open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Increasing mission running difficulty, only a minor change
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.29 01:03:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Dasfry on 29/04/2010 01:35:48
Idea[Proposal] Increasing mission running difficulty with only a minor change

One way to increase difficulty of NPC units in missions, is to make NPC's actually use their warp drive when they are in trouble when they reach structure. That is when NPC's lose their shields and armor that they should actually attempt to run and save themselves, just as real players do.

However make it possible to warp scramble NPC's.

I believe this will increase the difficulty in mission running, as players either have to be fast enough to be in warp disrupt range, and/or have a friend assist in catching a NPC. Example a friend flying an interceptor.

Very HappyPro's
This will have the added benefits of encouraging more:
* Team based mission running
* Warp disruptor / scramblers use
* Newer players exposed to understanding PVP dynamics and why a warp disruptor is important.
* challenge and Increased difficulty in mission running


SadCon's
* Players complaining of not being able to use their solo / slow sniper DPS mobiles to mission run with
* Players complaining of having to run missions as a team
* Players complaining of actually having to use an afterburner in Mission running to 'catch' NPC's.

ExclamationNotes:
* There are THOUSANDS of times where in a NPC fight, PLAYER C warps away from NPC A, when they feel they are about to be blown up, and they are not warp scrambled.
* There are THOUSANDS of times where in a PVP fight, PLAYER B warps away from PLAYER A, when they feel they are about to be blown up, and they are not warp scrambled
* There are almost zero times where a NPC fight, NPC A warps away from player C, when it was in danger of being blown up.
* I do not believe this will require a huge amount of coding to implement, nor will it require new items, or new AI tech for NPC's in order to improve the challenge.


Maybe have this only kick in once players are doing level 3 and high missions as well as when fighting non mission NPC's.
Oh and said NPC can warp back, moments later perhaps with randomly [full/half] [shield/armor/structure]

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Warp_scrambled

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.04.29 01:23:00 - [2]
 

"Only a minor change", he says. This is anything but minor - it would be a fundamental change to the gameplay of at least a third of the Eve community.

That said, I would be in favour of this change in a limited way. I'd like to see missions that are actually intended as gang content(and not in the same way L4s and L5s were intended as gang content), and this seems like a good way to implement that. PvE should try to lead people towards PvP in meaningful ways, by giving them the skills(both as a character and as a player) that they need for it. Sleepers are good at this, but mission/belt rats are not.

If you want to do it(and I do), it needs to be segregated from existing missions. Have an entirely different agent type give them out, and make it clear that these missions are something different. Make the NPCs stop cheating and give them realistic stats(this includes lowering numbers and increasing payouts dramatically) and better-than-Sleeper AI, make players use realistic tactics against them, and make gangs an effective tool for running these missions. Demand warp scrambling to pin them down, make webbers/TDs/jammers useful, give them some RR capability, and ultimately make them act like player ships at least to some extent. Also, litter the agents throughout lowsec, every faction should have at least two dozen L4 "gang" agents in lowsec, as well as a few in highsec. Letting people mission in PvP kit, without any obvious chokepoints pirates can nail like L5s have, should help make lowsec a bit more well-travelled.

Supported, but only on the condition that it not affect existing agents. It's too drastic a change.

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.29 01:30:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Dasfry on 01/05/2010 02:51:34
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
"Only a minor change", he says...


Minor in the sense of how many game mechanics are changed in order to increase mission running difficulty.

Also how much SERVER CPU TIME is used in order to increase the challenge.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.04.29 01:48:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Dasfry
Edited by: Dasfry on 29/04/2010 01:33:19
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
"Only a minor change", he says...


Minor in the sense of how many game mechanics are changed in order to increase mission running difficulty.

Also how much SERVER CPU TIME is used in order to increasing the challenge.


Okay, sure, but those are not what people think of when they think of "a minor change to missions".

Taxesarebad
Posted - 2010.04.29 02:11:00 - [5]
 

no thanx. missions are already annoying this will make them worse.
nerfing the drops of modules is enough for now.

Jag Kara
Gh0st Hunters
Sspectre
Posted - 2010.04.29 03:25:00 - [6]
 

I would like to see more team based mission, but I dont thik the way to make this harder and more fun is rats that run.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.29 05:52:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 29/04/2010 05:59:45
1. mining is already a more favored profession compared to missions as it is so where's the mining nerf to balance this? oh there is none.
2. missions teach practically nothing about pvp no matter what.
3. homogenizing everything to simulate pvp, especially terribly, goes against sandboxing.
4. if u wanna be forced to fleet for pve, just do lvl 5s.
5. on the other hand, if u wanna force other ppl to fleet to pve for u, go back to world of warcraft or better yet, learn to pve without dying to brain-dead computer-controlled opponents and having other ppl fight your battles for u against brain-dead computer-controlled opponents. Laughing

Jerid Verges
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.04.29 07:22:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Jerid Verges on 29/04/2010 07:22:48
Increase ISK reward of mission
Impliment warp-away rats
Reduce rat spawn
Increase rat bounty signifigantly and increase overall combat ability
Introduce missions with specific rats need to be tackled and killed

I could see this making an improvement in PvE. Makes grinding and soloing missions harder (Must fit scramble mission) encourages group missioning? Makes PvE fits more able to fight PvP?

Zilberfrid
Posted - 2010.04.29 07:46:00 - [9]
 

Not supported, this would make a scrambler needed on every fit out there, and frankly, that is a bit much for those mods. I like l4's in a cynabal, but really can't spare the midslots.

Now changing that some specific mission need this is fine by me. (possible, done in the new training missions already)

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.29 15:36:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Jerid Verges
Edited by: Jerid Verges on 29/04/2010 07:22:48
Increase ISK reward of mission
Impliment warp-away rats
Reduce rat spawn
Increase rat bounty signifigantly and increase overall combat ability
Introduce missions with specific rats need to be tackled and killed

I could see this making an improvement in PvE. Makes grinding and soloing missions harder (Must fit scramble mission) encourages group missioning? Makes PvE fits more able to fight PvP?


1. the isk reward will still pale in comparison to loot and salvage.
2. that's not encouraging fleets--that's forcing them. and for just active pve, no less while at the same time, solo mining still remains effortless in the first place.
3. less rat spawns = less consequences of ninja salvagers/looters, therefore, eliminating the risk of high sec missions.
4. much higher bounties will once again just lean towards more laziness in not having to loot/salvage for the bulk of the isk, in addition to 1 and 3. and buffing rat combat abilities would just force everyone to stay with the mainstream cap-stable super-tank cookie cutter fits instead of experimenting with more varied fits.
5. refer to #2.
6. "more able" to pvp =/= winning in pvp. "more able" = u'll still die to their blob.
7. your entire post goes against sandboxing, with strict fit restrictions, further mission/mining unbalancing, major removal of loot/salvaging, and removal of high sec mission risks.
8. again, unless they decide that mining gets nerfed to balance this, which isn't gonna happen, this ain't gonna happen either.

Rokkit Kween
Posted - 2010.04.29 15:50:00 - [11]
 

Instead of this simply implement sleeper AI on all NPCs

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.04.29 16:59:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 29/04/2010 17:00:56
Quote:
Also how much SERVER CPU TIME is used in order to increasing the challenge.

You know, let's go ahead and ban half of eve accounts because they are using server cpu time. Let's not add any new features ever because of server cpu time, i hate when people comment on cpu time, anhd half of them have no real idea about how much impact a certain feature will have.

About the proposal: YEs, because that means a missions runner can fightback upon attackers, makes mission running and pvp ships less different. YOu might still consider using cap rechargers and active tank, but you will have an omni tank, and be able to hold anyone who will try to kill you in a mission, making gankers think twice.

Quote:
Not supported, this would make a scrambler needed on every fit out there, and frankly, that is a bit much for those mods. I like l4's in a cynabal, but really can't spare the midslots.

This is a great argument: "the ship i prefer to run missions in has no spare midslots, so i woun't support it"- do you even... Think?? ...Who am i asking.. Crying or Very sad

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.04.29 19:42:00 - [13]
 

Missions need to be more interesting. This would help. Basically, the current AI makes shooting NPCs as fun as shooting fish in a barrel.

No level of pretty graphics makes up for "lock" "fire" "lock "fire" on repeat. We wonder how we have such a problem with macros... up the complexity. For such a complex game, fighting NPCs is so incredibly un-complex.

Zilberfrid
Posted - 2010.04.29 23:21:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 29/04/2010 17:00:56

Quote:
Not supported, this would make a scrambler needed on every fit out there, and frankly, that is a bit much for those mods. I like l4's in a cynabal, but really can't spare the midslots.

This is a great argument: "the ship i prefer to run missions in has no spare midslots, so i woun't support it"- do you even... Think?? ...Who am i asking.. Crying or Very sad


Well, you plan to make a warp scrambler or disruptor mandatory not only for pvp, but also for missioning, this is a very large limit to all fittings. Basically, you'd need volley (to kill something before it can flee) or tackle (losing one midslot). So either Minnie (artie) or Amarr (beam). Well, volley does not always work, so either you tank with one less midslot, or you armor tank. Tackle does not have a long range, so all sniping fits would have to go, all slow fits as well.

Which would mean Caldari and Minnie would not be happy (lose tank). Drones might ruin your mission because they might make someone unhappy and warp off (Gallente is a sad panda), Amarr would not be happy because they are slow, and don't have enough midslots as it is.

You now have limited the fittings that are viable for missions to about 10% of the original number.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.30 15:48:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev

You know, let's go ahead and ban half of eve accounts because they are using server cpu time. Let's not add any new features ever because of server cpu time, i hate when people comment on cpu time, anhd half of them have no real idea about how much impact a certain feature will have.

About the proposal: YEs, because that means a missions runner can fightback upon attackers, makes mission running and pvp ships less different. YOu might still consider using cap rechargers and active tank, but you will have an omni tank, and be able to hold anyone who will try to kill you in a mission, making gankers think twice.


refer back to #2, #6, part of 7, and #8 of my previous post.

Originally by: Bagehi
Missions need to be more interesting. This would help. Basically, the current AI makes shooting NPCs as fun as shooting fish in a barrel.

No level of pretty graphics makes up for "lock" "fire" "lock "fire" on repeat. We wonder how we have such a problem with macros... up the complexity. For such a complex game, fighting NPCs is so incredibly un-complex.


so is shooting rocks but i don't see anyone *****ing about it. wanna ban mining altogether as well? it would definitely solve the much bigger macro mining problem. Cool

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2010.05.01 02:51:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Dasfry on 01/05/2010 02:58:41
Idea[Proposal] Increasing mission running difficulty with only a minor change

One way to increase difficulty of NPC units in missions, is to make NPC's actually use their warp drive when they are in trouble when they reach structure. That is when NPC's lose their shields and armor that they should actually attempt to run and save themselves, just as real players do.

However make it possible to warp scramble NPC's.

I believe this will increase the difficulty in mission running, as players either have to be fast enough to be in warp disrupt range, and/or have a friend assist in catching a NPC. Example a friend flying an interceptor.

Very HappyPro's
This will have the added benefits of encouraging more:
* Team based mission running
* Warp disruptor / scramblers use
* Newer players exposed to understanding PVP dynamics and why a warp disruptor is important.
* challenge and Increased difficulty in mission running


SadCon's
* Players complaining of not being able to use their solo / slow sniper DPS mobiles to mission run with
* Players complaining of having to run missions as a team
* Players complaining of actually having to use an afterburner in Mission running to 'catch' NPC's.

ExclamationNotes:
* There are THOUSANDS of times where in a NPC fight, PLAYER C warps away from NPC A, when they feel they are about to be blown up, and they are not warp scrambled.
* There are THOUSANDS of times where in a PVP fight, PLAYER B warps away from PLAYER A, when they feel they are about to be blown up, and they are not warp scrambled
* There are almost zero times where a NPC fight, NPC A warps away from player C, when it was in danger of being blown up.
* I do not believe this will require a huge amount of coding to implement, nor will it require new items, or new AI tech for NPC's in order to improve the challenge.


Maybe have this only kick in once players are doing level 3 and high missions as well as when fighting non mission NPC's.
Oh and said NPC can warp back, moments later perhaps with randomly [full/half] [shield/armor/structure]

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Warp_scrambled



Very Happy I support this idea

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.05.01 06:28:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 01/05/2010 13:08:10
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 01/05/2010 06:43:58


Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Dasfry
Edited by: Dasfry on 29/04/2010 01:33:19
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
"Only a minor change", he says...


Minor in the sense of how many game mechanics are changed in order to increase mission running difficulty.

Also how much SERVER CPU TIME is used in order to increasing the challenge.


Okay, sure, but those are not what people think of when they think of "a minor change to missions".


It is not a minor change even in that meaning of the definition.

You are adding several check to what the NPC should do and substantially changing his capabilities.

It is the usual problem: if you add those calculations player side someone will hack the client and cheat, if you add them server side you add to the burden of the server.

If that kind of change has to be implemented you need to go all the way as Yamamoto suggested.


Originally by: Dasfry

Very HappyPro's
This will have the added benefits of encouraging more:
* Team based mission running



Not really a pro. Even if EVE is a MMORPG being forced to always play in a group is a bad idea.
The only result will be to push people playing in timezones with a limited number of players to leave.

Originally by: Dasfry

* Warp disruptor / scramblers use



As already pointed out, it will push toward homogenized set up.

So 2 of 4 of your "pro" points are actually very doubtful.


Ah, last thing, if this is implemented belt/complexes rats should do the same.


Originally by: Doctor Ungabungas
In terms of server load, this is trivial. No opinion on whether this specifically is a good idea or not, but I'm generally in favour of more things that make people actually have to be at their computer to run missions.


It will be trivial for 1 player doing 1 mission. When you start having 20 players doing 20 missions, or the rats in all the complexes in your upgrade system checking if they should warp or not and so on, it will be less trivial.

Then there is the problem of "finding" the fleeing rats if they are the main target.

A solution would be to require to scan for them but then we will add another request for the server.

For me the problem is that modifying the PvE content one piece at a time will make a patchwork with little rime or reason.

If it should be done, it should be a big overhaul rebalancing and redoing most of it.
Especially if you are speaking of missions where changing only some of them will push the missioning people toward what is easier or make more profit leaving 3/4 of the content abandoned.




Doctor Ungabungas
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.05.01 11:43:00 - [18]
 

In terms of server load, this is trivial. No opinion on whether this specifically is a good idea or not, but I'm generally in favour of more things that make people actually have to be at their computer to run missions.

Zilberfrid
Posted - 2010.05.01 13:29:00 - [19]
 

That is not the main problem, the main problem with this idea is severely limiting the amount of viable ships*fittings.

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2010.05.02 00:58:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
That said, I would be in favour of this change ...


Cool, It is good to hear you are for the basics of the proposed idea.


Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
If you want to do it(and I do), it needs to be segregated from existing missions...


I do not agree, it does not need to be segregated. However I do agree that it can be segregated during is introduction, in phases in order to make it easier to accept. Sort a like the way the new graphics where introduced in phases.

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2010.05.02 02:50:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Zilberfrid
That is not the main problem, the main problem with this idea is severely limiting the amount of viable ships*fittings.


This would not stop you from fitting your ship.
With a friend joining you in mission running, you can still have your load out just as you want.

Oxanna Kristos
Posted - 2010.05.02 03:04:00 - [22]
 

I enjoy the idea of this, but have maybe a change to the proposal at large - instead of formulating this for all missions, make the changes for level 5 missions only, so they become what they should have been in the first place, gang missions. The fact that 5's just took 4's and added neut towers and placed it all down into lowsec was a dissapointment, but they can still be fixed. Another idea would be to make 5's more cap friendly as well, to simply simulate real battles you might face (and even start some in the process).

hgedsku
Posted - 2010.05.02 04:47:00 - [23]
 

This sounds like a really cool idea. Would be cool to have someone tackle and web a really fast npc while a friend applies the dps. And also having to chase them around the system.

*I support this but only if they make these types of missions come from separate agents. It will add a little more variety but you'll only do them whenever you feel like it.

Zilberfrid
Posted - 2010.05.02 15:18:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Oxanna Kristos
I enjoy the idea of this, but have maybe a change to the proposal at large - instead of formulating this for all missions, make the changes for level 5 missions only, so they become what they should have been in the first place, gang missions. The fact that 5's just took 4's and added neut towers and placed it all down into lowsec was a dissapointment, but they can still be fixed. Another idea would be to make 5's more cap friendly as well, to simply simulate real battles you might face (and even start some in the process).


And this would be something would think a good plan. As it stands, how much fun an l4 is with two persons, I do not wish the duo of scram and point to be a must fit for every non-industrial ship.

Some missions could warp off, and some would not, some l4's might be limited to AF as a max (in gates) some might be limited to cruisers, some might have very strict timers, others might greatly randomize their encounters or change objectives mid-mission, this would all increase diversity, and make things more difficult.

Generally changing all missions to just fit a select few ships is no solution.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.05.02 15:34:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Dasfry
This would not stop you from fitting your ship.
With a friend joining you in mission running, you can still have your load out just as you want.


which goes back to forcing ppl to fleet (that's what lvl 5s r for), which is less sandboxing and more wow.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2010.05.02 15:55:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 02/05/2010 15:57:23
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 02/05/2010 15:56:35
Originally by: Zilberfrid

Which would mean Caldari and Minnie would not be happy (lose tank). Drones might ruin your mission because they might make someone unhappy and warp off (Gallente is a sad panda), Amarr would not be happy because they are slow, and don't have enough midslots as it is.

You now have limited the fittings that are viable for missions to about 10% of the original number.


Idk. You can do L3s in a Minmatar BC with a full out PVP fit complete with neutralizers and stuff. I used to do them to get LP for faction ammo when I lived in a RSS station. Being able to get out of the mission and kill something when it shows up on scanner makes it not so mind-bogglingly dull.

Never ran L4s however - you might want a friend in a interceptor to tackle there (or alt).

Idk, the idea of having less more intelligent and capable rats which you need to tackle to prevent them from gtfo-ing would probably make it more interesting.

I mean, sure, you might not be able to mission in any random failfit, but I don't see that as a bad thing (and L1-L3 would not really be impacted much difficulty wise here).



Gwydion Telcontar
Gallente
Telcontar Enterprises
Posted - 2010.05.02 16:13:00 - [27]
 



 

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