24h, tops, actually.
To use another comparison to theme-park MMOs: If you’ve got a zone where 6 types of mobs spawn, and 4 of them are quest targets, the other 2 tend to seem more common because people leave them alone while hunting the others. Similar mechanic here: hacking sites are all over because nobody’s doing them.
Actually I just googled “Burner Mission Fits”
True enough on the “Later content” part of things, but considering people are arguing that missions fulfil the “Solo Hisec” niche, I don’t really feel it’s fair to say now that burners fall outside of that remit.
And, I really do have to disagree with you on the topic of “No Hisec players want social content”, as I’ve had many people come to me and specifically state that they feel they can’t play with their friends in the same way they can in other MMOs, and this is something I’ve forwarded to CCP.
I also do agree with you on the prospect of adding more divergent mission clauses, though I’m fairly sure integrating scanning into any standard mission rotation would make a lot of more casual players want to do terrible things to people, as it’s a skill that’s niche - even amongst veteran players.
That’s purely from the perspective of someone who doesn’t use them though, as someone who used to be a daytripper in WH’s, I had a hard time finding the ones I needed.
You can also turn that logic around and say that maybe you don’t see many encounter sites as people are doing them, creating a scarcity of the sites and encouraging you to go elsewhere to find more. I’d have to get actual statistics from Quant to do any analysis here and I don’t think he’d give me them.
Yup, played FF XIV and GW2, both of which have excellent systems for that sort of thing as well. At the end of the day though, I’d like to think this is a first step from CCP towards introducing an active LFG system to these kinds of activities. I don’t think we pushed that topic enough at the summit, but I will absolutely remind them of the importance of it in the coming weeks 
Importing the PVE from traditional MMOs is pretty difficult in Eve, since it’s a much different game.
I’d also still like to question why this is - in your opinion - a bad thing, as you haven’t answered why you think providing an experience which requires either A) greater investment or B) better execution is detrimental to the content.
Might I suggest instead of just an LFG system (which then puts you in a static ‘group’), just ‘everyone in the site gets the rewards for everything the site spawns… which calibrates to how many people are in the site’? So people warping into a site aren’t seen as taking someone else’s loot, but they’re also not just making it easier and letting groups 20-man a 1-person site and get 20x the money.
True, the sheer economic effect of isk faucets from PvE has to be factored in as well.
Life description of w-holes:
This wormhole has not yet begun its natural cycle of decay and should last at least another day
This wormhole is beginning to decay, and probably won’t last another day
This wormhole is reaching the end of its natural lifetime
This wormhole is on the verge of dissipating into the ether
Life Text = Text Meaning
not yet begun = more than 24 hours
beginning to decay = between 4 and 24 hours
reaching the end = less than 4 hours
on the verge = less than 15 minutes
At that point you run into the “Can I just put 19 alts and me into the site” problem, especially given drone assign, which is the real problem. I did talk about the problem of people coming in and stealing loot/shares at the summit with the designers of the content however. Obviously, NDA precludes me from talking about how these sites may or may not be structured.
I suggested that the forum ISDS and community coordinator actually read through these type of threads, note those that raise a concern in a reasoned manner and who also suggest solutions, and contact them directly via a questionaire/email/protected forum section for their ideas. It’s not that CCP isn"the trying, it is just that their information on what many HS players want is “tainted” by the opinions of LS/NS players.
Can you imagine how the null sec community would feel if the solo HS players determined how null sec’s future development was going to be? THAT is how many HS players feel now.
I mean, not to be blunt, but small gang players did kind of have the entire new sov system designed with them in mind, much to the chargrin of larger, fleet based PvPers. So yes, I can understand.
The question is how much of that is LS/NS players also living in Hisec on alts and having a different vision of the game?
Still, that is unfortunately beyond what I can do as a CSM. I can talk about things, and try and create a safe space for solo players to talk about what they want, but the majority of them will literally never know or interact with it. We had the PvE roundtable advertised in This Week in EVE (which itself is advertised in the launcher) and we still saw no input from the (apparently) silent majority of solo hisec players. Hell, even in here it’s been hard to get actual answers of what people want when I suggest things that are more substantive than “More missions”, which we can see don’t solve the problem, given the failure of COSMOS previously and Burner missions (according to this thread). To a degree it just feels like I’m wasting my time, as I can’t get to the core of what makes people feel that content is good for them. Is it the feeling of them having an impact on the story? Of choosing sides? Of just having some godly power fantasy and raining death from their Raven? Do they want longer form content, given that the events aren’t seen as long enough? More challenging content, or less challenging content?
If I go to CCP and try and advocate for more solo content, these are the things they will ask me, along with pointing at previous failures and asking what can we do to get it right, and right now I don’t feel the community in general has an answer because there is no answer for it, as there’s so many divergent fronts.
My previous PvE suggestion to CCP was introducing more of these Live Events, but giving people the choice between Faction A and Faction B, and having it tied up with a Scope video in the conclusion, with some small lore consequence. Taking the course of say 2 weeks, with short (5-10 minute) sites. How do you think that would be received?
Didn’t say it was detrimental, that was posted in response to you stating Burner missions don’t require bling fits to complete. Granted there’s alternative cheaper fits available but using those also incorporate other aspects.
The main problem I have with Burner missions is that not all players can engage in it, it’s content designed for a specific level of player. Also as I said before, it’s not content exclusive to high sec space.
Probing use to be a niche skill, it’s pretty much a mandatory skill that everyone can do now, not to mention it’s promoted very heavily by CCP.
As for players doing terrible things to others running those missions, how exactly is that different from what currently happens in game? Besides, wouldn’t that create more chance of PvP content as well?
I meant that in lieu of saying “Kill themselves”, but hey.
I’d love to get some stats on how many people as a % have ever scanned in EVE outside of the tutorial though, I’d argue it’s sub 10%, but there’s no real way to know.
So, you’d argue that content needs to be for every level of player? Or just that there needs to be more content specifically for lower level players that is solo in nature?
And, you can’t argue that the content isn’t exclusive to hisec then make your solution other content which is also not exclusive to hisec as it is just altering the cluster wide mission pool to include more missions. I would argue that is - if anything - a benefit to the content provided.
Seriously, did you NOT bother to read the description of the “new” highsec content.
The only resemblance it has to FW is that it is “faction” based - It is described as “Group” content.
The clue/key words (in case you missed them) Collaborative - Groups.
The focus on categorizing and limiting a player’s input based upon security status of a zone in EVE is ludicrous. Yet, players on these forums do it over and over. Players in will have varying styles of playing the game. Mission runners play differently than suicide gankers. Players engaging in FW in low sec play differently than PL or Snuff Box.
There will not be a one-size-fits-all solution to make more appealing. When CCP announced that winter would have updates for PVE, focusing on empire zones and new players, I think players (at least myself) believed there would be a variety of new features. We are starting to hear about a few on the updates.eveonline.com site. I hope there’s more to come. We don’t need 1 or 2 “Jesus features”. We need variety of new content and iteration.
Can you elaborate on this at all? What iteration and new content were you, personally hoping for?
Honestly, I think high sec and low sec should be tied together. It’s essentially empire space, territory owned by the NPC factions. Think about how sov null works under Dominion. Sov entities would own large swaths of space. In the core territory, there were defense fleets that would shoot down enemies. It was very secure to rat or mine or haul between stations. But in the outer regions, the “low sec” of the alliance’s sov, enemies could roam through unopposed. There were no defense fleets. Ratting and mining was riskier. If a hostile entity began to take their “low sec” systems and R64’s, the alliance would lose income.
A similar concept can exist for the NPC empire factions. If a faction is losing low sec territory, it could be felt by high sec. Maybe taxes increase, mission payouts are impacted. Maybe this spawns the idea of creating high sec missions that could impact your FW war zone (e.g. boosting structures, etc). From a story perspective, whether you are a solo player or group oriented player, you might have the opportunity to contribute to the success of your faction in a number of ways, appealing to a variety of play styles.
Either or, as long as it’s available to everyone with the option to engage in it solo or in a fleet with others.
The only reason I suggested the idea of having exploration based agents was due to someone earlier stating that Burner missions was new high sec content. However that content is only accessible by a specific level of player.
As for new solo content, I actually like the idea behind The Agency events, however I think it needs to be split up into 2 different level’s, one for Alpha Clones and one for Omega Clones. Also the rewards need to be buffed to make those events more special which would incite more player participation.
Also get rid of the task timer, just have completed tasks reset with downtime.
The thing is there’s nothing stopping you bringing a friend in to help you kill a Burner if you can’t do it on your own. I guess I’m just struggling to understand why all content has to be able to be done by newer players, is there no benefit to having high end, challenging solo content to the point that it doesn’t count as content? Or is the fact that it’s only available at LvL 4 the problem? Would adding some stat-scaled down Lvl 3 versions be useful? Perhaps Corvette burners?
