These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

PvE changes
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Wendrika Hydreiga
#21 - 2015-10-27 17:15:03 UTC
DUST 514 has daily rewards and they actually make sense. But if anyone even dared suggesting the same rewards they give to DUST players, you folks would crucify them.

Skill Points and Aurum! Yeah, if CCP gave Skill Points for logging in, Jita would be burning 24/7 or something. People would die from sheer outrage!

Now I want CCP to do just that just to see everyone go ballistic...
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#22 - 2015-10-27 17:15:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
Tipa Riot wrote:
My take on PvE improvements, you will never be able make it interesting enough for longer period of time for adventurous players. Those adventurous players today run hacking sites outside highsec or ninja gas mine in WH, etc., but the adventure does not come from PvE but from PvP. So the easiest way to make repetitive PvE interesting is to combine it with PvP. That's why the Blood Raider event is such a success.

For the majority of the player base PvE is just their ISK source, and any disruption on this (and unpredictability is just that) will have devastating effects. The thing what should stress players, is PvP not PvE, otherwise they will burn out, quit.

So my recommendation, keep PvE rather simple and manageable with "IQ dimmer = on", but diverse (lore!) and combine it with varying options and degrees of PvP.


Not to burst your bubble here or anything but you have incursions in low and null with as ret@rded ai one can get and I don't see horde of high low or nullsecers braking their back to run them.

Same goes for l4,l5 and any other pve activity out there mixed in pvp ala instant docking.

If you really want to die like you lived so to speak shooting a rat you shoot over 10 years so be it CCP should leave some relic content in a few systems but in no way they should just stop innovation so you ppl have effortless income.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
Thierry Orlenard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2015-10-27 17:41:37 UTC
It may blow the minds of a few people here to consider what I am about to say but CCP may also have a long term strategic plan to try to bring in new players. The game has fantastic lore and there's no reason that the environment shouldn't be more persistent than it currently is, in order to reflect that. A few small changes in the environment here and there aren't going to disrupt PvP and will likely wind up enhancing it.

A game like this really has to evolve or it will be left behind.
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#24 - 2015-10-27 17:46:23 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
What she said.

No, wait, there's a better one.

What she said, actually.

2018, people. Wait AT LEAST until 2018 for the cool stuff to come. Hey: and only if we actually use whatever is released before so CCP considers us PvE scumd worthy of precious dev time.

Also, this is subject to whether nothing else will break down there at null (heh, sure thing...)

Sorry boys. It's too late, and those are just words.


What you actually said.

The Tears Must Flow
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#25 - 2015-10-27 17:58:54 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
What nonsense are you one about this time? No one said anything about ganking.
No, but it's obvious that's where you're getting your opinion on people's reactions to losing their ships.

Jenn aSide wrote:
For those of us who like to tinker and use different (underused) modules and such, wormhole space is pretty boring (but rewarding) PVE wise, omni damage and 'advanced AI' limits your choices, which limits fitting possibilities, which limits fun (for people like us). Onmi damage/NPC omnitanks makes wormhole PVE and incursions very stale compared to missions and anomalies where you can be extremely creative ab out how you tackle them. For example You won't be taking a speed tanking assault frig to do a class 3 wormhole, you can in a mission or anom.
Because you can't tinker with omni tank builds? If anything WH PvE builds are just better than other PvE builds because they stand a chance in hell against PvPers too.

Jenn aSide wrote:
On a side note, I notice that both halves of your reply revolve around the activities of other players (ganking in the 1st, having to use d-scan because of other players in the second). That's telling, and it fits with what I observe of your outlook; you seem terrified of other players. PVErs like me see other players as just another challenge to be knocked down, not as some kind of barrier. Ships die, the idea is to make enough profit to make ship death worth it.
Not at all, PvE is just so shallow and predictable in EVE that the only thing worth caring about is other players, so there's nothing else to revolve it around. This is why it's a good thing for CCP to actually make PvE content risky and dynamic in itself, because it shouldn't be all about what other people are going to do.

And to be blunt, I don't need to be terrified of other players. I've been playing long enough and have a fat enough bankroll that I don't need to fit escape fits to save a dominix. When I do PvE, it's not for isk, it's for entertainment, and that's sadly been lacking for a long time. A good shakeup across the board is long overdue.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#26 - 2015-10-27 18:36:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Lucas Kell wrote:
A good shakeup across the board is long overdue.


"Shake ups" in EVE always result in the game losing something that didn't need to be lost. Remember fozzie sov? We're talkign the same company here.

PVE is a great example, it works for those who just want isk (or to 'relax'), and it works for those of us who like it how it is and who rotate pve activities (in fine sandbox tradition of finding ways to make our own entertainment).

The people who don't like it now are probably never going to like it no matter what, and CCP trying to cater to the "lore and immersion" types is folly. A game needs to be built from the start to do that (ie add dynamic episodic PVe content, like Star Trek Online does) and a game developer needs to be able to devote full time staff to it, and CCP can't/won't.

The most probable result of CCP doing everything they talked about at the round table is COSMOS and Incarna all over again: initial implementation of something not all that well thought out in the beginning, followed by some iteration followed by eventual abandonment.


A better course to follow to update existing PVE (they know we like it, they have millions of Damsels saved as proof) while keeping in mind how most PVE players already make use of existing content (and while paying attention to stuff we don't use so much, like COSMOS, lvl 5s, and epic arcs). Smallish PVE changes that are not just doable from the developer standpoint, but that they will be willing to support with iteration in the future. Such as Fewer but stronger NPCs in new missions that (like burners) can be safely declined if one prefers 'classic' style missions. New escalation paths for anomalies (while keeping the anoms themselves about the same) that offer choices like 'farther away = more reward', perhaps bringing back 'ship logs' type escalating paths for missions, PVE sites that spawn wormholes to new areas and such.

"NPC roaming gangs" that potentially screw up standings, NPC Haulers that just make gankers richer and mighty morphin power dungeons that are never the same twice (encouraging "expect anything" omnitanking which in turn encourages vanilla-ism in fitting) isn't the way to go IMO.


And stuffing the game with more rewards (Tribute system) is the worst idea of all, there is too much isk in EVE already imo, and that system will only benefit those of us who are already space rich. I can't put 4 toons in space doing pve at once right now, do you really think I need more isk?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#27 - 2015-10-27 18:54:51 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
"Shake ups" in EVE always result in the game losing something that didn't need to be lost. Remember fozzie sov? We're talking the same company here.
I know, but at the same time the alternative is stagnation.

Jenn aSide wrote:
PVE is a great example, it works for those who just want isk (or to 'relax'), and it works for those of us who like it how it is and who rotate pve activities (in fine sandbox tradition of finding ways to make our own entertainment).
But it doesn't work for people who want the mechanics to be inherently fun, which is most people. When you say you make your own entertainment, that's because the game developers didn't bother making the mechanics well enough to be entertaining in themselves. That's not sandbox design, it's bad design (or more accurately, lack of design).

Jenn aSide wrote:
The people who don't like it now are probably never going to like it no matter what, and CCP trying to cater to the "lore and immersion" types is folly. A game needs to be built from the start to do that (ie add dynamic episodic PVe content, like Star Trek Online does) and a game developer needs to be able to devote full time staff to it, and CCP can't/won't.
It's CCPs job to make them like it. If not, see stagnation. Look, I do understand, it doesn't fit what you want, but that doesn't make it objectively bad. You're in a minority, and yes, you may be saddened by the changes (though it's far more likely you'll just adapt and move on) but the truth is that CCP need to do something to revitalise it. Far too many people are finding it less and less fun to play with mechanics that have for the most part remained unchanged for most of their existence.

Like you mentioned up there, there's fozziesov, the null shakeup which directly affect me. Do I like it? No. Would I have done it differently, hell yes. But if the choice is between that and "don't change anything", I'll opt for the change. Once the ball is rolling it can be tweaked and fixed until it's a better system, but if you never get going, nothing will change.

Jenn aSide wrote:
The most probable result of CCP doing everything they talked about at the round table is COSMOS and Incarna all over again: initial implementation of something not all that well thought out in the beginning, followed by some iteration followed by eventual abandonment.
It might not get there in the first iteration, but I'd be surprised if anything they roll out is worse than the current system. Sure, it won't be perfect and will need a lot of feedback, but I doubt abandonment will be the inevitable end.

Jenn aSide wrote:
A better course to follow to update existing PVE (they know we like it, they have millions of Damsels saved as proof) while keeping in mind how most PVE players already make use of existing content (and while paying attention to stuff we don't use so much, like COSMOS, lvl 5s, and epic arcs). Smallish PVE changes that are not just doable from the developer standpoint, but that they will be willing to support with iteration in the future. Such as Fewer but stronger NPCs in new missions that (like burners) can be safely declined if one prefers 'classic' style missions. New escalation paths for anomalies (while keeping the anoms themselves about the same) that offer choices like 'farther away = more reward', perhaps bringing back 'ship logs' type escalating paths for missions, PVE sites that spawn wormholes to new areas and such.

"NPC roaming gangs" that potentially screw up standings, NPC Haulers that just make gankers richer and mighty morphin power dungeons that are never the same twice (encouraging "expect anything" omnitanking which in turn encourages vanilla-ism in fitting) isn't the way to go IMO.
I think the general idea is to get people to actually need to use their brains to engage in PvE, and for that, no iteration on the current system will work. All the time you can just pop to a website and get blow by blow instructions on how to run through a mission, they won't be a challenge.

Beside that, I think an overhaul is necessary, as I imagine most of the PvE code is legacy. Even if they were looking to use it's current state as a starting point, they'd have to rewrite it as it is now first. Reworking it as they build it's core is a much smarter use of dev resources.

More rewards: depends on how they balance it with risk.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#28 - 2015-10-27 19:05:09 UTC
PVE content in .... 18 months!

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Thierry Orlenard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2015-10-27 19:11:20 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
"NPC roaming gangs" that potentially screw up standings, NPC Haulers that just make gankers richer


I'm with you on these -- especially on the idea of how standings are handled, not on the idea of the fact they could attack us. We already have NPCs that attack us in game, from belt rats to the recently-added Cicadian Seekers and Drifters in highsec. I think it's kind of cool now that if you engage the seekers they will chase you when you run away. No more dumb AI. But yes, if they introduce some kind of standings mechanic, they will have to be very careful.

And as for the NPC haulers, well I just laughed out loud when I read that. Those NPCs are a nice decoration in the environment, but who would ever actually use them to transport their stuff? I guess it could be fun to blow them up on the off chance there's loot inside. P
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#30 - 2015-10-28 07:34:06 UTC
Tipa Riot wrote:
My take on PvE improvements, you will never be able make it interesting enough for longer period of time for adventurous players. Those adventurous players today run hacking sites outside highsec or ninja gas mine in WH, etc., but the adventure does not come from PvE but from PvP. So the easiest way to make repetitive PvE interesting is to combine it with PvP. That's why the Blood Raider event is such a success.

Such success that afer farming enough boosters I stopped doing them. Bring D3 and farm. We already have PvE-PvP connections. Go to Stain and try to scan-hack sansha sites. I guarantee you'll have some fun.
Misssions are different, we don't compete with other players directly. Change don't necessary must be for unpredictable content (escort missions against guristas pirates, protect the miner from BR, you have 2 minutes - defend dreadnought from waves of serpentis till it repair warp drive etc.).
Just because fozziesov is not doing well should we abbadon all changes to the game? This looks like generation conflict. We don't need nothing new, old is bad but it's bad that we know. So instead we bring new interesed way to play, let's just stick to my 15 years old scripted "shoot the trigger" content.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#31 - 2015-10-28 07:47:08 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
My take on PvE improvements, you will never be able make it interesting enough for longer period of time for adventurous players. Those adventurous players today run hacking sites outside highsec or ninja gas mine in WH, etc., but the adventure does not come from PvE but from PvP. So the easiest way to make repetitive PvE interesting is to combine it with PvP. That's why the Blood Raider event is such a success.

Such success that afer farming enough boosters I stopped doing them. Bring D3 and farm. We already have PvE-PvP connections. Go to Stain and try to scan-hack sansha sites. I guarantee you'll have some fun.
Misssions are different, we don't compete with other players directly. Change don't necessary must be for unpredictable content (escort missions against guristas pirates, protect the miner from BR, you have 2 minutes - defend dreadnought from waves of serpentis till it repair warp drive etc.).
Just because fozziesov is not doing well should we abbadon all changes to the game? This looks like generation conflict. We don't need nothing new, old is bad but it's bad that we know. So instead we bring new interesed way to play, let's just stick to my 15 years old scripted "shoot the trigger" content.


Something I noticed is that there's no intent to add new missions. Actually, by changing how standings work and negating the possiiblity to balance them among factions, the new system would destroy some of the mission running content. Which is par for the course for CCP Affinitty, one of the worst CCP devs along with CCP RedDawn... Ugh

Why would anyone task PvE and highsec development on two developers who've never engaged the PvE community and whose idea of developing highsec is "leave your comfort zone", that's a corporate mistery... Question
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#32 - 2015-10-28 09:02:55 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

Something I noticed is that there's no intent to add new missions. Actually, by changing how standings work and negating the possiiblity to balance them among factions, the new system would destroy some of the mission running content. Which is par for the course for CCP Affinitty, one of the worst CCP devs along with CCP RedDawn... Ugh

Why would anyone task PvE and highsec development on two developers who've never engaged the PvE community and whose idea of developing highsec is "leave your comfort zone", that's a corporate mistery... Question

We don't need more missions. We don't need "Rescue the damsel 2". What will it change? I'm also concerned about standings since I don't want to be polarized in FW scale, but there are not any details about it.
Devs are not bound to specific content (only Fozzie and Rise from what I saw) hard to blame Affinity or RedDawn that hisec stinks. Which devs are engaged with PvE community btw?

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Kooshti
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#33 - 2015-10-28 09:07:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Kooshti
standings will certainly be cool, should help spread people around the map and make other trade hubs more relevant instead of everything jita. Im Angel Cartel & Serpentis so hopefully i can hang around gates and not be shot by my so called "friends".

Incursions lol sanshas attacking on gates in highsec should be a thing for incursion runners Pirate

However being pirate based and this "concord rewards" how does that work for pirate missioners?
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2015-10-28 10:48:25 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
My take on PvE improvements, you will never be able make it interesting enough for longer period of time for adventurous players. Those adventurous players today run hacking sites outside highsec or ninja gas mine in WH, etc., but the adventure does not come from PvE but from PvP. So the easiest way to make repetitive PvE interesting is to combine it with PvP. That's why the Blood Raider event is such a success.

Such success that afer farming enough boosters I stopped doing them. Bring D3 and farm. We already have PvE-PvP connections. Go to Stain and try to scan-hack sansha sites. I guarantee you'll have some fun.
Misssions are different, we don't compete with other players directly. Change don't necessary must be for unpredictable content (escort missions against guristas pirates, protect the miner from BR, you have 2 minutes - defend dreadnought from waves of serpentis till it repair warp drive etc.).
Just because fozziesov is not doing well should we abbadon all changes to the game? This looks like generation conflict. We don't need nothing new, old is bad but it's bad that we know. So instead we bring new interesed way to play, let's just stick to my 15 years old scripted "shoot the trigger" content.

I' m still running the Blood Raider sites while solo roaming and cashing in 0.5-1B every day. But I also welp my PvP Svipuls in doing them, cause I don't care about the loss I can compensate for with a couple of more sites. What I say, make it right, accessible, balance risk vs. reward and it will be fun. And yes running relics in Stain is such fun (as is hunting the other explorers) and profitable, but not so much accessible because it requires some logistic effort and skills.

I'm my own NPC alt.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#35 - 2015-10-28 13:48:03 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

Something I noticed is that there's no intent to add new missions. Actually, by changing how standings work and negating the possiiblity to balance them among factions, the new system would destroy some of the mission running content. Which is par for the course for CCP Affinitty, one of the worst CCP devs along with CCP RedDawn... Ugh

Why would anyone task PvE and highsec development on two developers who've never engaged the PvE community and whose idea of developing highsec is "leave your comfort zone", that's a corporate mistery... Question

We don't need more missions. We don't need "Rescue the damsel 2". What will it change? I'm also concerned about standings since I don't want to be polarized in FW scale, but there are not any details about it.
Devs are not bound to specific content (only Fozzie and Rise from what I saw) hard to blame Affinity or RedDawn that hisec stinks. Which devs are engaged with PvE community btw?


It's not a on/off switch. Adding more missions doesn't means that the other stuff is not added.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#36 - 2015-10-28 13:48:36 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
My take on PvE improvements, you will never be able make it interesting enough for longer period of time for adventurous players. Those adventurous players today run hacking sites outside highsec or ninja gas mine in WH, etc., but the adventure does not come from PvE but from PvP. So the easiest way to make repetitive PvE interesting is to combine it with PvP. That's why the Blood Raider event is such a success.

Such success that afer farming enough boosters I stopped doing them. Bring D3 and farm. We already have PvE-PvP connections. Go to Stain and try to scan-hack sansha sites. I guarantee you'll have some fun.
Misssions are different, we don't compete with other players directly. Change don't necessary must be for unpredictable content (escort missions against guristas pirates, protect the miner from BR, you have 2 minutes - defend dreadnought from waves of serpentis till it repair warp drive etc.).
Just because fozziesov is not doing well should we abbadon all changes to the game? This looks like generation conflict. We don't need nothing new, old is bad but it's bad that we know. So instead we bring new interesed way to play, let's just stick to my 15 years old scripted "shoot the trigger" content.


Something I noticed is that there's no intent to add new missions. Actually, by changing how standings work and negating the possiiblity to balance them among factions, the new system would destroy some of the mission running content. Which is par for the course for CCP Affinitty, one of the worst CCP devs along with CCP RedDawn... Ugh

Why would anyone task PvE and highsec development on two developers who've never engaged the PvE community and whose idea of developing highsec is "leave your comfort zone", that's a corporate mistery... Question


Never heard you say a single good thing about CCP, and you deliberately insult 2 devs in this post....

...And yet your posting privileges demonstrate that you are still giving them money. the cash in the wallets/purses/bank accounts of CCP RedDawn and CCP Affinitty have come partly from YOU. BTW Thanks for your continued support of a game you don't like developed by Devs you hate.
Kooshti
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2015-10-28 14:47:00 UTC
I like ccp, i would defo like to work for them and see what they say about cry babies on the forums
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#38 - 2015-10-28 22:19:35 UTC
The cry for so long has been 'why does CCP always focus on PvP and nullsec, why don't highsec PvE players get some attention?'

Be careful what you wish for.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Bai
Neu Mercurial Partei
#39 - 2015-10-28 23:08:05 UTC
Quote:
Access denied

You are not authorized to access this page.

O-Okay.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#40 - 2015-10-29 07:18:04 UTC
"CCP Affinity goes on to discuss that they know they need to add more missions and they will be working on that."
from Sugar Kyle blog
Eve Vegas 2015 - PvE Round Table
are you happy now Indahmawar?

more about standings:

"Q: Player comments that there are not a lot of bonuses for standings

A: We want to do more with standings in the future. Things like change interactions. Maybe limit how many good standings you can have. You can't be friends with everyone. At the same time that would mean if you are good here people are hostile over there."

What if I don't want to good with all but neutral with all (I want to have access to all empires space)?

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville