EVE General Discussion

 
 

Not enough stuff is being destroyed

Author
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2017-04-20 07:19:38 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


Well, those rat fleets are just one step away from being 100% player like: make them bring 1,200 ships instead of 850, and they will crash the node. And then imagine the headlines: "EVE Online adds new AI so smart it breaks the game to defend itself!" or "EVE Online: the game to hat refuses to play itself when it's losing against players".

Meanwhile PCU will keep going down (right it is below last year's in the same dates), but that's a years long habit and there's no sign that EVE suffers from it.


EVE still dieing since 2003.

I also think that yes, they should be allowed to test their rat fleets on the test server, and when testing their rat fleets on the test server, things should be expected to break, and since they escalate vs forces in wormhole content, I imagine they may well do escalating with this thing, and they need to probably tune that to not break the servers, by learning about what does.

They may have to ultimately have the NPCs stand down and blueball players that excessively escalate in an attempt to farm them.

Simply having a 1000 unit rat ball running at all is also imo pretty good press for the game, as would be a bombing run taking out a 1000 unit rat ball.
Caldari State
#62 - 2017-04-20 09:59:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Teros Hakomairos
The bottom line is :

"THE" PVE/Mining player don't WANT challanges in his game....

Not against gankers,nor against npc.....

All he wants is a chilled play after work......
There are exceptions from this but they are few.....

On the other hand there are people that simply can't UNDERSTAND how someone want to play this game TOTALLY wrong.....

They are called PVP players and in THEIR world EVERYONE is a target.....
Those two factions just don't fit together,their view to the game is like two sides of a medal....

Now.....

How do we solve this problem?

Simple....

Give PVE the highsec and ban all PVP escept during a (only from both sides accepted) war.....

Give PVP low and 0.0 and let them chop themselves there without disturbing PVE.....

Yes my dear PVP,you will have LESS prey that is not able to fight back.....no more easy kills,no more salt and tears....

But isn't THAT what you want (what you always say why you PVP) ?

Challenge?

So...LOGICAL no PVP that lives that "Challenge" could be against such a solution or he must be just a liar that is ,despite what he specifies,just out for easy kills and lollable killmails....
Goonswarm Federation
#63 - 2017-04-20 11:12:48 UTC
Teros Hakomairos wrote:
"THE" PVE/Mining player don't WANT challanges in his game....

(...)

On the other hand there are people that simply can't UNDERSTAND how someone want to play this game TOTALLY wrong.....

They are called PVP players and in THEIR world EVERYONE is a target.....
Those two factions just don't fit together,their view to the game is like two sides of a medal....
I feel you have drawn the wrong conclusion somewhere, thus I can't take the rest of your argument seriously.

These two sides fit very well together. Just log in EvE if you don't believe me.


Note: I do not believe there are two sides. There are something of the other group in each of us.

Elite F1 pilot since YC119, incarnate of honor, integrity and tidi.

Caldari State
#64 - 2017-04-20 11:24:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme Sake
Eve is firstly an economic simulator and only secondly a sandbox. Everyone strives to be efficient and efficiency demands very low risk factors.

The first rule of this game is "Dont fly what you can't afford to lose". We all repeat it to each and every newbro we come accross and then starts threads complaining about risk adversity and complement it with a "trust no one" cherry on top of the cake.

Players are just trying to be efficient, bitter vets or confused nubs they all prioritise adding to their stash of plex instead of fitting expensive ships to wreck in pvp.

No one suiccides gank retrievers in officer mod fit tournement ships for the lulz, they use instead cheap catalysts.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Lost Obsession
#65 - 2017-04-20 11:47:14 UTC
Kill more miners.

TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] "   CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a diȼk joke." Robin Williams - RIP

Caldari State
#66 - 2017-04-20 11:53:24 UTC
Yebo Lakatosh wrote:
Teros Hakomairos wrote:
"THE" PVE/Mining player don't WANT challanges in his game....

(...)

On the other hand there are people that simply can't UNDERSTAND how someone want to play this game TOTALLY wrong.....

They are called PVP players and in THEIR world EVERYONE is a target.....
Those two factions just don't fit together,their view to the game is like two sides of a medal....
I feel you have drawn the wrong conclusion somewhere, thus I can't take the rest of your argument seriously.

These two sides fit very well together. Just log in EvE if you don't believe me.


Note: I do not believe there are two sides. There are something of the other group in each of us.



Many only see what they want to see and some are blinded by their own self interests.

You only have to look at Eve Offline PCU graphs with a hint of a open mind to see this game has been stagnating since 2009, and a gradual decline since 2014.

Alpha Clones reset that a bit, but even now, the decline is at even a greater slope that will negate that short bump by the fall of this year.

If that curve continues to play out this game will be at 2005 PCU levels by 2020.

One third the PCU of the last few years.


And that isn't "crying that Eve is dying".

That is simply extending the existing trends in the actual PCU history.


Of course, What CCP does between now and then will have influence, hence the suggestions about serious change instead of flying blind on the current course...


Goonswarm Federation
#67 - 2017-04-20 12:32:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Yebo Lakatosh
oiukhp Muvila wrote:
Many only see what they want to see and some are blinded by their own self interests.
I belive that's the one point where our opinions meet, so cheer for our understanding!

I'd rather play in -this- EvE with 30k players in peak times, than playing space-WoW with 60k.
Stone me for my selfish desires.

(not that I believe in a correlation of player numbers and pve-safety. But if I would, I wouldn't rule out inverse proportions either)

Elite F1 pilot since YC119, incarnate of honor, integrity and tidi.

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#68 - 2017-04-20 12:39:12 UTC
Coralas wrote:


To be honest I actually quite enjoyed the burners (I did some L4 missions this year to see burners specifically, wasn't playing much when they were released), and I lost some navy gear, an enyo and a daredevil, so they also achieved the purpose of blowing up stuff and also IMO if you don't cheese past them with a long range web, they also train the basic disciplines of getting an opponent locked and tackled immediately so you don't become kited and dead, which is an improvement on a regular L4.


This does not change the fact that most mission runners avoid burner missions. This is the point of what I'm saying, CCP keeps making "fewer but smarter enemies" content when that is really a waste of DEV time.


Quote:

I was ratting in a vexor a couple of days ago when a defense fleet friendly tackled a passing t3d, and I just warped to the fight, locked scrammed and webbed the target. Even if the t3d had killed our tackler, we'd still have downed the target. It would be even better if the scram was a common tool used in pve instead of a chain around my capacitors neck.


Looking in the wrong direction. The thing for CCP to do is make Scrams turn off NPC Microwarpdrives (they don't currently). I keep a scam on my Ratting machariel just in case of Blops drop (Blops like to fit MJDs, the scram is my way of saying "yep, it was a mistake for you to disturb my ratting").

No one has said that CCP can't improve npcs, I'm saying that the goal of making PVE look more like PVP is a bad idea. people who want to directly PVP will go do that, I don't kill rats for PVP fun.

This does not, btw, mean that I think PVE players should be immune from pvp from other players, I do not and I prepare for pvp in all my pve endeavors (because in EVE, EVERYONE can do what they want, and some people foolishly want to PVP my while i'm killing rats).

Quote:


Nah, blueprint rarity better than absurd material requirements on serp caps, and IMO the more fleet content that is well beyond me +alt scale, the better. Particularly if its desirable enough that people will run into sparsely populated null and take it off the residents, because thats the kind of thing that encourages bears to bite.

They are trying to build a system that makes rat fleets more like player fleets and IMO that is a great initiative, especially if they are iterating on the system - if they have the content in events, they can vary and improve the system for each event and the event marketing will usually help them apply budget to pve and each time we get an event, we'll have to do experimental efforts to figure out workable strategies, and if the event then ends, we probably won't have them boringly super optimized.


You mean the exact same thing they did with Revenant Blue Prints in Low sec incursions. Man , there sure are a lot of Revenants flying around these days....

Which again is the point. I'm not making guesses. I'm viewing the PVE HISTORY of EVE Online.

The idea that these hidden stations spewing valuable Blueprints is going to work can already be debunked, because you can see that getting Revenant Blue prints from low sec incursions (that allow CAPITALS to use gates) barely ever happens.

The incursion system for getting revenant blue prints is EASIER and more GENERALLY ACCESSIBLE than what CCP is going to do with the Blood Raider BPCs in hidden stations, and yet very few people can be arsed to screw with it. This new PVE scheme CCP is coming up with will be hot for 1 or two months, and might generate an interesting fleet fight or 2 between real player groups, but eventually, just like with low sec incursions and Revenant BPCs, people are going to figure out that it's not worth risking fleet assets over.

No good FC is going to risk a big fleet to a PL/Goons/NC/whoever hot drop to get some blue prints to ships that are basically novelty items. Again, reference the Revenant (which on paper is the BEST Super Carrier and should be flying off the shelves).
Caldari State
#69 - 2017-04-20 12:50:24 UTC
Yebo Lakatosh wrote:
oiukhp Muvila wrote:
Many only see what they want to see and some are blinded by their own self interests.
I belive that's the one point where our opinions meet, so cheer for our understanding!

I'd rather play in -this- EvE with 30k players in peak times, than playing space-WoW with 60k.
Stone me for my selfish desires.

(not that I believe in a correlation of player numbers and pve-safety. But if I would, I wouldn't rule out inverse proportions either)



My thanks for so promptly proving my overall point.

Caldari State
#70 - 2017-04-20 12:50:55 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
I am of the belief that if Implants were to be done away with, so that only the loss of a ship was incurred in pvp then more folk would take part in fighting - more pvp = more ship losses = somewhat higher ship prices.

New players (that I speak to) in particular, will probably have implants worth far in excess of any ship they might pvp in. The loss of training speed and the cost of replacing implants worries them more than the cost of lost frigates.

I am well aware that some folk have not and will not ever engage in ship v ship pvp, but I do believe that a significant number would be more inclined to do so.

Not a new idea, but one I subscribe to.


Or .. i don't know? warp off your pod?? Unless there are bubbles, connection problemens(A ticket can be send in this case) or smartbombing ships, there is absolutely no reason to loose a pod. Just start smahing "warp to" like a Madman before your ship pops, and you will get away.

"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker

Goonswarm Federation
#71 - 2017-04-20 12:55:32 UTC
oiukhp Muvila wrote:
My thanks for so promptly proving my overall point.
Wait, are you suggesting that all you totally selflessly advocate for are more players for CCP and not more ISK profit with less effort and risk? Isn't it cool when the percieved moral high-ground corresponds with -your- selfish opinion?

I believe fun is better than ISK, and once the fun-factor decreases, no feeling of progress will substitute it.

Elite F1 pilot since YC119, incarnate of honor, integrity and tidi.

Caldari State
#72 - 2017-04-20 13:15:56 UTC
Yebo Lakatosh wrote:
oiukhp Muvila wrote:
My thanks for so promptly proving my overall point.
Wait, are you suggesting that all you totally selflessly advocate for are more players for CCP and not more ISK profit with less effort and risk? Isn't it cool when the percieved moral high-ground corresponds with -your- selfish opinion?

I believe fun is better than ISK, and once the fun-factor decreases, no feeling of progress will substitute it.



Yes, there are some posters on these forums who care about the over-all game more than their own advantages within it.
I realize that comes as a shock, probably due to the crowd you are currently flying with.

But, as I said before, you only have to look at the PCU graphs with some basic ability at forecasting to see the current trends in this game.

Sometimes a little fun does need to be reduced for some to make the game far more fun for everyone else.

Caldari State
#73 - 2017-04-20 13:18:54 UTC
For the past several years CCP has been railroading players into their vision of how the game "should be played", leading to outright bizarre and unpopular design decisions, and then further patching out any way that slightly ameliorates the effects of them. Promising at some point in the future (which is perpetually imminent) that the synergy of these mechanics, while all individually tedious and hated, together will produce some great new world and it will all pay off in the end. Turns out people won't wait half a decade for that. There's a simple test to decide if x is a problem; if x condition existed 10 years ago, and eve grew because (or in spite) of it, then that's not the problem.
Caldari State
#74 - 2017-04-20 13:29:51 UTC  |  Edited by: oiukhp Muvila
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
For the past several years CCP has been railroading players into their vision of how the game "should be played", leading to outright bizarre and unpopular design decisions, and then further patching out any way that slightly ameliorates the effects of them. Promising at some point in the future (which is perpetually imminent) that the synergy of these mechanics, while all individually tedious and hated, together will produce some great new world and it will all pay off in the end. Turns out people won't wait half a decade for that. There's a simple test to decide if x is a problem; if x condition existed 10 years ago, and eve grew because (or in spite) of it, then that's not the problem.



I agree.

I recently mentioned something like that, where the depth of some play styles in this game have dramatically deepened;
But the range of play styles in this game has also dramatically narrowed compared to 10-12 years ago.

I think that alone has contributed to many leaving the game.
Goonswarm Federation
#75 - 2017-04-20 13:48:57 UTC
oiukhp Muvila wrote:
Yes, there are some posters on these forums who care about the over-all game more than their own advantages within it.
I doubt that, but I could be convinced that you -truly- feel this. I believe we -all- care for a game we love to be as -potentially- enjoyable as possible for everyone. We just have different opinions on how it could be achieved.

Though I believe that this potential is higher if you have to focus, learn and experience to reach it, intstead of having it handed out by the devs.

oiukhp Muvila wrote:
you only have to look at the PCU graphs with some basic ability at forecasting to see the current trends in this game
Summoning Code fellows to link that CCP study that shows that player retention is better for players who were ganked in their first 15 days..

Besides that, you only shown me a number that is influenced by -billions- of things. You pick (a possible) one of these, and claim that this is the very and only reason.

Elite F1 pilot since YC119, incarnate of honor, integrity and tidi.

Gallente Federation
#76 - 2017-04-20 13:51:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Coralas
Jenn aSide wrote:


This does not change the fact that most mission runners avoid burner missions. This is the point of what I'm saying, CCP keeps making "fewer but smarter enemies" content when that is really a waste of DEV time.


I really don't think it is. I also expect that the rate of burner rejection has gone down over time, and I expect that individual pilots graduate to being able to run them, some individual pilots aspire to run them, and some individual pilots like that there is frigate specific content that pays well, and I also don't really think it was that much of CCPs dev time.

Ultimately there is no rule book for what _will_ work, but it is most certainly CCPs job to experiment and find out what entertains us.

Quote:


Looking in the wrong direction. The thing for CCP to do is make Scrams turn off NPC Microwarpdrives (they don't currently). I keep a scam on my Ratting machariel just in case of Blops drop (Blops like to fit MJDs, the scram is my way of saying "yep, it was a mistake for you to disturb my ratting").

No one has said that CCP can't improve npcs, I'm saying that the goal of making PVE look more like PVP is a bad idea. people who want to directly PVP will go do that, I don't kill rats for PVP fun.



I do not expect it to be as exciting as pvp. I expect it to help make the elementary actions of pvp more familiar to non pvp pilots.

Quote:


You mean the exact same thing they did with Revenant Blue Prints in Low sec incursions. Man , there sure are a lot of Revenants flying around these days....

Which again is the point. I'm not making guesses. I'm viewing the PVE HISTORY of EVE Online.

The idea that these hidden stations spewing valuable Blueprints is going to work can already be debunked, because you can see that getting Revenant Blue prints from low sec incursions (that allow CAPITALS to use gates) barely ever happens.

The incursion system for getting revenant blue prints is EASIER and more GENERALLY ACCESSIBLE than what CCP is going to do with the Blood Raider BPCs in hidden stations, and yet very few people can be arsed to screw with it. This new PVE scheme CCP is coming up with will be hot for 1 or two months, and might generate an interesting fleet fight or 2 between real player groups, but eventually, just like with low sec incursions and Revenant BPCs, people are going to figure out that it's not worth risking fleet assets over.

No good FC is going to risk a big fleet to a PL/Goons/NC/whoever hot drop to get some blue prints to ships that are basically novelty items. Again, reference the Revenant (which on paper is the BEST Super Carrier and should be flying off the shelves).


(a) its 20 - 40 player content that drops isk, a few modules and *possibly* the mothership bp, and the indivdiual player has a very low expectation of getting the BP - ie I bet they are always sold and split up or made alliance property.

I looked today, and there appeared to be nil lowsec incursions today. So if the BP drops 20% of the time ( I don't know what it is), and there is one mothership every 3 days, that means over the year there is a likelyhood of what - 25 bpcs, and then there is the issue of actually building one, because you aren't going to press go in jita.

(b) running the content to get the mothership spawned is visible as map stats visible globally.

(c) the progress to the mothership is visible.

(d) The same content (1 drop or whatever excepted) is available in HIGHSEC and pays really well, and allows people to run the content more often, and with more extreme fits.

(e) incursions are permanent content. there is no rush for individuals to do.


None of the above are likely to be true of the blood raider content, and we do not know what scale decisions CCP will settle on. If its something that a sovereign standing defense fleet can reship to and deal with in half an hour when it pops locally, then I would imagine they would be run.
Goonswarm Federation
#77 - 2017-04-20 13:57:01 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

This does not change the fact that most mission runners avoid burner missions. This is the point of what I'm saying, CCP keeps making "fewer but smarter enemies" content when that is really a waste of DEV time.



It's mostly wasted time because the player base look at the required investment to do the harder content and decide it's not worth the effort. The risk/reward and effort/reward ratio the majority actually accept to deal with is not high enough for the "harder" content to be popular. It's not that much more than the requirement for anoms/mission but it's still more and people are lazy.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#78 - 2017-04-20 14:14:28 UTC
Coralas wrote:


Ultimately there is no rule book for what _will_ work, but it is most certainly CCPs job to experiment and find out what entertains us.


And they fail sometimes. Look at Drifters.

Quote:

I do not expect it to be as exciting as pvp. I expect it to help make the elementary actions of pvp more familiar to non pvp pilots.


This is a terrible expectation. And it's built on even worse thinking, the general false and even dangerous idea that if PVE "teaches PVP" then PVE players will be less likely to victims in PVE situations (and perhaps they might even choose to PVP more).

The truth is that a person being a victim or not of pvp has to do with personal traits they bring to the game. You can't teach wisdom or prudence, these are things you have a capability for, or you don't.



Quote:



(a) its 20 - 40 player content that drops isk, a few modules and *possibly* the mothership bp, and the indivdiual player has a very low expectation of getting the BP - ie I bet they are always sold and split up or made alliance property.

I looked today, and there appeared to be nil lowsec incursions today. So if the BP drops 20% of the time ( I don't know what it is), and there is one mothership every 3 days, that means over the year there is a likelyhood of what - 25 bpcs, and then there is the issue of actually building one, because you aren't going to press go in jita.

(b) running the content to get the mothership spawned is visible as map stats visible globally.

(c) the progress to the mothership is visible.

(d) The same content (1 drop or whatever excepted) is available in HIGHSEC and pays really well, and allows people to run the content more often, and with more extreme fits.

(e) incursions are permanent content. there is no rush for individuals to do.


None of the above are likely to be true of the blood raider content, and we do not know what scale decisions CCP will settle on. If its something that a sovereign standing defense fleet can reship to and deal with in half an hour when it pops locally, then I would imagine they would be run.
'

That's a bunch of rationalizing. I say we book mark this post of your and revisit the issue 6 months after the feature is introduced. When that happens I will enjoy demonstrating to you why the past matters (ie why the Revenant tells the story that is about to be repeated with the Blood Caps) and why your thought process led you to believe things that aren't so.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#79 - 2017-04-20 14:31:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

This does not change the fact that most mission runners avoid burner missions. This is the point of what I'm saying, CCP keeps making "fewer but smarter enemies" content when that is really a waste of DEV time.



It's mostly wasted time because the player base look at the required investment to do the harder content and decide it's not worth the effort. The risk/reward and effort/reward ratio the majority actually accept to deal with is not high enough for the "harder" content to be popular. It's not that much more than the requirement for anoms/mission but it's still more and people are lazy.


I think that's right (and true for most players as for most PVE is jsut a means to an end), but I wouldn't use the word lazy. I prefer regular anoms and missions even though I am set up to do the burner mission plan. That plan lets you use ships and do missions in high sec to generate close to the amount of wealth it takes a Carrier to make in null.

Null Captial ship level isk, in high sec, the place where CONCORD blaps your enemies for you. But I don't, and it's not out of laziness, it's because the "fewer but stronger enemies that can actually kill you" style of content stifles creativity.

When you get right down to it, content like Burners and Incursions and Drifters and "Mining operations" FORCE you into a narrow range of actions just like PVP does. Missions and Anomalies and even DED complexes are easy to survive, and they let you keep them fresh by allowing you to experiment with vastly different ways of doing them without risking PVE ship loss from some overpowered NPC. Even though I have a sure fire Mach fit that does (with some modification) all 10/10s except the Blood Raider one, I'm STILL tinkering with Mach DED complex fits. I'm still finding new ways to do lvl 4 missions ever faster. I'm still learning the secrets and forgotten triggers to little used anomalies like Hidden Hub.

Yes combat PVE is mainly about the isk, but it's also a platform for creativity. CCP's additions to PVE since litterally 2009 have been anti-creativity. There are only a narrow handful of ways with a handful of ships to beat Drifters and Burners and Incursions etc, there are legions of ways to beat missions, complexes and anomalies.
Caldari State
#80 - 2017-04-20 14:49:53 UTC
Yebo Lakatosh wrote:


Besides that, you only shown me a number that is influenced by -billions- of things. You pick (a possible) one of these, and claim that this is the very and only reason.



The only thing I've suggested is that the narrowing to game-play options have contributed to this, significantly in my opinion.

I've never suggested it was the only reason, mainly because stating that only one specific thing causes variances in a complex system would be contradictory in itself.

Forum Jump