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

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.15 17:37:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
(...)

(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.)


Just be noted that Lvl 5 agents are the lousier agents around, namely the ones that ask you to risk 100 ISK to earn 1... Laughing

Teinyhr
Minmatar
A Club for Reputable Gentlemen
Posted - 2011.08.15 18:17:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
(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.)


Let me tell you why I dislike 0.0. In the immortal words of your recent trailer, "I was there." And I grew sick of all the OUT OF GAME hassle it brought to me. I had to frequent at least 2-4 different forums, share my API around like the good old fashioned town bicycle, register to at least three vent/teamspeak servers (Corp, Alliance, Alliance backup)... For a game that I at best play 24 hours a week, and depending on my work status, make that 7-14 hours or less. That's just too much time and effort needed to be invested for me personally, and I'm sure there are quite a few with the same issue as me. It's not that we wouldn't like to go to 0.0 already, but all the out of game effort it requires, puts us off. And that's something you, as developers can't really affect in any way that I can think of.

I love this game, I really do, which is why I'd strongly advice you against completely nerfing the high-sec experience, for example removing any chance for good loot; have you checked what prices some meta 4 guns (and other modules) already go for? If I'm not mistaken a single Meta 4 1400mm can cost you more than a single T2 frigate. Move all the good loot to low sec and null and the prices go through the roof. Well, some prices are already through it, so perhaps you could say some prices will head off to the stratosphere.
Speaking about that "JACKPOT!" feeling, it's much stronger in high-low-sec, when you stumble upon a faction drop in a mad stroke of luck. I remember back in my noobdays finding some pirate implant from a belt rat (there was no exploratin back then), and sold it for something like 40 million ISK, which was a ton of money for someone who had played for maybe half a year at that point - I think I used that "lottery money" to fund my battlecruiser skillbook and saved the rest as a nestegg for the Tier1's that were the only tier back then.

I love the fact that I don't have to play the game to advance in it, that I can log on for an hour or two and earn a little bit of "safe ISK" (even high sec isn't "risk free" thanks to gankers), and perhaps spend that ISK some time, go for a low sec or even null-sec roam, solo or with a gang when I hunger for some PVP. I wonder where this preconception has come from that high sec players are just carebears - the largest excuse for missioning to me is that I get to burn that hard earned ISK off on ships I get to lose to or triumph over someone else in - and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone, or even a rarity, with this mindset. As for someone earlier saying it's somehow "wrong" to see a lvl4 hub frequented by faction fitted faction ships, I'd say, wouldn't you use what is the most efficient tool for the job? Machariel for example is an amazingly efficient mission runner and somewhat less skill intensive than a Marauder, and it only gets better at it's job with faction pimpage. The less time I have to spend to sc**** up ISK for a new combat ship or whatever I'm after at the time, the better, that's more time I can spend for pew pew later on.

Plyn
Posted - 2011.08.15 18:40:00 - [33]
 

I am concerned about a contradiction between something mentioned in the Industry section and the PvE section.

From the industry section:
Quote:
Geared towards T2

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.


From the PvE section:
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.


Lots of faction loot is better than T2 loot, and even more so when it comes to farming/selling it for iskies. I'm not opposed to moving a lot of the faction stuff to low sec to encourage more people to move there, but the faction loot picked up from plexes/special spawns (dark blood, shadow serpentis, domination, etc.) is some players real source of going from "breaking even" to "making progress".

Can we get some clarification as to how these two bullet points are meant to work/not work with each other?

Rrama Ratamnim
Posted - 2011.08.15 19:49:00 - [34]
 

PVE we need something bigger than sanctums, we need a cherry on top for truely awesome trusec systems that spawns 1, but say its a NPC rat based on space like normal, but with FULL Class 5 wormhole AI.. something that really is there for Fleet based PVE for alliances/corps...


PVE SOV WARFARE... WTF have the sansha not attacked DRF/GOONS/-A-??? Honestly... lets see the sansha open multiple wormholes and attack the home systems randomly of all the NPC society big shots, i'm talking multiple motherships, sleeper AI...

Of course since its wormholes they can completely bypass cynojammers etc, i'm talking Sansha wrecking player stations, of course theres reward for killing them thats much lucrative....

Go ahead tell all the alliances, the sansha are afraid that the capsuleers are gettign too powerful, alliances that have grown beyond X players may come under attack in the future etc... something of that nature... I think it would be awesome.

Rrama Ratamnim
Posted - 2011.08.15 19:51:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Teinyhr
I love the fact that I don't have to play the game to advance in it, that I can log on for an hour or two and earn a little bit of "safe ISK" (even high sec isn't "risk free" thanks to gankers), and perhaps spend that ISK some time, go for a low sec or even null-sec roam, solo or with a gang when I hunger for some PVP. I wonder where this preconception has come from that high sec players are just carebears



Dude honestly sounds like for what you want, your less nullsec PVE and more nomadic pvp/pve

PVE in lowsec is quite dangerious especially with the chance that any damn moment that cloaky AFK f@g is gonna hot drop you with 30 caps.

Alexander Renoir
Posted - 2011.08.15 19:51:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Super Whopper
The moons are, indeed taken, [...]


Yes. Exact what I mean. They are occopied. Belong to some of the alliances in EVE. It is not a question if there is someone. But you have to pay for the amount of systems you have under control if you are an alliance. Dont think, that they take a useless system only that it looks great on the sov-map. They take it, because it brings benefits. And if there is only the moon.

I wanted to point out, that the sov mechanic is more broken than everything else. You have to pay for 0.0 or you have to blob all others out. NO other way to have your own 0.0 space. Independent of the best Level 5+++ Agent or something else- whatever. NO one will go into 0.0 because there is a better Agent for PvE there. It is such a bad idea and departure of CCP. You can't move in 0.0 if you are not in the right ally or you pay the ally for this space. New rewards will not bring more people into 0.0.

Sheol Duncan
Posted - 2011.08.15 20:28:00 - [37]
 

As a member of Test, there are plenty of systems in Fountain that aren't used. We take them and pay for them so that no one else can have them. If we left them unoccupied it would be a threat to the security of the systems we do use.

Hwong Jian
Posted - 2011.08.15 20:42:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: Hwong Jian on 15/08/2011 20:42:08
I hope this post will serve in some way to illuminate and also illustrate some of the problems with low-sec and null-sec PvE. To start, I am a Caldari militiaman and will be for the forseeable future. And, here is why it is more profitable for me to stay such. If this leads to me being hit by a nerf bat... crap.

Also, this post centers around mission running. I understand that there is more to PvE than simply mission running; however, mission running is the most well-known and widely-used form of PvE (to my knowledge.)

Having played EVE for over four years now, I finally decided to check out 0.0. At the current moment, I do not have any desire to move out to 0.0. It is not because FW is better. Far from it. It is actually because I have seen nothing in null sec that encourages me to leave empire behind. At this point, I should also probably mention that I am most likely a severe minority in EVE: a player that has one character on one account, no alts and no additional accounts.

Profitability
Being in militia, I now have access to level 4 missions. Each level 4 pays out about 3 million isk and about 21k loyalty points on average. On a "round trip", I will pick up 8 level 4s and 8 level 3s, clearing all 16 missions in under 3 hours and net about 30-40 million isk and 220-250k loyalty points. And, for a brief breakdown, a navy scorpion costs 150k lps and sells for no less than a 250 mil profit. Not the best in the world, but still about 1700 isk per lp (rounded up). So, my 3 hours of missioning in low sec earns me about 400-450 million isk. I average up to 150 million isk per hour in low sec. That is a high-end yield, average is about 90-120 million isk per hour. Now, before you decry this as unablanced, anyone jumping into the system is given, free-of-charge, a warp-in to my mission. So this amount of isk comes from considerable risk. Also, only 30-40 million is from a faucet. The other 400ish million isk is a redistribution of wealth to me from people who want to own items from the loyalty point store.

As for 0.0, about two weeks ago, I decided to run missions for Serpentis in Curse. I understand that this isn't the most profitable place for mission running, but it seemed to me the easiest way to get my proverbial feet wet in the 0.0 lifestyle. I have run enought missions to earn 4 storylines, so about 50 or so missions. I have a sum total of about 51k loyalty points with Serpentis, putting me 30k loyalty points shy of a vigilant bpc and the 250 million isk profit that comes with it. So, my current 12 hours or so of mission running has quite possibly earned me about 140-170 million isk, if I were able to cash it all in right now.

To me, 0.0 does not seem like a very profitable alternative to entice people out of empire.

Loot
For the love of whatever it is you choose to acknowledge, take faction ammo off of "faction" NPCs. Please let me say that one more time: PLEASE TAKE FACTION AMMO OFF OF FACTION NPC LOOT TABLES.

In my brief time out in 0.0, I have found one faction npc. It was a Domination battlecruiser with a 1.25 million isk bounty that was accompanied by 4 Angel cruisers. I was in an interceptor and he was sitting on a gate. Already a bad place for a lone frigate. But, I decided to try my luck and attack him. It took about 3 minutes of attacking for me to finally break his tank and bring him down. While I am fully aware of the fact that a larger ship would've done so much quicker, it does not diminish the sense of pride I felt when I killed my first faction spawn in 0.0. The only other time I've found a faction spawn was once during a level 4 Worlds Collide, the Shadow Serpentis megathron actually spawned.

Now, the amount of pride I felt at taking down a faction bc in my interceptor was met almost immediately by an equal amount of disappointment. 1000 Arch Angel medium nuclear rounds and a Domination gold tag.

Please fix the loot?

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.15 21:41:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Teinyhr
I love the fact that I don't have to play the game to advance in it, that I can log on for an hour or two and earn a little bit of "safe ISK" (even high sec isn't "risk free" thanks to gankers), and perhaps spend that ISK some time, go for a low sec or even null-sec roam, solo or with a gang when I hunger for some PVP. I wonder where this preconception has come from that high sec players are just carebears



Well, I play about 15 hours per week (1 hour mon-fri), just don't have a lust for pvp so I mostly pay my subscription and save for different mission ships. Also wanted to spend AUR at the NEx until it went out with those ludicrously high prices.

If 0.0 isn't playable on a time budget as mine, I will not play it, of course.

Juliette Starr
Posted - 2011.08.15 21:54:00 - [40]
 

I've done done FW missions and experienced how your mission can very quickly be invaded and your ship lost while you are scrammed and ecm d by rats. I've also seen L4 nulsec mission hubs controlled by major alliances.

Boosting nulsec PvE is appealing to be however I feel the game design needs to be done carefully to avoid making L4 mission hubs static high income sources for major alliances to the exclusion of single players or small corps, and that the risk vs reward balance needs attention and I don't mean giving out more isk.

L4s typically take quite a while to complete and need specialised and expensive ships, which are relatively easy to destroy by a PvPer who can take advantage of the rats also attacking their victim.

So I suggest:

Scanning down a ship takes a little longer while a mission runner is in deadspace (makes some kind of sense), giving him the chance to kill elite frigates and get out if he wants.
Rats split or redirect their targetting periodically, so there is a reasonable chance that they target the pilot invading the mission.
Numbers of rats in a mission is dynamic and has a bearing on number of pilots present. So if a pvper enters a mission there is a good chance an elite frigate spawns and engages the new entrant. A bit like what can happen in wormholes if excess capships enter a site.

So my suggestion is to increase the risk on pvpers rather then increase the gold award, as isk sources will be exploited if too lucrative.

Geormike Deninard
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:40:00 - [41]
 

EDIT: And of course a very embarrasing missclick

First of all, allow me to say, even if i am a carebear, i like to think EVE as a harsh, cruel and horrible world.

Solo support:

-Not 100% Positive with this. As i said i am in the harsh way of EVE, and i believe solo move to nullsec will be a very hard job without the help of a corporation.

Challenge and reward:

- Challenge must be increased. Reward must also be increased. Maybe increase rate of faction spawns, or include complexes/escalations where meeting an officer or deadspace stuff is very possible.

Best loot

- Revamping the whole rat-loot drop system might be a good idea. T2 drops maybe? R&D drops from miner rats?

Many ship classes

- Sure, PvE must expand in all ship classes, even interdictors!

Best agents

- Agreed, Level 6 is not an option i believe, but maybe if we have eg "DED Agents" that could send us to exploration sites just like COSMOS, only harder.

Best PvE pay

- PvE pay in nullsec must be greater than all spaces, but only after the corporation/alliance enhances it. This is also a "dynamic 0.0" change that i'd really like to see.

Groups best

- 100% positive, make more complexes where even a supercapital might be needed.

One thing i would also love to see is more pirate faction ships which capsuleers can step into, like every pirate race has 4 frigates, 2 cruisers, 2 battlecruisers and 1-2 battleships, and now that pirate capitals have been introduced maybe even Dreadnaughts or carriers?

Yseri
Posted - 2011.08.15 23:18:00 - [42]
 

I know that solo pve players are second-grade customers (because we're "sandboxing wrong"), but please, CCP, remember that there are people that simply do not wish to go to nullsec for various reasons. Some prefer safety, some want to limit "socializing", some are not interested in "nullsec politics" and so on. The same reasons are why people prefer to stay in npc corps.

While I obviously have no problem with making nullsec great, I only fear that it will be achieved by nerfing solo highsec players that are punished already - no new solo content since I can remember, continuous nerfing of missions (worthless loot anyone?)

Harqia Arbosa
Posted - 2011.08.15 23:20:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Plyn
I am concerned about a contradiction between something mentioned in the Industry section and the PvE section.

From the industry section:
Quote:
Geared towards T2

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.


From the PvE section:
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.


Lots of faction loot is better than T2 loot, and even more so when it comes to farming/selling it for iskies. I'm not opposed to moving a lot of the faction stuff to low sec to encourage more people to move there, but the faction loot picked up from plexes/special spawns (dark blood, shadow serpentis, domination, etc.) is some players real source of going from "breaking even" to "making progress".

Can we get some clarification as to how these two bullet points are meant to work/not work with each other?


I don't think the quote in Industry is about what you should be looting/finding/building, as much as what you should be outfiting and flying, that nullsec should be where you are specialising in a deticated role (like what most T2 ships are designed for) for your gang/corp/alliance and using the more-skills-to-fit-yet-cheaper-to-lose-than-faction T2 outfitings to stay competitve without spending 20M+ ISK for every piece of outfiting on your ship that you will lose several times if CCP gets it right because This. Is. Nullsec! and your going to have to defend your little slice of space dust at one point or another.

'Course, that brings into question how/why such and investment would be viable for lowsec, considering, as the very first post mentions and the dev agrees on, lowsec is more dangerous on a minute-to-minute basis that nullsec typically is, at least for an alliance who has settled in.

Riveting Tale Sibling
Posted - 2011.08.15 23:21:00 - [44]
 

Just thought I'd point out - this entire devblog reeks of Null-Sec CSM influencing CCP. Way to go, guys.

P.S. - We don't want to live in Null. We don't want to take part in the part of your game that is lagged to sh** and impossible to enjoy. If you need propoganda to feed more people into the massive "blob meatgrinder", look no farther than your entirely skill-free NullSec Overlords.

Riveting Tale Sibling
Posted - 2011.08.15 23:37:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Riveting Tale Sibling on 16/08/2011 00:05:28
P.P.S. - You guys are totally right about needing to move more high end drops out to Null-Sec.

The Officer Mods and Static 10/10s just aren't enough.


Vilgan Mazran
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2011.08.16 00:44:00 - [46]
 

2 important things here imo:

1) Difficult (preferably impossible) to bot. Sad this wasn't already mentioned.

2) Reward groups rather than encouraging people to go solo. Games are more fun when you play it with others, so there shouldn't be an opportunity cost to doing it together. People should be glad to group together not sad that they are missing out on superior solo income.

Xython
Posted - 2011.08.16 01:41:00 - [47]
 

My thoughts so far:

1. There needs to be an Anomaly revamp. For example, if I go do a Guristas Sanctum in my area, it's the best thing I can find outside of probing down a DED complex (which is a huge pain), but there are literally only 2 layouts. That's boring. Have an Intern or two make say, 5 more layouts for each Anomaly type, so at least there's some form of interesting things going on.

2. Make Anomalies More Dynamic. I can count on two fingers the amount of times I've had a Faction spawn appear in an anomaly, and 1 finger the number of times I've had an escalation happen. I'm not saying that you need to bump the spawn rate up -- you do -- but more importantly, bump it up by having more types of dynamic stuff happen. Why not have reinforcements randomly show up? Why not show up at what you think is a Haven, only to discover it's actually a Hauler Convoy trying to make a run for it? How about you get to the Sanctum, only to discover there's an NPC Bounty Hunter already there. Do you go after him (for a security status hit, maybe even faction damage) for whatever loot he's managed to get, or do you help him out and maybe get in good with his organization?

3. Nerf Highsec Missions. Seriously, your mission revamp, alongside the Nullsec Anomaly nerf, made it absolutely lopsided. It's to the point that you make an absurd amount more money heading into Highsec and doing L4s than you could ever hope to make in Nullsec (doing the same 2 Sanctum layouts over and over). This needs to be brought in line, either by lowering the Highsec payouts or increasing the Nullsec ones.

4. Ok, don't Nerf Highsec Missions, but give us more Nullsec Missions. There's hardly any places to mission in Nullsec, and universally those places are deathtraps due to roaming **** gangs. Why can't I warp to a Sanctum and decide to talk to the guy in charge, ask him if there's anything he needs doing, instead of just blowing them away? Why can't I happen upon a bunch of Amarr Missionaries in deep space, looking for spare parts to fix a ship? This could all be bridged into the current Anomaly system -- instead of just Cosmic Signatures, "Distress Beacon," "CONCORD Broadcast," "Signs of Battle", etc etc could all pop up.

This could be dynamic, as well. Say I have bad Amarr faction. Maybe instead of helping the Missionaries, I could decide to blow them away. Yes, I'd take a faction hit with Amarr, but my character already has bad faction, so who cares?

5. In the same vein, More Incursions, please. Of varying sizes -- I'd love to happen upon a Guristas Carrier warping between various sectors in space, carrying with it several wings of Battleships and assorted other types of ship. Or maybe happen upon the Guristas putting up a POS near a moon, that we have to get together and take out. (And until we do, Incursion level Guristas spawns / AI in the sector.) I love the Incursions stuff I've been able to do -- so more of it, please.

Tetragammatron Prime
Posted - 2011.08.16 02:18:00 - [48]
 

A simple change that would do a lot to fix the current issues with high sec income is change it so that for each faction there are some high sec corps (ie Caldari Navy, Spacelane Patrol) and some for low sec/null (ie Carthum, etc).

The high sec corps would offer in their lp stores the kind of items you find which give relatively bad lp:isk conversion (ie CNR hull, individual module like navy LAR). The low sec/null corps offer better items like you can find in the r&d-type corps (ie eamn bpc, cruise missile launcher bpc) which you can get even 2-4x as much isk per lp vs items in the navy store. Fix up the pirate lp stores at the same time.

Alageth
Posted - 2011.08.16 02:53:00 - [49]
 

From what I have seen the payout system used by incursions might be a nice change from how anomalies currently pay out.

As it stands concord is paying out bounty on killing ships, so why not make it so there is an objective and they pay out for the completion of the objective.

This way also in some situations it will not necessarily take away from one persons income to bring a less skilled friend along. As it stands if im running an anomaly and decide to let one of my friends join me I experience a significant drop in income. It would be nice if bringing a friend (even a lower skilled one) at least didn't take away from you.

for example maybe sanctums could pay out their income of 24ish million to each person in the fleet running it (up to maybe 3 people) Then higher level anoms could be added that are designed to be run by more than one person and in fact do not have the optimum payout if run solo.

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2011.08.16 03:19:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: "Nullsec Development: Design Goals"
Challenge and reward


Can't argue with that. Why do hisec incursions feature motherships at all? Upgrade mission AI across the board, reduce the leap between level 3 and level 4 missions, and perhaps hisec won't need level 4 missions.

Originally by: "Nullsec Development: Design Goals"
Best agents


Alliances should be able to recruit mission agents. Either entice an agent to leave an existing location by paying them more, or generate a new agent for the purpose of supplying missions to the local peons.

As an example, Vir Honn (Republic Fleet, Emolgranlan) might announce (through the Intergalactic Summit forum) that he's considering a change of scenery. The opportunity opens up to bid for his services. Alliances (player and NPC alike) blind bid for his services, and it turns out that DRF provided the best offer. Vir Honn packs up his belongings and heads out to DRF space, to an outpost they have already set up with an "Agent Quarter" upgrade. Such a bid might include an ISK amount, station services available (which might influence the types of missions given out), and a duration of contract.

This way those who want to move all level 4 agents to low/null can vote with their wallets. Those who want to keep Vir Honn in hisec (or at least out of DRF space) can hunt Vir down and continually pod him until he relents and turns down the relocation offer. Alliances will have a way to funnel moon goo profits to their peons in an entertaining way.

At some later point in time, Vir Honn may announce that he's had enough of DRF space, and head back to Emolgranlan of his own accord, possibly stopping off at various stations along the way for a couple of weeks. A contract length might be two to three months.

Originally by: "Nullsec Development: Design Goals"
Best PvE pay
In a broader sense, for all PvE activities nullsec should be the most lucrative place to go, both because it encourages players to move out there, and because the additional risks and effort required needs to be balanced out.


See above. Players should be able to entice good quality mission agents to their space - regardless of whether it's a large nullsec alliance or hisec carebear coalition.

Failing that, it should be possible for alliances to recruit the services of NPC empires to invade some given space (effectively being player-sponsored incursions). This could provide PvE content for the peons (bread and circuses style) or provide PvE as a complicating factor in an invasion.

Originally by: "Nullsec Development: Design Goals"
Groups best


This should apply across all flavours of PvE, not just nullsec.

Perhaps there is room to expand the FW bunkers mechanism to sovereignty holding in nullsec. This way the act of establishing sovereignty also provides PvE content for other alliances. Plonk TCU/IHUB in one system, neighbouring systems spawn PvE content for your enemies to attack. In that linked article, the word is "stability". Convert that to "index" and you get the idea. Any upgrade that provides a boost in one system will spawn PvE content in neighbouring systems for enemies to attack in order to impact that boost or index.

Imagine: you plant an IHUB of a particular flavour in order to spawn "index impacting NPCs". Plonk a caldari-flavour IHUB, your NPCs will be Kaalakiota/Ishukone Watch flavoured, the invading pirates will be Guristas/EoM/etc. There's room here for pirate-faction IHUBs or upgrades.

MsValentineWiggin
Posted - 2011.08.16 03:21:00 - [51]
 

It was a very interesting read and I appreciate CCP sharing.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

(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.)


I suggest that you can't have a Grand Unified Theory of 0.0, without having a GUT of Empire.

In particular, it sounds like considerable effort is going into getting people out of Empire. A certain percentage of them will try 0.0, a certain % of them will leave. My assumption is that the people who are not in 0.0 now will for the most part leave EVE. I think that one of you design goals that you need to decide on is how hard you push it. You could try to get a few thousand to move or you could crank up the dial and get 20,000 new people to 0.0 and 100,000 to unsub. It's just a design decision.

At some point, you are spending the wrong amount of CCP's effort on Empire. If you were to effectively get rid of Empire, then you both free up the development resources previously spent Empire as well as no long having to spend effort to all the effort on trying to come up with bribes & threats to mostly unsuccessfully get players to move to 0.0. Or you could make the decision that you want a hundred or two thousand customers to feel good about spending their $15/month playing in Empire. The CSM and CCP spending all the effort to repeatedly and in each release to find ways to tell the Empire customers that they are not wanted is unpleasant for the players and a waste of effort for CCP.

Think of how much simpler all this redesign would be if there were no Empire! Spending effort on telling the player's they can pay to play in Empire, but you don't want them to seems bad for everyone.

After 0.0 is redefined, will many find Empire-only a fun and meaning full game? It seems like the answer, unfortunately, will be no. So why not admit that and spend scarce resources more wisely instead of killing it with a thousand cuts?




Gevlin
Minmatar
Lone Star Exploration
Lone Star Partners
Posted - 2011.08.16 03:30:00 - [52]
 

i have always been partial to the idea that Assets should be reward vs isk in null sec

To collect isk- desired item needs to be brought to empire to be sold.

Besides Low sec is the limit of Concord's Intel network?

Would make Low sec special for those who want to earn the big isk.

Null sec becomes the frontier where might is right and those with power control their own universe.
If you want to be the vigillantie go to low sec and earn your lively hood in the hunting of the underground.

Wonder if People could make their own currency?

Goose Sokarad
Posted - 2011.08.16 03:52:00 - [53]
 

We dont want L4 agents in 0.0 they should stay in high sec because the fat loot we get in 0.0 alot of the mission runners buy that to pimp their ships.
Incursion agents is what we need in 0.0
In systems that sov can be taken you should need sov to speak to them.
Rewards for doing them should only be isk like doing normal incursions.


Jack Tronic
Posted - 2011.08.16 05:10:00 - [54]
 

Reasons why nullsec is dieing on the PVE aspects but CCP will always ignore:

1. Anomaly nerf makes it unprofitable and pointless for new entities
2. Every null entrance pipe is camped 23/7, good luck getting a 1337 mission ship thats required for that complex that slightly less DPS than a supercap.
3. Risk factor keeps being thought as 2-dimensional thing. There's a missing factor and that's called effort, people like to choose things with th ehighest rewards but also they want the least effort and least risk. Minimizing both is impossible in this game surely, but simply trying to FORCE a 2-dimensional view is silly.

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.08.16 11:57:00 - [55]
 

If it takes anyone 3 months doing lv 4 missions to pay back their mission ship perhaps you shouldn't buy fully pimped officer fit ships for something a T2 fit ship can handle fine.
Also Im sure you are forgetting about LP rewards and salvage in your calculations.

Pinky

Takashi Halamoto
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.16 12:22:00 - [56]
 

there is a risk reward imbalance atm,

i used to pve anom bash in a ship in razor held space, this had the downsides of
-logging/docking to evade reds on the roam,
-said space had to be protected against being overran (we failed on that one)

now my alt is in a 1man corp in highsec running missions, at level 4's the income is comprable to post anom nerf nullsec (near enough the same) but in empire i click request mission and an anomaly is generated for me alone to peruse and clear at my leisure,

one solution have quality and upgrades in null massivly change the curve on anom distribution

so lets say you have the level 5 upgrade, in a -1.0 and maybe a new quality upgrade at 5,
then out of say 20 anoms in system 15 are sanctums and 5 are havens in the ultimate perfect situation so not only are more anoms added but the type improves until at the perfect end almost all are sanctums,

now people will go BUT THE ISK!!!! hang on, lets say you have a pimped to **** Golem or Tengu your looking a what 1-2bil total investment risk (and if it gets popped the eternal shame from your alliance laughing) and it can say sweep clean a sanctum in oh lets say 20min,
anoms already replace when finished so if noone else is in system you can as it were run the same sanctum eternally, kill it, warp out, scan the new one repeat, result you clear 3 sanctums an hour at the current rate, dosnt matter if there is one sanctum or 15 you run 3 an hour, but in that hypothetical Uber system, 15 people can perma run sanctums and 5 havens (not so shabby id consider a haven) this means more people can be active in system at once, then increase bounties based on truesec so say -1.0 pays 1.5X current bounties down to -0.1 which would pay 1.05X even in the worst null sec a million isk bounty rat from low or empire is now 1.05mil not much a measly 50k extra, but its more,

in the meantime go mission alt go, run them level 4's for me

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.08.16 12:44:00 - [57]
 

Obviously nobody likes to get nerfed. And people are allowed to thrive well in empire if they want.
But insisting on your rights to earn a fortune easily equal to 0.0 ratting WITHOUT the risc of getting intercepted by raiding enemies and the necesity of constantly taking precautions is plain wrong and won't help balancing the game.
These same people in 0.0 also have to stop their activities and fight for their space everytime hostiles pays a visit or lose the privilege. People in empire just click open a new mission...

The people I live with in 0.0 do it for the fights and for the social aspect of having lots of friends. The isk they generate is often not to get rich but to fund more ships to lose in fun fights and giant spacebrawls. Many people in empire share same goals but many just do it so they can pimp up their ships. Both are 100% acceptable but in empire all you fear is a suicide gank if you pimped your ship too much.

Takashi Halamoto
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.16 12:50:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Pinky Denmark
Obviously nobody likes to get nerfed. And people are allowed to thrive well in empire if they want.
But insisting on your rights to earn a fortune easily equal to 0.0 ratting WITHOUT the risc of getting intercepted by raiding enemies and the necesity of constantly taking precautions is plain wrong and won't help balancing the game.
These same people in 0.0 also have to stop their activities and fight for their space everytime hostiles pays a visit or lose the privilege. People in empire just click open a new mission...

The people I live with in 0.0 do it for the fights and for the social aspect of having lots of friends. The isk they generate is often not to get rich but to fund more ships to lose in fun fights and giant spacebrawls. Many people in empire share same goals but many just do it so they can pimp up their ships. Both are 100% acceptable but in empire all you fear is a suicide gank if you pimped your ship too much.


agreed the fact that i was able to switch to having my alt farm empire without changing my income noticably is completly wrong either null was too cheap or empire too rich, it should not be possible to compare an hour's level 4's to an hour sanctums in null and find them at all close, it shouldnt be possible

PanKrolik
Posted - 2011.08.16 12:52:00 - [59]
 

I think anoms should be reworked to be more branching. Some of those branches should be random triggers some should be based on player decision.
For example:
First wave spawns at the end of wave 1 two things may happen: wave 2 spawns or a hauler escape event happens. If hauler is destroyed player will gain loot from hauler. If hauler escapes three things might happen. 1. wave 2 spawns 2. Player gains special escalation and anomaly ends. 3. Haulers calls additional support that would be randomized and might far outdps usual anomaly wave.
After wave 2 two things may happen pirates will surrender and drop a can with some loot, wave 3 will spawn. After wave 3 base might try to power up sentry guns that can be prevented by damaging power plant. If power plant is not damaged enough wave 4 will have additional sentry support.

High end anoms like sanctum and havens should have special escalations related to capital presence in the anomaly. Soo if you run sanctum in a carrier you are risking that big bad pirate dreads hot drop you or that pirate power up their capital turrets.Those escalation could lead to system wide events but should be rare. (micro incrusions etc.)

Takashi Halamoto
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.16 12:58:00 - [60]
 

Edited by: Takashi Halamoto on 16/08/2011 13:04:35
ooh i like that idea but i think it would work better with plexes but make them much more common with normal plexes like the hub, prov hq and maze being extra special rare ones,

otherwise youd have to massivly overhaul plexes to make them better than a branching anom,

but i do really like the idea of at end of wave choice X that player can make with a default if they dont make their mind up. ie unless engaged fast the hauler escapes same as if you ignore it, post that idea to the exploration topic because it would make sense there for more dynamic pve


for instance a small chance that during your anom that was going to escalate you see a hauler/miner npc spawn and warp out and a beacon is placed, your ship computer tells you if you reach the beacon it may be able to track the hauler/miner to its destination thus unlocking either a special NPC mining op spawn which you can destroy to claim their ore and the rocks, or sends you to a spawned grav site you can then hand to your miner buddies (as it would be a 'new' 'extra' grav site, and anoms could also on occasion spawn chases to regular combat plexes or hacking sites etc, thus interconnecting the different types of plexes and anoms providing encouragement to try extra stuff ontop of the dynamic anom content


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