These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Pve in Eve seems unrewarding and not so interesting.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Solutio Letum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2012-12-07 17:21:46 UTC
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
I think the main problems with PVE are:

1) That it has weird risk/reward payouts. For instance, most of the risk involved in sleeper PVE is not even in the mission itself, but in GETTING TO the mission in your gimpy PVE ship. You either have to bring two fittings with you and switch them out, or be woefully underprepared for pirates in your ship that is fitted for PVE.

2) It's pretty boring and repetitive.

3) It creates a strange "two separate worlds" situation with combat, where PVE and PVP don't translate well, which results in people playing two different games, and not nearly as much enriching multiplayer interaction and opportunities as there could be.


Like others here, I agree that the solution to both of these things is to make PVE more similar to PVP. If this is done well, then :
* PVE can have much more risk of losing your ships (or at least some forms of it that you can optionally choose have more risk), and can be justifiably associated with success
* It would be more skill based (real life player skills, not character skills), which is always a good thing.
* It would also be much more entertaining and engaging.
* It would train you better for PVP and vice versa, so that people all play together more on all fronts (it is an MMO after all)
* It would be less intimidating to fly to PVE engagements in null sec in your gimpy PVE ship, because if PVE and PVP were more similar, then the same ship would be more appropriate for traveling around null sec AND for running the missions once you get to your destination. Which makes the risk/reward less weird and broken.

There are a ton of ways to make PVE more like PVP, several have been mentioned here, but the ones I feel are most important:
1) PVE enemies should routinely tackle you. Not overwhelmingly/all of them, but almost every room of missions starting at level 2 or so should have one or two tacklers. Including bubbles in higher level missions.

2) On the flip side of the coin, PVE enemies should routinely use their warp drives. Everything from warping to different rooms to rep up when they are close to dying, to warping their buddies on top of you once one of their faster ships has gotten in range, to warping between bounce points on grid as a means of maintaining sniper range, etc.

2B) Also they should use a lot more EWAR.

3) AI needs to be improved. This would not be NEARLY as difficult as people are making it out to be. I think a lot of people overestimate just how amazingly clever and adaptable and awesome they are, while in reality, most PVP is performed according to a limited set of fairly well-rehearsed scripts. So you could be a fairly "dumb" AI, one which does not take into account very many variables at all, and still vastly increase the interest and difficulty of PVE. For instance, something as simple as having 5 or 6 pre-programmed basic strategies for each type of NPC ship. Then just have them switch between those strategies based on some simple input, like "how many of my NPC fleetmates have died recently using strategy A? Lots? Well then switch to some other strategy. None? Well then keep doing A." That would mimic the bulk of the learning and adaptability that goes on in PVP, honestly, and would probably be good enough to bring the two much much closer together, without a ton of coding effort.

4) There should be fewer but stronger NPCs on every grid. PVE is all too often currently about grinding down a huge swarm of gnats one by one, which encourages things like repping-oriented tanks, drones, and heavy reliance on kiting, none of which work very often for PVP. If NPCs had fewer ships, but much more furiously high-DPS blitz types of ships (combined with tacklers and interceptors, etc. as mentioned above), then it would be more like PVP, and people would be rewarded for buffer type tanks more, bringing the two fighting styles more closely together. It would also be more exciting and adrenaline-pumping, because the whole mission would be faster and the stakes would be higher.

These things also all reinforce one another. For instance, if NPCs aggressively warp out to rep themselves (#2) and there are fewer of them (#4), then it becomes much more difficult to blow up 5 ships, go to a station, and come back and blow up 5 more ships, etc. You have to deal with the entire battle at once more often. And THAT combined with more varied strategies (#3), even canned ones, means you need to fit yourself to deal with a wide variety of flexible situations all at once when you go to PVE, which is much much more similar to PVP.


Quote:
Just so what I'm saying is clear: I don't think it's a likely or worthwhile goal to try to make PVE as difficult as PVP. What I'm gunning for is more to make it so that there is some parallel with fittings and tactics.

Right. Difficulty is very easy to scale (and all difficulties can be available at once in the form of different level missions and sites and belts). Similar style is what it's about.


you can make a living off of PvP
^but its hard, really hard
^if you make pve has hard has pvp you then get really low income (current loot) for what you get....
^if you make it so you can pay to lose a 100million worth ship every few sites everyone is gonna want to do them
^so every one does it and instead you get inflation every thing spawned in that site then is worth less then it was because... everyone does it
^so you make it hard to access for less pple to get to it like in WHs and in nullsec or somethign like that
^then its worth allot but not everyone can get there

why not instead make it worth it killing a ship? like making a device that can pick up the loss of an enemy ship in a better way then currently, so then you can make these guys hard to kill. so you can destroy your ship come back its not (has muc) abig lose if you go back kill em and pick your stuff and there stuff
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#62 - 2012-12-07 17:24:35 UTC
One this people seem to forget is that these "surprise attacks" do happen by npcs, but since these spawns are always the same then they're really not a surprise anymore.
Solutio Letum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2012-12-07 17:47:14 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
One this people seem to forget is that these "surprise attacks" do happen by npcs, but since these spawns are always the same then they're really not a surprise anymore.


no they dont, sometimes there are but your generaic carebears hope for it, all missions and mostly all sites are on tracks, and you need to go from pocket to pocket no matter what, you cant plane to attatck there chese factory before there nukes because it seems fine to you, and even if you could it wont make a difference

like i said even if they dont know about it they wont die.... i was doing extravaganza once and hit 3 triggers by accident without notecing, all i would of done to not die is warp out, get my alt logi and go back in (or any alt :P) if there is really a small one pointing me il just kill him with my drones, and then warp out, if they would put points on larger targets now that would be scary..... but they dont, so even a surprise attack is more like

"oh no i need to warp out!"
goes on coms
"someone wanna make some big isk!??!?"
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#64 - 2012-12-07 18:14:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimeo Khamsi
Solutio Letum wrote:

^if you make pve has hard has pvp you then get really low income (current loot) for what you get....
^if you make it so you can pay to lose a 100million worth ship every few sites everyone is gonna want to do them
^so every one does it and instead you get inflation every thing spawned in that site then is worth less then it was because... everyone does it

Erm, what?

No... If it becomes hard enough and volatile enough that you DO lose a 100 million isk ship every few sites, but the system pays people accordingly, how would that necessarily "lead to inflation?"

More isk would be entering the game, but more 100 million isk ships would be LEAVING the game, too... Obviously, it is CCP's job to balance these two factors so that the net effect is a reasonable stream of isk entering the game overall, similar to how it is now. An amount of overall profit that makes it worth doing, but not so much so that everybody and their brother does it.

There is no reason at all why CCP would not be able to choose balanced payouts to accomplish that, just like they balance everything else.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#65 - 2012-12-07 18:15:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Verity Sovereign
* More random spawns (both spawn number, and spawn composition)

* Normal spawns drop low tier faction ammo (the crap stuff that nobody uses because Navy ammo is better and more abundant)

* More faction spawns

* Faction spawns will warp off if not pointed, as will some other spawns (and have a higher change of dropping high tier faction ammo)

* Lower Rat bounty payout, add in LP payout (including concord LP for rats outside of missions, so incursions aren't the sole source of Concord LP)

* Flexible tag requirements (Ie Fed navy webs require X number of caldari tag type A, or Y number of Caldari tag type B, or Z number of serpentis tag type C) so more LP can be used for something other than ammo and implants

* more mission types
-- take some that are only for lvl 2 or 3, and make a lvl 4 variant
-- missions we can fail for some reason other than the 7 day timer expired (possibly because someone looted a mission item like the damsel, or you accidentally shot the can) - escort /defeding a target missions, the objective warps off if you don't scram it (but make these failure conditions clear in the briefing - perhaps restrict this early failure type to lvl 4 mission)
-- missions where there is a single very powerful and nigh-unkillable NPC that has an E-war weakness (so you can use Ewar on it,),
-- missions like incursions where there are certain things you can hack to make the rest easier. Missions where tactical use of the Microjump drive can bypass an environmental hazard or a group of Uber-enemies (perhaps ones with no bounties, or ones that you may not want to kill due to standing penalties because *insert empire faction here* is present and defending an area of space from all intruders for *insert reason* but not a mission objective).
---- you could have a mission where the enemies would be really really tough to kill, but by Microjumping from one spot to another spot with an environmental hazard inbetween, what seemed like a nigh impossible mission becomes doable as ships take heavy damage closing in.... etc
Allowing players to create their own mission scenarios, and vote on the best ones (try them on the test server) would make creating this content cheap and easy for CCP.
Solutio Letum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2012-12-07 18:20:59 UTC
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Solutio Letum wrote:

^if you make pve has hard has pvp you then get really low income (current loot) for what you get....
^if you make it so you can pay to lose a 100million worth ship every few sites everyone is gonna want to do them
^so every one does it and instead you get inflation every thing spawned in that site then is worth less then it was because... everyone does it

Erm, what?

No... If it becomes hard enough and volatile enough that you DO lose a 100 million isk ship every few sites, but the system pays people accordingly, how would that necessarily "lead to inflation?"

More isk would be entering the game, but more 100 million isk ships would be LEAVING the game, too... Obviously, it is CCP's job to balance these two factors so that the net effect is a reasonable stream of isk entering the game overall, similar to how it is now. An amount of overall profit that makes it worth doing, but not so much so that everybody and their brother does it.

There is no reason at all why CCP would not be able to choose balanced payouts to accomplish that, just like they balance everything else.


ok so to do what youd like is this here, for every ship that warps in youd need something else about has strong that spawns in, if you try to get a carrier in they get enougth ships to kill a carrier, if you get an officer fitted Marauder they also get one of these, if you get 5 logis they also do, if they dont match your things

so you CANT get in there thinking you got an edge, exactly like what i was talking about a few days ago, where they spawn more the more you get for your self, although if you know what is gonna be coming its boring so it has to be randomized, meaning sometimes they bring 2x more or some times they dont bring what they should of.

they should not aim allways for what youd think theyt would aim to, cant be controlled, and they need more scrams then frigates... again...
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2012-12-07 18:23:09 UTC
Verity Sovereign wrote:
(and have a higher change of dropping high tier faction ammo)


Minor comment: I must confess, I don't understand why everybody is so gung-ho about drops. Sure, this is one way to give payouts, and yes, if PVE is made harder, payouts need to be larger.

However, making too much of your payment be in the form of drops has an obvious negative side effect: It gimps the industrial sector of the playerbase. They have no need to be building things anymore if those things are just getting spawned in huge numbers by missioners.

And at the same time, it doesn't even really matter to the missioners. Why do you care whether you get 100,000 isk in a module, versus your agent simply paying you 100,000 isk extra for completing the mission? if anything the modules are just more annoying, because you are forced to fly over to every wreck to loot them, and forced to go visit trade hubs to sell your junk all the time.

Thus, relying too much on module based payments seems lose-lose for everyone: industrialists are hurt, and missioners are more inconvenienced.

I say just stick to isk as the vast majority of your payment, and make valuable drops only be special things that you get occasionally on some missions for doing things like fighting a battle especially well, or meeting optional side-objectives. But even then, just as a little bit of icing on a primarily isk-based cake.
Solutio Letum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2012-12-07 18:27:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Solutio Letum
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Verity Sovereign wrote:
(and have a higher change of dropping high tier faction ammo)


Minor comment: I must confess, I don't understand why everybody is so gung-ho about drops. Sure, this is one way to give payouts, and yes, if PVE is made harder, payouts need to be larger.

However, making too much of your payment be in the form of drops has an obvious negative side effect: It gimps the industrial sector of the playerbase. They have no need to be building things anymore if those things are just getting spawned in huge numbers by missioners.

And at the same time, it doesn't even really matter to the missioners. Why do you care whether you get 100,000 isk in a module, versus your agent simply paying you 100,000 isk extra for completing the mission? if anything the modules are just more annoying, because you are forced to fly over to every wreck to loot them, and forced to go visit trade hubs to sell your junk all the time.

Thus, relying too much on module based payments seems lose-lose for everyone: industrialists are hurt, and missioners are more inconvenienced.

I say just stick to isk as the vast majority of your payment, and make valuable drops only be special things that you get occasionally on some missions for doing things like fighting a battle especially well, or meeting optional side-objectives. But even then, just as a little bit of icing on a primarily isk-based cake.


bounties coming from concord are bad, because they only come in from nowhere, it only inflates the marke, compared to moduals who actually exchange hands for a reason

you see if "everyone" is doing money in bounties there is no one exchanging stuff, while everyone is trying to buy stuff with this money nothing is getting exchanged meaning you are going to "run out" of this stuff, meaning less supplies so higher cost, bounties are gonna be worthless in no time (has in... sometime)
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#69 - 2012-12-07 18:29:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimeo Khamsi
Quote:
ok so to do what youd like is this here, for every ship that warps in youd need something else about has strong that spawns in, if you try to get a carrier in they get enougth ships to kill a carrier, if you get an officer fitted Marauder they also get one of these, if you get 5 logis they also do, if they dont match your things

so you CANT get in there thinking you got an edge, exactly like what i was talking about a few days ago, where they spawn more the more you get for your self, although if you know what is gonna be coming its boring so it has to be randomized, meaning sometimes they bring 2x more or some times they dont bring what they should of.

they should not aim allways for what youd think theyt would aim to, cant be controlled, and they need more scrams then frigates... again...


Yes something like that.

One way would be to make it so that the mission is locked to a particular ship when you accept that mission. So when you talk to the agent, they give you objectives, and the amount of isk reward, etc. is based on the current ship you have in your hangar.

If you accept, then the mission can only be completed with THAT exact fit and ship. Anything else, and it won't even allow you to warp to the deadspace pocket when you get there. If you die, then you failed the mission, period (you can't even go back, since you lost your ship that was locked to that mission).

If you don't accept, you can go switch ships, and come back and talk to the guy again, and the isk reward will now reflect whatever ship you are now flying, and its fit.

Then the rats would be generated accordingly.

And obviously, depending on your standings with the corp and agent level, you would be restricted to only some maximum level of isk (and by proxy, ship type/fitting). If you try to accept with a ship too strong for your standings, it will just tell you you can't do it ("You seem to be overqualified for this mission." blah blah).



Only problem is, I don't know how to make this work with more than one person flying a mission together. I'm sure there's some way that would make sense though. Hm.

________________________________________

Alternatively, you could do it more like you're suggesting, and have it be based on what you have when you warp in. At which point it generates rats accordingly and then locks everything in place again. The main reason I don't like this is that it would also have to adjust your payment from the agent as you warp in, which seems confusing, especially to newbies.

However, this would probably be easier to set up in a way that makes sense with multiple cooperative pilots. For instance, before you warp to a mission the first time, a friend could sign on officially to your mission with you. Then, when you first warp in, it sets the rewards and the rats according to the assumption that you will both be on grid at the same time (and based on whatever ships you are both flying at the time of the first person warping in), and locks that in place.
Solutio Letum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2012-12-07 18:43:35 UTC
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Quote:
ok so to do what youd like is this here, for every ship that warps in youd need something else about has strong that spawns in, if you try to get a carrier in they get enougth ships to kill a carrier, if you get an officer fitted Marauder they also get one of these, if you get 5 logis they also do, if they dont match your things

so you CANT get in there thinking you got an edge, exactly like what i was talking about a few days ago, where they spawn more the more you get for your self, although if you know what is gonna be coming its boring so it has to be randomized, meaning sometimes they bring 2x more or some times they dont bring what they should of.

they should not aim allways for what youd think theyt would aim to, cant be controlled, and they need more scrams then frigates... again...


Yes something like that.

One way would be to make it so that the mission is locked to a particular ship when you accept that mission. So when you talk to the agent, they give you objectives, and the amount of isk reward, etc. is based on the current ship you have in your hangar.

If you accept, then the mission can only be completed with THAT exact fit and ship. Anything else, and it won't even allow you to warp to the deadspace pocket when you get there. If you die, then you failed the mission, period (you can't even go back, since you lost your ship that was locked to that mission).

If you don't accept, you can go switch ships, and come back and talk to the guy again, and the isk reward will now reflect whatever ship you are now flying, and its fit.

Then the rats would be generated accordingly.

And obviously, depending on your standings with the corp and agent level, you would be restricted to only some maximum level of isk (and by proxy, ship type/fitting). If you try to accept with a ship too strong for your standings, it will just tell you you can't do it ("You seem to be overqualified for this mission." blah blah).



Only problem is, I don't know how to make this work with more than one person flying a mission together. I'm sure there's some way that would make sense though. Hm.


ok and locking ships in missions is what makes missions generically boring... there should be escalate in Pve misisons/plex's even with subcapital ships, locking missions to certain ships is silly... why block someone to go kill some pirates? with some kinda of special gate, thats what i hate about missions, id love to just have to go somewhere i know and kill pirates, something a bit more.. static, well until you clear it, but clearing it should not take a silly 10 minutes, there should be lines of backup waiting incase something happens

my only real point is you cant make something that hard and with that much possible income without anything else then bounties... only thing thats gonna do is everyone is gonna do it for a while until everything on the market runs out and then prices go up sky high until you cant pay for anything, so isk is gonna be worth less then it was and ether you make these sites give more isk or you do nothing about it making it the same generic mission partern
wathak's sister
The Boring Hole Corporation
#71 - 2012-12-07 19:06:48 UTC
PvE - its fine this is supposed to be an asspect of eve thats a gring for money to fund other projects much like mining except for ur rocks are ships that fire back causing a little more danger though if u consider the possiblities of miner ganks mining can actually be more dangerousin systems that net a good profit

Missions are currently decent pay out once u get to lv4s and have ur skills up i currently have negotiation 5 and that nets 2mil in the reward plus the bounties from rats which average .5mil to 1 mil per rat then atleast 20 of thos in a decent mission yes isk goes up fast. Now add in salvage which ill tell u i average 6-10 mill from a single missions salvage depending on the size. Now for loyalty points yes those are worth something and if done right u can get 30mill from about 6 missions worth of points and im not getting a max bonus towards loyalty points payout. Now ofcoarse the faster the mission is completed the more money u can make in a givin time giving need for better ships.

Now to null sec wich is a good amount of danger for ratters depending on the safety of there space a enemy pilot can come in anytime and kill them. Once properly equiped a null pilot can make an upwards of 40mill every 30 mins even more if they salvagesalvage the sites the can literally undock from station and warp to no exploration no ded sites just undock and go. A ded site ofcoarse can possible net more instant profit but not from bounties instead from the great modules they drop that in most cases can net 1bill on market but once considering all other variables like time searching for it, time takes to run the site, and amount of people required to run i will usualy consider other aspects of pve to be more profitable

Belts now those are tricky
1) the higher the sec the worse off u are
2) incredable easy to be ganked
3) needs to be run properly if theres just 1 extra person not running them right it screws ur profit aswell if theres to many people ur profit is screwed
4)can be extremely profitable getting about half the isk of a top range anom and anom runner but a belt will require much lower skills to net decent profit.
5) every now and then u run across a faction spawn wich can drop loot worth above 20mill plus they have higher bounties
6) rarely extremly rare officer spawn shows up giving u the largest bounty on a single ship aswell can yeild billions in module drops

To put all this short pve is profit able no not challengeing it aint suppose to be its suppose to be a pvpers method of funding his challenging days of pvp
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#72 - 2012-12-07 19:18:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimeo Khamsi
Solutio Letum wrote:

ok and locking ships in missions is what makes missions generically boring... there should be escalate in Pve misisons/plex's even with subcapital ships, locking missions to certain ships is silly... why block someone to go kill some pirates? with some kinda of special gate, thats what i hate about missions, id love to just have to go somewhere i know and kill pirates, something a bit more.. static, well until you clear it, but clearing it should not take a silly 10 minutes, there should be lines of backup waiting incase something happens

my only real point is you cant make something that hard and with that much possible income without anything else then bounties... only thing thats gonna do is everyone is gonna do it for a while until everything on the market runs out and then prices go up sky high until you cant pay for anything, so isk is gonna be worth less then it was and ether you make these sites give more isk or you do nothing about it making it the same generic mission partern


Why would locking the ship to the mission make it "boring?"

You would NOT know ahead of time what types of enemies await you They could be using any of a wide variety of fittings and layouts, making it not static or predictable at all. In addition to having somewhat flexible abilities to change strategies DURING the fight. You have no idea about any of this ahead of time, and you can't back out if it's something you don't like (without failing the mission and taking a standings hit). All you know is that whatever you find, it will be more or less appropriate for the ship type you have to potentially win against. You will know that you have a fighting chance, in other words. You will NOT know that you can definitely win.

That is in no way generic, nor boring. CCP would have to balance it so that the ships auto-generated to match yours are always a bit of a struggle to win against, with some average reasonable % chance of legitimately dying and having your ship blown up every time you go out. Something like a 15-20% average rate of ship loss per mission would be reasonable and interesting, I think.

(An added bonus, by the way, of losing your ship every once in awhile is that it FORCES you to reconsider your fittings every so often from scratch, which is an important way to learn).

And you could be compensated and rewarded for winning against that struggle by pure agent isk rewards OR bounties. Either would be fine, and either could take into account the chance of losing expensive ships and the need to make a profit.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#73 - 2012-12-07 19:24:26 UTC
Interestingly enough, mission rats:
Usually have at least web tackle, the better missions have warp disrupter tackle as well.
Make considerable use of racial ECM.

Now they also make some semi-intelligent decisions regarding targeting.

The main differences between PvE and PvP are predictability and duration.
With PvE you have some idea what sort of ships you will be facing and need to plan for an extended combat engagement with that particular type of ship.

If you are attacking PvE players you know what they are fit to deal with and can counter-fit accordingly. If you do that right you can guarantee a short fight in most circumstances, after which you can go home and repair.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Solutio Letum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2012-12-07 19:25:56 UTC
wathak's sister wrote:
PvE - its fine this is supposed to be an asspect of eve thats a gring for money to fund other projects much like mining except for ur rocks are ships that fire back causing a little more danger though if u consider the possiblities of miner ganks mining can actually be more dangerousin systems that net a good profit

Missions are currently decent pay out once u get to lv4s and have ur skills up i currently have negotiation 5 and that nets 2mil in the reward plus the bounties from rats which average .5mil to 1 mil per rat then atleast 20 of thos in a decent mission yes isk goes up fast. Now add in salvage which ill tell u i average 6-10 mill from a single missions salvage depending on the size. Now for loyalty points yes those are worth something and if done right u can get 30mill from about 6 missions worth of points and im not getting a max bonus towards loyalty points payout. Now ofcoarse the faster the mission is completed the more money u can make in a givin time giving need for better ships.

Now to null sec wich is a good amount of danger for ratters depending on the safety of there space a enemy pilot can come in anytime and kill them. Once properly equiped a null pilot can make an upwards of 40mill every 30 mins even more if they salvagesalvage the sites the can literally undock from station and warp to no exploration no ded sites just undock and go. A ded site ofcoarse can possible net more instant profit but not from bounties instead from the great modules they drop that in most cases can net 1bill on market but once considering all other variables like time searching for it, time takes to run the site, and amount of people required to run i will usualy consider other aspects of pve to be more profitable

Belts now those are tricky
1) the higher the sec the worse off u are
2) incredable easy to be ganked
3) needs to be run properly if theres just 1 extra person not running them right it screws ur profit aswell if theres to many people ur profit is screwed
4)can be extremely profitable getting about half the isk of a top range anom and anom runner but a belt will require much lower skills to net decent profit.
5) every now and then u run across a faction spawn wich can drop loot worth above 20mill plus they have higher bounties
6) rarely extremly rare officer spawn shows up giving u the largest bounty on a single ship aswell can yeild billions in module drops

To put all this short pve is profit able no not challengeing it aint suppose to be its suppose to be a pvpers method of funding his challenging days of pvp



you missed the topic or what? where talking about how worthless pve is and how much easy it is, you just said pve is worth something, but wait a second... 50 millions per hour i consider a small amount.... we need it to be harder and more worth it, not only harder but requires a bit more brain, why also in highsec and hard? because some dont like being hunted by titans and carrier.. thats all really...

i know carebears you know?.... they do like 50 millions an hour from missions in highsec.. they grind it 10 hours a day... do i agree with them on anything? no... there just miners pve style... pve is easy, and i think it should be looked at differently.. when i see someone ratting its just like a miner.

its 100% safe to be in a friendly system in nullsec silly, you just need to keep an eye on local, then dock when some neut come in. its nothing dangerous
Solutio Letum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2012-12-07 19:27:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Solutio Letum
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Solutio Letum wrote:

ok and locking ships in missions is what makes missions generically boring... there should be escalate in Pve misisons/plex's even with subcapital ships, locking missions to certain ships is silly... why block someone to go kill some pirates? with some kinda of special gate, thats what i hate about missions, id love to just have to go somewhere i know and kill pirates, something a bit more.. static, well until you clear it, but clearing it should not take a silly 10 minutes, there should be lines of backup waiting incase something happens

my only real point is you cant make something that hard and with that much possible income without anything else then bounties... only thing thats gonna do is everyone is gonna do it for a while until everything on the market runs out and then prices go up sky high until you cant pay for anything, so isk is gonna be worth less then it was and ether you make these sites give more isk or you do nothing about it making it the same generic mission partern


Why would locking the ship to the mission make it "boring?"

You would NOT know ahead of time what types of enemies await you They could be using any of a wide variety of fittings and layouts, making it not static or predictable at all. In addition to having somewhat flexible abilities to change strategies DURING the fight. You have no idea about any of this ahead of time, and you can't back out if it's something you don't like (without failing the mission and taking a standings hit). All you know is that whatever you find, it will be more or less appropriate for the ship type you have to potentially win against. You will know that you have a fighting chance, in other words. You will NOT know that you can definitely win.

That is in no way generic, nor boring. CCP would have to balance it so that the ships auto-generated to match yours are always a bit of a struggle to win against, with some average reasonable % chance of legitimately dying and having your ship blown up every time you go out. Something like a 15-20% average rate of ship loss per mission would be reasonable and interesting, I think.

(An added bonus, by the way, of losing your ship every once in awhile is that it FORCES you to reconsider your fittings every so often from scratch, which is an important way to learn).

And you could be compensated and rewarded for winning against that struggle by pure agent isk rewards OR bounties. Either would be fine, and either could take into account the chance of losing expensive ships and the need to make a profit.


ok you somewhat agreed with me i saw so i gave it a second though... ya sure you could lock ships out but not for all, only mission types things, i dont get why thats more fun then the current system, but... well ok there is a problem, you cant put another ship in the pocket in null/lowsec.... so you cant be hunted.. i guess thats all i see on it...

problem being it locks ships out so it also makes it impossible to ninja.. thats sounds half carebear... i think auto ajusting depending whats on grid sounds more fun, locking ships has allwyas been boring, also makes it impossible ot come back and salvage i guss
Solutio Letum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2012-12-07 19:29:31 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Interestingly enough, mission rats:
Usually have at least web tackle, the better missions have warp disrupter tackle as well.


no, only frigates have tackles meaning they die within 4 seconds on my clock.. its way to easy to predict again, heavy BSs should have tackles to make sure you are not going anywhere
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2012-12-07 19:46:12 UTC
Solutio Letum wrote:

ok you somewhat agreed with me i saw so i gave it a second though... ya sure you could lock ships out but not for all, only mission types things, i dont get why thats more fun then the current system, but... well ok there is a problem, you cant put another ship in the pocket in null/lowsec.... so you cant be hunted.. i guess thats all i see on it...

problem being it locks ships out so it also makes it impossible to ninja.. thats sounds half carebear... i think auto ajusting depending whats on grid sounds more fun, locking ships has allwyas been boring, also makes it impossible ot come back and salvage i guss


Good points., however...

1) Making it based on what is on grid sounds bad too, though. Then I could just hop in a battleship with a bunch of propulsion and shield tank mods, or that one ship with the micro jump drive, then warp onto grid with you during your mission, and laugh as the number of rats triples and you get instantly overwhelmed (all while I cruise around far out of reach of the battle with superior speed). Seems really illogical / weird.

2) Ninja salvaging is a nifty profession, but I don't think we should hold back the potential all of EVE pve just to protect it. Honestly, what would be so bad about not being able to enter grid with somebody on a mission?

It would be carebeary if missions were like they are now. But they wouldn't be. They would be extremely high risk high reward, dangerous places where you have no guaranteed expectation of keeping your ship intact at all... Those changes seem like they more than make up for the slight risk currently of having somebody hunt you or ninja loot you.
Solutio Letum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2012-12-07 20:07:51 UTC
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Solutio Letum wrote:

ok you somewhat agreed with me i saw so i gave it a second though... ya sure you could lock ships out but not for all, only mission types things, i dont get why thats more fun then the current system, but... well ok there is a problem, you cant put another ship in the pocket in null/lowsec.... so you cant be hunted.. i guess thats all i see on it...

problem being it locks ships out so it also makes it impossible to ninja.. thats sounds half carebear... i think auto ajusting depending whats on grid sounds more fun, locking ships has allwyas been boring, also makes it impossible ot come back and salvage i guss


Good points., however...

1) Making it based on what is on grid sounds bad too, though. Then I could just hop in a battleship with a bunch of propulsion and shield tank mods, or that one ship with the micro jump drive, then warp onto grid with you during your mission, and laugh as the number of rats triples and you get instantly overwhelmed (all while I cruise around far out of reach of the battle with superior speed). Seems really illogical / weird.

2) Ninja salvaging is a nifty profession, but I don't think we should hold back the potential all of EVE pve just to protect it. Honestly, what would be so bad about not being able to enter grid with somebody on a mission?

It would be carebeary if missions were like they are now. But they wouldn't be. They would be extremely high risk high reward, dangerous places where you have no guaranteed expectation of keeping your ship intact at all... Those changes seem like they more than make up for the slight risk currently of having somebody hunt you or ninja loot you.


no, MJD are made to get on top not run away, a firgate would tackle you before the 9 second jump off timer, if you do get away it would just run after you and tackle you, remember these rats want your stuff, not just to defend them selves

by making them switch targets and warp more waves in or just warp waves out if ever they need backup somewhere else it makes it more dynamic, i dont exactly agree with a locked missions, because it basically locks you into a position where you cant really adapt and where the enemy also does not really (or does it?..) even if they do you cant..

i just dont like the mission system at all, they should just put types of "belts" where enemies spawn in allot depending whats on grid, like i was talking about
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#79 - 2012-12-07 20:09:04 UTC
Solutio Letum wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Interestingly enough, mission rats:
Usually have at least web tackle, the better missions have warp disrupter tackle as well.


no, only frigates have tackles meaning they die within 4 seconds on my clock.. its way to easy to predict again, heavy BSs should have tackles to make sure you are not going anywhere

Adding tackle to the BS's that close to tackle range (which is less than half of all the mission BS's) would just reprioritize those particular ships on the target list.

I'd also like to see WD's, Scrams, Neuts, and leeches work effectively on rats.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Solutio Letum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2012-12-07 20:16:57 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Solutio Letum wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Interestingly enough, mission rats:
Usually have at least web tackle, the better missions have warp disrupter tackle as well.


no, only frigates have tackles meaning they die within 4 seconds on my clock.. its way to easy to predict again, heavy BSs should have tackles to make sure you are not going anywhere

Adding tackle to the BS's that close to tackle range (which is less than half of all the mission BS's) would just reprioritize those particular ships on the target list.

I'd also like to see WD's, Scrams, Neuts, and leeches work effectively on rats.


no you dont get it rigth? ALL ships can fit a Point, all ships in a site should be able to have a point, you should see allot of times from 2-4 points on you, because thats how it works in a actual figth, there is at less 50% of all enemy that are pointing you, if they are kiting then they should have the faction bonus for 50km points with faction points making it 60-70km, or should they get to loki/repier bonus with 50-100km webs? with some faction bonus for velocity 90% webs?... i dont get why thats a problem, players actually use these bonus's and most ships have specialized bonus for faction ships literally