Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This is short and to the point.

I feel a solution to the often reappearing controversy revolving around PvE in null, and covert / cloaked shipping, is that they are not interesting when on grid with each other.

In fact, too often what we are left with seeing is the PvE pilot focused on evasion, while the covert pilot is focused on stopping this escape.
The reason being, simply, if they were to actually attempt space combat that it would end being one sided.

So, what is it that would make this interesting?
Put the PvE ships on a level field with the covert / cloaking ships.

Both ship types have a specialty function, necessary to justify their use over pure combat oriented ships.
One cloaks and can slip past defenses to reach targets.
One harvests ore / grinds up non-capsuleer pirates for bounties and rewards.

Neither should be expected to stand toe to toe with ships designed purely for space combat, but they SHOULD be able to handle each other, and require pilot skill and effort to determine who wins a kill mail.

For this, the covert / cloaking ships are basically already prepared.
The PvE ships, mining specifically for fitting with ratting specifically needing an omni tank / DPS, want attention.

Two details for ratting, I would suggest that an omni tank become the norm, with the DPS being needed to match.

Seriously, these pirates should have figured out by now that capsuleers are familiar with their weaknesses and strengths.
Change it up, and in the process make the ratting fit more comparable to the PvP fit.

For mining, their are two details needing attention as well.
The barge / exhumer strip miners need to have recognized fitting hard points, just like missile launchers and turrets.
Then they just need their CPU & cap expanded, along with their slots, so that they can field a fitting capable of tank & DPS on the same level as their covert / cloaked opponents.

Make this aspect of the game interesting, and it will expand from emergent interest.

CCP has been saying this for years and its just as meaningless as ever.

I feel this, while mostly correct, is too simple to have meaning on it's own.

I think we already know this needs to be done, but we are looking for a means to the end goal.


I don't know why you want to throw such a wild blanket statement out like that, but there it is.

I can borrow a line from myself, posted elsewhere, to answer this:
The assumption that players will stand idle to defend others has proven too often to be a mistake.

Yes, it makes for ideal play experience, but it also handicaps anyone operating solo, or in a group too small for combat oriented players to be drawn in by an interest in protection.
It just doesn't happen on too many occasions, judging by the number of complaints resulting around the details.

The fact that successful mining ops exist simply fails to recognize that mining takes place quite often outside of these ops.
It could be fairly said that only a limited portion of mining actually happens in ops at all.

Actually I am a miner, more than anything else.

I feel ratting is comparatively easier to explain, (how to fix), by comparison. I feel this is because ratting already is space combat, but against an opponent too specialized for the same approach to be as practical against other players as a result.

Mining, that is trickier, since the primary mining ships have different play values depending on whether you are in high sec space or not, obviously because Concord appears there.
You know in high sec your automated DPS is going to appear, and dish out the pain.
In low and null, you rely on other players for this, which has demonstrated itself to be a flawed approach, in my opinion.

I feel this is the blanket statement you are making, effectively:
>>Your point assumes that mining ops always exist, and are available at all times as a result.

>>Assuming, of course, the player is a member of "a corp/alliance that understands the game mechanics".

I like it. In a perfect world, I bet there would be a never ending mining op.

In high sec, players can get comparable results from the defense provided by Concord. It would be far more similar if Concord were not so predictable, and as a result able to be bypassed by those determined enough.

Outside of high sec, shall we tell players that they need to change corps, if their's does not meet this test for competence?
I feel that is too harsh, and not reasonable to expect.

Why, might you ask?
SIMPLE.
Because while EVE should always reward group play, it should not do so at the expense of grossly handicapping all others.
I feel group play should be better, but not at all the only reasonable path to a rewarding play experience in these areas.

Space combat is fun. I want to extend the potential to PvE on a more practical level than exists currently.
Not tell players deal with it or get a bigger group. I feel that sweeps the issue under the carpet, so to speak.

While they are decent points, the problem is you're expecting someone else to instigate an operation for you. Nothing is stopping you from organizing one yourself(unless if your corp/alliance is that restrictive). Gate camping is hardly exciting, but players do it all the time. Nothing stops you from conducting mining from behind the safety of said gatecamp or moving the gatecamp to the mining location. There are tradeoffs inherent in each and the lack of security is the price you pay for increased value of goods and reward.

Look, I've done basically everything in EVE and I can tell you that mining doesn't need its risk reduced, on the flip side I think its reward is meager and needs a buff, but that's a discussion for another time.




It's unfortunate that you're jaded enough to believe something that contrived(especially as a renter! I would think you would know all about null bearing), but I can agree that pve is not very analogous to pvp. It's misleading to new players who take their first steps into pvp, and usually quite off putting.

Would it make sense to overhaul missions such that you're fighting fewer (albeit tougher) ships that would necessitate PvP fits, ie: if you don't tackle the key mission ships in a set period of time they warp off resulting in mission failure.

Without getting too involved in the arguments of "there is a problem" and "is there a problem" some ideas I have been working on.

Fist some null bear facts.
Ratters
wish to make the most isk per "tick" (a cycle of bounty payouts" possible and so tank is set to rat type and max dps.
Tend to use blingy ships to do so and as such are adverse to risk them.

Miners in Null with current fittings for exhumers are decided hard to omni tank, A hole is often left depending on rats in the area.
The other issue it to maximize the amount of ore per cycle often tanks are gimped.
While one on one somone with max skills can have a decent battle with a covert ship in and exhumer, most miners do not train up the necessary combat skills to do so. Most cloaky attackers will not engage unless it is really obvious there is a reasonable chance the pilot is afk or is not tanked. or is about to do a hot drop.

Tactics that cover both.
If you have enough active people online, you can have a fleet. and with a "drone ball" with one designated trigger there are few who would dare approach or engage without some kind of force projection.
Ratters while often rat solo have a fleet going where by if a small gang comes through it becomes a home defence fleet.

The key here is you must have others online for fleets.
There are many times that I am on with one or two at most in chat and make most of the defence tactics in effective.
on the cloaky side, you are doing one of three things,
scouting for a gang, gathering intel for targets.
looking for targets to attack using force projection "hot drop"
or interfering with operations by just being in a system cloaked up "cloaky camping"

Feel free to argue these facts, as they are in general and not specific it is only to give an idea for what I am about to suggest. and are not the point of this post.

Covert vessels - should be able to passively target and scan ships while cloaked. The act of changing cloak should break target. This would give the covert pilot the opportunity to choose battles more carefully and would encourage solo one on one or small gang.

Exhumers - Should have an increase in fitting or at least changes in resist to make it easier to omni tank and mine.
Ratters - Personally I rat in my pvp fits, I do not make as much isk per tick but then again I make most of my in other ways.
I do not have many good ideas for this other than to make the types of rats more diversified.
For instance facing Angels you should expect any kind of damage and for the rats to switch up damage types as most Minmatar pilots can. that would encourage people who rate to fly omni tanked or closer to pvp fits.

Force projection. - this is not a thread for afk cloaking. so neither is this post. however using a deployable scan inhibitor on an anomaly should in my opinion remove the anom from scan, you can still scan down the mobile structure as s it works now.
on the same token maybe mobile structure that automaticly decloaks when a covert comes on grid. However the main point of this topic is how to encourage pve to work like pvp and vice versa.
My thoughts

I think it would, too. As well as meeting the part in terms of PvP fit, the NPC AI needs to play the part as well (at least better than it does). And I think a ± variation on the types of ships would keep it fresh as you won't be able to necessarily run the same mission the same way twice. The first step in getting players out of PvE mode is incentivize them to fit for PvP.

I would find it greatly game enhancing if the concept of farming of rats vanished from perception, when considering how we play regarding them.

I believe more would embrace the idea of an immersive and challenging experience fighting these, above the repetitive grind too often seen now.

Add to this, the idea that PvP ships could harden their skills against both PC and NPC alike by the experience, and I feel this is a win / win combination.