These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Incursion bias
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aynen
Federal Guard and Recon Corporation
#21 - 2012-08-09 13:54:55 UTC
TheSkeptic wrote:
You could just fix your standings and be done with it... there is a plan for it floating about somewhere


I never argued that there was no way to fix low standings, I did argue that the gameplay options for how to improve low standings should be more varied so you can do it in the way you enjoy the most.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#22 - 2012-08-09 16:30:51 UTC
Aynen wrote:
I never argued that there was no way to fix low standings, I did argue that the gameplay options for how to improve low standings should be more varied so you can do it in the way you enjoy the most.


But therein lies the issue. If you could get everything you wanted in EVE by doing the activity you like the most then there are no longer any meaningful tradeoffs to be made. The options actually become less rich. The whole idea of the game is built around actions having consequences and allowing us, as players, to choose the actions we enjoy and accept the consequences. When those consequences become a deterrent to our current course of action, we change actions.

What you're asking for is for is that the actions you choose -- incursions -- to have only positive consequences and a wider range of them to boot. This breaks the system of tradeoffs and disproportionately encourages a single style of gameplay. While you find this beneficial to you, it actually reduces the variety in the game and limits it as a whole. This is bad game design.

As is, it's not hard to play EVE as incursions online. Making it any easier or more desirable to do so is bad for the overall EVE ecosystem. And so it's a bad thing. Follow?
Aynen
Federal Guard and Recon Corporation
#23 - 2012-08-09 17:34:27 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:

But therein lies the issue. If you could get everything you wanted in EVE by doing the activity you like the most then there are no longer any meaningful tradeoffs to be made. The options actually become less rich. The whole idea of the game is built around actions having consequences and allowing us, as players, to choose the actions we enjoy and accept the consequences. When those consequences become a deterrent to our current course of action, we change actions.

What you're asking for is for is that the actions you choose -- incursions -- to have only positive consequences and a wider range of them to boot. This breaks the system of tradeoffs and disproportionately encourages a single style of gameplay. While you find this beneficial to you, it actually reduces the variety in the game and limits it as a whole. This is bad game design.

As is, it's not hard to play EVE as incursions online. Making it any easier or more desirable to do so is bad for the overall EVE ecosystem. And so it's a bad thing. Follow?


I follow what you're saying but I disagree on several of it's points:

1 \ There are several ways of creating meaningful consequence, restricting gameplay is one of them. Loss of assets or territory are 2 others, just to name some.

2 \ I'm not asking that whichever gameplay I prefer (in this case Incursions) should have no negative effects. But I do feel that the potential negative effects should come from mistakes made in performance or risk assessment when using a feature.

We agree however, that reducing variety is bad game design, and no one feature should be financially more viable than another.
Currently, high-sec Incursions are extremely profitable compared to other high-sec activities.
If I understand correctly, this was done to reflect the 'risk versus reward' design goal of Eve in general.
I do not believe it had a very good effect on the game though, and this is where you and I seem to have common ground.
I feel that all activities one can choose to do in Eve should have a scale of possible risk you can take on where the end and beginning of the scale are balanced out across the board. That way, if you want to make as much money doing PI as you can doing Incursions, the option to take a more risky approach to PI should be available, and in return, the payout increases upto a max isk/hour payout that is equal to the max risk scale for Incursions.
That makes all features financially equally viable without losing the risk versus reward design.
How exactly features like PI can be made more risky I leave open for suggestions for now. I could muse on it if you like?
Keith Planck
Hi-Sec Huggers
#24 - 2012-08-10 02:38:43 UTC
you 2 should just private convo each other in game and discuss this without wasting forum space


inb4 keith your a hypocritical *****

♞
Sturmwolke
#25 - 2012-08-10 03:37:49 UTC
Klymer wrote:

.. bad standings, which is easy to get if you do some missions, and not being able to enter a certain region of space is not a good reason to have that same content in other regions?


Should we stop missions from affecting standings then - both positive and negative?
Can't have it go one way you know. Big smile

Klymer wrote:

While your argument for not moving them is....you have to fly a long ways to get there?


The same way you're arguing achieving a -5 to eliminate from being KOS is a very difficult task that the average player have a lot of difficulty with ... and you know what?
It's even a one-shot affair ... and there's even a guide for it (by DC. Michael iirc) ... what more could you ask? Oh hang on, maybe we can petition the GM to magically wave it away. Lol

Now you make think little of the distance argument for incursions from the vantage point of someone who doesn't run them regularly, that will change when you do.

Klymer wrote:

From a game design perspective, choice that has an impact is preferable to bland homogeneity, hands down. A choice which has no consequence is meaningless. Your choice is simple, don't screw up Amarr standings autopilot or htfu and fly your ship to where the content is you want to run.


You sound mad.
Solomunio Kzenig
The Intrinsic Ones
#26 - 2012-08-10 10:54:12 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
Aynen wrote:
I never argued that there was no way to fix low standings, I did argue that the gameplay options for how to improve low standings should be more varied so you can do it in the way you enjoy the most.


But therein lies the issue. If you could get everything you wanted in EVE by doing the activity you like the most then there are no longer any meaningful tradeoffs to be made. The options actually become less rich. The whole idea of the game is built around actions having consequences and allowing us, as players, to choose the actions we enjoy and accept the consequences. When those consequences become a deterrent to our current course of action, we change actions.

What you're asking for is for is that the actions you choose -- incursions -- to have only positive consequences and a wider range of them to boot. This breaks the system of tradeoffs and disproportionately encourages a single style of gameplay. While you find this beneficial to you, it actually reduces the variety in the game and limits it as a whole. This is bad game design.

As is, it's not hard to play EVE as incursions online. Making it any easier or more desirable to do so is bad for the overall EVE ecosystem. And so it's a bad thing. Follow?


+1 for Zhilia Mann, could not have put it better myself.
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#27 - 2012-08-10 22:28:30 UTC
I think part of the problem here is that people are counting Ammatar and Khanid space as Amarr...

thhief ghabmoef
Previous page12