These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Possible way to encourage people to run missions together?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#1 - 2015-04-07 10:00:45 UTC
hey guys,
so at the moment, I make more running missions solo (well, if you exlude the noctis alt), than I do in a fleet with corpies, and I got thinking (I know, a dangerous game that....), anyway, it struck me that what limits the amount you can earn whilst running missions is largely the amount of warping you have to do.

you increase the fleet size, you burn through the pockets quicker, you finish the mission quicker, you get slightly more lp, but you spend a greater percentage of your time just warping from A to B, reducing your isk/hr. This strikes me as a penalty to group play.

So, first thought:
"what if you had missions that you could take out as part of a fleet?" - sounds good, although it'd need to be adjustable per fleet size.....

"what if you had double, or triple the NPC's to shoot?" - "oh wait, that makes things even easier for solo runners, and doesn't help the problem"
"what if they were tankier" - as long as these ships would take roughly the same amount of time to take down with double the DPS, and MORE than double the time to take down with the same amount of DPS, we might be onto a winner here..... (and yes they would give about double the bounty)
if they take about the same time to take down with triple the DPS, and pretty much CAN'T be taken down by a single player (for triple the bounty ofc)?, yesssss, this might work

we could also start to scale up the incoming DPS as the fleet size increases, so that in a 2-man fleet mission (I'm not counting the salvager here) they have saaaay, 1.5x to 2x the incoming DPS, and as such need to tank just as well (instead of being able to split the same amount of incoming DPS two ways), and when you get up to a fleet of 4 or 5, you start needing to bring some RR.....

YES, some people in their marauders would be able to take on small-fleet missions solo, but probably at a reduced isk/hr than solo missions.

These may also work as a build-up scenario to incursions (as the rats would be less intelligent and use less ewar), as there is still a HUGE step up from missions to incursions.

As usual, all comments/criticisms/shouts of "you mad bro?" welcome,
just keep it civil, and explain your reasoning

thanks guys
Xe

EDIT:
if there's anything you don't understand, lemme know, and I'll try to clarify

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2015-04-07 10:04:27 UTC
Whilst it is a nice idea, as long as marauders exist it is impossible to balance well.

Either you limit it to them and make it challenging for them thus locking out everything else or marauders will dunk all over it.

I'd farm these to death with a pair of vargurs....gods those things know no bounds.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#3 - 2015-04-07 10:16:34 UTC
yeah, but the idea is it wouldn't be isk-efficient for someone to farm these with too few ships, as they'd take too long to kill the NPC's,

*I'm not too concerned by the incoming DPS as a primary balancing factor, more the tank of individual NPC's, so it's about isk effeciency.*

the issue is that it's currently more isk-efficient to take 2 vargurs on 2 seperate missions, so if someone with 2 vargurs wants to run a 2-man fleet mission, or possibly 3 (although the 3-man should be less isk-efficient for them than a 2-man), that's exactly the idea.

The isk/hr should be SLIGHTLY up from running missions separately, (2x the isk/rat, between 2 chars = 1x the isk), and that can be balanced, if people can agree that there IS an appropriate balance point

the idea of gating marauders out and having seperate missions for them is an interesting one though

tl;dr, I'm not about challenging the tank - but the isk efficiency of the ship running it

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#4 - 2015-04-07 11:41:20 UTC
Maybe a mission with a hackable object tied to a loot crate about 75km away. Loot crate re-locks 10 seconds after hacking.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#5 - 2015-04-07 12:16:21 UTC
*points at Incursions*
That's what you want.

What will actually make group PvE viable are dynamic NPC's, & Dynamic sites with multiple optional objectives, so you can do them solo and do one objective (Maybe 2) or do them in a group and each person does one objective. So that you aren't getting slowed down in any way by multiple people, or 'splitting' payouts.
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#6 - 2015-04-07 12:19:50 UTC
there's player-led systems already in place

the helpmymission community channel
and
corp fleets
Lugh Crow-Slave
#7 - 2015-04-07 12:25:59 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
*points at Incursions*
That's what you want.


or if you want to go to the next level check out Escalations on C5-C6 holes i find they rely less on having a large number of ships/alts and more on team work than incursions

(the comunity is also a lot less toxic than the incursion one)


but i also agree with the rest of what nevyn said

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#8 - 2015-04-07 13:40:58 UTC
-1
Lots of technical why this would not work so I will go a different way with my objection to your idea.

Those who want to run missions as fleets can and do run them now. Making your requested changes will not have any significant affect on players running missions as a fleet.
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
#9 - 2015-04-07 14:37:32 UTC
In my humble opinion:

The groundwork has already been laid for the teamwork mission via the Burner missions. These already greatly encourage teamwork, and remain soloable by the determined. I suggest the eventual addition of destroyer, cruiser, battlecruiser, and battleship burner missions. They would be restricted to hull sizes smaller or equal to the size of the burner.

Furthermore the "Team Anomic" missions with larger hulls could become really intense, taking down a battleship with two supporting battleships fitted for RR could be a lot of fun. Naturally as the hull size increases so will the rewards.

CCP is already on the right path, they just need some more development time to get the content out there.

Now with 100% less Troll.
Daerrol
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2015-04-07 14:44:09 UTC
Is this a secret nerf highsec incursoin thread? I'm confused.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#11 - 2015-04-07 15:13:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Xe'Cara'eos
This was a genuine idea by a fairly casual player, not intended to nerf incursions (by being both lower DPS requirement and isk/hr), nor to be pitched at the difficulty of burners (except in terms of tank, maybe even more so.....), but merely to encourage slightly more joined up gameplay.

If everyone thinks this is a silly idea then fair enough, I'll leave be

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#12 - 2015-04-07 15:14:18 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
-1
Lots of technical why this would not work so I will go a different way with my objection to your idea.

Those who want to run missions as fleets can and do run them now. Making your requested changes will not have any significant affect on players running missions as a fleet.


technical issues - fair play
as for being ABLE to run them as fleets, sure, but there's a financial disincentive for doing so, which I was trying to remove.

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Ix Method
Doomheim
#13 - 2015-04-07 15:54:23 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
This was a genuine idea by a fairly casual player, not intended to nerf incursions (by being both lower DPS requirement and isk/hr), nor to be pitched at the difficulty of burners (except in terms of tank, maybe even more so.....), but merely to encourage slightly more joined up gameplay.

If everyone thinks this is a silly idea then fair enough, I'll leave be

It's not a bad idea, just needs refining. Incursions are a niche, side argument that barely need considering given both could co-exist and hardly anyone (% of players) does them.

There's no reason why this couldn't work given well thought out ewar, neuts, etc. to stop two Marauders doing missions instead of 5 players. Or hard limits on players required in mission pockets/on-grid to receive bounties. Or changes to the way missions are offered.

Nothing is off-limits, lay it out for us how you think it would actually work, flag up where you want suggestions for mechanics or whatever and *shrugs* maybe people will run with it Smile

Travelling at the speed of love.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2015-04-07 15:57:50 UTC
One way I have considered this before is rather than simply throw more rats at the group of players have there be several locations and objectives at once, all of which must be completed within a time that cannot be accomplished by a single player (without some fearsome multibox skills in which case fair play to them...). Mix in hacking and scanning too so that more than combat ships are required.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#15 - 2015-04-07 16:12:31 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
One way I have considered this before is rather than simply throw more rats at the group of players have there be several locations and objectives at once, all of which must be completed within a time that cannot be accomplished by a single player (without some fearsome multibox skills in which case fair play to them...). Mix in hacking and scanning too so that more than combat ships are required.


The issue with most stuff like that is that it does not value player interaction but alts interaction.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#16 - 2015-04-07 16:26:52 UTC
Ix Method wrote:
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
This was a genuine idea by a fairly casual player, not intended to nerf incursions (by being both lower DPS requirement and isk/hr), nor to be pitched at the difficulty of burners (except in terms of tank, maybe even more so.....), but merely to encourage slightly more joined up gameplay.

If everyone thinks this is a silly idea then fair enough, I'll leave be

It's not a bad idea, just needs refining. Incursions are a niche, side argument that barely need considering given both could co-exist and hardly anyone (% of players) does them.

There's no reason why this couldn't work given well thought out ewar, neuts, etc. to stop two Marauders doing missions instead of 5 players. Or hard limits on players required in mission pockets/on-grid to receive bounties. Or changes to the way missions are offered.

Nothing is off-limits, lay it out for us how you think it would actually work, flag up where you want suggestions for mechanics or whatever and *shrugs* maybe people will run with it Smile


@Corraidhin - I hadn't thought of that, but it'd be along the same kind of lines....

@Ix - what I was thinking of was.....
(for say, a 5 player combat fleet (all BS sized DPS), with a single salvager)
there is a fleet agent, with a slider for the number of combat ships available, so the FC sets it to '5', pulls out, say...... 'right hand of zazzmatazz - 5 player'
the fleet warp to the mission space, and kill all the NPC's in the same amount of time it would take a single player to run the normall 'hand of zazzmatazz' mission:
- the fleet HAS to focus fire
- all the NPC's have active/passive rep (no buffer tanking), and have about 6-7x the tank of a solo mission NPC
- each of the NPC's has about 5x the bounty (which is then split 5 ways)
- the incoming DPS is probably 3-4x the amount of a solo mission, but since aggro swaps - this shouldn't test any single player's tank more than soloing a single player mission
- NPC's should NOT focus fire on a weak link, but keep swapping
- a 4 player fleet can do the mission, IF they focus fire, and have good skills, but it's probably more isk/hr for them to do the 4-player version
- a 6 player fleet can do the mission faster, but it's probably more isk/hr for them to do a 6-player mission
- a 3 player fleet probably won't have the DPS to run the mission, and if they do it's very low isk/hr due to the NPC tank
when the field is cleared the salvager warps in and salvages roughly 5x the amount of random drops, and salvage (maybe),
the fleet goes back to the agent, the FC hands in, for approx 5-6x the mission reward, and about the same multiplier of LP
rinse, repeat

I'm not averse to locking out a fleet that's too small by 2 players or 25% of the intended fleet size (whichever is the larger difference), I have no objection to extra combat ships going in, as it means splitting the rewards a bit further
logi and salvaging ships should be allowed in regardless of number - if someone wants to bring 8 logi and 5 BS to a 5-player mission, fine by me

things I don't want:
- a big increase in DPS, causing new-bros to be kept out of these missions
- requirement for dedicated logi for small numbers (if you've got 10 combat ships, I can start to see a point to forcing them to bring logi....)
- requirement for uber-tanky ships, I'd like a turtle-drake to be able to tank reasonably well in a battleship mission in this scenario
- a solo marauder able to do a 3-player fleet mission, it should simply lack the DPS (it's got 8 guns, and a flight of medium drones), I want a 3 player fleet mission to require about 18 guns and 3 flights of medium drones, but if dual vargurs can run 3 person missions, with good character skills, I'm fairly ok with that.....
- to lock out players joining in late, so if a fleet is already in the mission, the newcomer should be able to get in easily.

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#17 - 2015-04-07 16:28:05 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
One way I have considered this before is rather than simply throw more rats at the group of players have there be several locations and objectives at once, all of which must be completed within a time that cannot be accomplished by a single player (without some fearsome multibox skills in which case fair play to them...). Mix in hacking and scanning too so that more than combat ships are required.


The issue with most stuff like that is that it does not value player interaction but alts interaction.


mmmmh, and that is something that I have not been able to get beyond, because a 3-player alt fleet would be just as capable at running these as a 3-player fleet with 3 people.

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Garnoo
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2015-04-07 17:54:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Garnoo
easy to exploit...
example: youre doing a missions and some random guy warps in - dps scales and your tank cant handle this (opposite: using non in fleet alts to boost numer of rats = bounties)
if you add anything harder or risky in hisec missioning it will end like burner missions - almost noone do this

People are going to try to ruin your day. Get together with others, ruin their day back -  EvE
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#19 - 2015-04-07 20:03:33 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
One way I have considered this before is rather than simply throw more rats at the group of players have there be several locations and objectives at once, all of which must be completed within a time that cannot be accomplished by a single player (without some fearsome multibox skills in which case fair play to them...). Mix in hacking and scanning too so that more than combat ships are required.


The issue with most stuff like that is that it does not value player interaction but alts interaction.


mmmmh, and that is something that I have not been able to get beyond, because a 3-player alt fleet would be just as capable at running these as a 3-player fleet with 3 people.


Which is part of the root of the problem. The retention rate of the game basically said that if you don't get involved with other player, you will quit faster than if you do. If any work is to be done on PvE, it should be aimed toward stuff that can't be done by a SINGLE PLAYER. If it can be multi-boxed with alts, it's useless as it does not reward player interaction. If you burn-out of running missions, you will burn out of running 2 missions at a time. You might also burnout while running missions with a buddy but your social interaction might also attach you more strongly to the game.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#20 - 2015-04-07 20:20:40 UTC
Garnoo wrote:
easy to exploit...
example: youre doing a missions and some random guy warps in - dps scales and your tank cant handle this (opposite: using non in fleet alts to boost numer of rats = bounties)
if you add anything harder or risky in hisec missioning it will end like burner missions - almost noone do this


the mission difficulty would not scale once you had accepted the mission
and it's not supposed to be difficult in terms of danger, only in number of guns needed to break NPC tank

sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my posts

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
12Next page