that way, carrier pilots can still solo their stuff, sub cap pilots too (marauders), but dont have any advantage of doing so, when the site is designed for 5 peoples.

again, the rat AI and composition would need to be such that you realistically can't do it solo. scaling the payout like incursion is another good idea!


Arh Mezz wrote:

the sites can be made "harder" in making the rats more tanky or having more waves. im not sure about that point.

I promise you I can come up with a number for BSs where one carrier won't be able to deal with them all. QED.
Alternative mechanisms were also brought up that you're not accounting for .. namely rats escalating w/ more BSs if you do drop a carrier.
Guillaume Conquerant
#34 - 2014-02-27 03:54:02 UTC
Tragot Gomndor wrote:
0.0 need more nerfs not more buffs. Eve needs more interessting pve content anyway, not just higher numbers. Currently eve pve is the worst pve of all games i know.
And yes, fix sov too. Tidi/lag/crash and sovwarfare made me go away from 0.0 forever. And bad alliances. 0.0 is dead.



Please reread the posts carefully. The latest proposal would:

  1. encourage 0.0 sov holders to abandon space that isn't actively used
  2. provide an incursion/WH like stepping stone towards more pvp-like-PVE
  3. shift more of the 0.0 income from passive to active thereby generating more opportunities for fights



Blodhgarm Dethahal
8 Sins of Man
Stray Dogs.
#35 - 2014-02-27 06:00:06 UTC
The problem in null isn't the fact that sites do not pay enough but that the main risk is the PvP that people will bring to gank the ratters. Now the ratter has a choice of working with a group (as I like to call it... PvEing with PvP in mind) or going solo and making good money. In null you don't have the best control of your system so all it takes is a covops cyno to ruin your day. This is why you get one neut locking up an entire system.

Your 2 choices (group or not to group) leaves you with sub optimal ISK semi consistantly or intermident good ISK respectively. At this point you would be foolish not to run incursions in high sec since it is consistant and good ISK with the bonus of also providing LP.

In short nothing can be done unless you vastly increase rewards (to the point it is probably broken) or you allow Sov to actually mean something to help regulate who is entering your space or not.

I could go on and on but people need to step back and realize that you cannot do this in little bites. All of nullsec needs to be restructured from the ground up not just ISK making and other sub issues.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#36 - 2014-02-27 06:51:35 UTC
Make Anoms harder with scaled payouts = no-one runs them unless the payout is much higher than other forms of income = Increase payouts too much, creates inbalance, defeats the purpose.

Want to stop carrier ratting in Anoms - gate them - then deal with the fallout from all the carrier ratters.

Sov is not about how each system is used or not used. It is about owning / locking down regions of space, stopping others moving close enough to you to become a threat, income from moons, travel links (jump bridges) and safe pos's from 1 place to another.

Quote:
Guillaume Conquerant
encourage 0.0 sov holders to abandon space that isn't actively used
Define actively used? A system with a JB is actively used as are the approach systems to gain access to it. They may only get used by a few on a regular basis rarely if ever see any PVE but are integral to the running of the alliance.

"Encouraging" Sov holders to give up JB routes and moon mining operations in favour of taxes from PVE activity? There would need to be a lot of well paying sites to cover the loss in revenue from just 1 R64 moon. CCP would need to move moons to the central hubs of each sov holder because none will give up a system with an R64 in it, especially if someone else stands to benefit from them giving it up.

Basically the whole sov system as we know it would need to be changed to encourage sov holders to change the way things are done.


Quote:
At this point you would be foolish not to run incursions in high sec since it is consistant and good ISK with the bonus of also providing LP.
With little to no risk of having to engage in pvp in a mission fit ship.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Previous page12