These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CTA - Make mssions PvP
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Klandi
Consortium of stella Technologies
#1 - 2012-01-24 13:36:16 UTC
CCP to Amend the fitting of the mission ship to that flown by PvP pilots

These forums are awash with ganked people moaning their losses because they were missioning or fitting their ships for NPCs rather than other players. So here is a way to overcome this.

If CCP would mimic missions to actual PvP then the fitting for the missioner would be closer to the PvP fits found in low and null sec.

This would help in a number of ways - firstly, the missioner would need to understand the ways of PvP (what to fit to achieve a kill) and secondly, with the new found confidence, they may consider going outside of empire space...

It needs to change - "like" this post if you agree

I am aware of my own ignorance and have checked my emotional quotient - thanks for asking
Himnos Altar
An Errant Venture
#2 - 2012-01-24 13:37:26 UTC
so instead of 3 billion ISK PvE fitted ships we'd see bears crying over 3 billion ISK PVP fitted ships.

heh....
Caladan Broood
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-01-24 13:37:50 UTC
Have you seen CCP's "pvp" fittings for their ships? Not sure you want to make people think everyone fits that way.
Terrolph Trick
Doomheim
#4 - 2012-01-24 13:41:24 UTC
Klandi wrote:
CCP to Amend the fitting of the mission ship to that flown by PvP pilots

These forums are awash with ganked people moaning their losses because they were missioning



Oh yes.. more tears is welcome. More scrams please.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#5 - 2012-01-24 13:41:42 UTC
I've never seen CCPs PvP fittings, but it's still funny.

+1 for making Misions more PvP centric. All you really have to do to start, is get rid of the module restrictions on MWDs and the like, then buff the AI a bit, add Warp disruption to mission rats, as well as various other EWAR effects, and make them a little tougher and fewer.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Klandi
Consortium of stella Technologies
#6 - 2012-01-24 13:45:12 UTC
Caladan Broood wrote:
Have you seen CCP's "pvp" fittings for their ships? Not sure you want to make people think everyone fits that way.


I want CCP to change the missions so that the missioning pilots would have to change their fits ... don't know where you got your idea from

I am aware of my own ignorance and have checked my emotional quotient - thanks for asking
Mussaschi
No Wise Guy's
#7 - 2012-01-24 13:50:04 UTC
Why do you assume, gankers would be interested in ganking, if it wasn't risk free isk?

The big laugh about all this discussions is that people talk about risk versus reward, who don't take a risk at all.

Do you see lot's of threats complaining about ganking in sleeper sites? Nope? Guess why
Klandi
Consortium of stella Technologies
#8 - 2012-01-26 12:49:31 UTC
This got lost in amongst the psycho-babble (see above post) so I will give it a bump

I am aware of my own ignorance and have checked my emotional quotient - thanks for asking
Orion Guardian
#9 - 2012-01-26 13:17:55 UTC
Mussaschi wrote:
Why do you assume, gankers would be interested in ganking, if it wasn't risk free isk?

The big laugh about all this discussions is that people talk about risk versus reward, who don't take a risk at all.

Do you see lot's of threats complaining about ganking in sleeper sites? Nope? Guess why


QFT, Ganking Mission Runners is nothing I'd call "PvP" its more like PvV "Player vs Victim"
Tian Nu
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2012-01-26 13:20:15 UTC
Klandi wrote:
Caladan Broood wrote:
Have you seen CCP's "pvp" fittings for their ships? Not sure you want to make people think everyone fits that way.


I want CCP to change the missions so that the missioning pilots would have to change their fits ... don't know where you got your idea from


i want hug.

Father O'Malley about Darius III begging for whelp: “Hows that working out for ya ? I make it 02:21 and all I see is you begging Riverini to get numbers and trying to recruit from the incursion public channel.”
Tian Nu
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2012-01-26 13:20:48 UTC
Orion GUardian wrote:
Mussaschi wrote:
Why do you assume, gankers would be interested in ganking, if it wasn't risk free isk?

The big laugh about all this discussions is that people talk about risk versus reward, who don't take a risk at all.

Do you see lot's of threats complaining about ganking in sleeper sites? Nope? Guess why


QFT, Ganking Mission Runners is nothing I'd call "PvP" its more like PvV "Player vs Victim"


this

Father O'Malley about Darius III begging for whelp: “Hows that working out for ya ? I make it 02:21 and all I see is you begging Riverini to get numbers and trying to recruit from the incursion public channel.”
DeLaBu
CAF Industries
#12 - 2012-01-26 13:27:58 UTC
I think sleeper and Incursion Sansha type AI goes some way towards achieving this goal. What is needed on top of that is a bit more unpredictability in the amount and type of those ships spawning.

At least these type of rats are getting people to deal omni damage, work in a group, use logistics and jamming (in the days I fought Sleepers anyway).

That is a big step up from the typical recipe LvL 4 mission with a highly specific tank ran by solo people.

Maybe make some rats warp around on the grid and snipe at players, either forcing counter sniping, or pointing the rat to kill him.

I agree with the sentiment that CCP should at least strive to make it more PVP like. We know it's impossible to get it exactly like PVP, but it's much better than the totally "unrealistic" regular LVL1 to 4 missions.
Jafit McJafitson
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2012-01-26 13:34:49 UTC
I've posted this idea before and I think having a flavour of PvE that is as close as possible to PvP would be good for the game.

Instead of sending the player to kill an entire fleet pissweak suicidal 10 DPS battleships that don't even try to escape when you break their 'tank', send the player to kill one really badass warpscrambling, neuting, player-level NPC that tries to escape when you look like you're winning.

I recognise that CCP aren't going to take away Highsec's missions, or there'd be such a shitstorm. I think it'd be better to make a seperate form of PvE that tries to mimic PvP. Or maybe buff incursion ships and AI so that you have a chance of losing your ship for reasons other than your Logistics being morons.
Tian Nu
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2012-01-26 13:52:08 UTC
Jafit McJafitson wrote:

Instead of sending the player to kill an entire fleet pissweak suicidal 10 DPS battleships that don't even try to escape when you break their 'tank', send the player to kill one really badass warpscrambling, neuting, player-level NPC that tries to escape when you look like you're winning.


Did you ever run guristas plex ?

Father O'Malley about Darius III begging for whelp: “Hows that working out for ya ? I make it 02:21 and all I see is you begging Riverini to get numbers and trying to recruit from the incursion public channel.”