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

Plyn
Posted - 2011.08.26 00:03:00 - [121]
 

Really the thing that's killing me on this post is the number of people that are screaming mad at the idea that nullsec should be more profitable than highsec.

Sure, some people have argued for the moving of level 4 missions out of highsec, but I seriously doubt the devs want to do that. I think they are okay with the amount of ISK being printed in highsec, which means they are fine with what's there staying there.

They just want nullsec to seem juicier. They want it to become a lifestyle, as opposed to just "the place I go when I feel like pvping". They want people to want to go there and spend all (or most) of their time there, and the only way to do that is to make it very profitable. As it stands now, why bother going when you can make a comparable (or greater, sometimes) amount of ISK in highsec without all the risk? Even if you do it with a second toon on the same or a different account, you are not putting your effort into nullsec.

Assuming, and I feel like this is a fairly reasonable assumption, that highsec ISK printing isn't changed in any way, but some stuff is added to nullsec to make it more enticing, how are the empire-only players being negatively affected? I see a ton of people jumping up and saying "I don't want nullsec to be more profitable because I don't want to pvp!" but you'll still be making just as much ISK as you ever were before, so why all the butt-hurt?

Markus Reese
Caldari
New Eden Weekly Sentinel
Posted - 2011.08.26 05:50:00 - [122]
 

Edited by: Markus Reese on 26/08/2011 05:56:39
Hi, in terms of the topic, the most that affects me is the nullsec PvE. Despite many saying eve is a pvp game, the pve population is huge. This does not mean carebear though. Many people, like myself want high risk, want to work as teams and the like, but really just have not much interest in going out and looking for a fight.

Personally, I love nullsec pve that opened up with the introduction of T3 ships. Before that, I ran exploration in lowsec. When wormholes came out, I thought it would be great until the pos camps started setting up. The main thing in regards to pve/pvp in lowsec and in the discussion here of nullsec is the enticement of players into null which lean to the coverts on the pve'rs side.

That part there very important for the talk of improving co-op feedback. The small gang pve that wants to avoid the pvp, sneak past pies and camps will be in smaller and faster ships. The sites that already exist out there can take a fair bit when running solo to finish. Personally, my exploration T3 requires quite the fit to dish out enough damage to break those +1mil isk battleships when fitted for survey sites out in null. The reward for working in small teams is an exponential increase in the turnover time of the sites which often in itself yields more earning than solo.

The main way to improve the highsec based pvers into lowsec would be to promote more chaining of sites. Exploration epics so to speak. The high of jackpot is great, but is often outweighed by the tedium of scanning for hours to find a site to begin with. The most excitement is in those escalations where you are travelling unlocking a story. An upgrade so that more sites and the different sites escalate (for example a mag site leaves clue to a comm hub where you get a combat with rewards tweaked to balance, say more steps in the escalation) will make nullsec alot more enjoyable.

Again, it is the scanning down that is the worst for group pve, if you want to go in with say a team of 8. 3 black ops, three recons and two covert ops, typically most cannot go scanning, and the others are bored waiting the hour to find a site worth the time. However if that first scanned site would lead to a guaranteed couple hours of good combat or more, then well worth it. Now, the clues would need to chain or split, to give options to if you want to run it stealth (solo) or combat (fleet) to prevent the situation where the solo explorers keep having to stop.

The value of the loot. As I said, the yay jackpot makes going to nullsec solo or in small team well worth it. Just need to fly different. Not with LSE drakes, or a few maelstroms running a single xLSB. When I ran lowsec, I brought in a specialty fit phantasm with rigs, before there were medium rigs and didn't lose it because I set up to get around in low solo. Same with an armageddon. One evening, I jackpotred and got enough loot between a mag site and an escalation to buy a nightmare. But we don't want this kind of loot in terms of pve pure farmable (well, suppose slightly) and instead promote travel. With the sites escalating around still if will make it more conflict risking. One thing that does need if there is a change, I would like to see escalations stay in the similar security ratings. (loot slightly balanced to match?)

Victoe Kenaris
Posted - 2011.08.26 08:58:00 - [123]
 

The only real things I see here are PVE isn't the primary focus of null. your Solo and "groups is best concepts" seem to conflict or at very least would be a difficult balance, as well as the same core and fundamental problem which is. PVE has always been like this all the best item have always dropped from here, yet the majority of ppl are still in high sec. which is linked to EVEs Demographics and linked to its low player retention.

even tho this is a bit cross topic I'm going to try to dispel CCPs greatest misconception of EVE it greatest mystery why they have such low player retention.

HERE IT IS CCP
what's EVEs greatest achievement
ITS THE LARGEST RED(PVP) SERVER
look at any other MMOs Red or pvp server only account for 1/4 or less of there servers or total population.
NO AMOUNT INCETIVE WILL SHIFT THIS TO ANY SIGNIFICANT EXTENT
although adding more to NULL in terms of PVE wouldn't be a BAD thing
concentrating your PVE efforts in High your Semi safe zones would be much more productive for you.

Klandi
Consortium of stella Technologies
Posted - 2011.08.26 21:08:00 - [124]
 

Love thinking out of the box, but keeping a couple of things in mind. 1) Not increase the server traffic (a component of lag) and (2)retain the immersive capability of null sec - because you are in null sec for a reason, which comes down to defending and maintaining your space.

In my mind, PvE should not differ very much from PvP - and since null sec is all about PvP as offensive/defensive then the way you earn the ISK to stay there should be the same.

Give hulls a price. All ships in Eve are the PvE target. Make your enemies ship the PvE target. Your kills have meaning and give you a return for destroying them - not just a kb kudos but ISK as well.

This could scale from Empire to null sec, but the "hull price" is reduced in Empire, from virtually nothing in .8 and above to substantial in null.

Mods don't get easily destroyed, damaged yes, and any ship that has no mods on it (freighters) have 0 destruction value regardless.

To facilitate the officer mods, mini-incursions (only in null).

btw, the missions in empire are relegated to training missions - which help the new people, teaching them to outfit the ship for PvP, then take them through tactics, preparing them for Null sec. That has an ISK reward but not as good as null.


Seems I've killed several birds with one stone there :)

Markus Reese
Caldari
New Eden Weekly Sentinel
Posted - 2011.08.26 21:25:00 - [125]
 

Hmm... most of mine was more exploration based above there. Will need to move that. Another idea for getting pve'rs into nullsec again relegate to the types of ships that go into null. The setup for the pirate epic is great. Make piracy missions more like that. Have it so that pvp style ships are similar to what will be needed in the pve pirate situations.

Plyn
Posted - 2011.08.26 21:59:00 - [126]
 

Originally by: Klandi
Love thinking out of the box, but keeping a couple of things in mind. 1) Not increase the server traffic (a component of lag) and (2)retain the immersive capability of null sec - because you are in null sec for a reason, which comes down to defending and maintaining your space.

In my mind, PvE should not differ very much from PvP - and since null sec is all about PvP as offensive/defensive then the way you earn the ISK to stay there should be the same.

Give hulls a price. All ships in Eve are the PvE target. Make your enemies ship the PvE target. Your kills have meaning and give you a return for destroying them - not just a kb kudos but ISK as well.

This could scale from Empire to null sec, but the "hull price" is reduced in Empire, from virtually nothing in .8 and above to substantial in null.

Mods don't get easily destroyed, damaged yes, and any ship that has no mods on it (freighters) have 0 destruction value regardless.

To facilitate the officer mods, mini-incursions (only in null).

btw, the missions in empire are relegated to training missions - which help the new people, teaching them to outfit the ship for PvP, then take them through tactics, preparing them for Null sec. That has an ISK reward but not as good as null.


Seems I've killed several birds with one stone there :)


The main problem with your suggestion is that by giving a signifigant payout for pvp kills you're going to break the economy. Ship loss is one of the main ISK sinks of the game, and by printing more ISK on top of insurance every time someone pops, you'll find ISK inflating incredibly.

Many T1 ships insurance very nearly pay for the hull when they pop. The only real loss is the mods. If you pay the other person as well, you reach the point where building ships, insuring them, then destroying them on purpose might actually be profitable enough to be a profession.

Seikaku Otosan
Posted - 2011.08.27 03:39:00 - [127]
 

Dear klandi

PVP player vs player
PVE player vs environment.

the two are mutually exclusive either your fighting a player or the environment they cant be the same thing.

when people say PVE its widely accepted to mean player vs NPC (non player character) or player vs literally the environment excluding other PC's (player characters)

please dont take any of that as some sort of flame attack i just wanted to clarify in a nice way.

your idea to me sounds like putting a player behind an environment enemy. which would just turn it into a player. or PVP.

my thoughts though on your general idea of giving a payout to a person who pops another player in PVP though.. im iffy on it and leaning towards no.. and let me explain why.

first we have the bounty system in the game. so in essence the basic idea is already in the game it just uses player funds instead of CCP funds for the payout which also gets around the insuring a ship and getting a double pay out thus granting the parties a chance for insurance fraud.

second. i can see this really having the potential of causing an even larger rift between the eve rich and the eve poor. the rich will get richer with better ships and rigs etc because of the PVP payout while the poor will lose ships that they have to pay to refit out of pocket because the majority wont be able to compete with the elite fittings on the rich peoples ships. and insurance only goes so far if you keep losing. eventually you just run out of cash and will be floating around in a T1 frigate and trying to get back to highsec space so your not just getting popped all the time to try and regain capital in some way.

though i bet the devs have had that idea themselves somewhere along the way.. at least with such a PVP focused game as this i cant imagine that they didn't. which would also lead me to believe that they would have thought it to hard to balance or outright unfair.

all that being said though i would re-post your post in the PVP area i think its a better fit there.

anyway that's my 2 cents on the idea.

Klandi
Consortium of stella Technologies
Posted - 2011.08.27 14:36:00 - [128]
 

Many thanks on your feedback both of you, and I feel they warrant a reply.

Insurance - bleh. Get rid of it (as this is a suggestion area I can be flippant). The economy will adapt, play styles will change. I feel it was wrong to have it in the first place personally.

Now to the PvE suggestion.
The reason I entered this suggestion here was the PvE element is distinctly different from the PvP one in terms of ship setup. This annoys alot of players and produces two "classes". Eve is not about that - or I feel SHOULD NOT be about that. One playing field. PvE should = PvP
I can GUARANTEE the producer had this idea (devs are the coders that will have input into their area but this is a global concept) and back then they may have found it difficult to implement (I assume) but now with all the work done - this would be a tweak as opposed to a major re-write (again, I assume)
It could have been entered in either this section or the PvP section because, as you rightly point out, it encroaches on the PvP, but I wanted to put it here to emphasise the point that there should be no difference between the two. Fighting NPC or player - no difference - SAME SHIP SETUP, no difference. If it was my game - we would be there already.

The rich/poor argument focuses on a single individual. People in groups tend to help each other out. This approach would have the benefit of getting the noob into a corp quicker and learning the basics faster. The only difference will be the casual player might be affected a little more, but that's where PLEX and GTC come into their own.

Thanks for your feedback


Sephiroth CloneIIV
Rim Worlds Republic
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.08.28 01:32:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: Klandi
Many thanks on your feedback both of you, and I feel they warrant a reply.

Insurance - bleh. Get rid of it (as this is a suggestion area I can be flippant). The economy will adapt, play styles will change. I feel it was wrong to have it in the first place personally.

Now to the PvE suggestion.
The reason I entered this suggestion here was the PvE element is distinctly different from the PvP one in terms of ship setup. This annoys alot of players and produces two "classes". Eve is not about that - or I feel SHOULD NOT be about that. One playing field. PvE should = PvP
I can GUARANTEE the producer had this idea (devs are the coders that will have input into their area but this is a global concept) and back then they may have found it difficult to implement (I assume) but now with all the work done - this would be a tweak as opposed to a major re-write (again, I assume)
It could have been entered in either this section or the PvP section because, as you rightly point out, it encroaches on the PvP, but I wanted to put it here to emphasise the point that there should be no difference between the two. Fighting NPC or player - no difference - SAME SHIP SETUP, no difference. If it was my game - we would be there already.

The rich/poor argument focuses on a single individual. People in groups tend to help each other out. This approach would have the benefit of getting the noob into a corp quicker and learning the basics faster. The only difference will be the casual player might be affected a little more, but that's where PLEX and GTC come into their own.

Thanks for your feedback




But pve wont equal pvp because isk and items (worth) can only be traded or lost in pvp not gained. At most one side gets a half of what the other had to start with. The rest is lost.

Stuff needs to start from somewhere.

Greykemp
Posted - 2011.08.28 05:45:00 - [130]
 

After 6 years of playing I am a hard core PvE hi-sec player. Nerf it much more and I will find a new game. Since I run 3 accounts a few thousand like me may hurt your bottom line. Here's the problem. It costs 100 million to buy/outfit a basic BS, up to a billion if it's faction fit. So, if I make 10/15 million a mission in hi-sec L4's it takes 10-100 missions to break even. If I go to low-sec/null sec a PvE fit is dog food to a PvP fitted ship. I need to either make 100 million per mission and lose no more than 1 ship every two missions or some other method of trade offs. So far, I have NEVER completed an L4 mission in low-sec without getting jumped by a small gang of PvPer. In SIX years! And I try it once every few months. I play erraticly. Sometimes 25 hours a week, sometimes 2 hours a week. I don't have TIME for corp games on a consistant basis. There are MANY like me. If you want me in low-sec you need 2 things. 1) Design Agent missions so a PvP ship is a good mission ship. 2) Design a way I can make more than break even in Low-sec/0.0.Crying or Very sad

Seniae 0n3
Posted - 2011.08.28 19:04:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: Greykemp
After 6 years of playing I am a hard core PvE hi-sec player. Nerf it much more and I will find a new game. Since I run 3 accounts a few thousand like me may hurt your bottom line. Here's the problem. It costs 100 million to buy/outfit a basic BS, up to a billion if it's faction fit. So, if I make 10/15 million a mission in hi-sec L4's it takes 10-100 missions to break even. If I go to low-sec/null sec a PvE fit is dog food to a PvP fitted ship. I need to either make 100 million per mission and lose no more than 1 ship every two missions or some other method of trade offs. So far, I have NEVER completed an L4 mission in low-sec without getting jumped by a small gang of PvPer. In SIX years! And I try it once every few months. I play erraticly. Sometimes 25 hours a week, sometimes 2 hours a week. I don't have TIME for corp games on a consistant basis. There are MANY like me. If you want me in low-sec you need 2 things. 1) Design Agent missions so a PvP ship is a good mission ship. 2) Design a way I can make more than break even in Low-sec/0.0.Crying or Very sad



That's one main problem with PVE in EVE ... there is no such thing on higher levels. Whether it be nullsec, lowsec or highsec, you always get bugged by PVP-ers. Ninja salvaging, ganking and whatever else to screw up your PVE play.

PVE should be STRICTLY PVE and it should not allow PVP-ers or other players, who are NOT in the mission with you, to interfere.

Dalilus
Posted - 2011.08.28 19:18:00 - [132]
 

Edited by: Dalilus on 28/08/2011 19:30:18
This is a modified version of a post on the Nullsec Development general blog...

Un-nerf highsec. Bring back the content you took out to please large 0.0 alliances and p!$s off all highsec carebears.....namely asteroids, bounties, faction item drop, loot, faction ship bpcs, lvl 5 missions, npc swarms, and others - you know what you have nerfed. Many high sp carebears are getting bored with the current static content and stats show there is NO mass migration to nullsec nor interest in one.

The Noctis, now THAT was a GREAT idea that cut down salvaging time by what, 80%? Hidden standings have the gankers trying to figure out whose day to ruin. Spreading out mission hubs - what a stroke of genious. Making all agents the same quality - again a superb idea and beware the unprepared care bear. See, you can do it if you want!

More solo content please, in other words INCREASE content for the highsec solo player and small corp - don't nerf it to "herd" players to lowsec/nullsec. Won't work, can't work - its hard to understand if one does not play the carebear way. Ever wonder why so many carebears moved to w-space? Because it can be played like highsec - another stroke of mad genious - with a big payout, no local, occasional PVP in a mish fitted ship, all without being anyone's pet. Like some have so succintly put it, large team play is almost exclusively for nullsec. Capital blobs online today at XYZ gate anyone?

Un-nerf minnie ships......bring back the speed!! Many of us have maxed out core, engineering, mechanic, navigation, and electronic skills (but no capital skills, can't use caps in high sec) and what do we do with them? Nothing. I have a dream: Though I Fly Through the Valley of the Shadow of Death I Shall Fear No Evil For I Am hauling ass at 35,000kps with heat, boosters, implants, rigs, Thukker modified overdrives, officer mwd and the gravity well of a star to speed me along.....escorted by half a dozen of my corpies in nano autocannon Machariels with tracking enhancers and support ships to get us some Sansha. Being able to use mwds in all missions was a good first step.

Fix nullsec so that all of it is not owned by 3 or 4 large alliances. Don't you see that is the reason so few players want to move there and is mostly empty? Many try the nullsec dance and get bored to tears and dissapointed after a week or so. NBSI sucks but under the current game mechanics it would be SUICIDAL to set neutrals to NRDS as some alliances have found out when they began to fail-cascade. I know, I know, CCP says if you want a piece of nullsec go get it but in reality it does not work that way. The rumor mill (forums) sum up the main reasons why capital blobs are able to exist to defend nullsec sov with one word: bot farms, huge bot farms. Two words really, three if you like. Are the rumors mistaken? I don't know but they are persistent. Add to that incredibly lucrative moons which big alliances hoard and its true that even noobs are given titans to play with or look at until they can fly them. But one serves at the whim/pleasure of the alliance's holding corp board of directors or else. I particularly did not wanna be anyone's maid, slaver hound, or punching bag.

Allow the use of capitals in high sec to players that have +5 standing with CONCORD and a minimum of +5 with whatever empire factions they choose. Many players max out mish running skills and then begin training whatever just to have something on the training queue. If the nullsec alliance players have supercaps with a -10 standing why can't I with my +5? Oh, I know, because they PVP. Lame CCP, very lame. Very few carebears are going to lose their caps to CONCORD but gankers are welcome to do so.

Pirates that live for Hulkageddon and ganking mish runners in highsec should have their security standing permanently compromised. That way after a while they can do what they always wanted to do but were afraid to admit, PVP for or against the big bad wolves of nullsec. Consequences boys!

Dalilus
Posted - 2011.08.28 20:11:00 - [133]
 

Edited by: Dalilus on 28/08/2011 20:19:02
To sum up:

I would love to run SOLO high octane, heart attack provoking, first date nervousness, waterboarding feeling inducing, first time overnight in jail explosive body evacuation lvl 5s, anomalies, sactums, etc., (I want it all!!) in high sec in a supercap fitted with 40bill+ in officer modules....a ship I would NEVER take to lowsec/nullsec to pad someone's killboard but would gladly risk to get me a few NPCs.

Something similar to running those sickly twisted Guristas and Serpentis mish of a few months back that had to be taken down because they were "too hard" for the average player and were barely accomplished in my sweat drenched all faction fit BS. In fact CCP, you made those missions hideously difficult but did not increase the rewards, what hapenned? Were you testing something out?

After all my fantasy endgame in EVE would be to have 5 exorbitantly expensive super pimped up supercaps, one each for running mind boggling difficult Amarr Navy, Caldari Navy, Republic Fleet, Federal Intelligence Office and Sisters of EVE combat mish in highsec...and clone jump from station to station after finishing a storyline. Twisted Evil Would take years and lots of iskies but that is what CCP wants no? A dedicated playerbase willing to spend time enjoying their hobby along with real life currency buying upgrades? Yes? Very Happy

I don't uderstand why CCP and nullsec alliances think highsec carebearing is playing the sandbox wrong. We were probably CCP's most loyal customer base until they started wielding the nerf bat. Sad

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.28 20:33:00 - [134]
 

Missiosn for capitals in hisec? Not gonna happen. We mission runners are CCP's ugly ducklings, the misfits who have got a live instead of a gazilion hours to play EVE as it should. Rolling Eyes

Seikaku Otosan
Posted - 2011.08.28 22:19:00 - [135]
 

Originally by: Dalilus
...lots of stuff...


i second all of it.. have felt the exact same way for a long time. and because of the lack of that stuff is the reason i let my account lapse for 2 years... if that stuff had existed back then.. CCP would have made more money from me than they did. just putting it out there.

Sephiroth CloneIIV
Rim Worlds Republic
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.08.29 01:14:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: Dalilus
Edited by: Dalilus on 28/08/2011 20:19:02
To sum up:

I would love to run SOLO high octane, heart attack provoking, first date nervousness, waterboarding feeling inducing, first time overnight in jail explosive body evacuation lvl 5s, anomalies, sactums, etc., (I want it all!!) in high sec in a supercap fitted with 40bill+ in officer modules....a ship I would NEVER take to lowsec/nullsec to pad someone's killboard but would gladly risk to get me a few NPCs.

Something similar to running those sickly twisted Guristas and Serpentis mish of a few months back that had to be taken down because they were "too hard" for the average player and were barely accomplished in my sweat drenched all faction fit BS. In fact CCP, you made those missions hideously difficult but did not increase the rewards, what hapenned? Were you testing something out?

After all my fantasy endgame in EVE would be to have 5 exorbitantly expensive super pimped up supercaps, one each for running mind boggling difficult Amarr Navy, Caldari Navy, Republic Fleet, Federal Intelligence Office and Sisters of EVE combat mish in highsec...and clone jump from station to station after finishing a storyline. Twisted Evil Would take years and lots of iskies but that is what CCP wants no? A dedicated playerbase willing to spend time enjoying their hobby along with real life currency buying upgrades? Yes? Very Happy

I don't uderstand why CCP and nullsec alliances think highsec carebearing is playing the sandbox wrong. We were probably CCP's most loyal customer base until they started wielding the nerf bat. Sad


Its not paying the sandbox wrong, its accepting that the high sec area is the safe zone, for lowbies or pure carebear. It would make a little sense to have null sec being more rewarding with all the costs of taking and holding the space. As it is more isk can be made in highsec considering that missions give rewards and LP.

And bringing capitals and supercaps in highsec... no, seriously if you want them go to lowsec, and btw you can't dock with supers. And leaving capitals out of highsec is for roleplay and safety reasons, would empires be permissive of insane fleets showing up in their space. Imagine war decks against empire pos's but war deckers being able to bring supers and dreads. Any research pos becomes a ocean of fire.

If you chose to restrict yourself gameplay wise that's your choice, the sandbox.


xUnlimitedx
Posted - 2011.08.29 08:39:00 - [137]
 

I think its a good way to make pve available for Dreads yeah^^

Arbiter Reformed
Minmatar
Garnet Resources
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:00:00 - [138]
 

defiantly +1 for being able to go rat in smaller ships

menacemyth
Minmatar
Onyx Brotherhood
STR8NGE BREW
Posted - 2011.08.30 16:24:00 - [139]
 

All i can say is pve in nullsec = boring.

whether it's nullsec mission agents that you get through station upgrades, or anoms.....whatever just make it interesting. put the time into it to make it fun. right now, after a few days it is just a grind.

What can be done to make it infinitely interesting...that's what we should be talking about.

Tro Aele
Posted - 2011.08.30 17:55:00 - [140]
 

My pet dream for 0.0 pve has always been reactive spawns where farmed belts or systems scale up in difficulty either by the hour or by the day. I rather see expected rewards not quite scale up with the risk. Scaling down would make equal sense, with belts abandoned for a while when pirate factions get too spanked there. There ought to be a little logic behind pirate factions sending squads to loiter around belts. They ought to react.

I can see another benefit, if the rewards scale poorly. Done right, a band of "small pvp" fast ships could sweep in enemy territory, scale up the pirate faction response, and leave. It could become a pvp strategy to screw with a local power's pve opporunities.

TheExtruder
Caldari
Malicious Destruction
War Against the Manifest
Posted - 2011.08.31 00:47:00 - [141]
 


Vanessa Vansen
Posted - 2011.08.31 15:37:00 - [142]
 

Originally by: TheExtruder
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1571766

this is the way to go about changing PvE


No, at least not from my point of view, as mentioned in your thread.

Flamespar
Posted - 2011.09.01 06:26:00 - [143]
 

I think PVE in null should be dynamic.

One possibility is space 'weather' that influences systems. Maybe they make tracking times longer, or lasers hit harder. Thereby encouraging players to change their loadouts based on the environmental conditions.

Certain regions may be more prone to this effect than others, but the rewards should therefor be higher. A system prone to frequent outburst of ion storm activity may be difficult to hold, but the rewards should make it worthwhile.

This effect may not be applied completely over a system. Particular moons and planets may be exempt for a certain time. Imagine two fleets clashing over a moon with an impending ion storm that may tip the balance of power.

Players should also have the opportunity to influence this effect somehow. Mitigating the effect, or even encouraging it should they percieve an advantage if they do so.


Stan Durden
Posted - 2011.09.01 15:22:00 - [144]
 

Something that could be done could be immersive, variable, and interactive missions.

Example: As an alliance holding a station perhaps you can hire an NPC agent to live there. I would like the agent to offer a range of different missions at once to chose from rather then only one at a time. I think this would make it more immersive to go into an agent and chose the mission that suits you. I think the high level missions should not only cater to BS but should also have some which are best done in AF, HACs, bombers, dictors, etc, even logi perhaps. And the missions should scale to solo, small gang, or large fleets. A further step towards making the missions immersive could be to attach them to local sov holders. So for example your agent wants you to go destroy some NPCs who have been working with Atlas. The mission is to go destroy the target in enemy space, or the invasion in friendly space, or encroachment in unclaimed space. There could be a way to find the mission more easily by people not doing the mission. Though I think if you were missioning in null then scanner probes may be quite enough, perhaps for some more risky missions they could appear in the system as anomalies. (Not the beacons as in FW necessarily but scanable with the on board scanner, just like anoms.) This could spark a lot of pvp, and give roams a target and something to do if they can't find anyone to fight. And again it wouldn't be only missions you need a battleship for so you could get in and out on your own in something more suited to null sec travel. Another great thing I think would be if the NPC targets were more difficult but fewer of them, something closer to another player. So your AF mission could be to destroy 5 t1 frigates, but those frigates are well fit and flown rifters and really present a challenge. You may need to bring a friend. Perhaps they even drop the actual mods they would really be fit with if flown by a player just as - or similar to the way they do in pvp. So those rifters were armor, ab fits with racks of 150s, let eve roll the dice and see what drops. It doesn't need to be a lot of loot, but even 1 or two t2 mods would be quite nice. And again the fights to earn this loot would be a lot more difficult then your average rat. You may need to bring logi, ecm, inty, etc to counter the way they move and fight with their own logi, ecm, and tackle.

Hell I may even start missioning once in a while :)

Elizabetha Pith
Posted - 2011.09.01 15:31:00 - [145]
 

Well I have to say I am a complete carebear and love PvE (in highsec). I would love the chance to get out into null and PvE for bigger rewards etc but have never really felt the pull to go out there. I have been out there a few times, only very briefly and evn then it was only for a few hours each time.

It's not that I worry about lost ships but I would like to earn enough/more than my ship cost so i wouldn't care if i lost it.

Ms Michigan
Gallente
Aviation Professionals for EVE
Fusion Alliance
Posted - 2011.09.04 05:18:00 - [146]
 

Originally by: Hwong Jian

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

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 nuke rounds and a Domi. gold tag.

Please fix the loot.


Good post. I especially agree with loot drops being too random.

Ms Michigan
Gallente
Aviation Professionals for EVE
Fusion Alliance
Posted - 2011.09.04 05:20:00 - [147]
 

Originally by: Riveting Tale Sibling

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.




Since you mention it - I don't think any sites should be static. It just encourages farming like Riveting pointed out.

mkint
Posted - 2011.09.05 15:55:00 - [148]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Kotami
Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Originally by: Alexander Renoir
Edited by: Alexander Renoir on 17/08/2011 09:51:37

What? Even if you make significant more ISK in 0.0 than in highsec empire, I would NEVER go to 0.0 for PvE!! Because YOU can't go there without being blobbed from a larger alliance or corporation. No one MORE will go to 0.0 and make your super delicous best level 4 agent mission there except the current holders. You can only go into 0.0 sec if YOU belong to the alliance which holds the current sov there. The wrong corp or alliance will be terminated.

Impossible to reach NPC 0.0, because all gates are camped.

Make 100 Mill. per hour in order to lose 150 to hot drops? Wrong idea. Make 0.0 sec attractive and particularly achievable for smaller corps and alliances. The current 0.0 is just a place where smaller player collectives have to pay if they dont want to get podded. Is this a base to get more player into 0.0? To give even MORE Isk will only help the esteblished alliances there. But not the people you want in 0.0.

Your current plan sounds like: Lets make 5 Big alliances in 0.0 and all the other players have to arrange with them. I would like to see much more independent alliances there. Not a hand full of Kings and a lot of Slaves (renters) which is the current practice.


Right, and for people like you we know that you're never likely to move and we're not trying to force you to. It's people who are interested but can't make the sums add up that we're concerned about.


I hope your answer is not implying that you are in favor of "you must join an alliance in nullsec to succeed". I think there are many players (and corps of all sizes) who would be interested in establishing a presence in nullsec but who also want to retain their identity and independence. Myself included.


Nope, not intending to imply that at all. The whole point of the "smallholding" topic is move further away from that.

Of course, any increase in 0.0 isk income and opportunities for smaller groups will mean higher rents and cost of blue status, meaning more isk income for the big RMT alliances and more $ bribes to greyscale. Allowing the small guy to work independently of the big guy would reduce the opportunities for CCP corruption, which is distinctly against the goals of the 0.0 changes. Until we see CCP working for ways to keep small groups independent it's clear that any changes are for the sake of illicit funds.

Attrezzo Pox
Amarr
The Concordiat
Concordiat Alliance
Posted - 2011.09.06 13:17:00 - [149]
 

Edited by: Attrezzo Pox on 06/09/2011 13:18:52
Originally by: CCP Greyscale

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.


I would add that those activities maybe contribute to a team goal. An example might be, if we had say, corp agents. The corp agent would give a list of things to do and at least some of those things can, or have to be soloed. Another example might be a collection drop. Something that gives more value to your corp then it does to you selling it in jita. Another example might tie into exploration. In settled areas, as you explore you reveal parts of the map that are useful later in the day. Some sites etc are shared among corp members perhaps.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

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.


Cater these grand rewards to group gameplay. Leave the special solo rewards (beyond player maintenance cost) to low-sec. IE don't give out crazy awesome solo loot, you only get the most valuable stuff if you do it in a group in nullsec.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

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.


Again to the above. Cater the best jackpot loot to groups. Deadspace complex kind of mentality. It doesn't have to be large groups with every encounter but the loot should scale to the amount of teamwork it took to get the loot. If you design an encounter for 20 people each player should get say 50% more value from that team event than a typical nullsec solo event. Make roid fields larger, don't make the roids themselves larger. Get my drift?

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

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.



Great point. I would restrict certain sites to certain classes of ship. That's the easiest solution. It's not always very pretty but it would do the job. A more elegant solution (but infinitely more complex to balance) would be to cater the rat spawns to lend themselves certain ship types. I say this is hard to balance, because later as ships are re-balanced you'd have to deal with all of those spawns catered for that ship... yuk.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

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.


Here's probably my best suggestion. Group missions. As a corp/alliance settles an area they get access to corporation agents based on corp faction. These agents may send out a variety of goals and missions that anyone in the corp can tackle. When all the objectives are completed you get a corp reward. Individual rewards may come from the objectives themselves but they're no better than a typical high-sec mission. You may even integrate the completion of dead-space complexes etc in some of the requirements. Along with story arcs and so on.

Attrezzo Pox
Amarr
The Concordiat
Concordiat Alliance
Posted - 2011.09.06 13:25:00 - [150]
 

Edited by: Attrezzo Pox on 06/09/2011 13:51:07
Edited by: Attrezzo Pox on 06/09/2011 13:29:36
Originally by: "CCP Greyscale"

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.


Nullsec should be the most lucrative place to go for large (>30 player) corps. If you make it the most lucrative place to go you're going to get low-sec, and wh-space all whacked up in terms of balance. At any rate, keep in mind. You SETTLE nullsec, you don't settle wormholes, so while they both cater to teamwork, null-sec is inherently different.

Originally by: "CCP Greyscale"

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.


Yes. You have it now. It's imperative that the space supports the players that have to live in it. In nullsec, the players who live there form large corps and alliances that go to war with each other and employ a multitude of ship-types and players to do so. Nullsec pve should work in harmony with that mentality, not against it. If you make it a place where people can solo without contributing to the group, then you are teaching the player to avoid team gameplay. Even if the rewards are greater for group gameplay, you'll soon see that because people don't keep a good relationship with their corp they will tend to do those solo things rather than defer to a group thing.

That's why I keep saying everything should contribute to a greater group mentality. Encourage player teamwork at every available opportunity EVEN if they are soloing at the moment. Have the results of that contribute to the group in a more meaningful way than just their individual wallet.

On corp agents, notice I didn't say much about alliance agents. By-in-large corps should have an incentive to invest in their sov space. Alliances should not just be the next step up from a corp. So, if there are ever alliance agents, they shouldn't give out anything but the biggest team missions. The preferred type of agent for a nullsec corp should be a corp agent which requires sov. They would act as the sole proprietor of corp/solo manageable missions, helping to break up superblob mentality into corp mentality.

In a final note, the majority of these activities should take place in "home" or sov space. Let me put emphasis on majority. The exception to that rule would be to cause trouble. When not at war the mechanic simply acts to stir the pot, sometimes greater potential group missions will be in another alliance's sov space. Or ambiguous pvp goals like kill x many neutrals or reds of this base-value or better. In a time of war however, (official war dec), the corp missions might take a decidedly different tone. Something more akin to kill x many members of the war-deced alliance. The alliance agent version might be take x system in the borderlands of the war-deced alliance. In addition solo mission rewards would start to take the form of ship insurance, modules from a corp pick-list, a choice of faction ammo etc.

In effect corp/alliance agents would act more like configurable fiscal managers. Directing the flow of corp time and energy in roughly the same direction the corp is wanting to go, rather than at arbitrary and random repetitive missions.


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