These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

It's time to add a new kind of PVE missions (With smart AI)

First post
Author
Alasdan Helminthauge
AirHogs
Hogs Collective
#21 - 2017-05-25 14:45:56 UTC
Orin Solette wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
This is the same claptrap PVPrs throw around as that walk around all puffed up at the idea that their way of smashing buttons is superior to someone elses way of smashing buttons.

I like my PVE to be PVE, not fauxPVP. The challenge in real PVE is in finding new ways to do it, new fits, new approaches. "PVP-lite" PVE narrows the choices down to "omni tank, over heat and hope". Screw that.

You can have that nonsense, I'll keep enjoying real PVE (thankfully a CCP Dev responded to me and confirmed that real PVE was also part of their plan).

I agree with this. Look at burner missions. Yeah they're fun but your fitting options are extremely limited if you want to get out alive. With content that difficult, people figure out the correct "formula" and it's an even more restrictive one than the easier content. At least with easier content you can min/max and figure out efficiencies that work for you and customize your own play.

That said, I do think we need more group content that is not incursions. There is no relatively chill PVE group content or easy way to find groups for existing content because no one trusts each other. I think that group content would be a stepping stone to more challenging group content like incursions or PVP fleets.


You can do the burners easily with a group.
Orin Solette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2017-05-25 15:20:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Orin Solette
Alasdan Helminthauge wrote:
Orin Solette wrote:

I agree with this. Look at burner missions. Yeah they're fun but your fitting options are extremely limited if you want to get out alive. With content that difficult, people figure out the correct "formula" and it's an even more restrictive one than the easier content. At least with easier content you can min/max and figure out efficiencies that work for you and customize your own play.

That said, I do think we need more group content that is not incursions. There is no relatively chill PVE group content or easy way to find groups for existing content because no one trusts each other. I think that group content would be a stepping stone to more challenging group content like incursions or PVP fleets.


You can do the burners easily with a group.

And notice that no one does that. It's impractical. They are mixed in with L4s which are easy soloable and you split rewards with groups. It's a huge pain to find a fleet for content that's soloable unless it's something your (active) corp regularly does.

Group content is stuff that is too hard to solo, encourages group play with the rewards, and does not require lottery to get the entry (ie doing regular L4s to get a burner to share).
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#23 - 2017-05-25 16:30:14 UTC
Orin Solette wrote:

I agree with this. Look at burner missions. Yeah they're fun but your fitting options are extremely limited if you want to get out alive. With content that difficult, people figure out the correct "formula" and it's an even more restrictive one than the easier content. At least with easier content you can min/max and figure out efficiencies that work for you and customize your own play.


The part I bolded is the whole story. It's the "Smarter AI PVE paradox", ie, the smarter or harder or 'better' or more random you make PVE in an attempt to make it more interesting, the less interesting and more restrictive it gets. All of those things just means "omni tank your ship because you don't know whats coming, or you do know and it's a lot".

With the standard EVE PVE I can tinker with fits, try new approaches without out (most of the time) losing ships and take pride in using things that most people do't like FoF missiles and Target Spectrum Breakers. I'm STILL tinkering with my anomaly and DED complex Fits like my Machariel. !0 years (next month) of playing and I'm still experiencing the joy of discovery as a new idea on how to kill NPCs gets proven or disproven.

Then look at the "improved" PVE. No one I know of screws with Drifters. Most people I know pass over Burners, and those who do them stick to one of the guides that have been made and don't deviate. Look at this very forum section, there are maybe 2 or three post in the last 2 months about those NPC mining operations that are brand new and have improved AI response and so forth.

That was the point of my post in the BR Sotoyio thread I linked. People get this false idea that 'better' PVE is the answer, but they fail to look at themselves. most people who ask for better PVE are right back to running lvl 4 missions 2 or 3 weeks later.

There is actually a real life explanation for why people believe they want improved PVE when in fact they themselves stick to old/simple PVE, people really don't know what they want.
Alasdan Helminthauge
AirHogs
Hogs Collective
#24 - 2017-05-26 00:05:29 UTC
Orin Solette wrote:
Alasdan Helminthauge wrote:
Orin Solette wrote:

I agree with this. Look at burner missions. Yeah they're fun but your fitting options are extremely limited if you want to get out alive. With content that difficult, people figure out the correct "formula" and it's an even more restrictive one than the easier content. At least with easier content you can min/max and figure out efficiencies that work for you and customize your own play.

That said, I do think we need more group content that is not incursions. There is no relatively chill PVE group content or easy way to find groups for existing content because no one trusts each other. I think that group content would be a stepping stone to more challenging group content like incursions or PVP fleets.


You can do the burners easily with a group.

And notice that no one does that. It's impractical. They are mixed in with L4s which are easy soloable and you split rewards with groups. It's a huge pain to find a fleet for content that's soloable unless it's something your (active) corp regularly does.

Group content is stuff that is too hard to solo, encourages group play with the rewards, and does not require lottery to get the entry (ie doing regular L4s to get a burner to share).


I think it would only be natural that you should split the reward between a group. When null-sec ratting, you split the bounties. When wormhole ratting, you split the loots. It's ok to have incursion which gives the same rewards to everyone however many people participates as long as it's less than a certain amount (so that I can sandbag :P), but that's enough. If you really have a group ready for this and you dont want to waste your buddy's time on normal lv4 missions, just skip them all. As for why people dont group up for this, I guess that's because elite pveers prefer solo while those average ones have no balls to team up and challenge these or they just enjoy using their overwhelming power to crush those weak npcs.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2017-05-26 07:23:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tipa Riot
Why should one split the reward with others and reduce ISK/h? ... as completion time does not scale with number of players, and alts are a thing ... You know, most people don't do PvE for fun.

I agree with points above, the way of exciting, dynamic, difficult PvE will lead to PvE hell.

I'm my own NPC alt.

Alasdan Helminthauge
AirHogs
Hogs Collective
#26 - 2017-05-26 08:19:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Alasdan Helminthauge
Tipa Riot wrote:
Why should one split the reward with others and reduce ISK/h? ... as completion time does not scale with number of players, and alts are a thing.


Yeah, because alts are a thing. I definitely dont want to see somebody with 5 Tengus run a lv4 blockade within 5 minutes and get like 75mil isk and 50k LP totally, or somebody having 10 accounts get 750k total LP within less than half an hour by camping a large complex. And completion time does scale with number if one player can hardly break the logi.
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#27 - 2017-05-26 08:28:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
Tipa Riot wrote:
Why should one split the reward with others and reduce ISK/h? ... as completion time does not scale with number of players, and alts are a thing ... You know, most people don't do PvE for fun.

I agree with points above, the way of exciting, dynamic, difficult PvE will lead to PvE hell.


Than stick to basic pve and continue to save damsel for next 10 years to come its all good.

Diverse pve is good thing.

As an example I my self enjoyed incursion a lot and for years timing was right for my chars they skilled up along them from combat skills to use all the ships at the top to all logis to all off grid/on grid and transport etc.

And it involved like what ten sites compared to what hundred of missions give me that amount of incursion sites i would still be running them with more than 3 top dmg ships too they got turned in farmville limited in scope and abandoned.

Even now i prefer to gang up with other pilots and do them more than basic missions/sites.

Options.... i can live with them sign me up for pve hell please.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard

Orin Solette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2017-05-26 19:47:18 UTC
Alasdan Helminthauge wrote:
Yeah, because alts are a thing. I definitely dont want to see somebody with 5 Tengus run a lv4 blockade within 5 minutes and get like 75mil isk and 50k LP totally, or somebody having 10 accounts get 750k total LP within less than half an hour by camping a large complex. And completion time does scale with number if one player can hardly break the logi.


You can already do this with scout incursion sites. Vanguards too but there is just less room for error. Incursion rewards scale really well with groups unlike missions. Mission rewards don't scale well for groups because travel times take up a decent chunk of time and that doesn't scale, which counterracts the efficiencies gained by having multiple people.

As much as I would love more casual group PVE, because it teaches people fleet mechanics and finding fights is much easier, I don't see it happening. If it's not dificult enough (incursions), it'll be multiboxed too easily and LP will be devalued too much as a result.
Alasdan Helminthauge
AirHogs
Hogs Collective
#29 - 2017-05-27 00:02:59 UTC
Orin Solette wrote:
Alasdan Helminthauge wrote:
Yeah, because alts are a thing. I definitely dont want to see somebody with 5 Tengus run a lv4 blockade within 5 minutes and get like 75mil isk and 50k LP totally, or somebody having 10 accounts get 750k total LP within less than half an hour by camping a large complex. And completion time does scale with number if one player can hardly break the logi.


You can already do this with scout incursion sites. Vanguards too but there is just less room for error. Incursion rewards scale really well with groups unlike missions. Mission rewards don't scale well for groups because travel times take up a decent chunk of time and that doesn't scale, which counterracts the efficiencies gained by having multiple people.

As much as I would love more casual group PVE, because it teaches people fleet mechanics and finding fights is much easier, I don't see it happening. If it's not dificult enough (incursions), it'll be multiboxed too easily and LP will be devalued too much as a result.


Yeah, as I said before, incursion is enough as an example of more people, more rewards. We dont need another (or at least another in known space). You can group up to learn fleet mechanics under current pve mechanic, while you can also solo to get the most isk/hr. That's fair.
As for the topic, I think unless they can make NPCs beat pvpers (destroy their ships, not just force them to leave) in 1v1 combat of the same class of ships in most case, we would always find some easy ways to enable ourselves to "bot" through a pve content, no matter how smart the AI is.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#30 - 2017-05-27 01:32:29 UTC
Alasdan Helminthauge wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
Why should one split the reward with others and reduce ISK/h? ... as completion time does not scale with number of players, and alts are a thing.


Yeah, because alts are a thing. I definitely dont want to see somebody with 5 Tengus run a lv4 blockade within 5 minutes and get like 75mil isk and 50k LP totally, or somebody having 10 accounts get 750k total LP within less than half an hour by camping a large complex. And completion time does scale with number if one player can hardly break the logi.


A burner pays out ~30m and doing it with say 5 people means each gets 6m. most burner missions are short solo, bringing more people will speed up the combat time, but so what you spend most of your time in warp anyways. If you can get everyone to take a mission and run them all that might be interesting, however most of the time only a few will have access, and who knows where they end up. you might end up doing 6 jumps one way, 6 back, and then 6 to the next one. travel time is the main limit there. Even with standard missions travel time becomes a huge factor with multiple pilots. Adding overwhelming dps only speeds it up so much. you are typically better off just doing everything solo.

and like you say it is pretty obvious why you can't get multiple rewards for one mission or FW plex.


With signal cartel I went on some vulfpeck fleets where you take destroyers and logi into a wolf-rayet system where small guns and armor tanks get huge bonuses and start wrecking sleepers. I'd like more stuff like that, the biggest drawback to that is once you run the sites in the WH well you're done till they respawn. I want something I can constantly form up on, get some income, and maybe some pvp.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Sagara Mithril
Cro-Magnons
Cavemen.
#31 - 2017-06-11 15:18:03 UTC
Wow you guys managed to make a simple idea into something complex with 1000 problems.

Like i said, it wouldn't remove the missions we have now in the game, just add new optional ones with Smart AI, i'm not the only one bored with PVE.
ISD Stall
ISD STAR
#32 - 2017-06-12 00:43:51 UTC
Hi there, I am moving this post to features and ideas.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#33 - 2017-06-12 02:43:42 UTC
Alasdan Helminthauge wrote:
Just a smarter AI but no better dps and tank would not make them "elite". Maybe unless you give all the ships like 2 e-war modules or enable the mission rats to warp out and flee to other systems when they realize that they're loosing.

Maybe we should introduce some battleship-sized burner missions?


Burner missions are the exact opposite of what is needed.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Beta Maoye
#34 - 2017-06-12 08:00:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Beta Maoye
Sorry this is a bit off topic. Sometimes I wonder why EVE gameplay has gone towards two extremes. Contents are focused on either big alliance organization or solo player. If a player do not join an alliance, he has not much choice but solo the game. The wardec mechanic actually discouraged players to form new small organization that could one day be grown into a threat to established powers. It may not be the intention of the game, but EVE players like to use every possible means to suppress potential competitors. This phenomenon broke up many small corporations and left the game with either big established power or solo player. If a player don't want to join an alliance, he has to settle for solo play.

MMO players naturally like to play in groups, otherwise, they could play many single player games that are available in the market. There are actually many different size of groups exist between the two extremes. I think the game could be made more inclusive for small size groups that are less formal and more personal. The game company could cater more for the needs of small social groups such as a band of friends, small corporation and medium corporation. They might want to review the wardec mechanic and provide contents targeted to these smaller size of groups. The game company could have more freedom on game design if they can create an segment to let small size corporations to have fun and allow them to prosper. Jump fatigue, structure timer and entosis may not be necessary if the game company could carefully segment the game environment for different size of organizations.
Shallanna Yassavi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2017-06-13 00:27:40 UTC
"Harder" and "Smarter" are two different things.

If current or future burners were as "smart" as they are now, but with less restrictive fitting/skill requirements, they would be more interesting to more players.

A signature :o

Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#36 - 2017-07-13 20:40:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitty Bear
Alever Minmatar wrote:
No matter how you change AI, it can get simplified
No matter how you change it within a month youll be bored
No matter how you change it there will be people against pve just like mining
No matter what you do, all jobs in games like this get boring

htfu as ccp says


Currently missions are static .. known.

This is a thread that basically says .. Hey CCP, predictability makes missions too easy, remove the predictability ...



ergo .. make them (potentially) less easy ... sounds htfu'd to me.
Previous page12