These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123Next page
 

Make PVE mission deadspece private
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Exterminatus Illexis
Unmarked Discrete Packaging.
#21 - 2013-03-21 17:32:59 UTC
EVE is a PVP game. If you don't like PVP either learn how to avoid it, (fit a tractor beam and use salvage drones on a drake or something) or deal with it.

So yeah. As said earlier, NO.

With love,

Your favorite idiot.
Akuyaku
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-03-21 17:43:45 UTC
If you want to avoid PVP stop playing, get off the forums, and sell your computer. Or start shooting back.
Saul Elsyn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#23 - 2013-03-21 17:43:51 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
The Devs have a stated goal of having PvE and PvP fit ships become more compatible so that a pirate starting something with you isn't a one way encounter. This is what should be worked on, not removing the possibility of PvP interaction. Once the pirates have to endure the same level of hardship you do in always bringing a fleet, fitting for the area and being prepared for whatever you may do, then these sorts of encounters will spice up mission running, rather than just griefing half the player base to appease the other half.


Sadly PvP setups and PvE setups remain fundamentally different due to how NPC ships fight (poor damage, no reps usually, and so forth... leading to cap stable active tank setups being common, when PvE content is more in line with what to expect from a PvP engagement in terms of threat and counters, then the fits of PvP and PvE setups would largely be the same... aside for PvE ships not having webs and scrams... and thus more tank or ECM.
Onomerous
KARNAGE
Ghostbirds
#24 - 2013-03-21 18:02:07 UTC
Are they going suspect/blinky yellow when they do it? Does it happen in a certain system and/or by a certain person/corp?

Awesome... get friends to wait nearby and counter-gank them. You don't have to PVP. Let your friends get the kill while you continue your mission. There are many people in hi-sec willing to shoot yellows for you. Find them so both groups (maybe to some degree the pirate) get want they want!!
Steel Roamer
Southern Baptist Space Warrior Collective.
V0IDLINGS
#25 - 2013-03-21 18:53:23 UTC
Choses to play an MMO...


Doesn't like the MMO aspect.


OP, I think the problem lies in your failed sense of logic.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2013-03-21 19:07:58 UTC
Sura Sadiva wrote:
Sprite Garrett wrote:
There should be ways for every basic career path to be enjoyable and playable for solo players, making mission deadspace private so that only the mission holder and people they are grouped with can enter doesn't interfere with the rest of the game and allows PVE mission running to be accessible and enjoyable for solo players.


Is not that EVE is a PvP game, is that in EVE is a sandbox, so interactions between players are the engine producing gameplay and cannot be filtered by artificial barrier/mechanics. Open world PvP is a mere consequence of this.

The LP, loot and isk you earn from mission is not "private". When you use it (selling on the market, build, reprocess, anything you do) you influence other people gameplay (as in any sandbox type game), why aren't you open to accept other players influence on your gameplay too? have to be "private" only when is good for you?

beside mission sites are already pretty safe, mostly in low sec and far more in null. You don't need a squad guarding you, you see if somoene is approaching the warp in gate.



Sandbox = PvP, period. PvP is not ALWAYS pewpew, any interaction between two players will invariable end with one getting the better deal, even if both players exchange items of roughly eqal value, the players personal assets and resoucres mean what he traded for himself could have been of higher or lower value compared to what was traded by the poorer player, as he could afford more of it.

interaction = pvp, the only way to have non-pvp in eve owld be to take out high-slots and NPC-seed everything on the market for 1 isk. even then there would be the "who has the MOST stuff" pvp.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#27 - 2013-03-21 20:09:45 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
I always liked how this guy put it...

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=482176#post482176

Crumplecorn wrote:
"It's a sandbox"

But then, some bright spark in the back pipes up, EVE is a sandbox, so I should be able to do whatever I want. EVE is indeed a sandbox, however it is a Multiplayer Sandbox. The definition of a sandbox is not "I can do whatever I want", it is that rather than providing a specific experience, the game provides an environment and tools with which to craft your own experience. For single-player games, these definitions are functionally the same. The problem with a multiplayer sandbox is that not only can you do whatever you want, so can everyone else. You want to mine in highsec in complete peace? The game lets you. It's the other players that are the problem.

The hypocrisy of demanding the freedom to do what you like, while simultaneously demanding or celebrating the curtailment of other people's playstyles should be self-evident, but apparently it's not.

"EVE isn't a PvP game"

Yes, it really is. Being, as it is, a multiplayer sandbox, it is a shared environment which we all inhabit together and all affect. For any of it to be non-PvP, all of it would have to be non-PvP. Even if CCP made it so it was impossible to blow up spaceships in highsec, highsec would still affect the rest of the game just by being there. As long as we are all playing the same game, the guy in the corner mining endlessly has an effect on the guys fighting a war in the other corner. And so, requests to be able to act with impunity will be not be received well by those who actually understand the game.


Underlined the important parts.

How did you Veterans start?
Warcalibre
NovaTech Holdings
#28 - 2013-03-21 22:19:56 UTC
Sprite Garrett wrote:
As shocking as this might sound NOT EVERYONE LIKES PVP.


EVE is pvp game. By playing EVE you are consenting to all forms of pvp in any form. When you fly a mission you are consenting to being scanned down and ganked. When you haul 93 PLEX in an untanked Loki, you consenting to be alphaed by a gatecamp and lose all your PLEX.

If this is not your style, you could try other games. Maybe Florensia? Can I have your stuff?
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#29 - 2013-03-22 14:49:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Saul Elsyn wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
The Devs have a stated goal of having PvE and PvP fit ships become more compatible so that a pirate starting something with you isn't a one way encounter. This is what should be worked on, not removing the possibility of PvP interaction. Once the pirates have to endure the same level of hardship you do in always bringing a fleet, fitting for the area and being prepared for whatever you may do, then these sorts of encounters will spice up mission running, rather than just griefing half the player base to appease the other half.


Sadly PvP setups and PvE setups remain fundamentally different due to how NPC ships fight (poor damage, no reps usually, and so forth... leading to cap stable active tank setups being common, when PvE content is more in line with what to expect from a PvP engagement in terms of threat and counters, then the fits of PvP and PvE setups would largely be the same... aside for PvE ships not having webs and scrams... and thus more tank or ECM.



As things currently stand, that is correct. But they have stated that they want to make changes so that the 2 playstyles are more compatible. I look foward to this. It's a sandbox game in which almost all of the shovels have been given to the guys that pretty much just want to bonk eachother and everyone else over the head with them. I look foward to the day where my options upon seeing a couple of guys pop into local are more than "Hide until they get bored and go away" or "Die Horribly". The recent AI change has influenced this, though that work is woefully incomplete and a bad change arriving in a vacuume as it did.

The OP's problem is directly related to this current imbalance. He got jumped in his mission, and the mechanics of the game are set up that any reasonably fit ship dealing with PvE is all but helpless against a reasonably fit PvP ship. There are some things he could have done better, I am sure---but the bottom line is he should have been able to mount a reasonable defense, not simply burn and die because someone chose to engage him. All the herpaderp 'solo pvp' players will tell him to suck it up and learn to warp out on seeing potential hostiles, and then go on to other threads and complain that PvE players are too safe because they can warp out and hide when they show up. As someone who does not care for PvP I can sympathize with the OP... I certainly don't care enough of PvP to hunt down others, I much prefer to explore and exploit the environment. I am not, however, opposed to PvP action--- if I had a reasonable chance at surviving an engagement, I would stay and fight it out. It is not reasonable that I take my expensive mission fit ship and must maintain an OCD level of awareness of dscan and local at all times, and my only defense is that I must run and hide from any neutral forces that show up regardless of numbers, fleet composition or hostile intent or else virtually guarantee the loss of my ship and failure of my mission goals.

So while I disagree that there needs to be any sort of private or instanced space to do PvE in, I agree that some changes need to be made in the current game so that the playstyles are compatible. Flying a ship that is not viable in PvP should be a choice, not enforced by the game mechanics. I don't need a kill board, so I will likely not fit a scram in favor of stuff useful against NPC's, but at the very least I should be able to put up a decent fight and have a chance to drive them off.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#30 - 2013-03-22 15:26:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Velicitia
Mike Voidstar wrote:
(stuff)


y'know ... just for grins I fit up a (bad) PVP blaster Mega. Other than hating myself for going with Neutrons instead of 425mm rails, the mission wasn't "impossible" ...

I assume that it just took longer than if I had fit for max resists, etc that a "normal" mission boat would have ... in that I couldn't just grab aggro and sit and tank the rats til it was over.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Akuyaku
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2013-03-22 15:47:52 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
(stuff)


y'know ... just for grins I fit up a (bad) PVP blaster Mega. Other than hating myself for going with Neutrons instead of 425mm rails, the mission wasn't "impossible" ...

I assume that it just took longer than if I had fit for max resists, etc that a "normal" mission boat would have ... in that I couldn't just grab aggro and sit and tank the rats til it was over.

I don't know about "normal" but a good mission ship would actually be fit for max damage and minimum tank. (you can get away with as low as a 400 dps tank if your damage is good)
Velicitia
XS Tech
#32 - 2013-03-22 16:32:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Velicitia
Akuyaku wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
(stuff)


y'know ... just for grins I fit up a (bad) PVP blaster Mega. Other than hating myself for going with Neutrons instead of 425mm rails, the mission wasn't "impossible" ...

I assume that it just took longer than if I had fit for max resists, etc that a "normal" mission boat would have ... in that I couldn't just grab aggro and sit and tank the rats til it was over.

I don't know about "normal" but a good mission ship would actually be fit for max damage and minimum tank. (you can get away with as low as a 400 dps tank if your damage is good)

I was running an omni tank with ~60% resists across the board, and the fitted armor repper was only soaking ~240 DPS (on paper). It has ~100k EHP (94k against straight thermal (missiles), 102 against multifreq), and is throwing 885 (antimatter, no heat + drones )-1070 DPS (faction antimatter overheated + drones).

So, you're trading tank for gank. There's nothing wrong with this ... but the problem comes in where missioners "have" to fit a resist-specific tank in order to run these missions. Furthermore, missions give the (incorrect) impression that a BC or BS is nigh unstoppable. They should really scale up the L4 missions such that you cannot win them without support.

rough approximation of what you need:

1. noobship (because there will always be that time when someone will lose everything)
2. 2x destroyers or cruisers. BC with undersized guns
3. 2-3 BC, or a BS with undersized guns
4. 1-2 BS with 1-3 frigate/desssie/cruiser/BC escort
5. 2 BS, with escorts & scouts, etc.

scale payouts up such that you're not making the payouts completely not worth it, AND throw in the incursion payout mechanic for L3/4 missions ...

L3 - fleet size of 2-4 for 100% payout
L4 - fleet size of 4-6 for 100% payout
L5 - fleet size of 4-8 for 100% payout

Numbers totally up in the air, and are merely provided for illustrative purposes.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#33 - 2013-03-22 17:12:16 UTC
Sprite Garrett wrote:
As shocking as this might sound NOT EVERYONE LIKES PVP. Players interested in PVE mission running have to deal with constant griefing by PVP trolls. As for the forum trolls who will inevitably response with flame wars about PVE whining and bitching: IT'S A GAME, it's meant to be enjoyed and there is NO enjoyment in being constantly griefed and harassed by no-life teenagers who hate their lives so much they have to make everyone else miserable right along with them.

I get that the game is open and greatly unregulated and a certain amount of piracy is to be expected and there are precautions PVE players and non-combat players can take to avoid most piracy, but a PVE mission runner is basically helpless while running a mission, griefers can come into their mission deadspace and destroy or steal mission objectives in highsec space and outright murder the player in lowsec space while the player is already swamped with dealing with the mission NPCs. The only option a PVE mission runner has for lowsec missions is to have a squad of friends constantly on standby nearby to bail them out, a HUGE pain in the ass.

There should be ways for every basic career path to be enjoyable and playable for solo players, making mission deadspace private so that only the mission holder and people they are grouped with can enter doesn't interfere with the rest of the game and allows PVE mission running to be accessible and enjoyable for solo players. Other deadspace areas like those found with probing would remain public and open to piracy, only the temporary and personal mission spawned deadspace areas would be private. The change is simple, has no impact on the rest of the game and prevents players who are only interested in PVE combat from getting frustrated and leaving the game (which is a business after all, players getting pissed and quitting is bad for business from what I hear).


I think you are playing the wrong game. Eve is not about PVE and consensual PvP. Eve if about emergent game play and that means non-consensual PvP and other things. Eve is also a social game in that while you can play it solo there is much more for those who play in groups (corporatoins, alliances, and coalitions).

So, no.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#34 - 2013-03-22 17:56:59 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Akuyaku wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
(stuff)


y'know ... just for grins I fit up a (bad) PVP blaster Mega. Other than hating myself for going with Neutrons instead of 425mm rails, the mission wasn't "impossible" ...

I assume that it just took longer than if I had fit for max resists, etc that a "normal" mission boat would have ... in that I couldn't just grab aggro and sit and tank the rats til it was over.

I don't know about "normal" but a good mission ship would actually be fit for max damage and minimum tank. (you can get away with as low as a 400 dps tank if your damage is good)

I was running an omni tank with ~60% resists across the board, and the fitted armor repper was only soaking ~240 DPS (on paper). It has ~100k EHP (94k against straight thermal (missiles), 102 against multifreq), and is throwing 885 (antimatter, no heat + drones )-1070 DPS (faction antimatter overheated + drones).

So, you're trading tank for gank. There's nothing wrong with this ... but the problem comes in where missioners "have" to fit a resist-specific tank in order to run these missions. Furthermore, missions give the (incorrect) impression that a BC or BS is nigh unstoppable. They should really scale up the L4 missions such that you cannot win them without support.

rough approximation of what you need:

1. noobship (because there will always be that time when someone will lose everything)
2. 2x destroyers or cruisers. BC with undersized guns
3. 2-3 BC, or a BS with undersized guns
4. 1-2 BS with 1-3 frigate/desssie/cruiser/BC escort
5. 2 BS, with escorts & scouts, etc.

scale payouts up such that you're not making the payouts completely not worth it, AND throw in the incursion payout mechanic for L3/4 missions ...

L3 - fleet size of 2-4 for 100% payout
L4 - fleet size of 4-6 for 100% payout
L5 - fleet size of 4-8 for 100% payout

Numbers totally up in the air, and are merely provided for illustrative purposes.



The difference comes in with how tanking is done, and the nature of PvE rats. A good mission fit has the smallest active tank you can get away with, with as much damage as you can put on. Where you run into trouble with PvP comes from a couple of different places:

1. Raw Hitpoints are going to be far lower on the average mission ship. The tanking strategy is about long term endurance, not surviving a 2 minute encounter at extreme levels of performance. If you break the dps cap of the active tank, the ship goes down quickly, especially if it's an armor ship. Passive resist shields are often also very thick due to the way passive shield resist works, but armor is 100% about resists and active repair on the PvE side of things.

2. Cap stability. Because of the focus on long term endurance, mission fit ships are most often fit to be cap stable. This means that slots that PvP fit ships devote to Webs, Points, and Prop mods are instead generally devoted to Cap Rechargers. This also makes mission fit ships extremely vunerable to cap warfare, since cap injectors run counter to the long term endurance standard that most PvE fits strive for. This is also true of rigs, where a PvP ship has many options for damage, plugging resist holes, etc... Most mission ships, especially the armor ones, are just rocking the Capacitor Control Circuts to support that active tank forever. You also don't see many dual (or, god forbid, triple) repair set ups due to cap stability... that tank is as thin as can be gotten away with, and you just burn down rats as quick as you can to reduce incoming dps to managable levels.

3. Ewar. Most mission ships just ignore that it exists. Not only does it compete with the all important cap modules, but NPC rats are effectivly immune to it, and defending against it is pointless as you will have it stacked on you so many times it does not matter. The only effective defenses against NPC Ewar are Drones, FoF Missles, and simply burning down the offending ships in between cycles. The standard counters in PvP, such as Eccm and Neuting are pointless against NPCs, and Drones die very vast in every PvP encounter I've ever been in. Even unbonused, Ewar of almost any flavor is going to be radically effective against a mission fit ship.

The result is that a mission fit ship is very vunerable to anything able to push more than about 400dps (in extreme cases), assuming you are hitting what it's tanked against----you can go with far less if you can select damage away from the what the rats are shooting. Even that tank is very vunerable to cap warfare, the ship in general is defenseless to ewar, and if you can kill drones and tank anemic FoF missles, then a frigate and even most PvP fit cruisers have nothing to fear from the average Mission fit ship. In most cases you can have a pretty good idea what type of damage before you ever warp into a mission pocket to roll the missioner---just tank for the NPC's, and fit a little buffer and you will easily outlast him, especially if you have a neut or nos on board.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#35 - 2013-03-22 18:01:00 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
(stuff)


y'know ... just for grins I fit up a (bad) PVP blaster Mega. Other than hating myself for going with Neutrons instead of 425mm rails, the mission wasn't "impossible" ...

I assume that it just took longer than if I had fit for max resists, etc that a "normal" mission boat would have ... in that I couldn't just grab aggro and sit and tank the rats til it was over.



I mission with 425 rails all the time, I hate blasters and their non-range having issues.
Satracz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#36 - 2013-03-22 20:39:10 UTC
I say one word :

Noooooooooo!

OK a second Word :
neeeever !
Luc Chastot
#37 - 2013-03-22 20:53:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Luc Chastot
As shocking as this might sound, EVE IS A PVP GAME.

Edit: On another note, actually I wouldn't mind if mission mechanics were changed in such a way that they favored fleets vs solo, a la incursions but at a smaller scale (1 less pay, 2 ok, 3 ideal and 4 less again). Solo pve content could be left for exploration.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#38 - 2013-03-22 20:56:35 UTC
monkfish2345 wrote:
GallowsCalibrator wrote:

No.



QFT
Mag's
Azn Empire
#39 - 2013-03-22 21:08:35 UTC
GallowsCalibrator wrote:
No.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Kali Omega
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#40 - 2013-03-22 21:20:01 UTC
Mag's wrote:
GallowsCalibrator wrote:
No.



2nd that no

eve should never be 100% safe
Previous page123Next page