These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

EVE Online PVP overhaul proposition
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Chronos Astre
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2013-07-31 03:14:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Chronos Astre
So as a brand new player with an incomplete understanding of existing game mechanics and no concept as to what has occurred in the last 7 years to lead CCP to the design decisions they have made, I naturally walk into EVE with a head full of ideas as to what would make it "better". And, naturally, the vast majority of those are based on misconceptions and incomplete data. Thus my posting this in the General Discussion section, so the community can parse and vette my suggestions, to get them from the raw idea form to something that might actually be useful, before putting this into the ideas and suggestions section. Without further ado:

The "Problem"
Many people discuss the "problems" EVE online has, and many people proclaim endlessly that things will be the death of EVE, especially on these forums. In fact, if EVE online has one real problem, it's a toxic community. However, that can't be fixed by any suggestions of mine, and likely won't be fixed by any suggestions or actions of anyone, so it's somewhat of a moot point. Understand then that I don't think EVE is fundamentally flawed in its design. If it were, it would have long since died out, instead of maintaining a stable population, more or less. Whether the population is actually stable, or the average number of accounts per subscriber is just increasing while total number of unique subscribers is decreasing, I can't say, but regardless, total population figures in game remain stable.

The stated goal of CCP, however, is to move people out of Empire space. To fix the "problem" of having numerous systems in high sec with 150+ people in them, in some isolated cases many, many more, while having vast swaths of space essentially empty of people. Despite having that as a stated goal, high sec remains crowded, and low and null sec remains empty. Why is this?

Many people have stated many ideas regarding this, but the one that rings most true for me is the idea that there is no incentive for people to step into that arena. You can't increase the strength of your character by playing this game. Your skills increase at the rate they're going to increase at, short of the effect of implants and boosters (which cost money and are lost on death), and so your time in game is spent in pursuit of one universal goal: money.

The way the game is set up, it has many non-combat activities (mining, industry, exploration, research, trade / shipping, etc) which ultimately are designed to fuel the engines of war, in which the products of those activities are consumed. Essentially, PVE makes money, while PVP costs money. However, why would anyone engage in PVP? It's a net financial losing proposition 90% of the time, and the 10% where it's financially viable is when you have a nice comfortable gate camp set up and you choose to pop unsuspecting victims. For the fun of it, sure, but as can clearly be seen, there is not a large enough population of players who actively choose to lose the resources they have spent the rest of their in game time acquiring for the sake of that short burst of "fun".

Under the premise that most people choose not to engage in PVP because they choose not to destroy the resources they have spent their time acquiring (money, ships, boosters, implants, etc), and with the understanding that in game time is spent largely on the acquisition of those resources, and the safest and fastest method to them is to avoid the destructive force that is PVP, it makes total sense why the PVP situation (and thus, low and null sec situation) would be what it is. Such an environment creates two classes of people: The Hunters, those who know all this, but want to engage in PVP combat anyway, and actively seek to destroy other player ships, and The Prey, those who are engaging in other activities, for the sake of acquisition of resources, and are thus seeking to avoid combat, and run whenever the Hunters are detected.

This situation is problematic for all parties- the Prey find quickly that low and null sec is solely populated by "gankers" looking to kill them, and that they would be better off (from a risk vs reward standpoint) performing their activities in High Sec instead. The Hunters find that, without any real incentive to expose themselves to their predations, the Prey has all moved into the security and safety of High Sec, and they have no prey to hunt. This situation leads to the lowest possible population levels in low and null sec, and the least amount of fun in those areas for all parties involved. It is also a static situation- if it's not more profitable now, and it's super dangerous now, it always will be, preventing any kind of long term goal to rectify said situation.
Chronos Astre
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2013-07-31 03:14:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Chronos Astre
The "Solution"

Here are my propositions for changing EVE, along with my reasoning. Please don't get caught up on specific numbers involved, as I am not a professional game designer, and this is more about the concepts than the concrete figures presented to allow a more clear perspective of my intent. Feel free to suggest alternate figures, but I'm more concerned regarding the validity of the base concept.

A quick aside at this juncture:
Defining a “Civilian”:
The concept of a “civilian”, or non-combatant, is important to all of my following points. For the purpose of this discussion, a “civilian” is someone the player does not have valid kill rights towards for any reason. Valid targets would include thieves (within the allotted time), aggressors, those on the other side of factional warfare, those on the other side of a corporate war (more on that later), those with a security status of -5 or lower (more on that later), and for all intents and purposes anyone at all in null sec space. Conversely, a “civilian” (last time for quotes) is a target who has not taken a hostile action against you, has not stolen from you, is not involved in a valid war with you, has a security status of higher than -5.0, and from a pragmatic standpoint is not in null sec space.

1) Revision of Security Status
This is likely the most extreme proposal here, and many will cry out against this as the death of PVP. Please keep in mind this is part of a larger plan, and any shock or distaste you feel, keep it in check until you get all the way to the end. Thanks.
The first and most important part of my ideas is the imposition of the concept that actions have consequences, that killing a civilian is a severe offense not lightly forgiven or forgotten. Everyone would start at a 5.0 security status, and the punishment for killing a civilian is a reduction in security status of 5. This allows people one “freebie” or mistake without being declared a valid target, but still flags them as someone with a bad rep, and should make it apparent enough to them that their action is one of significant meaning and impact. Killing the second makes them an Outlaw, and makes them fair game, but still leaves them on the cusp, so it’s possible to work their way back up to a normal security status if they try. Killing the third essentially cements their position as a Pirate. Note that by this, I mean killing as in destroying their ship, podding or not podding does not have any bearing on this.

Security status would be able to be raised by killing other pirates, whether NPC or PC, though this should not be a quick or easy process. Think of it like a population knowing a bounty hunter was a pirate himself at one point, they never are comfortable with him, but if he brings in enough heads, eventually they tolerate him just fine.

2) Concord issued bounties
Any players who kills a civilian *and* has a new security status of -5.0 or lower acquires a bounty equal to 50% of the financial damage done to the civilian. These accumulate, so it is possible (and indeed, for many pirates, possibly desirable) to have bounties issued by Concord for billions of isk. For the sake of having a sort of “Pirate Ladder”, in the bounty office it would be possible to filter Concord issued bounties from player issued bounties. When targeting a player Pirate, in much the same way that it does for Pirates, it would display the amount of bounty you would receive for killing the pirate. Bounties issued by Concord would pay out at 75% of the financial damage done to the pirate. Note that this is designed to reduce the amount of financial loss associated with PVP combat, and incentivize players entering into PVP combat for financial gain.

3) Greatly increased low and null sec rewards
Currently, running missions or mining in low or null sec results in a potential of up to 150% of the amount that could be achieved performing the same actions in high sec. After accounting for the use of a sub optimal ship due to the infinitely higher chance of losing it and the attempts to mitigate the financial impact of such an event, it’s more along the lines of 125% (if that). Take into account the need for proper scouting, as well as the time inefficiencies due to evading pirates and camps, as well as the negative financial impact of losing a ship if and when it happens, and it’s just not worth it. It needs to be worth it, despite all that. Thus, the base (before taking into account the factors I just described) rewards for similar actions in low sec should be 250% of the reward for performing said actions in high sec, and in null sec it should be 400% of the reward amount. This will drive players into those areas with more speed and efficiency than anything else, as ultimately people follow the fastest path to profit.
Chronos Astre
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2013-07-31 03:15:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Chronos Astre
Please note that just the above suggestions will drive players into low and null sec- PVE players and industrial players for the reward potential, but also players intent on hunting pirates. PVP will be a viable income source for those seeking to protect mining ops and similar ventures, and pirates will see a vast increase in the number of their prey, as well as the caliber of cargo they are carrying. It also creates two classes of PVP player- the pirate, seeking to prey upon the weak and reap the rewards, and the pirate hunter, seeking to reap great reward at the expense of tremendous risk. As this player vs player conflict is infinitely more compelling than factional warfare, and focuses less on arbitrary divisions in player population based on an initial fluff choice and more on the differences in chosen play style and “emergent” gameplay, the following suggestion seeks to augment that dynamic. The above 3 suggestions are a matched set, and performing any of them without performing all of them would greatly unbalance the game in my opinion. The following can be taken or left at your discretion, but would be *way* harder to implement.

4) The rise and fall of the borderlands (or, Low sec warfare)
I would like to see players able to create an impact on the security level of a system. Certain actions (namely, podding a player) would decrease the security level of a system (it represents lawlessness, and that Concord obviously wasn’t able to respond in time or at all), while other actions (killing pirates, to a *very* small extent NPC pirates, but more meaningfully player pirates) raise the security level of a system. Certain systems are immune to security level changes, both high (newbie areas, major trade hubs, at least one corridor between the factions’ space, etc.) and low (mostly 0.0 space and low sec adjacent to 0.0 space). This means that if a corporation wants to carve out a piece of space for themselves, and take up the responsibility of regulating it, and they do a good enough job, eventually they can get the recognition of Concord coming in to help them (becoming high sec). This would lead to a diminished reward from the events taking place in that space (as it would lose the bonuses associated with being low or null sec space), but would result in potential high sec trade flowing through as well, and would make certain pieces of space, especially those bridging current high sec areas, highly desirable (and dare I say, contested).

Similarly, if a group of players decides to go after a high sec system and “burn it down” into lawlessness, it is highly possible for them to do so, or to perform enough depravities in a low sec area of space to turn it into null sec, meaning Concord no longer cares at all what happens in that space, they’ve given up on it. Systems would have a natural reversion to their original security level over time (let’s say .1 per month), so if people stopped caring about a sector of space for long enough, it would revert to its original state.

Part of this, though, would be a pretty significant change to pirate AI in low and null sec- they would go for podding players. Not like their “civilized” brethren who live cozy in high sec with Concord, low and null sec pirates will pod any players foolish enough to stick around when their ship is gone. It needn’t be immediate, and should be a good 5 seconds or so after the ship is destroyed, but it would highlight the danger of going AFK in low and null sec space, and would naturally balance the scales in terms of systems tending towards maintaining their security standing without concerted efforts on the part of players.


So, thoughts?

Edit: In my race to push this 'manifesto' (wall of text) out there, I forgot to make a very important point: For many, nothing would change with the proposed system. I am not condoning a decrease in the reward levels associated with high sec activities at all, and (other than the hopeful change in the number of targets available) pirating would remain exactly as profitable as it currently is. If you are engaged in either of those activities, it would have no impact on your gameplay. Rather, it intends to increase the incentive towards gameplay types currently not heavily utilized- performing actions both PVE and PVP which are not pirating in low and null sec space. In no way shape or form would anyone be required to do anything differently, but my belief is that with the proposed systems, peoples natural tendancies towards greater rewards would push them to perform the actions CCP identifies as desirable. No more, no less. In short- I'm not trying to gimp your game, just widen the field of viable options.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#4 - 2013-07-31 03:23:02 UTC
tl;dr

Long bag of wind for an uninformed noob.
stoicfaux
#5 - 2013-07-31 03:31:48 UTC
Err... the point of getting people into null is so they can make their own rules and not be limited by artificial NPC police. Plus Empire PvP > Random PvP, generally speaking.

+1 for newbie taking time to make the post

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#6 - 2013-07-31 03:31:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Icarus Able
Sec status system is silly. Its just more extreme version of the current system and i dont see how it would help.
The concord issued bounty would be interesting, however to make that worth it for the concord bounty you;d have to change the current mechanics where you would only get a fraction of the isk this would create the problems of people killing themselves with alts or freinds to claim their bounty. So meh idea there.

Greater rewards wouldnt help with isk recompense too much, even if it got people to move out to null/low ever heard of inflation?
Rhys Thoth
Endland
#7 - 2013-07-31 03:34:27 UTC
Holy wall of text... Brevity is a virtue.

As to your proposal points.

1) No. As a side note, CCP has recently made sec status repair easier, rather than harder.
2) This is an isk printing machine. It would be exploited like mad.
3) In principle, increasing reward in lower sec areas is not a terrible idea. I am skeptical, however, that even drastic reward increases would draw people out of highsec in any numbers.
4) I like the idea of a more dynamic map. It would also be exploited like crazy, however, and the tears would blot out the sun.

I don't always undock, but when I do... no wait, I acutally never undock.
Chronos Astre
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2013-07-31 03:42:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Chronos Astre
Icarus Able wrote:
Sec status system is silly. Its just more extreme version of the current system and i dont see how it would help.
The concord issued bounty would be interesting, however to make that worth it for the concord bounty you;d have to change the current mechanics where you would only get a fraction of the isk this would create the problems of people killing themselves with alts or freinds to claim their bounty. So meh idea there.

Greater rewards wouldnt help with isk recompense too much, even if it got people to move out to null/low ever heard of inflation?


Sec status is to allow people to self-identify as pirates, and make sure those popping civvies mean to do so, and are not just arbitrarily popping player ships because why not, they're bored. It makes low sec slightly safer just by making people actually think about such actions before taking them. It also is what fuels the other two ideas working- it makes two "sides" in PVP, pirates and civvies, and fuels the other two ideas working- PVP as a financial motivator, rather than deterrant.

The concord you would be getting a fraction, I chose 75% because it's high enough to still be very meaningful and profitable with just a few kills, but below 100%, making such circle kill exploits impossible (it's always a net loss of money, albeit a slower loss of money over time than current PVP). Also keep in mind killing pirates doesn't get you a bounty, so you have to "earn" those bounties. And yeah, it does promote people popping their buddies to claim the bounties, the kind of in-fighting pirates experience IRL as they acquire loot, which imho would be awesome.

In terms of inflation, EVE has the unique advantage of having a real money product to stabilize its currency somewhat. Valuing a Dominix at 150 mil is not just valuing it at 150 mil, but also 1/10th of a Plex. As a result, inflation in game tends to be a change in the valuation of a real world dollar vs a virtual dollar, and not a result in an influx of additional currency. Most importantly, it's to change the Relative value of low sec time vs high sec time, which would remain constant regardless of the actual amounts used. (Prices could double, but low sec would still give 2.5x the rewards of high sec, so would make it a more desirable activity). Ironically, the (hopeful) increase in an activity which still results in a money sink (PVP) could help decrease overall income flow and prevent inflation.
Job Valador
Professional Amateurs
#9 - 2013-07-31 03:47:28 UTC
In the sweet name of Alice Saki

"\o/ Didn't read!"

"The stone exhibited a profound lack of movement."
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#10 - 2013-07-31 03:59:26 UTC
Chronos Astre wrote:
SNIP nonsense


People who self identify as pirates already don't give a **** about their sec status, or who they are killing. They kill whoever they see that they think they can kill and don't nominally give a damn about. Nothing would change under your system. People who want to be killing people will be; they will not be discriminate. They will just do it. As such, there are already two sides: Predator and prey; Attacker, and victim. Sometimes those roles switch mid-fight.

Concord bounties on players as an isk faucet is a bad, bad idea. Missioning and ratting has already inflated the market over the years, and EVE probably does not need more magically injected isk. If there is even one dinky tiny way to manipulate that bounty system to make it farmable (and its more than likely that there will be) you can be guaranteed that EVE players will figure it out.

As to driving people into lowsec? Not going to happen. The risk averse will always be risk averse, and it doesn't really matter what kind of golden idol you park out in lowsec. If those sorts of people can make PLEX each month in highsec, they will stay in highsec. If they can't, they'll start unsubbing accounts.
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#11 - 2013-07-31 04:04:18 UTC
World of Warcraft is that way ---------------->
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#12 - 2013-07-31 04:12:08 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
tl;dr

Long bag of wind for an uninformed noob.


Short bag of wind from a self-righteous little turd. Go back to Counterstrike, Barbie.

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#13 - 2013-07-31 04:18:23 UTC
Easiest way to break the Hi/Lo/Null barrier is to do exactly that:

1) Remove the need for Cyno to use Jump Drive. Non-Cyno mark jump drops ship into target system at a completely random location.

2) Give all ships Jump Drives.

Effect: "What is this 'gate camp' you bittervets keep talking about?"

Null-sec explodes with new players once getting in and out of it is no longer an futile exercise of just feeding ships to the hordes of soulless 23/7 combat macro bots in Falcons.

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#14 - 2013-07-31 04:27:53 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Chronos Astre wrote:
In fact, if EVE online has one real problem, it's a toxic community.



Such a big problem that it's the second largest subscription MMO behind WoW.

Darn that problematic success. Darn it all.



As to your ideas:
1) It already takes more than one killing to take you into outlaw territory.
2) No to an enormous ISK faucet. You want revenge, take it yourself or put your own money into the bounty.
3) Sure, but HS still needs a tweaking downwards (especially on the industrial side, since you can't meaningfully buff your way out of that imbalance), and since in other cases, it's effectively a 0-sum game, it's better to simply nerf HS to avoid inflation and avoid harming WH space and other income sources.
4) Sure, but if you're going to allow it, why protect any systems other than the newbie ones? There are no special systems in EVE now that they got rid of the Yulai highways. Why keep faction HS connected via HS if the players want it separated?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#15 - 2013-07-31 04:29:02 UTC
There goes my King of the Wall-'O-Text status.

If I had that much time on my hands I'd be busy with my hands. Cool

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#16 - 2013-07-31 04:29:33 UTC
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
tl;dr

Long bag of wind for an uninformed noob.


Short bag of wind from a self-righteous little turd. Go back to Counterstrike, Barbie.


ONOZ. A wild carebear appears.
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#17 - 2013-07-31 04:30:05 UTC  |  Edited by: SmilingVagrant
Really the only major change I'd like to see in the game is for Nullsec alliances to be able to add mission agents to their own stations. That's it.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#18 - 2013-07-31 04:32:12 UTC
1. We already have this, pirates at -10 are flashy red in the overview and killable by anyone

2. We do not need even more isk flowing into the game, we have too much as it is and your system would be open to abuse.

3. Again, null and low sec isk rewards cannot be increased because that would give us runaway inflation, a very bad thing for the game.
Isaak Artorius
Perkone
Caldari State
#19 - 2013-07-31 04:36:35 UTC
I would go so far as to say that those who wish to repair their standings should also be allowed to hunt other player pirates (for a measured sec status gain) who are either in a NPC corp or other corp (but not in the same corp or alliance - awoxing for sec status is a no-no).

I am for sale! 74M SP Tengu/Industrial/R&D Pilot!

Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#20 - 2013-07-31 04:41:53 UTC
Isaak Artorius wrote:
I would go so far as to say that those who wish to repair their standings should also be allowed to hunt other player pirates (for a measured sec status gain) who are either in a NPC corp or other corp (but not in the same corp or alliance - awoxing for sec status is a no-no).


Interesting proposition. The biggest thing that might require some tweaking is that many people would make a -10 alt, just to kill it over and over and grind their own sec status back up.
12Next page