the part that is shouldn’t influence the design of pve content.
but the content after you found group is right there, you just enter the “dungeon”. EvE is a sandbox, there is no place for this kind of stuff here (unless they expand abyss into some kind abomination like this). You know that feeling, let’s fleet up and see if there is something there for us, right? In sandbox, players create their own content or find them, like scanning sites for drops. There is no: “find group-> enter content” option and never should be, it’s creativity killer.
Well, I have no objections to them trying stuff out. All in all, I am, for the most part, happy about the PvE that we do have, so there is that. I just take the freedom to ignore the stuff that isn’t worth my time (like events with bad loot drops that are more a hassle then anything else, which is basically every single agency event…).
They don’t reward really well for all the trouble. They are just inferior isk when compared to some rorquals.
HOWEVER, I think that maybe CCP is on the wrong track if they want to increase player retention with PvE. The one thing that PvE lacks at the moment is some higher purpose (another carrot on the stick, yes). Besides ISK, there is nothing else in the game and where nullbros have their Empires and lowsec has FW, HS has: Empire standings.
Just that they do nothing. Standings don’t reward anything anymore. During the early days, a free faction BS BPC was worth something. Nowadays?.. well, no. With that said, I think that empire standings need a good hard look at because that’s supposed to be meaningful for those that stay in HS, when it absolutely isn’t atm.
On top of that: there are terrible drawbacks for high empire standings.
Uhm, I think that would be a question of how it would be implemented. PvP’ers will want easy targets if incentivized with isk. PvE’ers are mostly easy targets and if you promote the PvP playstyle with more ISK for killing PvE’ers then you will naturally crap on PvE’ers. Especially in Highsec were ganking is kind of an easy thing to do and where players have very little defenses available.
It wouldn’t change much for Null I believe, could help Lowsec and Highsec PvP’ers at the expense of PvE’ers because you know that they will look for the most easy targets they can find. At the very least, that’s what I would expect as a lot of PvP’ers are predictable on that matter.
If it’s for consentual PvP, that might just be a thing but then the question is: What would it do to the economy. Where do those ISK come from? I mean, you can use the SRP concept as an example (which is established well and works pretty darn good) to argue that it would be a good thing.
All in all, I think that PvP’ers would be extremely thrilled when they could earn their living with PvP reliably.
I mean, I could imagine some ways to do that. An Arena would be one such thing but it’s problematic to say the least… any specifics you could share of what you have in mind?
If you check the FF presentation where Rise gave the data, ‘legally killed’ (ie: wardec kills) produced a similar level of retention as ganks. The people willing to undock in a war are the ones already willing to risk losing ships. It’s the ones who aren’t—the ones who’ll be in space more, and so more likely to be ganked than they currently are—who’ll be getting set up for problems.
If super carriers/carries were removed, there would still be the gila/vexer navy issues to deal with. If CCP can’t change anomaly mechanics in the short term, nerf the spawn rate in lieu of other options.
the question is: how much of a problem are they really. I’ve provided a suggestion that aimed at supers/carriers and which nerfed them in a tuneable way, while also affecting every other Ship to a lesser degree? It would be nice to know what CCP thinks about the non capital ships that are used for ratting. If we know how much of a problem they are, we can make suggestions for them.
Really? If anomalies spawned with a multiplicative increase in respawn delay and only a linear reduction in respawn delay over time, it may well cause capital ships and entire ratting pockets to move outside of their massive standing fleet’s jump umbrella. That will make those capitals more vulnerable to the usual sinks.
At one time I agreed with this statement, however, if wardecs are significantly hurting EvE (as the quotes above lead us to believe), then for the good of the game something has to change. We don’t have the numbers, but we can all understand if newer players can’t leave station (or don’t even login) - they will never get ‘hooked’ on EvE. All of us who have been here for a while, know EvE’s population hasn’t been on the rise (like it was for the first 10 years) for quite some time. Remember we’re not talking about making highsec ‘safe space’ as ganking isn’t the issue.
Think of it this way, wars in highsec significantly (CCP’s words) favor the attacker. Imagine if wars in nullsec were the same. Imagine what would happen if holding space in null was significantly harder than taking it. Imagine SOV was canceled as soon as someone declared war on you. That there was one timer on forts and it was less than 1 hour, with no asset safety. It would wipe out SOV null overnight, ( and No I’m not suggesting any of that garbage).
Sorry, but if something is significantly hurting EvE, I’m against it. Even if it directly nerfs my playstyle. All those people suggesting there should be some way for the defender to ‘fight back’ or to make a structure they can ‘destroy’ to end the war. We’re talking about people who might barely be able to use a cruiser with t2 guns. With level 4 tanking and fitting skills. People who might have focused on mining or building and fight in frigates. I have never seen a frigate take down a structure, though I suppose it could happen. People that don’t have the resources to fight a prolonged war. That simply can’t replace their ship if they can’t get out of station and perform their isk making activities.
I can only imagine what CCP would do to swing the pendulum over to the defender (like it is in null). Sure I have my ideas, but without knowing the numbers, I can only guess at what should happen. Look at the first statement I quoted above:
In my line of work, when a problem has the attention of ‘senior management’, it is never good and the results are rarely ‘mild’. In other words, this ‘problem’ is impacting the business of EvE in such a way that senior management has recognized it’s impact and is clearly not happy. I don’t expect ‘simple’ solutions to come out of this at all…
Well, that higher purpose is a form of engagement. Usually, it comes in form of an unfolding narrative, something to get the players interested in seeing ‘where do my efforts lead?’ And that’s something EVE should have. One of EVE’s big selling points is ‘your actions matter’… and in null, and to a lesser degree in lowsec and FW, they do. But there’s no reason they shouldn’t matter everywhere.
Even mission results can matter. Look at experiments like Living Greyhawk and other community-directed settings. Groups all over the world run the published adventures (missions) and send in a synopsis of ‘what happened’. Then the GMs (as opposed to the specific DMs for a group, in someone’s home) take that information, aggregate it, and come up with a ‘how did this adventure officially resolve?’
And that’s not a mission that’s already being run, in every single instance, on the same server. I’m not saying every mission could or should do that. A lot of them are standard enough scenarios that they could happen a hundred times a day, no problem. But having a few mission-chains that come out each month or each quarter, and are set up so that the player(s) know their actions are part of a larger group action… or really, part of half a dozen or more potentially conflicting group actions… that should be possible. Then a couple of weeks, or a month later, once the GMs/Lore team have time to look over the data, the news item comes out with what the combined effect was.
Player actions should matter, after all. It’s EVE.
Well, one thing I was thinking of was ‘improve the drops from kills’. The more damage you do overall (ie: the difference between 1-2 people who slowly whittle down a ship, vs 200 Maelstroms volleying an interceptor), the less of the target is left. Maybe you end up with metal scraps. Maybe you get most of their modules.
Maybe you need to lock your tractor beam onto the lifeless hulk and haul your new repairable hull back to station… hope nobody activates the suspect timer that tractoring some other corp’s wreck just gave you!
I actually think it’d be a big change for null. Imagine if you could kill some idiot’s ratting carrier, and actually drag it off to repair it… if you can make it home. Obviously, you’d want to avoid ‘we just killed 10 titans with our 200, now we have 210 titans’ (which is why the ‘less loot for more overwhelming force’), but if you can make money by not PvEing… I think a fair number of people might jump at that.
Exactly. This would just be a public, semi-automated version of the coordination that established groups already do. But you’d need to offer at least some awox-protection.
Nerf the spawn rate that nullsec groups pay to get? Anomalies don’t happen in huge numbers just “because”, you know. You need to put in iHUB upgrades that cost a pretty fair amount to install, and IIRC, those upgrades also increase the monthly sov cost for that system.
sure but rather pvp fleet content.
My idea for group content is rather than locking them in mindset that you need N+1 players in default fits to get reward x (for pve) have them interact with each other to form group content (not specially pve). Activity tracker made me think about something. It will be in game tool that shows what kind of activity we may do in EvE in one place. Why not encourage same thing by emergent gameplay made by players themselves and also be build in game. So if in-game bulletin board existed player may post various infos about services and other stuff they want to post. For example corp A is decced by corp B, they post on bulletin board an request if anyone can guard them them while they are decced (it this example they are miners), corp Z enter the stage. We have conflict drivers, creators etc. This naive ofc, mechanism may be abused but worth think about it.
I’ve truncated your first half with just quoting this. It’s a nice idea that you have and I agree with what you’ve said. Ofc, a narrative can be a higher purpose too!
I think the elephant in the room for your idea is: the time constraints CCP has. I think it’s a good idea that is worth to refine, but yeah - I doubt CCP would free up the time it takes to do that, as unfortunate as it may be.
So what you really said is: FEAR BRAVE?
Jokes aside. Again, good idea but also time consuming.
What like those AFK cloaky campers being added to your white list…
Some people will, it is a question of how many…, and please note that I suggested CCP make it so that people ganging up can rep each other and not go suspect…
Usually, it comes in form of an unfolding narrative, something to get the players interested in seeing ‘where do my efforts lead?’ And that’s something EVE should have. One of EVE’s big selling points is ‘your actions matter’… and in null, and to a lesser degree in lowsec and FW, they do. But there’s no reason they shouldn’t matter everywhere.
