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

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.08.18 11:29:00 - [91]
 

You might not be interested in going to nullsec even if the difference is bigger, however it might give nullsec people a reason to stay in nullsec.
Most people in nullsec are there for the action and interaction though - PvE for these people are not to have an end goal of an uber pimped PvE ship, but to fund the results of the action and interaction.
There is nothing wrong about your mind set, but long time ago I realized I had absolutely no reason to train gunnery, missile and other skills if I didn't put them to the use they were designed for (PvP). Eve was designed for action and interaction and allthough you are very welcome to play the game as YOU want to, it is hardly fair to keep your way of gaming easy and safe while nullsec players struggle to get the same income as you...

Ava n'Daara
Posted - 2011.08.18 14:37:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Pinky Denmark
[...] if the difference is bigger, [...] it might give nullsec people a reason to stay in nullsec.
Most people in nullsec are there for the action and interaction though - PvE for these people are [...] to fund the results of the action and interaction.
[...] allthough you are very welcome to play the game as YOU want to, it is hardly fair to keep your way of gaming easy and safe while nullsec players struggle to get the same income as you...


If PvE risk/reward is the same in hisec as nullsec, nullsec people who are funding their action and interaction would stay in nullsec because of the risk of leaving nullsec for hisec and then returning to nullsec not to mention the unprofitable and unfun time spent in warp.

I don't want PvE to be easy and safe in hisec for me anymore than I want it to be unfairly difficult or unrewarding for nullsec. I want PvE to be risky (and even riskier than it is currently) equally in nullsec as in hisec. I don't see how you think this is unfair.

I've yet to hear a good argument for why nullsec should pay out more for PvE tasks if the PvE risk is equal in hisec. I'm sure those in nullsec already get higher payouts for PvP tasks such as player-driven manufacturing, transporting, and market transactions. If you want to give higher payouts from <0.5 agents, fine.. but scanned sigs and missions themselves should be risky enough on their own merits and provide a similar level of loot/rewards.

Finally, I would say that EVE was instead designed as a sandbox where people can play as they will, be it PvP or PvE, solo or fleeted, corped or otherwise, so although you are very welcome to play the game as YOU want to, it is hardly fair to keep your way of gaming profitable and shiny while (solo) hisec players stuggle to get the same cool stuff as you. ;) (Why must I be limited to melting the likes of a Serpentis Watch for typically blah loot with a T3 cruiser just because I can't devote my life to EVE?)

Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.08.18 14:52:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Hwong Jian
Profitability
[...]
Loot
[...]



Yeah, that sort of profitability issue is the sort of thing we're primarily focused on when it comes to adjusting rewards. Not this specific thing (although it sounds kinda broken), but the general sense that people shouldn't look at nullsec and think "I would, but I make more money staying in empire". That's a failure for us.

This is an issue because some individual activities are broken atm, specifically high-sec incursions.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the PVE content in null-sec. Anomalies and DED-plexes all have nice payouts for their effort and in the case of anomalies were even so good that they needed a slight nerf, if only to differentiate between good and bad space. By all means though, increase the value of the exploration content, those outlines are something I can get behind 100%. High-end agents in player outposts could also introduce some variety to repetitive and bot-able anomalies.

Likewise empire PVE at large is not unbalanced until you consider some specifics. Currently high-sec incursions will pay out on the order of 200M/h in a pure ISK-faucet fashion, all in perfect safety. I say this should be a mostly low-sec affair that would both boost that part of space and make sense from a RP point of view. High-sec is protected by CONCORD and the faction navies and null-sec doesn't have the planetary population density to make the Sansha raids worth it. Suddenly you create a reason for people to go to low-sec and a way for us to fight the other gangs rather than just trying to outperform them in clearing objectives.

There is also the previous example of FW missions and their huge, albeit mostly LP, rewards for something that can be done in a stealth bomber in low-sec, something that essentially carries no risk, even with beacons in space. Lvl5 missions are also some of the best paying PVE content, but not abused on the same scale and again mostly in LP, which is really just a wealth distribution system.

Balancing should always be something relative and in context of other activities. You already have a mostly working relationship on the risk/reward scale, but rather than flat out boosting null-sec and bringing even more ISK into the game you should look at the few problem areas first.

Plyn
Posted - 2011.08.18 15:10:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Ava n'Daara
I've yet to hear a good argument for why nullsec should pay out more for PvE tasks if the PvE risk is equal in hisec.


Because there is additional risk from the PvP side of things. If you spent some time out in nullsec, even with one of the larger coalitions, you would see that yes, there are still enemy fleets roaming around on a fairly regular basis. If you believe "Oh you're in a big alliance/coalition, you're safe!" you are totally misinformed.

There's a reason you're up in highsec right now, it's because you KNOW there's increased risk out in nullsec! "I like to solo" isn't a good excuse either, because when I PvE in nullsec, I do it solo too.

How often have you had to delay your PvE in highsec, pos/station up, because a roam was coming down the pipe and your alliance didn't quite have the numbers online at that moment to meet them head on? How much do you have to worry about a couple of T3 cruisers popping out of a wormhole right into your system while you're in the middle of a mission and don't have anyone to back you up? Never! You've got CONCORD behind you.

Come2Nullsec, learn the truth.

Takashi Halamoto
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.19 09:55:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Ava n'Daara

If PvE risk/reward is the same in hisec as nullsec, nullsec people who are funding their action and interaction would stay in nullsec because of the risk of leaving nullsec for hisec and then returning to nullsec not to mention the unprofitable and unfun time spent in warp.

I don't want PvE to be easy and safe in hisec for me anymore than I want it to be unfairly difficult or unrewarding for nullsec. I want PvE to be risky (and even riskier than it is currently) equally in nullsec as in hisec. I don't see how you think this is unfair.

I've yet to hear a good argument for why nullsec should pay out more for PvE tasks if the PvE risk is equal in hisec. I'm sure those in nullsec already get higher payouts for PvP tasks such as player-driven manufacturing, transporting, and market transactions. If you want to give higher payouts from <0.5 agents, fine.. but scanned sigs and missions themselves should be risky enough on their own merits and provide a similar level of loot/rewards.



okay point 1 - No us people in nullsec have things called jump clones and alts, both of which allow us to farm isk in PvE Highsec while never having to fly out of null in a ship, i for instance have an alt that runs missions in highsec this funds my eve, completly, assuming my alliance at some point becomes a sov holder in null again there is at equal reward no incentive to change my current methods,

in Empire apart from the rare suicide gank there is only PvE risk, in null you cannot ignore the risk of PvP, if 5 vagabonds from a hostile alliance are a couple of jumps away you dock your PvE ship or loose it, that simple that easy,

thus- it is possible to spend time docked unable to pve because of hostiles,
if you are incautious it is very easy to loose a PvE ship just like that to roaming gangs,

in empire you can mission as long or as short as you want
also in empire if 100 people go to motsu and request a mission of an agent, 100 missions spawn and they each go get one,
in null you have maybe 20 anoms in a FULLY upgraded system, of which 5 are worth a damn at the moment, granted they respawn but it means at most 5 people can simultaneously get a good profit out, and the bottom 5 anomalies in said system will have a payout more like a level 1 mission,

so yes null needs to pay better because the odds of being able to spend 6 hours perma farming isk in null without any problems is virtually nil unlike being 99% in empire

Plyn
Posted - 2011.08.19 15:21:00 - [96]
 

Create a set of station upgrades which allow for installation of CONCORD agents in player controlled stations. Make alliances upgrade these in order, similar to system upgrades. Example:

DED Office Upgrade 1: Costs 50 million ISK to install. Creates a level 1 agent at the station.

DED Office Upgrade 2: Requires DED Office Upgrade 1, Costs 150 million ISK to install. Creates a level 2 agent at the station.

DED Office Upgrade 3: Requires DED Office Upgrade 1&2, Costs 450 million ISK to install. Creates a level 3 agent at the station.

DED Office Upgrade 4: Requires DED Office Upgrade 1,2,3, Costs 1.35 billion ISK to install. Creates a level 4 agent at the station.

DED Office Upgrade 5: Requires DED Office Upgrade 1,2,3,4, Costs 4.05 billion ISK to install. Creates a level 5 agent at the station.


The costs I am listing are just for illustrative purposes, but because these agents would be putting a lot of ISK into the game, I figure they should be rather costly to install at first (sticking with the investment required for best stuff theme).

Make these player attackable, like other station upgrades, to give enemies a way of attempting to disrupt ISK production.

Could perhaps make several different types of these upgrades for each level, allowing alliances the option to install different types of agents (security, courier, mining, etc.) though I imagine the focus should really go on security if these are DED agents.

Missions would be geared towards combating the type of rats that are normal found in the region. If there are Angel rats in the belts, the missions would typically be against Angels, though different factions could be thrown in just to spice things up if players or devs thought that'd be interesting.

Make True-Sec matter for payouts and mission quality, just like it does for missions in high/low sec, sticking to the "not all space is created equal" theme.

These missions could then be easily tweaked (either with LP rewards, bounties, loot, or outright ISK payments) over time to ensure the rewards conform to the long term design goals for nullsec.

Metal Icarus
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.19 19:04:00 - [97]
 

I think it would be cool if agents spawned in sov stations. lvl 4, some lvl 5, depending on the truesec. That way, NPC space is not the only place to do missions.

In fact, it would be awesome if people could create missions that would actually make a difference.

Mining missions, delivery missions, scouting missions, maybe even some assasination missions (kinda like bounty hunting but with intel about the whereabouts of this person). All with targets selected by the mission maker. It would provide money for people who do them as well as material and a completed goal for those who make the mission.

Basically, create a method for people in sov space to accept NPC missions in their respective stations as well as create mission contracts for alliance/renters/pets.

Even people in sov need to get crap done by people who are willing to do it, we just need a convient way to assign those objectives to people all over the powerblock. It will involve people who have the standing to accept missions, who otherwise who would be ratting.

To dive further into the idea, say you need a scout in said system for you are doing an op. A contract arrives in a local constellation for a help wanted contract for a scout in this system. Once accepted, a convo opens up between the issuer and the acceptee and coms can be establised from there.

All rewards are set by the issuee

Plyn
Posted - 2011.08.19 20:22:00 - [98]
 

Not really where I was going with the mission thing.

You can already have people do that. Just hop on your friendly coalition chat and say "X isk for Y's frozen corpse" or "Can I get somebody to hold eyes on B gate? We're going to be mining in there and want to make sure we aren't jumped. I'll give you Q isk."

Don't want the agents to "spawn"... they need to be paid for, to stick with the investment part of the design goal.

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.20 02:04:00 - [99]
 

Edited by: Lolion Reglo on 20/08/2011 16:10:53
Edited by: Lolion Reglo on 20/08/2011 16:05:27
I have an idea for making PvE in null sec not only more profitable but solo-able.

Un Nerf Anomalies. - Bringing them back to dominion levels will not only give people something for players to do to make isk and keep them online, but also can be scaled so that they are on the same level as level IV missions. This negates the need for high sec alts or jump clones to run missions to make isk and can add to the local economy by dropping loot and gear players can use so they don't have to import or make. To balance this for example you can scale the system upgrades that if you invest more in anomaly and PvE mechanics mining and exploration is Weakened in the system. this could also raise the true sec of a system so belts no longer have large rats and makes it a little more safer for some minor mining in said belts.

Allow an Agent to be placed in an outpost and possibly make them "customizable". - As crazy as this sounds i would imagine it is possible. Only 1 agent that is, and this agent will ask if you want a solo class mission or a group one. This allows people to choose a better mission profile that fits what you wish to do, be it running solo for isk and gear or in a group with the same kind of income scale as the incursions. You could also give the agent a type of ship you wish to fly with or a fleet composition to allow for more diverse kinds of missions and make it so you don't just use a drake, but could use caps, to have a huge NPC vs Player cap fights. it would be good for training cap pilots in that idea. Would also give the mission creators room for more mission ideas and get really creative.

Allow for a degree of security in null sec missions. - I'm not saying make it so only you can't enter them, but have the agent give out a warp gate key so only the player or group can enter, or the first room the key drops off rats guarding it. THEN, if a random gang wishes to ruin your missioning they have to Hack the gate. This allows for a comforting knowledge that an enemy cant just come find you by scanning you down but they will also have to hack the gate to enter. This limits the people who can harass you to groups because if a solo tried that is two slots that are taken up by non combat equipment putting them at a disadvantage. [Edit]By forcing the attackers to hack allows a missioner to scan the warp gate to see if he will be ambushed and take the proper steps to leave. but still lets attackers keep initiative if they have a good hack or high enough hacking skills.[/Edit]

Have the Agent only available to highly upgraded systems and limit the number of agents per alliance. - This makes it so only well established and stable systems and alliances can hold an agent making it easier to make isk, but also limits the possibility of abuse. Make it so that in order to have more agents you need a certain number of systems AND players. But put a cap on the total agents in outposts controlled by an alliance as so they don't try and own all the space to have agents galore. Have all the agents be level V missions for groups but if you choose solo missions its level IV.

Have the alliance of choice choose which faction they want the agent to come from. - this is Crucial to making the pursuit of agents wanted because then not only would you make more isk of the missions LP can be gained and used to purchase types of gear you can find in your favorite mission hub. This will make the desire to do missions more appealing than anomalies and make them get some use. Of course if another alliance rolls in they can choose to remove the agent already there, wait a week or so, before they can "invite" a different agent from another faction to come to that outpost.

These are just some ideas im throwing out for support or to be torn to pieces.

Messoroz
AQUILA INC
Posted - 2011.08.20 07:49:00 - [100]
 

Edited by: Messoroz on 20/08/2011 07:50:03
Originally by: Lolion Reglo
I have an idea for making PvE in null sec not only more profitable but solo-able.

Allow for a degree of security in null sec missions. - I'm not saying make it so only you can enter them, but have the agent give out a warp gate key so only the player or group can enter, or the first room the key drops off rats guarding it. THEN, if a random gang wishes to ruin your missioning they have to Hack the gate. This allows for a comforting knowledge that an enemy cant just come find you by scanning you down but they will also have to hack the gate to enter. This limits the people who can harass you to groups because if a solo tried that is two slots that are taken up by non combat equipment putting them at a disadvantage. You could also make it that if the hacker has a lower hacking skill a failed attempt will alert the people who traveled through the gate last that an unauthorized person is trying to get in. But if they are a high enough hacking that they can access it without alerting the missioner and therefore retain the surprise.


TBH, this should exist for lowsec as well. BUT I do not agree with alerting the mission runner, they should learn how to set dscan to a limited range and check. Plus an acceleration gate that was placed by npcs the player is killing makes no sense in alerting the player.

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.20 16:08:00 - [101]
 

perhaps you are right. Alerting the player may not be the best idea but forcing the attacker to hack the gate will still add that layer of security i would feel comfortable with to be able to stay in my spot even if a gang comes in. then using your method if i detect them around the jump gate i can align and warp out in time before they show up. still forcing the attacking players to have a good hack to maintain the initiative. ill go ahead and edit my idea to reflect this.

Narisa Bithon
Caldari
The Motley Crew Reborn
Posted - 2011.08.20 22:06:00 - [102]
 

sov systems should have a new i-hub upgrade where the longer you hold a system the better the true sec gets.

sov index 1 max 0.0 -> -0.2 true sec - officer spawn rate 1/100000 dead npc

sov index 2 max -0.21 -> -0.4 true sec - officer spawn rate 1/75000 dead npc

sov index 3 max -0.41 -> -0.6 true sec - officer spawn rate 1/50000 dead npc

sov index 4 max -0.61 -> -0.8 true sec - officer spawn rate 1/35000 dead npc

sov index 5 max -0.81 -> -1.0 true sec - officer spawn rate 1/25000 dead npc

the belt rats and rate of officer spawn should also increase with each level.

Ildryn
Posted - 2011.08.21 00:46:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
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).


-Level 4s in low sec sound proper. Level 5s were always intended for low sec to begin with. Substantially increase rewards though to make it worth the risk of going there.

-I can earn enough in one weekend doing level 4 missions to buy a mission ship that will complete level 4 missions with ease.
Reduce rewards for NPC corps. Make it so only level 1-3 missions are available to NPC corps. Wardec immunity is a flawed and
failed system.

-PVE in low/null sec does need increased mission rewards. Being that the risk is a total loss of your ship in addition to the loss of standings with the corp you won't be able to complete the mission for. Takes me less than 3 minutes to land in a system and scan down a mission boat and be in warp. Add a early warning radar or other some such thing.

Rocky Deadshot
Posted - 2011.08.21 13:44:00 - [104]
 

Honestly, I'm in Eve to do PvE. While I enjoy the existence of eve's pvp system and how it fuels the economy, I enjoy interacting with the pve element and being able to have fairly expensive and flashy ships to fly that would never be flown in nullsec. I feel that if lvl4s were removed from high sec then there are many ships that would pretty much lose their function (like the rattlesnake and CNR).

I also feel that screwing with High Sec is in no way a good idea, since new player expansion and retention is an ongoing goal of CCP, and lets face it... high sec is how we lure new people in, but if you tell them that the only way you'll be able to make enough cash to by flashy ships or plex your acct is if you move to null... than i dont see many people staying.
Frankly, most of my friends in null sec seem to think the make plenty of money, granted sometimes they can't farm cash due to reds in local, but generally speaking rats, exploration, and mining on off hours seems to fill the coffer nicely. I feel the idea that null sec isn't profitable is a manufactured problem by individuals and groups that are contently involved in conflicts or haven't figured out how to play the game... or just greedy people. If null sec isn't profitable... use a jump clone or an alt to do **** in high sec, this is space... why does any one facet have to be completely self sustainable.

Also, if you increase rewards for pve and mining in null sec, you will greatly increase pirating activities since pirating money is often times easier than earning it an "honest" way.... eventually we'll end up back where we are, where its unprofitable to try and earn income through pve in nullsec

Thur Barbek
Posted - 2011.08.21 16:22:00 - [105]
 

Edited by: Thur Barbek on 21/08/2011 16:22:27
Originally by: Rocky Deadshot

I feel the idea that high sec isn't profitable is a manufactured problem by individuals and groups that are contently involved in conflicts or haven't figured out how to play the game... or just greedy people. If high sec isn't profitable... use a jump clone or an alt to do **** in null sec, this is space... why does any one facet have to be completely self sustainable.


Switched high and null sec in your argument... basicly says my argument for me. ty

Urgg Boolean
Posted - 2011.08.21 20:05:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Tza Omi
F@#K a bunch of Nullsec pansy a$$ crybaby griefers that aren't getting enough targets to make them happy. People don't go to NullSec to do PVE they go there for large Blob battles cheifly on gates. You moved all the lvl 5 agents to losec, with the result that almost no one does lvl 5 missions (a big waste of programing effort there for content now rarely used). Face it, high level mission content is done by people in hi-sec with very expensive ships fitted specifically for mission running, not for Pvp as they would need to be to do missions in lo or at least npc Nullsec. Sov Nullsec is a differnt matter, thats safer than Hisec as you know of any non blues in the area long before they are on grid. Nullsec Sov alliances are already the richest entities in the game and everything you are talking about is ways to make sure they stay that way. Its pretty easy to tell who your friends are. Give them all the best loot, the best money raising opportunities all in a a well guarded risk free environment and secure their game domination forever.

Agreed.

Why can't everyone accept the fact that PvE zones are okay and PvEers are not some lesser form of animal? Rewards alone will not get mission runners to take PvP risks in tuned PvE ships. Now, if with sufficient standing, the NPC pirates in the area would act like Concord and protect you, cool, I'll PvE in 0.0. I have hung out in 0.0 a while, and a lot in Low sec. As primarily a mission runner/exploration guy, I do not like constantly looking over my shoulder for PvPers and/or stressing out when the ratz have me scrammed so there would be no escape if PvPers show up on grid. It's not fun. Nerfing Hi sec missions would cause more players focused on PvE to quit. It's a different mindset that is fine and okay.

IMHO, things like BS ratz in 0.5 systems and reinstating LvL5 missions in hi sec should be enabled. That's right. Big ratz would break up AFK mining in efficient ORE ships. Mining OPs would require PvEers. And the PvEers could use their uber mission runners again. Use of Carriers should enabled in hi sec with sufficient standing/security for the area.

One way to FORCE people into 0.0 is to have a permanent kill count that can't be worked off. The higher your kill count, the more limitations on system access. If you keep killing, you will eventually be relegated to Null sec only. Wardec kills will not add to your permanent count. That way, as people constantly say in EvE, your choices make a difference. In this case, your choice to kill is a choice that takes you closer to null sec.

Riveting Tale Sibling
Posted - 2011.08.21 23:23:00 - [107]
 

Hey, Greysale - On the subject of risk/reward.

I escalate a plex fully into low-sec, take the time to scout and prepare - go in, and kill everything. What do I get for my trouble?

Nothing.

I escalated a plex four times with random chance - this happens very rarely - however I'm constantly skunked on loot, which makes it pointless to escalate plexes.

Maybe, if things had been more balanced in their original iteration, we wouldn't find ourselves at this impasse now.
Frankly, with the recent magnificent changes, I don't trust CCP anymore. Especially not to "balance" anything.

/monocle

Narisa Bithon
Caldari
The Motley Crew Reborn
Posted - 2011.08.22 12:04:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Riveting Tale Sibling
Hey, Greysale - On the subject of risk/reward.

I escalate a plex fully into low-sec, take the time to scout and prepare - go in, and kill everything. What do I get for my trouble?

Nothing.

I escalated a plex four times with random chance - this happens very rarely - however I'm constantly skunked on loot, which makes it pointless to escalate plexes.

Maybe, if things had been more balanced in their original iteration, we wouldn't find ourselves at this impasse now.
Frankly, with the recent magnificent changes, I don't trust CCP anymore. Especially not to "balance" anything.

/monocle


i hate it when it escalates 20 jumps away.... why can it just escalate to somewhere in the same constellation? i dont want to have to make 20 jumps for a chance it might drop nice loot cos more often than not it doesn't drop decent loot.

MsValentineWiggin
Posted - 2011.08.22 21:25:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Urgg Boolean
[Why can't everyone accept the fact that PvE zones are okay and PvEers are not some lesser form of animal? Rewards alone will not get mission runners to take PvP risks in tuned PvE ships.
...
One way to FORCE people into 0.0 is


I'm sorry but all you can do is force people out of 0.5. There is no way to force them into anywhere. I.e., CCP does not have a lot of trust or good will built up; the environment has gotten tense/whining/emo even for a MMO and CCP and forum warriors go out of their way to say this is not a game for PvE. I think an unsub is a more rational and likely outcome than for a PvEer to change to the part of the sandbox CCP would prefer.

Bloody2k
Gallente
ZERO T0LERANCE
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.22 23:21:00 - [110]
 

REALLY Dynamic Missions/secret places or anomaly/scanning sites!

Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2011.08.23 10:00:00 - [111]
 

Edited by: Zey Nadar on 23/08/2011 10:01:53
I like the idea of being able to place customizable agents on null outposts. This could have a 'in-character' reason of making deals with the factions, including criminal factions. I'd really like to see that! What if this could be a way to customize what type of rats show up in your space? Or the anomalies would be of enemy faction to the one you are 'allied with'. One advantage to go with having sov space imo. Maybe there would be additional higher level agents appearing as your sov increases in 'level'.

ps. hopefully also something that would add extra flavor to future incarna content, interactable agents on stations.

Ildryn
Posted - 2011.08.23 21:35:00 - [112]
 

They have a pve zone. It's called Singularity.
Go there where your whining will get pvpers removed if they pvp in the place you don't want them to.
By snitching you become the police there. Think how much money you could make and how much fun you could have.

Sylper Illysten
Caldari
Ex Coelis
The Bantam Menace
Posted - 2011.08.25 00:57:00 - [113]
 

Once more the core problem is overlooked. When PvEing in low/null sec all the advantages are with teh gankers. Mission runners are easy to scan down and a PvP fit will destroy any PvE fit, until this discrepency is addressed there is no incentive to solo PvE in low/null sec systems. The value of the ship required and the high risk involved far exceed any reward. Continued nerfing of hi sec PvE will only succeed in reducing the load on the server in hi sec systems.

Gevlin
Minmatar
Lone Star Exploration
Lone Star Partners
Posted - 2011.08.25 03:30:00 - [114]
 

I thing true null sec needs to avoid becoming a place where people farm isk. Instead it should be a place to farm desired items that can be traded for isk (tags, effects, blueprints, moduls)after they are brought to empire.
---> Developing a strong trader profession

Make Low sec the place to go to make isk as Concord controls the area via boundies vs troops.

NPC Null sec becomes an interesting place where it is full of Pirate and Not so pirate factions. With a Good pirate faction he can earn some loot and direct isk bounties from the pirates by shooting down, players of poor pirate faction, NPC ships from concord or other non-pirate faction Sorta like low sec but working for the pirates who pay better. If the Player has poor pirate faction then he can earn loot drops from shooting down the pirates or pc friendly to the pirates.

Now if only null sec alliances 0.0 could make their own currencies.



Tetragammatron Prime
Posted - 2011.08.25 10:45:00 - [115]
 

Agents/missions in sov 0.0 stations would be a mistake imo without either making the site able to be probed out with core probes or further nerfs of "unprobeable" ships so you don't need to take a 1bil+ clone into 0.0.

I'd rather see more anomalies and unknown sites in 0.0. Make missions be a npc/empire thing.


Feawin
Gallente
Northstar Cabal
Posted - 2011.08.25 12:55:00 - [116]
 

Quote:
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.


Didn't you guys just change this with the anom nerf? And now you want to bring it back?

Are you taking into consideration how increased income/wealth in nullsec could increase inflation?

Seikaku Otosan
Posted - 2011.08.25 20:48:00 - [117]
 

first off.. sorry but I did only read a few of the first replies to this topic because I didn't have time to read the book that it is. so if I echo something already said in the thread.. again I'm sorry.

so let me give my thoughts on the PVE content ideas I read. how I interpreted them and what I think is good or bad about it.

"Solo support

It is critical that some low-effort, decent-reward solo activities are available to players in nullsec. This class of content gives players a reason to stay online if nobody else is around, and it's only by getting people to stay logged on that it stops being the case that nobody else is around."

yes i can see where the need for this could be. level 1-5 agents should be in null sec. just not ALL of them. we should also have 1-5 agents in High sec. just different qualities. because there is nothing like alienating part of the player base to content. it will never go over well. partly why level 5 agents dont see nearly as much use as level 4 in my experience. ill expand on this later. decent rewards would have to be rewards that the player can weigh against.. my ship could be popped by a PVP person who scanned me down and just wants to pop me for the lols. if this is even possible to be very prevalent than your reward is going to have to be comparable to isk needed to buy a new ship for possibly every mission you run. otherwise the scale will tip heavily in the "not worth the risk" category as it is now. also dont think fleets of people doing a mission is the solution to that. since as of now mission rewards get divided among all people in a fleet. you have to consider that with a fleet it may become even less desirable on the isk payout side of things especially if pirate player/player fleets attack you in a mission. because there is nothing like taking your fleet into a mission aggroing the enemy having a PVP player/fleet warp in and then attack you and you cant do much if anything because your already handling the NPC rats, giving the other player free kills essentially because your weakened. all in all mission runners dont want to PVP thats why there doing PVE. there not set up for it.. and/or skilled for it or ready for it. its just an aggravating death. if your going to do this stuff in null sec then you need to make sure there are much better places to PVP and as such the PVE content should in some way become much more difficult to do PVP in. PVE and PVP should not have much overlap. if any. there two different worlds of players/mindsets/entertainment. and as such donít mix well. i cant honesty think of one game where I could be doing some PVE content and have some spurt of the moment PVP happen with such far reaching and permanent penalties where i would to YAY because I was waiting for this. fun fun. perma ship death means PVP needs to somehow be on my terms. at least to me and I would imagine to a large amount of other people as well. after all ****ed people will log off. and raises the possibility of quitting the game. happy people play games.

Seikaku Otosan
Posted - 2011.08.25 20:51:00 - [118]
 

"Challenge and reward

Nullsec PvE should offer increased challenge compared to empire, and the rewards should be commensurably greater. This should be one of the lures that entices players to leave empire and move to nullsec."

simply put yes, yes it should challenge versus the environment (not PVP) and thus the rest applies in scale with high sec missions. if spurt of the moment PVP becomes possible the rewards need to increase drastically for the drastic increase in threat. especially with no recourse for null sec ganking/blobing into your mission. thus ruining your happy game time.

"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."

if the above can be followed in some manner than i can agree to this as well. but (again) if the possible cost of going to null sec to even attempt to get the loot is i lose more than said loot is worth.. whats the worth to even attempting. after all very few people win the lotto in the grand scheme of things.

"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. Different players prefer the playstyles offered by different ship classes, and they should not feel the need to specialize in certain classes just to remain fiscally stable."

for this to happen... god(just thinking about it)... would mean some kind of serious mission scaling to fleet composition and ship fit coding stuff. in essence you would. to me. get rid of the mission levels all together all missions become uni-leveled and the difficulty and rewards would scale to fleet composition and player ship fittings.... serious coding. and game mechanic changes. otherwise what was just said here is a description of the mission system we have now with fancy words that make it sound new.. if the mission is predictable, specialization will happen to try and maximize profit and minimize risk. as it is now... i would wish CCP much luck on this one bullet point because it could very well be the hardest one here to accomplish.

"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."

if said above happens this will happen all on its own. possibly the easiest thing to accomplish here because its player base driven. make a good game and gaming experience people become more happy, play more earn more and pay to play more. win win.

"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."

this i think was covered in "solo support" and is to me. more of a mission statement to that bullet point than its own point of topic. just my 2 cents.

Seikaku Otosan
Posted - 2011.08.25 20:53:00 - [119]
 

Edited by: Seikaku Otosan on 25/08/2011 21:09:43
"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."

that whole first sentence.. underline bold and italicize it.(edit: also remembering that the first sentence is two ideas in one. both SOLO play AND group play. both are of equal value. because it IS critical to have solo content and support AS WELL AS group play support and design.) for that to happen people need to MAKE MORE for doing things together not LESS like they do now in PVE.. group up with 1 other person and all of a sudden your making half the rewards for the same amount of effort and concentration. yes it may be easier with another human player and by association more fun. but if the goal is better rewards here then the REWARDS need to be better not cut in half.

my closing thoughts, in the grand scheme of things i hope CCP is not abandoning high sec space to put all new content universally and only in null sec space giving the proverbial middle finger to all high sec players and a MEH feeling to low sec players and further alienating the high sec only players by Removing aspects of the game also known as "content" from said high/low sec space this is a terrible business move in my opinion that would only entice nerd rage and player base rage. doing so could very easily give people a sour enough feeling that they straight up leave the game. yes devs make a game to be played the way they want it to be played and power to them its there game after all. but once its public and people pay for it and its been established for as long as it has such wide spread and all changing effects should be very VERY seriously thought about and very real consequences fleshed out for the company should such decision be received poorly by the player base (there source of income). such moves have the capability to cripple and kill games. it has happened in the past and its no one is immune to it.

many people like to solo play due to time constraints in real life among other things and as such solo play needs serious consideration. as well as possible ramifications within the game mechanics due to solo play.. /cough solo PVE mission runner being blown away by roaming player pirate groups in null sec with no ramification for ****ing someone off just trying to have fun while they had time.

A Further disclaimer for the flamers who pick things apart as Iím sure will happen here. I donít visit the forums much myself and as such will probably not even look at this thread again in the future to see any replies to anything I have stated in these posts. As such what I put here was purely for the dev team in a hopes that they will read what I wrote and contemplate my thoughts on there ideas. If you donít agree with what I have said here I encourage you to not quote and flame me directly but to instead read there dev blog and post your own ideas if they contradict mine. I wrote this little part in the effort of good faith in an attempt to not waste your time or the devs.

Riveting Tale Sibling
Posted - 2011.08.25 23:10:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Ildryn
They have a pve zone. It's called Singularity.
Go there where your whining will get pvpers removed if they pvp in the place you don't want them to.
By snitching you become the police there. Think how much money you could make and how much fun you could have.



"Hurf blurf carebears go to test server.."

Yeah, great idea there. Watch the market failcascade into nothingness, and enjoy your absolute lack of stupid people to shoot.

0/10


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