These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The counter to incursion issues
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ajita al Tchar
Doomheim
#1 - 2012-02-08 21:16:40 UTC
This will not stop the whining as the subject of the whining will shift, but here's a simple idea that might work to remove the complaint that high sec incursions provide more ISK than they should considering the average degree of risk.

Make PvE activities, including Incursions, dynamic. You don't know for sure what will spawn and in what quantities, at what distances, long range or short range, what the triggers are, etc. This definitely introduces more risk and requires more work from players, and--dare I say it?--might be more fun.

IMO this is one of the more "meh" aspects of EVE PvE, its static nature. Regular PvE players know what to expect every time, there's little deviation between instances of the same plex / site / mission. This is good for all those who use PvE as a mindless ISK grind, but removes much of the challenge. Get your ship fit figured out, and you're good to go for the next 9000+ times you're going to run this particular encounter. Eventually all PvE becomes essentially a risk-free activity provided no external factors intervene (reds-neuts, fail logis, etc). Then there's the inevitable "fix PvE, it's too risk-free and fucks the economy" complaint from the userbase.

But OH WAIT. This has been proposed about a million times. When Incursions came out and people were running around scared that their solo faction fit Tengus would blow up, in other words, back when Incursions were new and exciting, many have already said that they will run into the same old problem: no dynamic content = eventual low-risk source of space riches.

(Yes yes, Incursions aren't risk free entirely, but for most fleets in most Incursion sites they might as well be).

CCP, more dynamic PvE please? There will be fewer complaint threads on GD about it being an activity that seems to defy the advertised EVE paradigm of "moar risk -- moar reward" Bear Like this one.
Nub Sauce
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-02-08 21:54:15 UTC
Would be nice.
Tore Vest
#3 - 2012-02-08 21:59:13 UTC
cry more

No troll.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#4 - 2012-02-08 22:00:06 UTC
How about more dynamic whining?

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Ai Shun
#5 - 2012-02-08 22:05:39 UTC
Ajita al Tchar wrote:
CCP, more dynamic PvE please? There will be fewer complaint threads on GD about it being an activity that seems to defy the advertised EVE paradigm of "moar risk -- moar reward" Bear Like this one.


Quote:
CCP agreed that if individual sites were less predictable it may put some of the original challenge back into incursions, and potentially reduce the number of pure faction ship fleets due to a potentially higher risk. This would in turn help competition and population issues by allowing more players to compete on a more level playing field. While no timelines were set, CCP indicated a strong desire to implement changes along these lines, and that they already have most of the tools needed to implement them


You must have been reading what CCP releases.
Ajita al Tchar
Doomheim
#6 - 2012-02-08 22:52:01 UTC
Ai Shun wrote:
Ajita al Tchar wrote:
CCP, more dynamic PvE please? There will be fewer complaint threads on GD about it being an activity that seems to defy the advertised EVE paradigm of "moar risk -- moar reward" Bear Like this one.


Quote:
CCP agreed that if individual sites were less predictable it may put some of the original challenge back into incursions, and potentially reduce the number of pure faction ship fleets due to a potentially higher risk. This would in turn help competition and population issues by allowing more players to compete on a more level playing field. While no timelines were set, CCP indicated a strong desire to implement changes along these lines, and that they already have most of the tools needed to implement them


You must have been reading what CCP releases.


But wouldn't it be nice if they actually did it? I think a lot of things that have remained in a less than polished state are on the list of "we really want to fix (later)" things.

In the meantime, it's battle royale between whining, legitimate complaints and Incursion apologists. Did someone say they were going to serve cheese? I was looking forward to it while pouring a glass of whine.
Minabunny
Bogus Brothers Corporation
#7 - 2012-02-08 22:55:27 UTC
EVE = Most boring PVE game play in the industry.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2012-02-09 01:32:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
Very original idea.

/sarcasm


That said, you're still right. And all the others who want it, too.
And CCP should make it hard to beat. ^^

To Hell with Standard-0815-no-need-to-think-just-have-to-switch-hardeners fittings !
To Hell with the Lock-Shoot-Next or afkable My-Drones-will-do-it tactics !
To Hell with I'm-safe-at-long-range Artillery fittings !


Scare me !!!!!

:)


(edit: Your topics name fails, as it's not related to your proposed solution)
Momma Lovebone
Doomheim
#9 - 2012-02-09 02:58:32 UTC
I fully support having the computer controlled enemies act more human so I don't have to actually play against other humans for that experience....

Any chance we can have npcs cry in local for us too after we finish a mission or something?
St Mio
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2012-02-09 12:38:36 UTC
Momma Lovebone wrote:
I fully support having the computer controlled enemies act more human so I don't have to actually play against other humans for that experience....

Any chance we can have npcs cry in local for us too after we finish a mission or something?

Rats should send you hate filled eve mails full of tears for weeks after you've popped their ships, calling you derogatory terms and insulting your mother and the like, as well as spamming obscenities in local whenever they see you.
Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
#11 - 2012-02-09 12:48:11 UTC
Dynamic means work. Lots of work. CCP hates that more than anything.

They have multiple 8 week vacations to go on, you know.