Jita Park Speakers Corner

Wonderful thread!

If I may nitpick . . .

Malcanis said:
“Well for genuinely new players, not that much. Actual new players are acceptably well catered for IMO. Personally, I'd be in favour of reforming the 1.0 systems to be one per faction, with one station per starting NPC corp within that faction in each system, much stronger protective rules, but with the major change being that once you leave a 1.0, you can't come back in.”

Noting no return to 1.0:
1) Sorta busts CCPs single shard approach
2) Who’d service the noob markets? For the early part of my EvE career I specialized in selling to the never ending supply of noobs. They could assemble and experiment with their little ships. I made ISK and felt much warm fuzzy that I was doing my market based part to nurse them along.

DireNecessity

Apologies for jumping in again but I discover I have more to say.

As a full time Hi-Sec dwelling criminal, let me expound on my major preference for the location:
I get to turn heightened awareness on and off at off at will. If I’m in the mood to pay close attention I start engaging in criminal activity and see what develops. If I’m not in the mood I mind my PDQs and am comparatively free to blithely ignore my surroundings. I get to dabble in the very intense and the very relaxing.

Eve has its gentle pleasures. One of those is getting really efficient at something. If you happen to be a Hi-Sec miner you can train and work your way into pleasing expertise. If you happen to be a Hi-Sec mission runner the long train and much work into a blinged out Marauder yields a stunningly proficient LvL 4 experience. I went the mission runner route and eventually faced the malaise inducing problem of topping out. Reaching the end of that long ladder and moving on to something else can be a wrenching gaming experience because it means abandoning much of what one’s become really good at.

I thought Facton Warfare was going to be the next step for me. There are faction missions, I’m a mission expert, let’s do this thing. Turned out the missions were cake easy and the hard part was running the gate camps to get to them. In a terrible case of perverse incentive, Faction Warfare mostly taught me how to avoid PvP.

One of the complexities of Hi-Sec PvP is that in busy systems you have no way of knowing how many of the occupants in the 50+ count local are not neutral but rather NPC corp based RR wielding combatants itching to jump in on the fight. Solo/small scale gang fighting is discouraged; especially for the casual player who isn’t in a position to organize sneaky cross corp fleets.

A mechanic that in certain very specific situations enabled a player to know who they were really facing could greatly enhance Hi-Sec small scale PvP appealing to casual players. Perhaps PvP missions that:
1) Carts the combatants off to a dead space pocket for relatively isolated combat
2) Slaps the combatants into a fleet together so they know exactly who they’re facing
3) Enables you to fit for PvP. Any experienced mission runner worth their salt won’t engage in PvP with their PvE ship as they know they’re almost certain to lose
4) Like all missions, these could scale up: Frigate missions, Cruiser missions, BB missions, etc. . .
5) Given that you’re now missioning against other players you’ll never top out since players, unlike NPCs, are a crafty, crafty lot

This reeks of “arena” and I'm sure it's been suggested before but I proffer it just the same.


DireNecessity

Malcanis President..Malcanis President !! CSm first..but after..president !! Nice post

What if we would change the mechanics of the Rats that if someone is being attacked they change their aggression to the attacker and bring in some more webber/scrambler against him?

I mean if I would be a Rat and some dude tries to kill my Target I would get much more aggressed against him than against my well tanked Target which i am already shooting at for long time (yeah I know a little bit RP sorry about that ;)).

It just have to be made carefully not that the Logistics getting aggro which are i guess nescessary in L5 missions.

edit: ok thats all :)

Trying to concoct PvP likely missions appealing to dedicated Hi-Sec mission runners is rather difficult.

Assumption: I presume we’re talking about relatively solo mission runners. I presume this because many Hi-Sec mission runners often/usually run solo.

Assumption 2: I presume we want to promote Hi-Sec mission runner PvP as it would be an exciting alternative for them in their cozy Hi-Sec home.

1st difficulty: If it’s a challenging mission, the player will have to bring a dedicated PvE boat or get stomped by rats. Sadly, PvE boats are far from ideal when thrust into PvP.

2nd difficulty: If you reduce the difficulty of the mission to enable PvP fits the mission probably ought not pay very well. If that’s the case it loses appeal to the dedicated mission runner. Ask a dedicated mission runner who’s blitzing through Hi-Sec Lvl 4 missions how often they do level 1s in a throw away frigate – probably not very often.

3rd difficulty: The relatively solo mission runner has no way to judge or control the scale of the PvP engagement. When an interloper wanders into his mission the interloper probably isn’t alone. To engage the interloper is likely suicide. This is especially frightening if your mission isn’t located in Hi-Sec as the interloper and his buddies can just up and shoot at you. One can get around this difficulty by controlling who can get into the mission dead space but it smacks of “arena,” and doesn’t feel much like EvE.

4th difficulty: This is important but a little difficult to explain. Missions provide gentle but instant action. The minute you warp through that jump gate you know it’s going to be rat central and it’s time to get to work. PvP occasionally includes a lot of sitting around waiting for things to develop. Patience may not be appealing to the dedicated mission runner.

>>><<<

All that being said, here’s an idea for PvP likely missions that may navigate these problems. They’d go something like this:

Agent:
Convoy XXX has vitally crucial materials. I need you to escort it through safely. Be warned, the enemy knows how crucial this convoy is and may even send in a fellow capsuleer to destroy it.

The Mechanics:
Similar to Faction Warfare, missions have specific ship size/type limitations as well as access to the mission dead space limitations -- it's been a long time but as I recall only two players could squeeze into a faction mission at any one time.

When the mission runner jumps into the dead space a timer starts – keep the convoy alive for 5 minutes and complete the mission.

If an opposing player takes a Kill Convoy XXX mission around the same time he’s sent to that mission dead space to stop the convoy. As the now two opposing players are the greatest danger to each other’s mission objective they’ll be highly motivated to engage each other – automatic aggression to each other allows this.

Instant action is provided to the save the convoy missioner by having convoy killing rats spawn in if no opposing player is immediately available. The save the convoy player will be highly motivated to attack the rats since they can destroy his objective all by themselves. Rats stop spawning in if an opposing player shows up. Rats only attack the convoy. Rats don’t attack the save the convoy player so he’s pristine if an opposing player shows up.

At the 4 minute mark an opposing player will not be sent to the mission – this allows the kill the convoy player a chance to actually kill the convoy. The save the convoy player, who also knows he’s now opposing player free begins facing escalating super rats that spawn in for the remainder of the mission to keep it interesting.

Kill the opposing player bounty ought to be big money.

This is probably nothing original, may be a sideshow for this much broader thread and may be a difficult set of mechanics for CCP to assemble and still feels a lot like "arena" but I present it just the same.

DireNecessity

Re: Rats
I can’t speak to Incursion rats but as a player who makes it her business to poke around in other player’s missions I can say that I’ve seen no particular evidence that rats tend to attack one player or the other. Rather, once a rat aggresses a particular player they stay aggressed to that particular player through thick and thin. Changing this substantially would create great anguish for players who utilize the inflexibility of rat aggression. Example: Mission Runner brings in a big tanking boat to draw and withstand withering rat aggression. Friendly buddies are now free to move about the mission in their speedy little rat ganking boats and/or even start salvaging in the midst of withering rat fire not directed at them. Mission runners adore this since it’s terribly efficient.

But we digress. This kind of detail belongs in your upcoming Mission Manifesto.

Malcanis Wrote:
“As an example of quantative differences, suppose that all industrial, research and refining had a sec-based modifer applied after all other bonuses had been taken into account. Say -1% per sec level. This would mean for instance that refining ore in a 0.9 would have a maximum possible efficiency of 91%, but in a 0.5 you could get 95%. Likewise ship/module building production and material efficiency would be similarly reduced, so there would be an incentive to conduct these activities in lower sec systems where one can build faster and more efficiently at the cost of higher risk. (Alert students will note that this would also make quiet lo-sec systems more attractive for some industrial activities).”

As a game mechanic this makes great sense. Might be a hard sell though since it 1) feels punitive and 2) is hard to support in game lore – there’s no particular reason a reprocessing facility in .8 should be less efficient than one in .4.

An alternate approach can achieve much the same thing. Dynamic taxes that vary with system security (low in Lo-sec, higher in Hi-sec, nill in 0.0). One might even incorporate the change as a completely new tax that applies to all transactions – call it the Concord Surcharge. If you want more Concord protection, you gotta pay for it. T’would also generate delicious mixed feelings about the space police.

DireNecessity

I fear we may becoming a mere echo chamber to each other but it’s a pleasing sound so I continue.




Well put – a powerful argument for both dynamic efficiency and dynamic taxes. On to dynamic Concord response . . .

When it comes to Concord response, EvE seems to be split into three broad spaces:
1) Hi-Sec where up and ganking a player generates a sudden brutal response and delivers security status hits to the ganker.
2) So called Lo-Sec where, in practice, Concord delivers no response to ganking beyond pesky security status hits.
3) Lawless other places where Concord has no sway.

The cautious Hi-Sec player is happy to face the Hi-Sec suicide gank risk since it can be mitigated by not being a tempting target. Step out of Hi-Sec however and there’s no way to mitigate target status since the attacker mustn’t factor in suicide costs. Let me take a crack at this “Everything’s AOK/Uh uh, ain’t gonna do it” distinction with a shout out to the upcoming changes in pod kill mails.

1) Hi-Sec: Up and ganking a player’s ship or pod generates a sudden and brutal Concord response as well as security status hits. “Concord has your back son.”

2) Medium-Sec: Up and ganking a player ship generates no Concord response but delivers a security status hit. Up and ganking a pod generates a sudden and brutal Concord response as well as a security status hit. “We’d love to do more but haven’t the resources to respond to anything beyond egregious pod ganking.”

3) Lo-Sec: Up and ganking a player’s boat or pod delivers no Concord response beyond a security status hit. “You’re out on the frontier now son. We keep an eye on things but haven’t the resources to do anything about it.”

4) Completely lawless other places.

The hope is that for players willing to treat ships as expendable, Medium-Sec is an enticing option. In practice the difference is probably only psychological since one can hop into a cheap jump clone making being podded relatively painless but the merely psychological might be enough.

Such an approach isn’t intended as the only changes – incorporating other gradations (many excellent suggestions already mentioned) would be appropriate.

DireNecessity

Malcanis it took you a lot of words to say "i don't want anyone in EVE to make it unless they do what i did". You have drank the kool-aid of risk vs reward that is a total fabrication in the EVE universe. EVE is structured as a time = rewards game pure and simple.

If you want to serve up never ending batches of noobs to be devoured in low and null sec your plan is brilliant! If you want to ruin the gameplay for high sec industrialists aka carebears because they don't want to be your targets your ideas are nifty!

Lets' talk straight here for a moment and cut the crap you veteran "PVP ELITISTS" constantly peddle. There is no risk vs reward when a Vagabond shoots a webbed/ scrambled/ neuted Catalyst his gate camp gang has snagged. Real risk vs reward would mean the single ship regardless of class would have a weapon option unseeable on scans that would destroy or disable numerous ships within tackling range. A one shot burst that overheats and damages the ship using it perhaps even fatally more times then not. Then his friends could jump in and finish off the gate campers who were out of range or just disabled. Now that is a real mutual risk vs possible reward scenario.

Why is it there are no weapons a single ship can deliver that disables or off lines a TCU, seems like EVE has no real PVP pirates that can destabilize the big self serving Alliances that own Null, now slipping into an Alliance sov system to offline their TCU that would be risk but oh the rewards would be huge! Sabotage as a precursor to invasion or robbery.

If you want more high sec players in low and null level the playing field and give some risk to the fat cat pvp elitists who can't even understand that a carebear does not want to lose his hard earned long trained for mining ship to a bunch of sadistic griefers who fly around in ships with a billion isk worth of deadspace mods that make them all but invulnerable in their Sov Alliance systems.

Change the herd dynamic of ganking, right now if you are mining and another player in the belt , perhaps a friend, gets ganked, all you can do is warp out like a scared herd animal. Why not give us the option to attack anyone in system that is aggressing another player if we choose, in another corp or in a NPC noob corp shouldn't matter a player should be given the chance to help instead of fleeing without being Concorded. Additionally you should be able to attack anyone who comes afterwards to try and salvage your friends ganked ship if it did not survive or the ganking ship wreck. Suicide ganking won't pay as well for the gankers if the herd fights back but will make a nice supplemental income for the good samaritan that wants to help.

I didn't join EVE to be part of the herd ..... sadly my options seem quite limited ..... an in a game that has such enormous possibility it is truly a waste.

I am never ashamed to learn something new. Thanks for the pointers.

I read the whole thing.... being long winded myself i feel it is a duty to take the time to follow someones thought to completion.