These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Always able to run? And no Concord? Unknowable missions?

First post
Author
Fa Xian
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2016-02-15 17:09:58 UTC
What if there were no warp scramblers or disruptors?

It seems to me you'd have vastly fewer kills. Anyone losing a fight would flee; neither hardcore PVP nor hardcore carebear would stick it out to the bitter end. PVP would be less about unfair, one sided ambushes... which to me seems to be almost the entirety of it. You'd have to use bait and tricks to win. And the game would have to encourage players to choose to fight - avoiding cookie cutter fits and single purpose ships.

Preventing players from fleeing is generally bad game design. It is a simple, hard counter, neither tactical nor strategic. You make almost no sacrifices to fit it. There's no point in trying to fit around it. The modules offer no value in other situations, making them boring.

It's odd to think about how much thought went into strategy and tactics; generally, the game is quite shallow overall. PVE encounters lack any kind of dynamic configuration - the enemies are static strategy (resists, damage) and even static position and composition. Much like this could really use a boost, it seems like PVP could also benefit from a change.

Let's think about it in general - to be out in space, vast, unknown... and the cops show up? It seems rather I should have a reason to be there, to stay out in space. And by staying there, I get benefits and incur risks. I fight NPC pirates - their loot is in space. If I flee, I lose the loot. If I want my loot, I fight to defend it. Imagine building a ship in space; perhaps with a minigame like hacking where you Tetris parts together using your construction ship. If you flee, your parts are stolen. If you want your assembly, you defend it. Mining? It goes into a can. If you flee, your ore is taken. If you want your ore, you defend it.

This seems more inline with the intended play style of the game. Pirates actually steal things not by blowing up helpless transports but by raiding. Nothing happens - save perhaps the market - in the safety of stations. In return for more dynamic play, restraints must be removed. People cannot be stopped fleeing. Godlike space police cannot show up to kill pirates in moments. Encounters cannot be canned.

I admit this is too much change for anyone to entertain. I believe it would be good change though. The spirit of the thought is some simple principles;

1) Choice over force
2) Risk versus reward
3) Dynamic over static

There's so much room to make a better game here. With all the baggage this game has, perhaps someone else will rise to the occasion. It seems unlikely EVE would be allowed to.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#2 - 2016-02-15 17:21:45 UTC
Why should you be allowed to flee from a fight you accepted?

If you want to do thought experiments, how about if PvE content did not allow you to flee? Say every NPC dropped a point on you the second you applied damage to them. I think that would force you to commit to a mission before you enter it, and have backup on standby to rescue you in case you bite off more than you can chew. That would seem to me to be more in keeping with the way the game was conceived of as you would be forced to put something on the line in pursuit of a reward.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#3 - 2016-02-15 17:22:50 UTC
Move out of high sec. Instant change.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
#4 - 2016-02-15 17:23:39 UTC
you're drunk OP, go home.

Just Add Water

perseus skye
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2016-02-15 17:26:59 UTC
What if their was no ships ...discuss
Fa Xian
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2016-02-15 17:27:59 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Why should you be allowed to flee from a fight you accepted?


You should want to stay. Fleeing should mean losing whatever you were in space trying to get.

Quote:
If you want to do thought experiments, how about if PvE content did not allow you to flee?


This is going in the wrong direction. People confronted with no win situations don't accept risk. Instead, consider a situation where they know they can flee, but can't profit unless they stay.

Choice. Not limit. Tempt. Not force.

Quote:
Say every NPC dropped a point on you the second you applied damage to them. I think that would force you to commit to a mission before you enter it, and have backup on standby to rescue you in case you bite off more than you can chew. That would seem to me to be more in keeping with the way the game was conceived of as you would be forced to put something on the line in pursuit of a reward.


Nope. People would just bring enough to win via EVE Survival... many missions already have what you're suggesting. It does nothing.

You want people to have mission risk? Every ship in a mission is random resists, random damage, random starting position. Now, players are confronted with figuring out how to approach it, not just fly in and follow the guide.


Fa Xian
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2016-02-15 17:29:43 UTC
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote:
Move out of high sec. Instant change.


Meh. In a game composed of winning by numbers, there's little incentive to go alone.

I spend a lot of time in null, low, and wh... boring. Watch dscan. Cloak. Flee.

Wouldn't you like more?
Fa Xian
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2016-02-15 17:30:29 UTC
Nat Silverguard wrote:
you're drunk OP, go home.


No, I'm a game designer. I'm just calling out design flaws.
Fa Xian
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2016-02-15 17:35:44 UTC
Fa Xian wrote:
Choice. Not limit. Tempt. Not force.


Just about the best in game system now is exploration.

Here, you are distracted, hanging in space. Providing content for others. Earning a risk versus reward with even a jackpot payoff, too.

This actually works. Even with scram, though the fight bit is a little sad.

How about this? If you chase a guy who has hacked a can out of a site, it despawns and you get a bounty from the organization owning it? Say, 50% the market value of the remaining cans?
Takari
Resource Warring
#10 - 2016-02-15 17:36:21 UTC
What you call a flaw, some of us consider a feature, and one that I rather enjoy.

"Roll the dice, don't think twice. This is the way of things. Welcome to EVE." ~ CCP Falcon

"Good luck, shoot straight and don't back down." - Serendipity Lost

Fa Xian
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2016-02-15 17:37:26 UTC
Fa Xian wrote:
How about this? If you chase a guy who has hacked a can out of a site, it despawns and you get a bounty from the organization owning it? Say, 50% the market value of the remaining cans?


A guy is in a mission. You chase him off? It despawns and you get - immediately - half the remaining value of the ships there.
Fa Xian
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2016-02-15 17:39:58 UTC
Takari wrote:
What you call a flaw, some of us consider a feature, and one that I rather enjoy.


I think you only find it that way as you've not had better.

Unless you're into one sided, boring fights so lopsided the only way to make them work is that you have to force the loser to keep playing to get your enjoyment.

Or did you mean you like Concord showing up to defend you?
Fa Xian
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2016-02-15 17:41:55 UTC
Even chasing would be better than lockdown.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#14 - 2016-02-15 17:42:46 UTC
Fa Xian wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Why should you be allowed to flee from a fight you accepted?


You should want to stay. Fleeing should mean losing whatever you were in space trying to get.

Quote:
If you want to do thought experiments, how about if PvE content did not allow you to flee?


This is going in the wrong direction. People confronted with no win situations don't accept risk. Instead, consider a situation where they know they can flee, but can't profit unless they stay.

Choice. Not limit. Tempt. Not force.
But it isn't no-win when they accept the fight. People only undock when they think they have something to gain whether that is loot (from NPCs or other players) or a killmail. You are tempted with loot as an inducement to undock. If you don't want that risk, stay in station.

You are not entitled to farm resources into the greater economy that effects us all while retaining the option to decline a fight. Your undocking is consent to fight.

Fa Xian wrote:
Quote:
Say every NPC dropped a point on you the second you applied damage to them. I think that would force you to commit to a mission before you enter it, and have backup on standby to rescue you in case you bite off more than you can chew. That would seem to me to be more in keeping with the way the game was conceived of as you would be forced to put something on the line in pursuit of a reward.


Nope. People would just bring enough to win via EVE Survival... many missions already have what you're suggesting. It does nothing.

You want people to have mission risk? Every ship in a mission is random resists, random damage, random starting position. Now, players are confronted with figuring out how to approach it, not just fly in and follow the guide.


Sounds good to me. Random resists, random spawns and random damage all very much more like the rest of Eve rather than the no-effort, read-a-website grindfest most of Eve's PvE has become.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#15 - 2016-02-15 17:43:54 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Fa Xian wrote:
Fa Xian wrote:
How about this? If you chase a guy who has hacked a can out of a site, it despawns and you get a bounty from the organization owning it? Say, 50% the market value of the remaining cans?


A guy is in a mission. You chase him off? It despawns and you get - immediately - half the remaining value of the ships there.


So basically, you've just devised a way for me to grab half the value of a mission as quickly as I can accept them on my alt.

Sounds pretty awesome.

By awesome, I mean "********".

Maybe you should give us some background on your experience in Eve PvP, OP. I suspect it is vanishingly little, and your opinions are predicated on a general lack of knowledge.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Fa Xian
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2016-02-15 17:47:16 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
So basically, you've just devised a way for me to grab half the value of a mission as quickly as I can accept them on my alt.

Sounds pretty awesome.


Sounds like you've mistaken an off the cuff observation for balance tested code. It's an easy mistake to make when being snide online is more important to you than honest contributions.
Neuntausend
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#17 - 2016-02-15 17:51:01 UTC
Fa Xian wrote:
You should want to stay. Fleeing should mean losing whatever you were in space trying to get.


How does this apply to haulers? Get caught, run away and fly a different route. Or log off for an hour and try again later. Not much of a loss.
Miners? Just try another belt/another system.
Ratters? Just try another anomaly.

Even worse: What about "Pirates" - people who are out and about harassing Ratters and Miners? They'd not risk anything doing so. Attack someone and either kill him or run away.

Also - to be in range of a warp disruptor is a consequence of a choice already. You decide to jump through a gate without a scout, you decide to be out in a slow ship during a war, you decide not to watch your directional scanner for combat probes...

Once you are within 24km of someone who is out to kill you, you should not be able to just run away anymore. (although you still might be able to - ECM, Damps, Neuts, plain old speed - warp disruptors can be countered. Being able to do so is also a choice).

If you get pointed and killed, it's almost always because you messed up somewhere. It's all about choices.
Fa Xian
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2016-02-15 17:51:26 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Your undocking is consent to fight.


And you'd still have it. You just can't force it on me. You're free to attack me. If I hide in a station, I get nothing.

In fact, I'm much more willing to risk leaving as I know I can keep my ship and flee. For my lesser risk, I'm expecting lesser, diwn to no reward. You own space unless I want to fight you for it.

You already have play like this on an alliance scale. Why not play like that on a small scale?
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
#19 - 2016-02-15 17:53:32 UTC
Fa Xian wrote:
Nat Silverguard wrote:
you're drunk OP, go home.


No, I'm a game designer. I'm just calling out design flaws.


well, i guess, it's safe to assume that CCP will never hire you. P

this is a game about ship explosion, majority of people play this game because of ship explosion. limiting ship explosion in this game doesn't compute. if your "feature" and "brilliant ideas" are not about more ship explosions, then sorry, your "game design" is not for EVE, and as i've said earlier, you're drunk, go home.

based on your kb, well, we can see where you are coming from. exploding is normal dude, suck it up.

Just Add Water

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#20 - 2016-02-15 17:54:01 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
This is probably a troll, but I'll bite.

Fa Xian wrote:
What if there were no warp scramblers or disruptors?

It seems to me you'd have vastly fewer kills. Anyone losing a fight would flee; neither hardcore PVP nor hardcore carebear would stick it out to the bitter end. PVP would be less about unfair, one sided ambushes... which to me seems to be almost the entirety of it. You'd have to use bait and tricks to win. And the game would have to encourage players to choose to fight - avoiding cookie cutter fits and single purpose ships.

Alternatively... you get MORE single purpose ships...

... that are designed to deal as much damage as possible in as short a time as possible...

... to destroy a target before it has a chance to escape...

... much like suicide ganking...

... and massive fleet warfare.


Keep in mind that warfare in general is a "negative-ISK" activity. You gain nothing from doing it unless territory is at stake, a target is fat and juicy, or you want to do it.
But even then, if the odds are not in your favor or you find yourself losing... you have no reason to stay. So you will leave regardless of the potential payoff you will be giving up.

That's the point behind the warp disruption mechanics. To force people to commit to fights they go into and to make people more careful about where they go and how they do things (lest you be "grappled" and killed).
123Next pageLast page