These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Always able to run? And no Concord? Unknowable missions?

First post
Author
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#141 - 2016-02-17 22:26:46 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Here, OP. Let's boil it down to your core problem.

Consider this demonstrably false statement:

Quote:
The biggest thing I've learned in the thread is that the game isn't really meant to be about on grid during encounter choices - what I call tactics. It's mostly meant to be strategic. That's cool... seems a bit flat maybe, but hey....


This is ridiculous enough to call your literacy into question, as we covered it very thoroughly. You should get some first-hand experience.

So, do this:

Suitonia is a pretty good player. I posted some of his videos above.

Go pull one of his fits off a killboard, throw it together, and do some PvP with it. Since a good player made all of the strategic fitting decisions for you, and since the game isn't about tactical on-grid choices, you're sure to be fairly successful, right?

If you haven't watched the videos yet, don't. Try it yourself first. Then, watch the videos, and compare the decisions he makes (and explains) to the decisions you made, and the various outcomes.

Then, come back and tell us about it.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Conrad Makbure
Trident Expedition
#142 - 2016-02-18 03:12:59 UTC
Fa Xian wrote:
What if there were no warp scramblers or disruptors?

It seems to me you'd have vastly fewer kills. Anyone losing a fight would flee; neither hardcore PVP nor hardcore carebear would stick it out to the bitter end. PVP would be less about unfair, one sided ambushes... which to me seems to be almost the entirety of it. You'd have to use bait and tricks to win. And the game would have to encourage players to choose to fight - avoiding cookie cutter fits and single purpose ships.

Preventing players from fleeing is generally bad game design. It is a simple, hard counter, neither tactical nor strategic. You make almost no sacrifices to fit it. There's no point in trying to fit around it. The modules offer no value in other situations, making them boring.

It's odd to think about how much thought went into strategy and tactics; generally, the game is quite shallow overall. PVE encounters lack any kind of dynamic configuration - the enemies are static strategy (resists, damage) and even static position and composition. Much like this could really use a boost, it seems like PVP could also benefit from a change.

Let's think about it in general - to be out in space, vast, unknown... and the cops show up? It seems rather I should have a reason to be there, to stay out in space. And by staying there, I get benefits and incur risks. I fight NPC pirates - their loot is in space. If I flee, I lose the loot. If I want my loot, I fight to defend it. Imagine building a ship in space; perhaps with a minigame like hacking where you Tetris parts together using your construction ship. If you flee, your parts are stolen. If you want your assembly, you defend it. Mining? It goes into a can. If you flee, your ore is taken. If you want your ore, you defend it.

This seems more inline with the intended play style of the game. Pirates actually steal things not by blowing up helpless transports but by raiding. Nothing happens - save perhaps the market - in the safety of stations. In return for more dynamic play, restraints must be removed. People cannot be stopped fleeing. Godlike space police cannot show up to kill pirates in moments. Encounters cannot be canned.

I admit this is too much change for anyone to entertain. I believe it would be good change though. The spirit of the thought is some simple principles;

1) Choice over force
2) Risk versus reward
3) Dynamic over static

There's so much room to make a better game here. With all the baggage this game has, perhaps someone else will rise to the occasion. It seems unlikely EVE would be allowed to.



+1 to you OP. With regard to scram/disrupt, I've wondered what things would be like if we could bug out if we found ourselves in a bad matchup. Not with an overnight change, but maybe a new skill that reduces the effectiveness of scram/disrupt with 100% immunity at rank 5. Would people be more willing to venture to dangerous space with that faction fit marauder? What would mining and hauling be like? Exploring WH space going though multiple WH jumps? It'd be an improvement for the game, I think. People who stay to fight will do so because the want to kill the other ship and if not, then they run to refit or just leave. People would leave high sec for longer periods of time though.
Fat Buddah
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#143 - 2016-02-18 05:17:22 UTC
OP's premise, and his frustration,is that PVP is 'one sided', 'unfair', and 'dull'.

OP does not wish to admit that everyone in EVE, including OP himself, is given a fair and equal chance to train, equip, collect information, and gather and organise both material and social resources such that one's PVP target experiences 'one sided', 'unfair', and 'dull' combat loss repeatedly.

OP is too embarassed to admit that he failed to utilise the fair chances and opportunities given to him. He also denies the idea that maybe other people do better jobs than him in setting up winnable fights.

Hence OP is disguising his embarassment and frustration with 'OH, I'm a game designer' I know what I'm talking about, 'Oh, I lost 700M but it's ok', or 'I'm doing this for more fun for you people'