These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Not enough stuff is being destroyed

Author
#41 - 2017-04-19 20:37:39 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:


* Remove PVE fits from the game. The number one problem is not that mission runners hate to lose ships. It's that they have no option but to lose their ships. A PVE fit can not defend against a PVP fit. If the AI in missions were tweaked to use less ships but use them to fight as players do, then group twos would, on occasion, welcome mission gankers into their sites since they might have a fighting chance against them.


Damn, how can one person be totally wrong about everything and remember to keep breathing lol.

A PVE only fit CAN not only withstand a PVP ship, but it can withstand MULTIPLE PVP fit ships. All of my bait Rattlesnakes , Gilas, Tengus and Machariels are pure PVE fit and survive hotdrops in null, mission invasions in low sec and gank attempts in high sec. A cap stable , un-neutable "regengu-style" tank that can work wonders.

But the second thing is even more foolish. CCP has tried all that "smarter but fewer enemies" thing. They do it with burner missions (that most people ignore), Drifters (that most people avoid like the plague) and Mining operations (which almost every PVEr knows is not worth the hassle).

The whole "make PVE more like PVP" mantra is stupid. It indicates a person who does not even do combat PVE. There is a reason most PVE in this game is still people doing missions and anomalies when all this "better PVE" CCP has been adding since 2012 exists.

It is also why the whole "hidden structures requiring a huge PVP fleet" that CCP announced for the blood raider capitals at fanfest is going to suck btw.


And here's the day I 100% agree to Jenn aSide on something PvE. CCP doesn't knows PvE players and their attempts to develop PvE just keep showing and telling this essential truth.
#42 - 2017-04-19 20:44:54 UTC
manus wrote:
You are assuming that people PVE solely to earn ISK. With challenge modes, they could be doing it for different reasons.

You could also add achivements. For example a category that was named "Ships lost". So you would have a category that said. Lost every kind of cruiser. I can imagine someone collecting such an achivement for fun. It will also compel players to try fits in ships they typically dont fly. You could have a category that said "PVP'ed with all Minmatar Battlecruisers" And this achivement thingie has potential to expand to other areas of the game. They do appeal to some players. I hope you get the idea.


Would a "challenge mode" be anything like a burner mission? Are they done for the challenge or for the payout?

As for "achievements", are those like the opportunities that CCP has set up? Does anyone track those?

(I have a friend in another game who's an avid achievement collector, but even in his case, I think he's doing it for more than just the achievement point count (mount, pets, titles etc))
#43 - 2017-04-19 20:46:07 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:


* Remove PVE fits from the game. The number one problem is not that mission runners hate to lose ships. It's that they have no option but to lose their ships. A PVE fit can not defend against a PVP fit. If the AI in missions were tweaked to use less ships but use them to fight as players do, then group twos would, on occasion, welcome mission gankers into their sites since they might have a fighting chance against them.


Damn, how can one person be totally wrong about everything and remember to keep breathing lol.

A PVE only fit CAN not only withstand a PVP ship, but it can withstand MULTIPLE PVP fit ships. All of my bait Rattlesnakes , Gilas, Tengus and Machariels are pure PVE fit and survive hotdrops in null, mission invasions in low sec and gank attempts in high sec. A cap stable , un-neutable "regengu-style" tank that can work wonders.

But the second thing is even more foolish. CCP has tried all that "smarter but fewer enemies" thing. They do it with burner missions (that most people ignore), Drifters (that most people avoid like the plague) and Mining operations (which almost every PVEr knows is not worth the hassle).

The whole "make PVE more like PVP" mantra is stupid. It indicates a person who does not even do combat PVE. There is a reason most PVE in this game is still people doing missions and anomalies when all this "better PVE" CCP has been adding since 2012 exists.

It is also why the whole "hidden structures requiring a huge PVP fleet" that CCP announced for the blood raider capitals at fanfest is going to suck btw.
That's a lot of words from one of the biggest self proclaimed carebears that posts here. When's the last time you lost a ship running your Incursions all day, every day?

Cherry picking scenarios to suit your narrative shows that you have one agenda. Keep the player population nice and low to prevent competition for your chosen profession.

Mr Epeen Cool


Now take a deep breath and answer: why should a player who refuses to PvP against players do PvP-like stuff against NPCs?
#44 - 2017-04-19 21:04:43 UTC
Avaelica Kuershin wrote:
manus wrote:
You are assuming that people PVE solely to earn ISK. With challenge modes, they could be doing it for different reasons.

You could also add achivements. For example a category that was named "Ships lost". So you would have a category that said. Lost every kind of cruiser. I can imagine someone collecting such an achivement for fun. It will also compel players to try fits in ships they typically dont fly. You could have a category that said "PVP'ed with all Minmatar Battlecruisers" And this achivement thingie has potential to expand to other areas of the game. They do appeal to some players. I hope you get the idea.


Would a "challenge mode" be anything like a burner mission? Are they done for the challenge or for the payout?

As for "achievements", are those like the opportunities that CCP has set up? Does anyone track those?

(I have a friend in another game who's an avid achievement collector, but even in his case, I think he's doing it for more than just the achievement point count (mount, pets, titles etc))


Burner missions are ignored. They are not what PvE players want from PvE. Actually nothing CCP has done for PvE since 2010 has had more than passing resemblance to what floats the boat for the average PvE Joe.

Why do people PvE?

- can be made alone
- can be mastered on your own
- can be done in highsec space
- can be done with little time
- there's no social pressure about it
- it's the best(est) money in highsec
- allows a visible progression
- provides reliable income
- gives a predictable reward for the time spent playing

Not every PvE player does it for all these reasons, but it's easy to foresee that anything breaking more than a couple of those reasons will fail. Most of CCP's PvE failures break three, four or more reasons.

Take blood raider shipyards:

- can be made alone
- can be mastered on your own
- can be done in highsec space
- can be done with little time
- there's no social pressure about it
- it's the best(est) money in highsec
- allows a visible progression
- provides reliable income
- gives a predictable reward for the time spent playing

OP success! Roll
#45 - 2017-04-19 21:05:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Epeen
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Now take a deep breath and answer: why should a player who refuses to PvP against players do PvP-like stuff against NPCs?
As of now they won't because fighting NPCs is and has always been a completely different game than is played by the rest of New Eden. It attracts a different player type than the sandbox content the players create for themselves.

Many have said over the years that NPC content should be an introduction to the fun part of the game. But how can it be? It's like grabbing a Checkers player and forcing him to play Chess even though all he's learned to do is Checkers.. Same board, totally different game. Same with this game. One board, separate training.

Over a decade on and we still have the same issues in the game and the same arguments in the forum. Status quo has been well disproved at this point and it's time to try something new. That something new, in my opinion, is to stop playing Checkers and Chess on the same board.

The most sensible way to do that is by having the same rules for everyone. Next time an annoying ganker comes into your mission you can lock him, neut him, kill his warp capability and blow him up. How many mission ships can do that now? None. Why? PVE mechanics.

Get rid of them and you are more likely to see people transitioning from PVE to PVP.

Mr Epeen Cool
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2017-04-19 21:14:45 UTC
I don't think it's a huge issue. And if it is, it's more of an issue of too much stuff being produced. There's plenty of destruction in the game.

But the reason I don't think it's a huge issue is that cheaper ships = less of a loss in PVP and less incentive to just sit in high sec producing stuff.

I suppose if things get dire, CCP could up the mineral composition of items, increase production time/costs, etc. If ISK inflation goes out of control, create more ISK sinks. They have the tools the manage the economy if needed.
#47 - 2017-04-19 21:25:45 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Now take a deep breath and answer: why should a player who refuses to PvP against players do PvP-like stuff against NPCs?
As of now they won't because fighting NPCs is and has always been a completely different game than is played by the rest of New Eden. It attracts a different player type than the sandbox content the players create for themselves.

Many have said over the years that NPC content should be an introduction to the fun part of the game. But how can it be? It's like grabbing a Checkers player and forcing him to play Chess even though all he's learned to do is Checkers.. Same board, totally different game. Same with this game. One board, separate training.

Over a decade on and we still have the same issues in the game and the same arguments in the forum. Status quo has been well disproved at this point and it's time to try something new. That something new, in my opinion, is to stop playing Checkers and Chess on the same board.

The most sensible way to do that is by having the same rules for everyone. Next time an annoying ganker comes into your mission you can lock him, neut him, kill his warp capability and blow him up. How many mission ships can do that now? None. Why? PVE mechanics.

Get rid of them and you are more likely to see people transitioning from PVE to PVP.

Mr Epeen Cool


So your idea to run efficiently a business is to get rid of 60% of your customers who do it wrong and replace them with more customers who do it right but for some reason are not coming to your business...

You're not alone, btw, as that's exactly what CCP has been doing since Rubicon, just their tune is "multiplayer" versus "solo player".
#48 - 2017-04-19 21:33:13 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
So your idea to run efficiently a business is to get rid of 60% of your customers who do it wrong and replace them with more customers who do it right but for some reason are not coming to your business...
Nope. That is not at all my idea. And I credit you with not being so black and white in your thinking to believe that.

There are already enough forumites that like to willfully misunderstand everything they respond to to fit their narrative. Don't be one of them.

Mr Epeen Cool
ChaosTheory.
#49 - 2017-04-19 21:33:36 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
That's a lot of words from one of the biggest self proclaimed carebears that posts here. When's the last time you lost a ship running your Incursions all day, every day?


Incursions? I only run incursions when I get kicked out of null. last I check, my alliance has space. And I'm a PVEr, not a carebear.

Don't blame me because you don't know what you are talking about. The whole "PVE needs to be like PVP" thing is that kind of conventional wisdom that ignorant outsiders and pie in the sky utopians say when what they really meant to say is "I don't PVE at all and probably shouldn't have mentioned it at all".

Quote:

Cherry picking scenarios to suit your narrative shows that you have one agenda. Keep the player population nice and low to prevent competition for your chosen profession.

Mr Epeen Cool


This is the kind of lie people tell themselves to prevent having to examine the flaws in the way they think. It's stupid as hell and not in any way worthy of someone who claims to be an adult.

"More people" would benefit me if I were concerned about imaginary space money, because those people would mostly be high sec PVE types and guess what most of my isk comes from.... null sec Deadspace mods that high sec PVErs love.

But imaginary space money isn't the reason why I hope CCP goes more for QUALITY of players than quantity,.. Literally everything on earth that is 'popular' SUCKs. EVE is good because it doesn't appeal to everyone, and I kinda want the video game I play every night to not start sucking because it became the Justin Bieber of MMOs...

Now I know everything I just typed just went over your head, ideologues are always closed minded. Perhaps what I wrote might be of interest of to people of less rigid thought processes.
ChaosTheory.
#50 - 2017-04-19 21:34:56 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:


There are already enough forumites that like to willfully misunderstand everything they respond to to fit their narrative.




Don't be so hard on yourself, you might still be able to break out of that pattern.
ChaosTheory.
#51 - 2017-04-19 21:37:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:


* Remove PVE fits from the game. The number one problem is not that mission runners hate to lose ships. It's that they have no option but to lose their ships. A PVE fit can not defend against a PVP fit. If the AI in missions were tweaked to use less ships but use them to fight as players do, then group twos would, on occasion, welcome mission gankers into their sites since they might have a fighting chance against them.


Damn, how can one person be totally wrong about everything and remember to keep breathing lol.

A PVE only fit CAN not only withstand a PVP ship, but it can withstand MULTIPLE PVP fit ships. All of my bait Rattlesnakes , Gilas, Tengus and Machariels are pure PVE fit and survive hotdrops in null, mission invasions in low sec and gank attempts in high sec. A cap stable , un-neutable "regengu-style" tank that can work wonders.

But the second thing is even more foolish. CCP has tried all that "smarter but fewer enemies" thing. They do it with burner missions (that most people ignore), Drifters (that most people avoid like the plague) and Mining operations (which almost every PVEr knows is not worth the hassle).

The whole "make PVE more like PVP" mantra is stupid. It indicates a person who does not even do combat PVE. There is a reason most PVE in this game is still people doing missions and anomalies when all this "better PVE" CCP has been adding since 2012 exists.

It is also why the whole "hidden structures requiring a huge PVP fleet" that CCP announced for the blood raider capitals at fanfest is going to suck btw.


And here's the day I 100% agree to Jenn aSide on something PvE. CCP doesn't knows PvE players and their attempts to develop PvE just keep showing and telling this essential truth.



*sees Fazmarai agree with his post*

Turns out I was completely wrong, Mr. Epeen was right and I'll be voting for Epeen for president in 3.5 years. That is all.

TwistedTwisted



(I'm just kidding, actually they are both wrong, just at different times) Big smile
Caldari State
#52 - 2017-04-19 22:02:07 UTC
Start a war, everyone will lose proteuses, supers and machariels. Doubt the prices of other ships would increase.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Renaissance Federation
#53 - 2017-04-19 22:38:36 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
[quote=Vincent Athena]

* Remove PVE fits from the game. The number one problem is not that mission runners hate to lose ships. It's that they have no option but to lose their ships. A PVE fit can not defend against a PVP fit. If the AI in missions were tweaked to use less ships but use them to fight as players do, then group twos would, on occasion, welcome mission gankers into their sites since they might have a fighting chance against them.


Mr Epeen Cool


This is not why PVErs will almost always get ganked if someone attacks them. Its because the PVE player is the one sitting (usually solo) in one spot for 20 min or PVEing in the same system for hours, leaving plenty of time for the PVP player to determine if they have the right ship/fit/friends to take down the target. PVP players don't always make it a habbit to attack a raven with a solo caracal because it would just mean an easy victory for the raven pilot unless they're total fail.

In Summary PVE players are always at a disadvantage to PVP players that attack because they're not baiting with a rescue fleet on standby, and the attacker has the decision to attack or withdraw with no penalty.
Teros Hakomairos
#54 - 2017-04-19 22:56:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Teros Hakomairos
Right.....players are leaving because of the good weather outside....not because of not beeing protected by CCP while playing their view of the game.....instead of protecting paying customers CCP allows ganks.....

I don't get how someone could not see this....

"EVE was always so".....

This will be written on the tombstone of this game.....

And "EVE dies for 14 years now but someday it really dies because no one that pays was there anymore".....
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2017-04-19 22:57:03 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:


* Remove PVE fits from the game. The number one problem is not that mission runners hate to lose ships. It's that they have no option but to lose their ships. A PVE fit can not defend against a PVP fit. If the AI in missions were tweaked to use less ships but use them to fight as players do, then group twos would, on occasion, welcome mission gankers into their sites since they might have a fighting chance against them.


Damn, how can one person be totally wrong about everything and remember to keep breathing lol.

A PVE only fit CAN not only withstand a PVP ship, but it can withstand MULTIPLE PVP fit ships. All of my bait Rattlesnakes , Gilas, Tengus and Machariels are pure PVE fit and survive hotdrops in null, mission invasions in low sec and gank attempts in high sec. A cap stable , un-neutable "regengu-style" tank that can work wonders.

But the second thing is even more foolish. CCP has tried all that "smarter but fewer enemies" thing. They do it with burner missions (that most people ignore), Drifters (that most people avoid like the plague) and Mining operations (which almost every PVEr knows is not worth the hassle).

The whole "make PVE more like PVP" mantra is stupid. It indicates a person who does not even do combat PVE. There is a reason most PVE in this game is still people doing missions and anomalies when all this "better PVE" CCP has been adding since 2012 exists.

It is also why the whole "hidden structures requiring a huge PVP fleet" that CCP announced for the blood raider capitals at fanfest is going to suck btw.

If a PvE fit can withstand multiple PvP-fit ships, maybe that particular hull is OP? Most of the hulls I fly have to choose between fighting players and fighting rats. I've tried mixing the two in the fitting window, but all I do is end up with something sub-optimal for both and having to bring a refit which can actually beat an escalation.

As for the large fleet PvE which will require everyone to scan stuff down, kill it, and play king-of-the-hill with a reinforce timer, the point isn't to make the PvE itself more engaging, though it does try to do that. The point is to get people to commit huge fleets to these sites, which it will do (at least for a while) as the large alliances scramble to be the first to get the blood raider capships. In the capship meta we've got right now, the alliances will probably try to run at least a few to keep capship superiority. Oh, and feed the skill injector market because anyone who wants to fly one of these needs at least one other race's ship tree and possibly some new support system skills.

A signature :o

Somethin Awfull Forums
#56 - 2017-04-20 03:40:53 UTC
The thing is, I'd be perfectly willing to sponsor Alpha clone warfare. Where I build and ft ships suitable for alpha clones to fly and hand them over but there is no mechanic to prevent people from simply stripping them down and selling them off as fast as I distribute them. Very likely just to grief a strategy out of circulation.

R.I.P. Vile Rat

ChaosTheory.
#57 - 2017-04-20 03:56:45 UTC
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:

If a PvE fit can withstand multiple PvP-fit ships, maybe that particular hull is OP? Most of the hulls I fly have to choose between fighting players and fighting rats. I've tried mixing the two in the fitting window, but all I do is end up with something sub-optimal for both and having to bring a refit which can actually beat an escalation.


This means you are doing it wrong.

In lvl 5 missions you can do it with a "regengu" style set up. It's important to know the triggers, someone comes in, you kill a trigger and watch the rats kill them for you.

This also works in high end DED plexes like the MAZE and Angel Cartel Naval Shipyard. In the final room of many DED plexes where an overseer is shooting major DPS at you, a MJD helps, because MJDing breaks the overseers look and tends to make them look the people shooting at you (so be off the beacon and outside of pvp'r scram range as a precaution so you can MJD when you need to).

In high sec, in running missions you its real easy. CONCORD takes about 19 seconds in 0.5 space. A gank Catalysts does something like 700 raw dps. You need something like 140k EHP on a battleship sized mission runner to survive 10 gank catalysts for long enough for concord to blap them for you. Answer: Never not Rattlesnake. Answer 2: watch local and if you see more than 10 blink SOBs, GTFO. Also train overheating to 5

When running anoms in high sec it's a good rule of thumb to be in a fleet that is willing to respond, If you are, then it's also a good rule to be able to tank 10 stealth bombers or 4 BLOPs battleships for 45 seconds. Use math to do this, or train carriers for ratting.

On and On and on. And yet many a carebear would rather complain than learn the ins and outs of the pvp centered game so that they could protect themselves from PVP players


Quote:

As for the large fleet PvE which will require everyone to scan stuff down, kill it, and play king-of-the-hill with a reinforce timer, the point isn't to make the PvE itself more engaging, though it does try to do that. The point is to get people to commit huge fleets to these sites, which it will do (at least for a while) as the large alliances scramble to be the first to get the blood raider capships. In the capship meta we've got right now, the alliances will probably try to run at least a few to keep capship superiority. Oh, and feed the skill injector market because anyone who wants to fly one of these needs at least one other race's ship tree and possibly some new support system skills.


You just described the same thinking behind incursions (of which only about 1.5% of the server population will participate in on any given day) and Drifters (which no one I know likes). It simply won't work the way you describe, though I'm sure someone will find the numbers to do a little farming of the things.
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2017-04-20 04:44:53 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


But the second thing is even more foolish. CCP has tried all that "smarter but fewer enemies" thing. They do it with burner missions (that most people ignore), Drifters (that most people avoid like the plague) and Mining operations (which almost every PVEr knows is not worth the hassle).



To be honest I actually quite enjoyed the burners (I did some L4 missions this year to see burners specifically, wasn't playing much when they were released), and I lost some navy gear, an enyo and a daredevil, so they also achieved the purpose of blowing up stuff and also IMO if you don't cheese past them with a long range web, they also train the basic disciplines of getting an opponent locked and tackled immediately so you don't become kited and dead, which is an improvement on a regular L4.

I'm not going to calculate it exactly, but the frigate burners seem to be worth about 3m/minute for me to do, which is an extremely favourable number and if I was going to run missions all day, would increase my income.

Quote:


The whole "make PVE more like PVP" mantra is stupid. It indicates a person who does not even do combat PVE. There is a reason most PVE in this game is still people doing missions and anomalies when all this "better PVE" CCP has been adding since 2012 exists.


I was ratting in a vexor a couple of days ago when a defense fleet friendly tackled a passing t3d, and I just warped to the fight, locked scrammed and webbed the target. Even if the t3d had killed our tackler, we'd still have downed the target. It would be even better if the scram was a common tool used in pve instead of a chain around my capacitors neck.

Quote:


It is also why the whole "hidden structures requiring a huge PVP fleet" that CCP announced for the blood raider capitals at fanfest is going to suck btw.


Nah, blueprint rarity better than absurd material requirements on serp caps, and IMO the more fleet content that is well beyond me +alt scale, the better. Particularly if its desirable enough that people will run into sparsely populated null and take it off the residents, because thats the kind of thing that encourages bears to bite.

They are trying to build a system that makes rat fleets more like player fleets and IMO that is a great initiative, especially if they are iterating on the system - if they have the content in events, they can vary and improve the system for each event and the event marketing will usually help them apply budget to pve and each time we get an event, we'll have to do experimental efforts to figure out workable strategies, and if the event then ends, we probably won't have them boringly super optimized.
#59 - 2017-04-20 06:46:20 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:


* Remove PVE fits from the game. The number one problem is not that mission runners hate to lose ships. It's that they have no option but to lose their ships. A PVE fit can not defend against a PVP fit. If the AI in missions were tweaked to use less ships but use them to fight as players do, then group twos would, on occasion, welcome mission gankers into their sites since they might have a fighting chance against them.


Damn, how can one person be totally wrong about everything and remember to keep breathing lol.

A PVE only fit CAN not only withstand a PVP ship, but it can withstand MULTIPLE PVP fit ships. All of my bait Rattlesnakes , Gilas, Tengus and Machariels are pure PVE fit and survive hotdrops in null, mission invasions in low sec and gank attempts in high sec. A cap stable , un-neutable "regengu-style" tank that can work wonders.

But the second thing is even more foolish. CCP has tried all that "smarter but fewer enemies" thing. They do it with burner missions (that most people ignore), Drifters (that most people avoid like the plague) and Mining operations (which almost every PVEr knows is not worth the hassle).

The whole "make PVE more like PVP" mantra is stupid. It indicates a person who does not even do combat PVE. There is a reason most PVE in this game is still people doing missions and anomalies when all this "better PVE" CCP has been adding since 2012 exists.

It is also why the whole "hidden structures requiring a huge PVP fleet" that CCP announced for the blood raider capitals at fanfest is going to suck btw.


And here's the day I 100% agree to Jenn aSide on something PvE. CCP doesn't knows PvE players and their attempts to develop PvE just keep showing and telling this essential truth.



*sees Fazmarai agree with his post*

Turns out I was completely wrong, Mr. Epeen was right and I'll be voting for Epeen for president in 3.5 years. That is all.

TwistedTwisted



(I'm just kidding, actually they are both wrong, just at different times) Big smile

And right at the other times.

CCP is not able to make a revolutionary changes thankfully. They see there is balance and they dont want to disturb it too much. That is why the fundaments of EVE will not be changed, and PvE stuff will be added for the "end game" (skills and experience, groups). They are very much pleased with PvE in entry level because people do it. There you have an explanation why they experiment with this hard stuff.
#60 - 2017-04-20 06:55:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
Coralas wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


But the second thing is even more foolish. CCP has tried all that "smarter but fewer enemies" thing. They do it with burner missions (that most people ignore), Drifters (that most people avoid like the plague) and Mining operations (which almost every PVEr knows is not worth the hassle).



To be honest I actually quite enjoyed the burners (I did some L4 missions this year to see burners specifically, wasn't playing much when they were released), and I lost some navy gear, an enyo and a daredevil, so they also achieved the purpose of blowing up stuff and also IMO if you don't cheese past them with a long range web, they also train the basic disciplines of getting an opponent locked and tackled immediately so you don't become kited and dead, which is an improvement on a regular L4.

I'm not going to calculate it exactly, but the frigate burners seem to be worth about 3m/minute for me to do, which is an extremely favourable number and if I was going to run missions all day, would increase my income.

Quote:


The whole "make PVE more like PVP" mantra is stupid. It indicates a person who does not even do combat PVE. There is a reason most PVE in this game is still people doing missions and anomalies when all this "better PVE" CCP has been adding since 2012 exists.


I was ratting in a vexor a couple of days ago when a defense fleet friendly tackled a passing t3d, and I just warped to the fight, locked scrammed and webbed the target. Even if the t3d had killed our tackler, we'd still have downed the target. It would be even better if the scram was a common tool used in pve instead of a chain around my capacitors neck.

Quote:


It is also why the whole "hidden structures requiring a huge PVP fleet" that CCP announced for the blood raider capitals at fanfest is going to suck btw.


Nah, blueprint rarity better than absurd material requirements on serp caps, and IMO the more fleet content that is well beyond me +alt scale, the better. Particularly if its desirable enough that people will run into sparsely populated null and take it off the residents, because thats the kind of thing that encourages bears to bite.

They are trying to build a system that makes rat fleets more like player fleets and IMO that is a great initiative, especially if they are iterating on the system - if they have the content in events, they can vary and improve the system for each event and the event marketing will usually help them apply budget to pve and each time we get an event, we'll have to do experimental efforts to figure out workable strategies, and if the event then ends, we probably won't have them boringly super optimized.


Well, those rat fleets are just one step away from being 100% player like: make them bring 1,200 ships instead of 850, and they will crash the node. And then imagine the headlines: "EVE Online adds new AI so smart it breaks the game to defend itself!" or "EVE Online: the game that refuses to play itself when it's losing against players".

Meanwhile PCU will keep going down (right it is below last year's in the same dates), but that's a years long habit and there's no sign that EVE suffers from it.
Forum Jump