Reworked Missions (Procedural Generation)

[Eney_Issier]

Good then both of us sail with the same idea.

[Rail_J_kar]

[Eney_Issier]

Nice picture by the way.

Okay time to rehearse the thread:

• the driving idea is procedural missions; why: increase variation of pve content/freeing up developer time required to design a single agent mission; possible outcome: more interesting stuff for pve players/less repetition when doing pve stuff
• one concept is to add an additional gate buoy network to stellar systems; why: additional room for sceneric items
• such a in system travel network might consist of warpspeed boosting gates and a buyon(GTB) the ship warps towards; why: speed up travel in a system likely player experience outcome: less hassle to decide on travel destination - only need to click activate gate - yet at the same time a on rail experience - less freedom of choice
• old travel system - warp to destination (WTD)- is retained and new system is introduced additional; why: Eve is about options and choice to accommodate different playstyle, something a sandbox must provide to be called sandbox
• GTB has 10% lower overall travel time than WTD; why: gives idea of a subway course

Suggestion: Dockable stations get a buoy 150km in undock direction, this basically makes a safe warp out spot for stations in case of gank blockade available to all.

Though likely to ease the pressure on targets it might just move the gank place from station to buoy.

Not resolved topics: Do warp scramblers act normally on someone activating a warp boost gate? Does a warp boost gate increase the warp core strength of a ship when activated by it? Does it decrease the duration of the prewarp phase?

Possible game: A ship gets 50 warp core strength by a warp boost gate, if a scrambler or disruptor is applied the decrease of warp core strength has an influence on the final warp speed.

Possible game: Warp boost gates can be deactivated by a hacking probe. Hacking probe is launched by probe launcher and moved via the in system map. Once within 0.25 au to a buoy and gate combination it is activated. What follows is a hacking game that represents the initial break in and seeding of a virus into computer systems of warp boost gates.

Success in the hacking game means all warp boost gates near one buoy are deactivated.

However the ship sending them, can not move or warp until he either gives up the hacking probe, it is destroyed or is found by concord via tracing and his her ship shot down.

---

---

So far the fundament. Now the first floor screed:

• At buoy points following is present:

• the buoy
• a gate back to the place from which someone came about 5km away from buoyn
• a gate to a different buoyn about 5km away from buoyn
• depending on sec status sentries? (question mark on purpouse)

• about 50km around a buoy in the GTB network are sitting sceneric items

• Often it be rocky formations with rarely at best one to five minable asteroids
• Seldom: a group of solar harvesters
• Seldom: left overs from civilisation like small mining stations as they appear in missions
• Seldom: asteroid fields as they currently are
• Rare: derelict stations

• Through this buoy points npcs or groups of npcs move

• most often the mining ship train on their way to a specific asteroid belt
• often: an industrial ship or convoy of industrial ships
• often: facitonal fleets or concord groups
• super rare: a faction freighter
• Pirate Rats
• Rogue drones

---

• Introduction of an additional in-system map in which buoy locations are represented in similar fashion to a subway map
• Buoy representing point change colour once a player has visited it
• creates a base for an easy to enter exploration/sightseeing gameplay

[Rail_J_kar]

@Eney_Issier

Do warp scramblers act normally on someone activating a warp boost gate?

Warp scramblers will prevent a player from activating an acceleration gate and micro jump drives, so I think it wise to have a similar effect for the buoys.

@Eney_Issier

Does a warp boost gate increase the warp core strength of a ship when activated by it?

One possible way to integrate your buoy system into the procedural system generator is to have mission buoys at the mission location, allowing players to warp to the location, even though it’s in the mass shadow.

This would allow the mass shadow to be much larger than the 100k I initially mentioned, especially if there are non-mission buoys around the planet for normal planetary navigation (probably spaced around the planet every 10-15k from each other and 100km from the surface.) In order to leave again, the player will have to use the buoy to warp away from the planet once again.

So in effect, in order to warp away, the buoy would increase the player’s warp strength by whatever the mass shadow decreases it to, effectively making the player’s warp strength 1 after the calculation is over. Thus, while within the planetary mass shadow, any warp disruption device on the player’s ship would prevent the buoy from working.

Out in space with your normal network, what ever that warp strength is would probably be fairly significant though.

@Eney_Issier

Does it decrease the duration of the prewarp phase?

I don’t think there’s any need for this. We don’t have any examples of this sort of behavior for any warp boosting devices in the game as of yet. Instead, how about some npc controlled web towers at the buoy locations?

Upon activation of the buoy network, the towers could web the the player’s ship, which would reduce top speed, and thus increase agility.

This is a service that could be paid for monthly, so it would operate as another isk sink. Or perhaps it would activate on any ships that are insured.

[Arthur_Aihaken]

Personally I’d like to see the addition of more loot drops on wrecks in addition to bounties.

[Rail_J_kar]

And loot drops that make sense for the ship that’s flying it. It’s kind of weird to kill a bunch of combat ships and keep getting mining equipment (or vice versa.)

[Arthur_Aihaken]

It’s better - but wrecks should always be dropping some loot based on an actual ship fit (rather than just random components and modules).

[Eney_Issier]

@Rail_J_kar

@Eney_Issier

Does it decrease the duration of the prewarp phase?

I don’t think there’s any need for this. We don’t have any examples of this sort of behavior for any warp boosting devices in the game as of yet. Instead, how about some npc controlled web towers at the buoy locations?

Upon activation of the buoy network, the towers could web the the player’s ship, which would reduce top speed, and thus increase agility.

This is a service that could be paid for monthly, so it would operate as another isk sink. Or perhaps it would activate on any ships that are insured.

From my little knowledge inertia mods change the prewarp duration though I could observe this wrongly.

Though the webbing idea is also nice.

[Arthur_Aihaken]

Yes, intertial stabilizers reduce the time it takes to reach both the speed for prewarp and maximum velocity.

[Rail_J_kar]

@Eney_Issier

From my little knowledge inertia mods change the prewarp duration though I could observe this wrongly.

@Arthur_Aihaken

intertial stabilizers reduce the time it takes to reach both the speed for prewarp and maximum velocity.

Yes, but acceleration gates and micro jump drives do not, which is more or less what were talking about with the navigation buoy network.

Instead of inventing new mechanics, it’s better to use ones that already exist. which is why I suggested the use of the webbing towers. You get the same effect without CCP devs having to create something new.

The side benefit of this is anyone going criminal in the area could get webbed and scrammed by the towers as well.

[Rail_J_kar]

Adding some quoted text from another thread to save it for posterity, since it runs parallel to the navigation / content themes expressed in this thread.

Hyperspace:

@Rail_J_kar

I propose adding a hyperspace option that requires fuel to engage. This would allow travel between the stars without the gate network, but it would not be instantaneous and if you get close enough to another player (say 1-100 au - dependent on signature radius and scan resolution), you’ll both be knocked out of hyperspace - with no concord protection.

This could function not only as a travel mechanic between stars, but also a way for ccp to create more content locations without creating any more static solar systems. Large objects in space, like a Jovian station might create a 100 au bubble that kicks people out of hyperspace when they get near it. Or there could be derelicts or large battlefields out there in the deep black.

On top of this, allowing this alternative method of travel also gives CCP the ability to allow sov holding alliances to turn off gates without destroying counter play options.

Obviously the suggestion also means we’ll be able to warp in any direction without the need for a destination (since without it, you’d be immediately knocked out of hyperspace when you tried to engage it.) To balance this with the current destination warp… I suggest the current method will eat less capacitor, and require a module or rig slot for the new version of warp.

If players also get the tools to see other players while in hyperspace and warp, it will open up the gameplay to so much more than just being reserved to gate camping.

Rewarding Player Attention:

@Rail_J_kar

a hacking mechanic with a continuous attention requirement, like tetris.

I’m not saying EVE should use a ui like that, it’s just an example of something simple that could be done that requires the player’s attention. CCP would probably want to still keep the current hacking game’s theme, with it’s circuit board style and monochrome graphics.

@Rail_J_kar

CCP just needs to reward active play more. They should still keep the current mechanics, but if you have the ability to actively control some element of your ship, you should be rewarded for it. (ie: passive mining vs active mining.)

In a game like EVE, that would probably come by way of a series of minigames. You could ignore the minigames, and let the character’s skills do everything for you or active play and not get the benefit of the character’s skills, but if you’re good at the minigames, you could out perform a player with max skills.

@Rail_J_kar

this is also another place where CCP could reward active gameplay. Instead of making it a timer, make players hack the bank repeatedly. Let us use those mercenary items we have to give us the illusion of sending people in to extract resources (which also gives us a good tie in to vanguard if CCP is brave enough to do it.)

Regardless of how it’s implemented, using some sort of hacking mechanic (whether it’s themed for data hacking, or combatants clearing out a structure, or w/e) instead of a timer will allow a player to decide for themselves how long they wish to invest for their reward.

[Rail_J_kar]

I don’t recall if I added the concept to change sec status using the pirates killed metric, but I do think that should be a part of the equation. It wouldn’t knock highsec systems into lowsec status or vice versa, but it could make some systems more vulnerable to things like incursions if the systems aren’t being farmed for their npcs.

[James_Baboli]

Incursions require specific constellation setup, and have fixed types of sites in each system of each possible constellation, so that specific example is unlikely, absent significant iteration on incursions, which could honestly use some attention. One of the ships has been functionally broken since 2012.

[Rail_J_kar]

My bad, I meant insurrections. But yes, folding incursions into the proposed missions / homefronts would be good I think.

[Rail_J_kar]

You should really make these comments in this thread, not the other as it’s off topic there.

@Spacetramp_Drago

Most of those are absolutely terrible suggestions.

A lot of the rewards are poor anyway and you want to make them worse?

What’s terrible about it? How does it make the rewards worse?

Assuming you’re talking abot this:

As such, their potential reward output should be relatively low.

Yes, mission rewards are relatively low compared to other pve. Low barrier to entry, and low reward.

My hope is to be able to on board players into higher paying content. And make that higher paying content more interesting through the same systems we’re talking about in this thread.

@Spacetramp_Drago

Do we really want a mission board where everything relatively worth running goes in the first few seconds of being posted?

What you’re referring to is a procedurally generated mission board that would get repopulated. There would never not be a full amount of missions available. There’s no danger of the “good ones” running out. This could be implemented in a way that allows other people to join, but it wouldn’t have to. It could still operate on a per person basis, as it does now.

The entire purpose behind the mission board was to get around the concept of needing to decline missions.

@Spacetramp_Drago

after over 20 years I’ll always question why there’s not another hundred at every level

That takes time and resources to make. So would developing a procedural generation system, but at least it would provide an infinite number of missions.

Granted, if all we got was just more missions, without the generator, it would be better than nothing. but at some point, they would repeat.

@Spacetramp_Drago

They already have all the models etc in place, it just needs someone to be willing to say yes.

Surely it can’t be that hard, can it?

Maybe all these failed games just get in the way?

I forget which dev works on the dungeon sites. CCP Convict maybe? It actually does take a significant amount of work to create a mission. It’s not just assembly, it needs to be tested for bugs as well.

[Spacetramp_Drago]

@Rail_J_kar

I forget which dev works on the dungeon sites. CCP Convict maybe? It actually does take a significant amount of work to create a mission. It’s not just assembly, it needs to be tested for bugs as well.

As I said in my post, they’ve had 20 years and all we’ve had is a handful of burner missions.

Just 5 per year added and we’d have another 100.

Any more excuses for them?

[Rail_J_kar]

There’s been more than that. The dev I mentioned, if he’s the correct dev was interviewed a year or two ago I believe, and mentioned he was making new missions. He’s the same guy behind the diamond rats.

Also, There’s a ton of pve content in the game that’s been added over the years. I agree missions need to be touched, as I made this thread, and even hand crafted missions of the sort that are already in game would be better than nothing. But it’s silly to get all up in arms about some facet of the game you specifically want, when the company has many objectives.

@Spacetramp_Drago

Just 5 per year added and we’d have another 100.

That reminds me of the “if everyone gave a dollar” arguments so many people use. It’s always a pipedream no matter who uses that argument.

[Spacetramp_Drago]

@Rail_J_kar

It’s always a pipedream no matter who uses that argument.

We don’t pay good money for pipedreams.

Plenty of other games manage to update quests/missions/dungeons on a very regular basis from Mythical Dungeons in WOW to ■■■■■■■ insane dungeons in Dofus.

Even Raid Shadow Legends, a free to play gatcha game has a ton of free updates very regularly.

3 very different games showing how it can be done.

[Rail_J_kar]

@Spacetramp_Drago

Plenty of other games manage to update quests/missions/dungeons on a very regular basis from Mythical Dungeons in WOW to ■■■■■■■ insane dungeons in Dofus.

Sure, but you’re ignoring all the other pve content CCP has added over the years. Just 2 expansions ago we had the addition of Homefronts. It’s not enough, but it’s certainly a welcome addition. I forget exactly when Trig filaments were added, but that is some of the most popular pve content in the game.

You also have various anomalies and signatures that weren’t in the game at launch.

CCP has clearly been adding that content, it’s just not been wrapped up with the mission system.

[Rail_J_kar]

Adding this video as part of the conversation.

THIS is why Ashes of Creation is taking SO LONG