| Author |
Topic |
Wildcarrd
Caldari
Omega Section
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 20:57:00 - [ 121]
allow sb's to use bombs in low sec. do that and gatecampers have more to worry about; sb pilots get an additional role in EVE; more ship destruction(which helps the economy), and campers have to come up with something better than just sitting on a gate to get some easy kills. I don't see the problem with doing this.. |
Ahz |
Posted - 2011.03.06 21:14:00 - [ 122]
 Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
What your suggesting is WAY to far out there to be implemented into EVE's existing programming.
True, things would have to change. But CCP could be working on these mechanics rather than things like Incursion. Eve players need true outlets for their creativity rather than "more dots" to shoot at. Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
...if you were to go create an MMO like what you described I'd most definitely be a subscriber. As would most people here I gather...
So, why not just say that? People like Eve. It's captured our imaginations for very good reason. But CCP is not addressing the underlying game mechanic. People fight for things. Just challenging yourself in a 1 on 1 (or 3 on 3) doesn't appeal to enough people. Especially when the outcomes can be guessed from the start. CCP need to address motivation. And online, motivations look like persistent outcomes. Something that can be built and will last. Imagine renaming Curse "Eternum Praetorian" and then logging back in five years and seeing it still standing there. CCP seriously starts building on that mechanic and you get in someone's way, you'll get all the fights you want. |
Ardamalis
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 21:45:00 - [ 123]
Edited by: Ardamalis on 06/03/2011 21:50:15
Ahz hit it right on the money.
*applauds*
Please go and run for CSM when election time rolls around again. |
Pasmerktas |
Posted - 2011.03.06 22:22:00 - [ 124]
Edited by: Pasmerktas on 06/03/2011 22:26:09
The problem lies within the best feature of this game - you risk everything, if you are not sure you're going to win the fight then you know you will lose your ship, and what matters most, people just shows what cowards in RL they are, because they start to live not play when risk is involved. Me myself I never run away from fair fight, I try to avoid unfair fights, but I stay and fight like a man if engaged and know i'm going to lose, and I take someone with me to hell. I roam alone if there is no friends around, I also try to defend my home because it's the only place where I can earn isk. In RL I stay and fight too, I lost teeth which costed me much to get back and I had injuries, but I felt alive once fight was finished, if it was an unfair 1v7+ fight, I smile at myself knowing that I knocked down few guys before they knocked down me. I am not stupid and try to avoid unfair fights as in EVE, but same, if I must fight I fight to the burger, no matter what, I manage to turn on berserk mode and god help those who I took with me to the land of unconsious. I play same in EVE, sure it doesn't hurt here and I don't have to pay to reconstruct my broken bones, but the feeling of managing to kill somebody in an unfair fight is still with me and I am addicted to it.
When now, all I can see (with exceptions) is fight with one tactic - numbers (it is always wrong tactic, unfair and dishonest).
I watched PL movie today about defending their home with only one carrier+bses vs. NC's blob of doom, they (PL) won, because strategy and tactics are always better than numbers.
Problem is people just don't have balls to fight, when they risk something. And here you risk only not your ship but everything in it + maybe out of stupidity, all your time spent in this game, not upgrading a clone frequently - you become a noob with 900k SP, and EMORAGEQUIT :S |
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.03.07 00:04:00 - [ 125]
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
Originally by: Tres Farmer
Now, why didn't you got that?
You are talking like someone who currently resides in null sec, but since you are posting on your alt who can tell? I will just say that although people think that their epeen grows bigger in 0.0... the bottom line is that 90% of EVE population does not live there.
Sorry mate, wrong guess. And yeah, this is an Alt. And no, I don't like to hear me talk or stroke my e-peen or some such.. I like to live in all k-space from time to time. W-space is not really my cup of tea, as it's to quiet.. can't stand that. Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
Your account does not match my own experiences in game (unless we are talking about low SP 0.0 recruits) and I have allot of experience with nooblets whom are new to the game. But ofc who wants be objective and look at both sides of the coin when you can instead just be loud and appear to be universally correct in the eyes of your Cheetos-on-fingers-keyboard-pounding peers. Amiright?
Is that a logic argument or just leashing out under the assumption I'm a zero-zero-bear? I find it funny that you quote and reply to the only part of my post that was more or less meant to be a funny reply to your own, without much substance.. If I were someone who resides in zero-zero I for sure wouldn't propagate the slow down of capitals or the increase in workload for those pvp guys to patrol their miner&industry-bears.. don't you think? Same goes for the high sec travel slow down I want to see. Can't put me there either. And then with the proposed removal of gates as bottlenecks into low sec.. I must be huge fan of spawn-point camping for sure. Now, as I obviously didn't got you, would it be too much to ask if you could please state in some rant-less points what you think is wrong? I already brought up the mismatch of fleets (1 - 1000+ participants) running into each other, but didn't get any positive response on that one.. so I must be missing something. Care to pick me up? |
Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor
The Seventh Day |
Posted - 2011.03.07 01:37:00 - [ 126]
Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 07/03/2011 01:37:38Actually no, not really. I'd much prefer a few more original, realistic and creative ideas be posted in this thread. I can play the troll the trolls mini-game with you later. I think that Ahz had a fantastic idea, but imo there is just no possible way that we could get there in any kind of reasonable/foreseeable timeframe. It would take too much money and recoding and CCP will simply never do that... . . .Do you forum trolls really think that there is no possible way that the PVP system can be improved upon? I get that epic forum alts like Tres Farmer are infused with Tiger Blood And Adonis DNA but seriously? No room for improvement Mr. Sheen? None at all? What precisely are you arguing? EVE's current state of immaculate PVP perfection?  |
Lost Greybeard
Gallente |
Posted - 2011.03.07 02:35:00 - [ 127]
Originally by: Jennifer Starling
Well flame me but the solution are obviously arenas.
There are 1000 other games that offer the arena playstyle, among them every FPS ever, every RTS ever and every 2-player fighter ever. If that's what you want, there are places to get it. EVE is not that place, and the primary design consideration of the game (the sandbox) runs directly counter to what you're proposing. |
Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor
The Seventh Day |
Posted - 2011.03.07 02:59:00 - [ 128]
But why does the pursuit of "Arena Quality PVP" have to be the same as an actual arena? |
Ahz |
Posted - 2011.03.07 03:32:00 - [ 129]
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
I think that Ahz had a fantastic idea, but imo there is just no possible way that we could get there in any kind of reasonable/foreseeable timeframe.
I don't think it would be as hard as you seem to think it is. Certainly no harder than creating w-space and populating it with sleepers and a whole new technology tree for Tech III Lego ships. CCP is just distracted by more shiny, visible stuff. New ships, new Sansha effects, these are obvious, "cool", and easy to show off. Providing a mechanism for moving regional boundaries (imagine having the security status of certain systems become dynamic, change from .5 to .4 and back again, depending on the outcome of wars) is a bigger change to the game but harder to sell to the player base. CCP has done an awesome job with Eve. There's no game like it, and there's not likely to be for quite a while. But I think they've taken their eye off the ball with recent expansions. They need to find ways of bringing the players into the creative process of Eve. They do that and everything players do (especially combat) will become much more meaningful It's very doable. They just need to focus on it. |
Ardamalis
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.03.07 06:29:00 - [ 130]
Edited by: Ardamalis on 07/03/2011 07:14:16
I guess that I will try and take a stab at this.
The people who claim that pilots are risk adverse are on the right track, but they are missing the true underlying cause. The current situation of pvp is not the result of risk adversion but because player vs player combat does not advance your character’s development.
Character advancement in this game comes in two forms.
1). Moar Skillspoints
2). Moar iskies
In a nutshell, PvP does absolutely nothing to advance your character. In fact, it does the exact opposite. I would consider it to be highly detrimental to advancing your character. It does the exact opposite since pvp just serves as money sinkhole (and in some cases, a skillpoint sinkhole too). Why would anyone bother to participate in combat other than for the occasional sport under these circumstances?
Let us examine a case where pvp is a form of advancement: Sov Warfare. Soveriegnty warfare only serves as a form of advancement on a macro scale. Here, you are fighting for tangible resources such as belts to mine/ratt in, moon goo, and living space. Sov warfare has huge incentives for wars. This is good. We have an engine that drives warfare and it does its job well by creating massive scale wars.
The bad thing is that we don’t have anything driving combat on a small scale. You can go out in your solo roam harby or small gang, kill two enemy ships, and then get popped on your way back home but what have you accomplished? Absolutely nothing. You killed two ships but it doesn’t have any lasting impact. The enemy coalition has a million more ships to go. Not to mention that those two ratting boats are cheap and easily replaceable and would never have been used in a combat situation in the first place. In addition, by losing your own ship, your character is now “less advanced”. In order for small fights and skirmishes to happen, they need to be able to secure resources as a form of advancement. Loot from killed ships just doesn’t cut it.
|
Ardamalis
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.03.07 06:33:00 - [ 131]
Edited by: Ardamalis on 07/03/2011 06:36:25
Pt2
New mechanics need to be introduced and a lot of potential exists. I will suggest a few possibilities as food for thought with the notion of character advancement as the way to approach the problem. This is aimed at shifting the general direction of thought rather than providing a select suggestion.
Giving Incentives to 0.0
What if you could steal resources from a POS? I’ve always wondered how resources get to the POS from the moon. Moon harvesters just seem to have a glowing thing with rocks coming towards it. What if that were changed to a different mechanic? Imagine if a POS sent small mining craft to the moon that ferried moon goo from the moon to your POS. Each mining craft would carry 2 units of moon goo so every 72 seconds for a total of 100 units/hour. Now imagine if you could anchor a warp bubble just outside of the range of the POS guns that would intercept these little mining craft. Every single destroyed mining craft is guaranteed to drop their 2 units moon goo. In addition, moon harvesters cannot be offlined if a bubble is on the grid.
A typical low value moon such cobalt would hardly be the time; however, a Dysporium and a Technetium moon would be juicy targets for theft. If your little gang jumps into a system and no one wants to play, anchor a bubble outside one of the Dysporium moons and then see if they undock and come after you. A lot of people complain about the monopolies on certain types of moon goo and this suggestion would be killing two birds with one stone. The beauty of this suggestion is that it allows more people to enter the supply side without increasing or reducing the amount of supply. It also limits this to purely 0.0 moons as you cannot anchor bubbles in lowsec.
Incentives for Highsec/Lowsec
As far as character advancement goes, highsec pvp offers absolutely nothing. But what if we introduced a new mechanic called reputation. Imagine if mission agents were willing to pay a premium for the best capsuleers. They would offer more pay/rewards or even better missions. There could even be agents who would only offer missions to well known capsuleers. Doing a level 5 in highsec anyone?
Reputation would work like a pointage system. Every kill you get/participate in earns you points similar to how killboards work. The only catch is that your reputation decays every day by 10% of its current points. Eventually you will reach an equilibrium between reputation decay and reputation gain. The more successful you are in combat, the more you get paid by agents.
So how do we stop people from gaming the system? The trick is to make the isk gained from reputation less than the amount gained from insurance and missions bonuses. If a person took 2 accounts and kept suiciding ships to feed a character’s reputation, he would end up with a net loss even though he ran missions with the character with high reputation. There would also be diminishing returns on killing things belonging to the same account. The pointage system would be purely based upon the following formula:
Very small % * (value of stuff destroyed – insurance payout to the target) / number of parties involved
In addition, kills in lowsec could offer more of a point reward. If you are a part of a militia, then reputation also factors into your rewards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are probably much better ways of implementing incentives for Pvp (these things were thought up in 5 minutes) but my point is that any incentive has to be based upon allowing Pvp to be a form of in game advancement rather than something that hinders it or exists simply as a sideshow.
|
Tub Chil |
Posted - 2011.03.07 11:05:00 - [ 132]
Edited by: Tub Chil on 07/03/2011 11:37:23
Interesting topic.
it's pretty much impossible to find equal force. you either gank someone or get ganked. neither is fun, but people just don't want to play it "fair"
saying that I don't want removal of huge alliance fleets, campaigns with thousands of people, wars that change fate of tens of thousands of players.
blobbing smaller gangs is bad but unfortunately current game mechanics encourage it.
it would be a good idea to create some environment (in lowsec/NPC 0.0?) where playing with equal forces would be profitable. maybe tweaking FW, some pirate-anti pirate action, whatever.
and remove ****ing hotdropping from the game |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2011.03.07 12:05:00 - [ 133]
Originally by: Ahz
A sandbox isn't a sandbox unless it lets me design a new bucket and space.
lol yes it is |
Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol |
Posted - 2011.03.07 13:09:00 - [ 134]
Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 07/03/2011 13:08:55
Another fun idea:
1. Enable players to join Pirate factions just as FW;
2. Make them earn LP and "kills" by killing other players;
3. Kills are split between the number of people involved, so 10 vs 1 only gets you 0.1 kill and you don't get kills for a certain pilot more than once a day;
4. You get LP for ISK destroyed per person, so if 10 players kill a single 100 ISK ship they hardly get anything (this to avoid cheap alt ship ganking for rewards).
This way fighting equal fights gets rewarded a lot more than blob ganking.
|
Pookie McPook |
Posted - 2011.03.07 13:21:00 - [ 135]
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
There is no mechanism in the game that rewards combat.
There is no reason for a fleet to stay at a modest 7-10 size and not get any bigger short of not having enough people online.
There is no reason not to stay docked and wait for sheer, mind numbing boredom to deter your aggressor
Speaking as a carebear I have to say I agree with the OP on this. In a way PvP has become carebear in the extreme as very few people will elect to engage without huge overwhelming advantage which clearly takes out the competitive element. Consentual PvP now seems to come down to poring over Excel spreadsheets to maximise tank/dps before setting foot into the game to gank some poor unsuspecting innocent. Yes, thats the way it is deal with it etc etc, but its not the way it used to be "back in the day". The OP is correct. Maybe there needs to be some "carrot" for PvP rather than just bragging rights over a hugely one sided gank fest that most engagements seem to be based on the killboards. |
Kwashi
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy |
Posted - 2011.03.07 13:40:00 - [ 136]
Edited by: Kwashi on 07/03/2011 13:40:33
People have posted the fun to be had on Sisi, where fights areicommon because the losing penalty is removed. I play on a mac, so haven't experienced SIsi; humor me... It seems from your posts that there's something lacking about Sisi though. What's the issue here? If you want endless goodfights, why not just play on SIsi all the time? Is it more laggy or something due to unstable serve builds or something?
Or is it that the results on Sisi don't "count" in some manner? Is it that we want even fights and also brutal results?
Can't have both. Folks won't fight if there's significant risk of losing and also significant penalty for losing. Human nature. |
Vernn Miller
Caldari
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore |
Posted - 2011.03.07 13:44:00 - [ 137]
Sorry bro but all the respect I had for you went directly out the window when I saw "The 0rphanage" below your corp name so anything you say about "good fights" and "pvp" just really doesn`t matter at all. |
Zoom Sanna |
Posted - 2011.03.07 13:59:00 - [ 138]
I feel really sorry for you, OP.
You have come so very far in this game yet you have been reduced to a highsec pvpbear, ganking haulers.
I guess that falling so far is the price of soaring so high :(
|
Siouxsie B |
Posted - 2011.03.07 14:31:00 - [ 139]
1) Make everyone in game automatically a member of FW fighting for whatever empire they chose to create their character from. (Supposed to be a PvP game after all) 2) Make all the Lowsec FW area stations capturable by Empire Militias. 3) Once a system is captured, make the gate guns react to enemy militia. 4) Add faction NPC navies once a system has been held long enough (spawn them in in percentages) 5) Have reduced market fees/higher refinery percentages etc. in captured systems. 6) Do something to make the new FW Highsec 'safer' for the carebears who don't want to actually fight so they don't just get ganked all day long, but not so safe that they cannot be legitimately attacked if they smack in local  (OP wanted suggestions to change something in PvP - here's one..) |
Ahz |
Posted - 2011.03.07 16:17:00 - [ 140]
Edited by: Ahz on 07/03/2011 16:43:10 Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Ahz
A sandbox isn't a sandbox unless...
lol yes it is
You misread me. A sandbox isn't a sandbox unless you can actually move the sand. Originally by: Kwashi
If you want endless goodfights, why not just play on SIsi all the time?
Or is it that the results on Sisi don't "count" in some manner?
Sisi = deathmatch. And anyone who's played deathmatch games realizes that they start to feel meaningless after a while. Part of the reason that Sisi feels meaningless is because it gets "refreshed" every couple of weeks and your wins and losses get wiped clean. The lack of persistent nature limits Sisi's appeal. My point has been that Tranquility is also not persistent enough. Nothing you do makes a memorable impact on the game. You've got your kill boards, but for many players, that's not enough. Combat needs to matter more, not less. People's efforts need to have some impact on the game at a deeper level. If CCP finds ways to bring the players more decidedly into the shaping of the game more players will fight to leave their mark on New Eden. |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2011.03.07 16:34:00 - [ 141]
Originally by: Ahz
A sandbox isn't a sandbox unless you can actually move the sand.
Well there's plenty of people building entire castles so I guess they can. |
Ahz |
Posted - 2011.03.07 18:01:00 - [ 142]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Ahz
A sandbox isn't a sandbox unless you can actually move the sand.
Well there's plenty of people building entire castles so I guess they can.
There are? I hadn't noticed. Maybe you mean POSs? If that's enough for you then rock on my friend. But it's a small fraction of what's possible. CCP simply has to shift their focus from the "shooting dots" focus of the game to more "shaping the game" kinds of activities. I once heard that the first titan wreck is still in the game where it fell. I don't know if that's true or not, but this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. If it's true then people, years ago, engaged in combat and it had a permanent impact on the game. They're able to look back years later and say "I was there." It's a small example, but this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2011.03.07 18:10:00 - [ 143]
Originally by: Ahz
There are? I hadn't noticed.
Ever heard of BoB? Of course, their castle got kicked over. The game isn't the ones and zeros. The game is the people. |
Shiarra Bloom |
Posted - 2011.03.07 18:20:00 - [ 144]
Edited by: Shiarra Bloom on 07/03/2011 18:27:23
I think they should leave open space PvP untouched.
My suggestion would be that player corporations be allowed to build combat simulators. Players could journey to these systems where the simulators are present, dock, and for a small fee (set by the corp) take part in "simulated" battles featuring their simulated ship in the system they are currently in. If a player's simulated ship is destroyed their real ship is unharmed. The player simply returns to the simulators hanger or lobby. There in order to re-enter the simulator they would again have to pay a fee set by the corp. This fee would almost always be a tiny fraction of what they would pay to insure or replace a real ship if it was lost.
The corporation that's offering these simulators could tweak the ruleset and rewards. For instance they could set minimum skill point levels for entry, and could set ship type requirments. They could determine whether it's free for all pvp or team based.
Players ships designated as simulated couldn't see ships that aren't also simulated and vice versa. Also they cannot leave the system they are in. Small ISK bounties could be given for simulated pvp kills as a reward. The amounts given as bounty rewards would be set by the corporation sponsoring the simulation and would come from their treasury. This means that the corporations would be tasked with balancing entrance fee with bounty rewards. Set the bounty reward too high and go broke. Set the entrance fee too high and drive away potential customers. Building and maintaining these combat simulators could be expensive so some fee would almost always be needed. Also because any corporations could build a simulator this means they will be competing for customers with other corporations. |
Ahz |
Posted - 2011.03.07 18:29:00 - [ 145]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Ever heard of BoB?
You troll poorly. I mentioned BoB myself in an earlier post. Creating a giant alliance is an example of what I'm talking about. There are others. Responding to you has now outlived its usefulness. |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2011.03.07 18:48:00 - [ 146]
Originally by: Ahz
You troll poorly.
I'm not trolling, I just didn't bother reading any more of your posts when you tripped up at the starting line. |
FeralShadow
NME1
|
Posted - 2011.03.07 21:33:00 - [ 147]
Edited by: FeralShadow on 07/03/2011 21:49:18
Eternum... I didn't read any of the other posts, and since you're in the Orphanage I just assumed most were flames anyways. I just want to say that
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT
Over and over and over and over people simply are unwilling to participate for one reason or another. There is no reward for pvp other than the excitement (yeah loot drops? LOLOLOLOLOLOL right), and there is no penalty to abstaining other than the resentment of your peers.
What they should do is to have a reward system based on the number of killing blows you have (maybe). That may be nice and would entice people to pvp (but that doesn't solve the blob dilemma). As to the blob dilemma......... man that's a toughie. I don't have the brain power to think about it right now.
Edit: OK i skimmed over some posts by Eternium. You, sir, have some very very good ideas. The fleet composition one, for instance, is a very good idea. Let's build on that a bit... When forming a fleet you can specify a size (maybe this can be a skill), and the number of dps slots and logistics slots and command slots increases in ratio to the size of the fleet. Building on that, then, to promote equal pvp, the fleet of 30 size is advertized across the galaxy to other current fleets of 30 size. Let's just say that their ships' communication is noted by the stargate relays or some such. Maybe their system location won't be exactly told, but maybe it can be narrowed down (with skills) to a constellation. This would attract other equally formed fleets to try their mettle. Now obviously a fleet of 30 bs's would wipe the floor against a fleet of 30 t1 crusiers, but perhaps with cleverness the FC's could potentially win the day as the underdog.
The Arena idea is also super interesting. You join an arena team of X size, and your fleet when it's formed up can be registered in that bracket for the session (you dont want the fleet to be at war all the time I would suppose, what with corp and alliance ops and yada yada). These people then are legitimate war targets of every other team in that same bracket. There would have to again be guidelines to fleet composition. The fleet's general location will also be broadcast to each other team to facilitate engagements. But with the Arena setup you could potentially go further and reward the teams that get the most kills with things. Isk, items, whatever.
Some very good ideas that could have some super positive results when it comes to PVP, and promoting non-blob groups to be formed, and facilitating combat between groups of like size. |
Makie Ber |
Posted - 2011.03.07 23:34:00 - [ 148]
Edited by: Makie Ber on 07/03/2011 23:34:32 Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 03/03/2011 14:27:37
Got to love these imbeciles who think that they understand The Art Of War (and war in general) because they read the English translated version of a book they bought off Ebay.
Respect... you get none.
You started out with credibility, and then lost it ^ |
Julius Rigel
Sub-warp Racing Venture |
Posted - 2011.03.07 23:42:00 - [ 149]
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
I Have Done It All
Well, since you have done it all, I'm wondering if you would be interested in giving a lecture at Impulse Con again. Since you have done that before. As you already know, we would appreciate it a lot! We're always looking for skilled and enthusiastic pilots to help us out, and help the community! And as you obviously know from having done it before, it was a lot of fun! Since you enjoyed it so much the first time, why not do it again?  |
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives |
Posted - 2011.03.07 23:45:00 - [ 150]
I might suggest you try popping NPC haulers; unless you've already done this, Mr. Troll, I highly doubt you've done everything EVE has to offer |
All Channels
EVE General Discussion
