open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Nullsec design goals feedback: PvE
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Author Topic

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.15 10:51:00 - [1]
 

This set of threads exist to collect feedback for the separate parts of the devblog "Nullsec Development: Design Goals", which can be found here.


This thread is about: PvE


Please read the blog and give specific feedback on this area of the blog. The more precise, reasoned and comprehensive you can be, the better we can utilize your feedback Smile

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.08.15 11:23:00 - [2]
 

Quote:
Best loot
* The best loot in the game should come from nullsec. High-end loot's enforced rarity gives a strong "jackpot" moment and tends towards extremely high values, and nullsec should be where you go to get high-value payouts.


While I understand the desire to make nullsec very attractive, there's still the case that many 0.0 systems (especially the ones inside settled space) are much safer than low sec systems - yet their rewards will be higher. This does not seem to fit the 'reward scales with risk' mantra that pervades eve's game design.

While this will no doubt make nullsec more attractive, does this design approach not risk depriving other areas of the game from attributes they need to be attractive (in a specific case: low sec)?

Razunter
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.15 11:50:00 - [3]
 

Solo PvE should be safe — if anyone will be able to attack player on mission, missions won't be profitable and will be annoying and paranoic.

Velicitia
Gallente
Open Designs
Posted - 2011.08.15 11:56:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Velicitia on 15/08/2011 11:57:28
Originally by: Razunter
Solo PvE should be safe — if anyone will be able to attack player on mission, missions won't be profitable and will be annoying and paranoic.


NO!

Agree with Dierdre though -- while 0.0 should be more profitable than other places, it shouldn't be at the expense of a player or corporation to make a living in empire...

John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:09:00 - [5]
 

  • Best Agents
Quote:
For further discussion. The best agents in the game should all be in nullsec, in keeping with the "richest area in the game" theme. There should be a clear margin of value for nullsec agents that acts as an enticement for mission runners to move there.

Best in terms of what? How about story line missions that can have a temporary effect on the region/constellation the agent resides in? Perhaps move the mechanic for upgrading space from simply ratting/mining within it to doing tailored missions for it that also pay far better than those in Empire.

  • Group Best
Quote:
While solo support is critical, it should still be the case that it's always better to group up with other players. High-value content should be designed with the express intent that players working together earn more individually than they would working alone with this or other content. If the content can support diverse ship types within the same group, even better.

Make anoms scale like Complexes so that the higher anoms cannot be handled solo. Increase AI to Sleeper/Incursion levels and escalation of NPC types if Caps/Supers are taken in (as in Wormholes) to prevent solo ratting in high end anoms.

Tetania
Minmatar
Wildly Inappropriate
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:28:00 - [6]
 

The blog is great it shows a commitment to a less haphazard development approach and has some great vision for what nullsec could be.

I read the PvE section with disinterest until the section entitled "Many ship classes".

Capital nullsec PvE is a great idea. I'm picturing local pirate faction logistics cynos that can be hotdropped by small player fleets of a dozen dreads and carriers for an incursion AI powered Cap battle and appropriate payout. It would give something for Cap owning players to do with them other than shoot POS a few times a month and pens opportuninties for counter drops by players. The reward just has to balance the risk.

Juliette Starr
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:30:00 - [7]
 

Thought the proposals were good.

I'd like to see standings have some value. For instance if I somehow get high serpentis standing I should be able to mine in their belts without being attacked by their rats. Other players would remain the big threat of course. At present standings don't really mean much. They offer players something non monetary to strive towards, and would be consistent with other stated goals of making players feel at home in a given nulsec region, and making mining more attractive

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:46:00 - [8]
 

I addressed the belt ratting part in my recent Rat Awareness proposal.

As for the rest, whatever. Just be careful that you don't play into the hands of botters .. that is unless you intend to start cracking down hard on those who dabble Laughing

Rhinanna
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:58:00 - [9]
 

Make all regions as a minimum as profitable as running Level 4s in a good (faction) fit ship. Its not as safe as missions and limited in amount per system unlike missions so it seems fair it should have a higher income per hour.


Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:30:00 - [10]
 

There should be a very distinct reward of going to 0.0 - Right now PvE in 0.0 seems very fair to me. No reason to boost or nerf PvE much. It is the people in empire that can get an infinite amount of missions without any risc whatsoever that makes the PvE in nullsec look so bad...

IMO something is wrong when you watch a station with a lv 4 combat agent and the only ships you see are Faction fit Marauders, Factionships and Tengus. PvE in empire have become 99% riscfree unless someone forms up a suicide gank.

Suggestions:

  • Make lv 4+ agent unavailable to NPC corporations to make people play the game as a MMO

  • The recent nullsec anomali-redistribution ruined nullsec for smaller alliances - Try adjust nullsec to distribute havens/sanctums better or don't expect Nullsec to be very attractive for newer entities

  • Implement the good AI to hi-level PvE - Let the grinders work for their isk. Nullsec people are better at working together

  • Cut the number of rats in half, while doubling dps, hitpoints and bounties

  • Evaluate the bounties for 0.0 vs Empire and make the difference bigger - The mission runners have plenty reward already from Loyalty Points which the deep nullsec people won't benefit from



Pinky

Alexander Renoir
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:33:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Alexander Renoir on 15/08/2011 16:52:33
•Best agents
◦For further discussion. The best agents in the game should all be in nullsec, in keeping with the "richest area in the game" theme. There should be a clear margin of value for nullsec agents that acts as an enticement for mission runners to move there.


As long as there is harassment in nullsec you can forget your best agents. It would be like NOW in Highsec in Motsu or Dodie. Gankers and griefer would be there, scan you down and kill you; your ship or steal you missionitem - without the effect to losing their own equipement. After that you can only abort your clever, tricky best mission from the worlds best agent in nullsec-Eve. Best agents only in nullsec? Who should run these missions? That there must be missions for 0.0 dweller is absolut OK an a really good thing. But not all are able to do the best missions from the best agents in nullsec. Not only that I am in a NPC Corp (this would be acceptable) but for the fact, that I am in the wrong player corp or alliance. Make a Worlds Collide in nullsec. Or even think about it. You wont be able to finish your job, because you lost your ship; missionitem and eventually your pod. Missions in nullsec OK.. but the best agents there? Worthless. You will barely find someone who can fly there in peace. It will be limited to the bigger alliances in EVE.

If someone claims, that nullsec is such wasted territory, useless and totally crap, THAN I must ask: Why is all nullsec occopied, when however the system is not worth your work? The problem with 0.0 is NOT a problem of buff or nerf. It is a problem of the current absolute DUMB sovereignty mechanic. A few Alliances hold the 0.0 and all he rest must pay in order to get not killed when they want to go there. To give the monopol of Tech II, or to place the best agents in 0.0 will not solve any problems. Your ideas will lead to nothing. Maybe the prices for the little corps (as renters for such systems in 0.0) will rise. But the situation with the powerblocks will be the same. Not one person more, will go to 0.0, if the crap situation will be the same. The problem is YOUR Dumb Sov mechanic. It is too static. All you need is a lot of people who blob the 0.0 and hold them. LOL! But sure.. your new superagents for PvE and Tech II whatever will really change something on this situation. WAKE UP!!

Alexander Renoir
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:44:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Pinky Denmark
  • Make lv 4+ agent unavailable to NPC corporations to make people play the game as a MMO



  • Why? Only to force CUSTOMERS into player corps, where every other freak can wardec him? I would not play nor pay for a game, where I would be forced to stay docked because of a war. I have realy not so much time in RL. I prefer to join my free time in peace with EVE. I do not need a wardec. As long as you get a wardec, beacuse a realy assh0le in your corp has p!ssed someone other and you are realy not responsible for that sh!t, I stay within a NPC-Corp.

    If you demand a limitation of options in eve to the NPC-Corps, than I, as NPCler, want something that YOU as non NPCler would never reach.

    Stupid idea from both of us. Very Happy

    P.S.: Npcler have already 11% taxes.

    Furb Killer
    Gallente
    Posted - 2011.08.15 14:21:00 - [13]
     

    Originally by: Velicitia
    Edited by: Velicitia on 15/08/2011 11:57:28
    Originally by: Razunter
    Solo PvE should be safe — if anyone will be able to attack player on mission, missions won't be profitable and will be annoying and paranoic.


    NO!

    Agree with Dierdre though -- while 0.0 should be more profitable than other places, it shouldn't be at the expense of a player or corporation to make a living in empire...

    Sadly, yes.

    There are right now two possibilities when a hostile tries to gank you when doing pve: you warp out in time, you survive. Or you get tackled, you die. Contrary to for example WH space there is simply not the option of trying to fight your way out of it, best case scenario is that you have ECM drones that might allow you to warp out, but actually fighting your opponent is not a realistic option. And since that is not a realistic option, it must be a small chance someone actually manages to tackle you (ie: safe) if you want to keep it useful.

    Now if you make missions (and other pve content) much more like WHs, closer to omni damage, target switching NPCs, then you can up the risk alot that you are attacked in a mission, since you might actually survive or get a nice fight out of it.
    I personally dont have alot of WH experience, but from the few times I was in one of them I got attacked several times, and most of that resulted in quite reasonable fights, especially since I was in a brick drake. I actually stayed in sites when I saw a hostile incoming on scan, since I knew it would probably be more fun than doing the site itself. Meanwhile in traditional pve content (like lvl 4 missions) it is ******ed and suicidal to do that.

    Dierdra Vaal
    Caldari
    Veto.
    Veto Corp
    Posted - 2011.08.15 14:27:00 - [14]
     

    Originally by: Alexander Renoir
    If you demand a limitation of options in eve to the NPC-Corps, than I, as NPCler, want something that YOU as non NPCler would never reach.


    You already have something special: you're immune from wardecs. So the thinking is, either have more risk (be in a player corp) for a greater reward (better missions). Or less risk (NPC corp) for less reward (more tax and worse missions).

    Not saying I think it's the best approach, but your argument kinda falls apart because of the wardec immunity of NPC corps.

    Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
    Amarr
    Posted - 2011.08.15 14:32:00 - [15]
     

    Just a few notes:

    - Don't even dare to nerf further hisec PvE. No "Lvl4 agents to lowsec" bull, no "let's cut Lvl 4 rewards/loot/salvage" bull. You managed to render Lvl5 useless by making them lowsec only. Wanna boost nullsec? You're welcome. Bu don't f*ck with hisec dwellers, we mostly got good reasons to do what we do and if we can't 'coz you love nullsec so much then we won't play your game.

    - There is one reason why people won't leave hisec. Risking 100 ISK to earn 1 is not a fair deal. I must play for 4 months to earn what my mission ship costs, and won't be risking it for a flimsy 30 million reward I can earn in about 2 hours in Empire with little to almost null risk of losing the aforementioned 4 months of gameplay.

    - PvE in nullsec is not a solo, casual activity. That should change. Give people with few time a good reason to go nullsec, like in: earn more money than in empire even if you lose your ship often. I log in for an hour each day, make that hour more lucrative in nullsec than in empire and I will act accordingly (more money in less time means I can devote more time to not earning money).

    Joe Risalo
    Posted - 2011.08.15 14:55:00 - [16]
     

    New mission providers in null sec.

    These mission providers are are not lvl'ed agents. lvl'ed agents require standing and to be in faction controlled space.

    So these new mission agents are "Privateer agents"

    The missions they provide would be quite a bit more difficult than lvl 5 missions and would allow the use of sub caps, caps, and super caps.

    They're also designed to increase in difficulty based on the amount of fleet members you bring into the mission.

    The agents will also give you missions based on the ship you intend to fly.

    So they will provide missions for battleship pilots, but nothing smaller, however these missions will still be quite taxing and probably require a fleet.

    These missions are designed to give null sec corps/alliances salvage for production, but they also have a rare chance at dropping any of the ded space items in game. (no officer items)

    Would that be cool?

    Morganta
    Posted - 2011.08.15 15:09:00 - [17]
     

    lvl4 agents only in null is craptastic.

    the agents will be camped 24/7 by larger fleets out for a few quick T3 and BS kills.

    Now while I do appreciate fresh meat I am not a fan of wildlife park safaris, where they give you a gun and send you over to shoot some sickly beast tied to a stake.



    daddys helper
    Posted - 2011.08.15 15:11:00 - [18]
     

    Originally by: Joe Risalo
    New mission providers in null sec.

    These mission providers are are not lvl'ed agents. lvl'ed agents require standing and to be in faction controlled space.

    So these new mission agents are "Privateer agents"

    The missions they provide would be quite a bit more difficult than lvl 5 missions and would allow the use of sub caps, caps, and super caps.

    They're also designed to increase in difficulty based on the amount of fleet members you bring into the mission.

    The agents will also give you missions based on the ship you intend to fly.

    So they will provide missions for battleship pilots, but nothing smaller, however these missions will still be quite taxing and probably require a fleet.

    These missions are designed to give null sec corps/alliances salvage for production, but they also have a rare chance at dropping any of the ded space items in game. (no officer items)

    Would that be cool?


    pop based mission scaling would be horribly griefable and sploitable, also the BS is not the end-all MR boat

    Isabella Thresher
    Fat Kitty Inc.
    Posted - 2011.08.15 15:14:00 - [19]
     

    Quote:

    •Groups best ◦While solo support is critical, it should still be the case that it's always better to group up with other players. High-value content should be designed with the express intent that players working together earn more individually than they would working alone with this or other content. If the content can support diverse ship types within the same group, even better.


    finally, the "get out of my sanctum" times should be history. +1

    Joe Risalo
    Posted - 2011.08.15 15:20:00 - [20]
     

    Originally by: daddys helper


    pop based mission scaling would be horribly griefable and sploitable, also the BS is not the end-all MR boat


    I didn't say bs's were the end-all for missions.

    I just said the agents would provide missions for bs size missions.

    However, even if you don't scale the missions, allowing capitals to go into these null sec missions would be nice, and would allow the missions to be a bit more difficult than lvl 5's allowing a reason for them to pay better and to have ded space item drops.

    Krell Kroenen
    Posted - 2011.08.15 15:20:00 - [21]
     

    Many ship classes

    PvE in nullsec should cater to as many classes of ship as we can think up interesting scenarios for, from interceptors to dreadnaughts


    So I guess since SC's have knocked Dreads out of their intended role this is there new one? :) All jesting aside I would welcome required variety for PvE

    Meryl SinGarda
    Caldari
    Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team
    Posted - 2011.08.15 15:29:00 - [22]
     

    Edited by: Meryl SinGarda on 15/08/2011 16:26:32
    Edit: You know what, I retract my statement. Just woke up, and I was jumping 25 times.

    If you can bring players and a market to NPC Nullsec, I will consider moving there.

    Alexander Renoir
    Posted - 2011.08.15 16:09:00 - [23]
     

    Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
    Originally by: Alexander Renoir
    If you demand a limitation of options in eve to the NPC-Corps, than I, as NPCler, want something that YOU as non NPCler would never reach.


    You already have something special: you're immune from wardecs. So the thinking is, either have more risk (be in a player corp) for a greater reward (better missions). Or less risk (NPC corp) for less reward (more tax and worse missions).

    Not saying I think it's the best approach, but your argument kinda falls apart because of the wardec immunity of NPC corps.


    Read again!

    Stupid idea from both of us.


    MeBiatch
    Posted - 2011.08.15 16:18:00 - [24]
     

    Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
    Quote:
    Best loot
    * The best loot in the game should come from nullsec. High-end loot's enforced rarity gives a strong "jackpot" moment and tends towards extremely high values, and nullsec should be where you go to get high-value payouts.


    While I understand the desire to make nullsec very attractive, there's still the case that many 0.0 systems (especially the ones inside settled space) are much safer than low sec systems - yet their rewards will be higher. This does not seem to fit the 'reward scales with risk' mantra that pervades eve's game design.

    While this will no doubt make nullsec more attractive, does this design approach not risk depriving other areas of the game from attributes they need to be attractive (in a specific case: low sec)?


    imo if they introduced delayed local as they have in wh space... or modified version where you see how many people are in local but dont know who they are untill they chat would be a nice counter to this...

    MeBiatch
    Posted - 2011.08.15 16:21:00 - [25]
     

    Originally by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
    cearbear tears


    oh please oh please CCP nerf the hell out of high sec missions... i will so soo very happy... the carebear tears sustain me YARRRR!!

    CCP Greyscale

    Posted - 2011.08.15 16:56:00 - [26]
     

    Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
    Quote:
    Best loot
    * The best loot in the game should come from nullsec. High-end loot's enforced rarity gives a strong "jackpot" moment and tends towards extremely high values, and nullsec should be where you go to get high-value payouts.


    While I understand the desire to make nullsec very attractive, there's still the case that many 0.0 systems (especially the ones inside settled space) are much safer than low sec systems - yet their rewards will be higher. This does not seem to fit the 'reward scales with risk' mantra that pervades eve's game design.

    While this will no doubt make nullsec more attractive, does this design approach not risk depriving other areas of the game from attributes they need to be attractive (in a specific case: low sec)?


    Nullsec systems tend to be safe on a minute-to-minute basis because people have invested considerable time and resources in making them that way, and I don't have a huge problem with that (so long as it's not producing game-breaking amounts of income). If you want to bring risk into it, consider the strategic-level risk involved in securing that space in the first place Smile




    (And to everyone else, we already made sure that the best agents weren't in hisec when we introduced level 5s. This is not a "level 3 only in hisec" thing, don't worry. We're fully aware that some people will never move, and we're OK with that.)

    James Trix
    Posted - 2011.08.15 17:07:00 - [27]
     

    Originally by: MeBiatch
    if they introduced delayed local as they have in wh space...
    This. But not just for the null sec but for all low-sec as well.

    Keras Authion
    Science and Trade Institute
    Posted - 2011.08.15 17:11:00 - [28]
     

    Will there be any changes to high sec or low sec PvE and if yes, what?

    Mentioning these would give a better picture of the direction where you are taking PvE. Is it a nerf to everyone not in null or a game-wide rebalancing? At very least it would prevent rageposts coming from speculation.

    Bombay Door
    Posted - 2011.08.15 17:11:00 - [29]
     

    Edited by: Bombay Door on 15/08/2011 17:15:54
    If we are to stick with the industrial montra:

    "Our current proposal is that hisec is for volume T1 goods, lowsec will be for meta/faction gear eventually, nullsec is for T2, and wormholes are for T3:

    Having faction agents in null-sec will contradict this. as it stands, Low-sec and NPC null-sec are the only places where a player can go the maximize Loyalty points to achieve this goal.

    Now, If there were to be in-space agents that are not factional and who do not give out loyalty points (Joave agents as an example) with the only reward being bounties and loot. this might be a good compromise.

    Regarding Best PvE pay, I agree that null-sec should be most lucrative "direct" pay PvE content in the game; however, I would like to see factional/deadspace items the most lucrative PvE content as dictated by supply and demand.

    Super Whopper
    I can Has Cheeseburger
    Posted - 2011.08.15 17:16:00 - [30]
     

    Originally by: Alexander Renoir
    If someone claims, that nullsec is such wasted territory, useless and totally crap, THAN I must ask: Why is all nullsec occopied, when however the system is not worth your work? The problem with 0.0 is NOT a problem of buff or nerf. It is a problem of the current absolute DUMB sovereignty mechanic. A few Alliances hold the 0.0 and all he rest must pay in order to get not killed when they want to go there. To give the monopol of Tech II, or to place the best agents in 0.0 will not solve any problems. Your ideas will lead to nothing. Maybe the prices for the little corps (as renters for such systems in 0.0) will rise. But the situation with the powerblocks will be the same. Not one person more, will go to 0.0, if the crap situation will be the same. The problem is YOUR Dumb Sov mechanic. It is too static. All you need is a lot of people who blob the 0.0 and hold them. LOL! But sure.. your new superagents for PvE and Tech II whatever will really change something on this situation. WAKE UP!!


    How about this Mr. I-am-so-special-I-need-a-colour-font. If all the systems in eve are occupied why are there so many sec 0, -1 up to -3 systems empty? Who in their right mind is going to farm the worthless anoms in those systems? If you don't mine you're wasting your time there. Maybe you mean the glorious rats that also spawn in 0.1 systems?

    The moons are, indeed taken, but that's what you get when you have a 1000 man fleet ready to project power over others.


    Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

    This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


     


    The new forums are live

    Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

    These forums are archived and read-only