These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

My Sandbox is Becoming a Themepark

First post
Author
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#501 - 2014-03-13 15:56:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Bohneik Itohn
hellokittyonline wrote:
How are you guys still misrepresenting what I say? I'm not asking for a single mechanic that forces a carebear to PvP. I'm not asking for a single mechanic that gets me any more kills. I'm merely asking for balance. For instance when I say the rewards shouldn't be liquid isk, that doesn't necessarily mean TAKE AWAY ALL UR BOUNTIES, it could actually mean remove bounties and replace it with a combination of more loot and more LP.

I mean even the guy above me is obviously just responding to what he thinks the thread is about. He even said he didn't read it. "You keep saying these people should come out to low/null sec, but you offer them nothing for doing so." When did I say this? I never once said carebears should come out to low/null nor do I expect them to. I did however say that the rewards in mission should be in line with the risk, so there's actually incentive to go to low/null. That doesn't necessarily mean NERF MISSIONS SO CAREBEARS HAVE TO GO TO NULL and could very well mean add low/null content for those looking to make a living doing something other than shooting at ******* rats and asteroids.

Honestly it's hopeless. Almost every carebear that's posted in this thread has failed to see the forest for the trees. You pick one thing I say, only comprehend half of it, then post some ignorant bullshit about me looking for easy kills or trying to make you fight me.

Running missions is broken, too easy, too rewarding, doesn't require the carebear to learn a SINGLE DAMN THING about the game. I'm asking for the reward:difficulty ratio to be re-evaluated (which doesn't mean nerf missions, and could even mean make them more fun but of course you all will whine and cry that I'm asking to nerf your isk faucet). I'm also asking that CCP stops nerfing my profession because a bunch of entitled fuckwits are whining about risks that are 100% avoidable.

Honestly, by now, I should fully expect this level of idiocy. It is how I make my isk afterall.



No misinterpretation here, I get exactly what you're saying. Let me boil my post down for you, since you seem to have misread MY post.

Carebears are going to stay where they are. The problem is there are a lot of people in that community that get completely turned off by PvP because of how high sec griefers act, who would otherwise make their way out to low and null. From their perspective they have their side of the game in which they choose to shmoe it up until they decide to get serious, and you are directly forcing your style of gameplay on them for your own entertainment in an abusive and derogatory fashion.

This is a completely one-sided exchange with only marginal benefits for the winning side. They can't force you to run security missions, and you're losing a lot of people who could otherwise be tempted to at least try some risky gameplay for a month or two. If those players never try to get out of high sec, you have cost yourself game content. Low sec is empty because high sec mission griefers have gone for the immediate reward of getting a watered down variety of PvP today, instead of seeding the ground with plenty of PvP players for tomorrow. Null sec is just a mess all around, let's not get into that.

There's always talk about the learning curve of Eve, but no one ever stops a moment to consider that just because some people are slower on the uptake doesn't mean that once they start to climb that hill they won't have just as firm a grasp of the mechanics as people who take it in strides and leaps. If everyone who is already on the hill is standing in the middle kicking people in the face as soon as they begin their ascent, most people aren't going to bother trying to climb beyond that point.

As I said, if it weren't for security missions and Concord watching the minefields, carebears would just cancel their accounts. CCP gave you a huge pool of fish to pull recruits from, and all you do is dump poison in the pond.

Sweet Jeebus how am I going to get a short post in here?

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#502 - 2014-03-13 16:19:13 UTC
It's also worth pointing out that many of the hisec folks have no interest in PvP as they like the industry side of things, acquiring in game wealth and empire building. They will always avoid PvP (in the combat sense) as they will not have the ships or the skills for it. In avoiding combat PvP they are actually winning the PvP engagements they escape since they are acheiving their goal whilst defeatig others.Just because they didn't blow someone up doesn't mean they didn't 'win' the engagement.

People need to be encouraged into riskier activity and have the free choice to do so otherwise they will be even more firmly against it.
Speedkermit Damo
Death by Design.
#503 - 2014-03-13 17:20:08 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
hellokittyonline wrote:
PREFACE FOR PERSPECTIVE: I have made (and continue to make) all of my isk PvPing by baiting high-sec mission runners and stealing their ships. I use this isk to fund hellokittyonline's endless rampage in low-sec and PLEX my 3 accounts.

SKILLS MY PROFESSION REQUIRES THAT PVE DOESN'T:

1. People Skills - the socio-path-like ability to talk someone into doing something completely stupid

2. Knowledge of Game Mechanics - pinning a battleship with a frigate while tanking his entire lvl 4 mission (though this is much easier than it sounds... most of the time)

3. Creativity - because only an idiot would fall for that... right?

4. Risk Management - training 3 accounts and making a large initial investment so that you can execute a ridiculous scheme with no guarentee that this scheme will pay-out enough to plex said accounts or even pay for your initial investment.

THE PROBLEM: Far too many players are mindlessly farming NPCs in an all-but-0-risk environment and there is no longer any incentive for those players to enter a risky environment because they can make far too much bank with little-to-no knowledge about combat or game mechanics. Now this in and of itself wouldn't be a problem in your typical MMO but in EvE these actions slowly but surely dilute the sandbox aspect of the game as players are not required to use any creativity, knowledge, or people skills to move forward in the game. One merely has to play by themselves (IN AN MMO) for a few hours a day in order to afford pretty much anything they desire. Furthermore, the longer players have access to the I-Win button(s), the more subscriptions CCP stands to lose by taking it away (ie: balancing their game becomes a conflict of interest).

CCPs STANCE: Has been to continuously bubble-wrap the risk-averse making it increasingly difficult (in extremely superficial ways) for us content-creators to inject risk into their environment. EXAMPLES: Swapping ships with an orca was nerfed because we were killing too many mission runners, EHP of miners was buffed because we were suiciding too many miners, CONCORD was buffed because we were suiciding too many industrials, mission NPCs aggro mechanics were changed because we were stealing too many LEWTS, crimewatch (and the green safety) was added because too many players were dying inadvertently (even though it was already completely avoidable by simply understanding aggro mechanics). Even when CCP decides to throw us PvPers a bone (Faction Welfare) it all-but-immediately devolves into a cloaked, stabbed, farm-fest. Furthermore, when they add content for the PvEers (Incursions) the isk/hr is completely out of hand, liquid, and 100% riskless.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:

1. NPCs need to be DIFFICULT. Make the NPCs fight like a seasoned PvPer would. Neuts, scrams, webs, transversal, and the utilization of range control. These NPCs should only target the aggressors and they should encourage your average carebear to actually learn how combat works.

2. Remove bounties. Rewards should 100% be in the form of a tangible item in the game that one can trade to another player for that players isk (or even, god-forbid, STEAL). Bounties inflate currency and line the lazy-mans pocket as no processing is required to get the value out of their time.

3. Incentivize risk-taking. Whether it be a risky market endeavor or a trip to low-sec for those "o so juicy ores" there needs to be incentives that involve risking an engagement with another player for our lovely sandbox to remain as such. Furthermore, the rewards for said endeavors need to fall in line with the risk involved.

4. Remove safety nets. The green safety, gate guns in low sec, warp core stabs on ships already small enough to escape almost anything, all need to go. The idea should be to incentivize knowledge of game mechanics, and player interaction, not solo-farming.

TL;DR - Make players have to learn about the game and its mechanics in order to be successful.

Disagree. Stop being risk averse yourself and go to null. There are mission runners there and you don't even have to convince them to let you engage them.


But that would be too risky, they might shoot back.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.

Hal Bhread
Raccoon's with LightSabers
#504 - 2014-03-13 17:42:06 UTC
I don't where you've defined a problem or why you see this as a problem. How another player plays the game is up to them. Trying to make people play like you'd like them to is counter productive to maintaining subscriptions. The game needs to address different types of players and play styles. The game has a very steep learning curve and some folks want to mine, other PVE, some prefer production activities. Making someone learn the hard core PVP aspect just because that's your preference of play doesn't make anymore sense than making you learn the ins and outs of manufacturing before you can buy something on the market.

Rather than force people to learn PVP, content needs to be added, that encourages but not dictates, people to do more PVP. Implementing your suggestions would remove players from the game and your "victims" would be fewer. The other consequences would be higher costs of goods as the miners and missions runners move onto other MMOs.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#505 - 2014-03-13 18:41:28 UTC
If we could get challenging, dynamic missions with high non-ISK payouts, doable in a wide variety of shiptypes (because frigates and destroyers are NOT 'noob tier' ships- they're relevant at EVERY POINT in EVE as fast tackle, or even quick DPS in wolfpacks, especially the new iterations of the pirate faction frigates), I'd be enjoying 'PvE' a lot more than I do today. It'd be great practice for when I've got enough ISK stockpiled for running into low/null with some friends and trying to find some solid fights, too.

So I definitely support making missions dynamic and challenging, rather than the current situation, in which evesurvival can exist and you're basically set forever.

I also don't understand at all how everyone else is getting "YOU JUST WANT MORE PEOPLE TO GANK YOU DUMB GANKER" out of your post. To be honest, combat in highsec in general needs to be reworked. All there seems to be is suicide ganking, which does not appeal to large groups of people (including myself, despite very much wanting to get back into PvP in general once I have more time for EVE in the summer), and makes other groups with knowledge of how highsec works wholly unfightable (The New Order). Which ties somewhat into your 'make things more about player interaction' point.

Lots of people want to fight the New Order. Why don't they? The rules of highsec. They operate in ways that essentially make attacking them conventionally an effort doomed to failure. Clouds of cheaply fit destroyers (or occasionally T3 BCs for larger targets). There's no counter to this that can be deployed in highsec. The bad news is, there's really no way to bring unconventional tactics against them, either. As stated before, you really only have two choices: pay that 10 million, or get podded into whenever year you started.

I'm not against the New Order- but I would like to see their actions spawn even more player generated content, rather than the 'pay or die' that is happening now.

As for the other possible solutions, I generally agree. Loss of gate guns in lowsec would mean new populations of ships could fight at chokepoints throughout this security bracket. It still wouldn't feel like null, because you can't put bubbles up. Further I believe that ship and pod kills in lowsec should carry less powerful security status losses, just in case there are any people out there who are discouraged by this fact. As for the warp core stabilizer, it's already a hallmark that someone is crap and doesn't know what they're doing, as having the thing active stomps your ability to lock, forcing you to wait longer, and get closer. Not to mention, it's taking up a low slot, which could be occupied by a damage mod, or a nanofibre, or armor tank... And only for +1 warp core strength at the T2 level. It may look like a safety net but if you're in a group really it's a liability to the target.