This is absolutely false. There is intrinsic value in playing action oriented games because it is fun to play, even if the rewards are small. Eve is nothing like that. Your entire post is a delusion.
Thatâs nice.
Role play corps have never really interested me, but I know many people really enjoy it. Iâm happy that youâve found a play-style that works for you.
Fly safe, or dangerous, whichever you prefer.
Just find that ironic because that IS at the core of the problem with Eve, the huge number of economy crushing mining caps tapping almost unlimited null systems producing unconquerable fleets of maintenance free super caps.
3 Likes
Wow, thatâs an interesting idea. How much more fighting would there be if there was a cost to just holding onto an expensive ship?
1 Like
This was suggested something like 10 years ago but didnât go anywhere.
Maintenence cost for parking capital ships should have been added at the time when the rorquals were being made mining ships.
Also when we talk about perception, its a classic:
Proper game design is about specifically incentivizing the things you want to happen, and de-incentivizing the things you donât want to happen.
Making it expensive to hold onto a ship doesnât add incentive to playing/paying your way into owning that ship⌠it just penalizes getting the ship in the first place.
Game design is about deciding what is good for the game environment as a whole, and what your players will continue to play and pay for.
âOwning a capitalâ is not bad for the game, it is good. You want to encourage it.
âEndlessly farming resources so that capitals are cheap and affordable and everybody has one after they spend at least $300 skilling up for itâ is bad for the game. This is what you want to discourage.
It might be said that while owning/skilling for a capital is good for the game, only using that capital occasionally to stomp weaker players is bad for the game. (This sort of info would come from advanced data analysis of game activity, something CCP is not very good at.)
In that case, you might add a maintenance fee to capitals, but balance it out with some sort of reward structure that pays back the fee costs. You would then tilt that reward structure so it pays more for âhardâ fights (fleet wars) and less for âeasyâ ones (krabbing or steamrolls).
Overall this idea seems like a âtweakâ. Itâs not a central issue. The central issue is that EVE has too much reward for boring, bottable PvE activities, and not enough reward/reason for risky PvP activity. If that balance was changed, capitals would be more expensive, people would fight in a range of ships, and PvE activity would be reduced. Then capitals would simply need balancing for the kind of fights you want them involved in (from a game design perspective) rather than tweaking their ownership mechanics.
1 Like
Honest serious no trolling question;
Why or in what manner is owning a Capital good for the game?
Well, âgood for the gameâ has a lot of interpretations. In this case, I am using it in the sense of âif someone plays long enough, has raised enough resources to afford one, has subbed or injected into capital ship skills, and has the potential to use that capital to create/engage in contentâ, then thatâs probably good for the current version of the game.
It means the game has a long term player whoâs engaged in the economy, has long range goals, and is capable of participating in a wider range of conflict. So thatâs good, IMO, from a top-view design standpoint. It hits a lot of checkmarks for what a business wants to see in a consumer of their product.
Whether it is âgood for the gameâ from a âfunâ viewpoint, or from a non-capital players viewpoint, or from a âare small battles better for the game than big battles?â viewpoint, that would be a matter of discussion and opinion (without advanced data analysis on CCPâs end).
Personally, I think small scale battle, more frequent battle is much healthier from an interest/engagement perspective. The big battles make news but they arenât really sustainable given current game mechanics.
3 Likes
Ok cool yeah I can see that.
For all of you thinking Iâm delusional or that PVE canât match an ARPG philosophy.
Hereâs another wall of text explaining how PVE would make it with an ARPG point of view
All those ideas have to come up together, separately they wonât work as well.
-
Remove all implants 1-10 that gives bonus to ships and drug pills. If you want the edge, itâs going to be with modules.
-
Introducing mods META 6-12 in categories where they are lacking. Because of previous rule, make sure to have high meta mods for miners, hauler and other fittings than PVE fits.
-
Make missions, escalations, expeditions shorter. 20-30 min max to run a site. Expeditions should not require you to make 40 jumps to complete. Bigger delay for escalation de-spawn too.
-
No matter what PVE activities youâre doing, youâll get rare spawns (champions or elites). Theyâll fight with real fittings, they can recharge, they can have their cap drained, they can be vulnerable to ewar and only their wrecks will be worth looting. Their fleet composition could be random, youâll never know what ewar theyâll use on you. Before they spawn, youâll get a 5 sec warning to GTFO. That leaves lesser skilled solo pilots or damaged ships a chance to bounce.
-
All PVE wrecks except rare spawns will have no loot but you can salvage them. The goal here is that people who loot everything wonât be able to get minerals from reprocessing anymore, we want to leave the minerals to the miners.
-
While in fleet, all teammates will get their random loot from the rare wrecks. If no one from the fleet loot the wrecks, the first non-fleet pilot who loots it, will empty it. If all people from the fleet gets their loot, then the wreck will be empty for good.
-
No more split rewards for doing PVE activities, quite the opposite. The more people are in fleet, the more the AI ships on grid will be tough, the more loot each member of the fleet could get from the rare wrecks. The bonus could have a cap in order to avoid insane bonus with a fleet of 100⌠Those who multi box will benefit, but who cares, if they have 20 accounts, they count as 20 persons, thatâs how CCP considers them anyway.
-
Reprocessing rare mods 6-12 will give you rare mats. Those rare mats can only be used to re-roll the mods, just like abyssal mods.
-
Re-balancing industry so that a high % of equipped mods will be found instead of manufactured (except guns, missile launchers, rigs and drones). T2 mods could still be produced, but the demand for it should lower considerably. Industry will now have to focus on manufacturing ships + offensive mods.
-
All combat sites or PVE activities will now have gates, capital ships wonât be able to go through. High lvl combat sites will require a fleet. No more solo grinding in carriers.
So I think I didnât forget anything
- Tackled game time in PVE to be more friendly towards those with a job and conscious about a mix of gaming and healthy lifestyle. - CHECK
- Increase co-op, making it easier to make friends, Eve is supposed to be a social experience right !? - CHECK
- Create a system where you can equip your ship with high meta stuff you find. You could always buy the stuff but the new system should encourage finding modules and re-rolling them. - CHECK
- Create mods diversity to compensate for rule #1 - CHECK
- Create a loot system that is fair ; PVE wonât generate minerals and loot rewards donât need to be divided anymore. - CHECK
- Challenging AI and randomness added to PVE - CHECK
- Re-balancing industry so that they steer away from mods. - CHECK
Iâm sure there would be a mountain of details to discuss, but with those 10 changes in place I donât see how it canât fit into Eveâs philosophy.
1 Like
Diablo 3 is a steaming pile of horseshit. The reason you get so much purps (and this applies to WoW) is to keep that reward system in the âexpectationâ mode, where dopamine spikes itâs highest, and to make sure it stays there by always giving you a juicy purp. Thatâs what keeps you playing.
No thanks. EVE is not Hello Kitty online.
TLDR.
1 Like
By posting a âwall of textâ, it sounds like you have multiple issues with the game, and this is probably not the right game for you. And thatâs fine. Diablo 3 is a fine game - and thereâs nothing wrong if you want to go play that instead.
1 Like
So, we all should accept the game as it is and not talk about it ? Whatâs the point of this forum or the CSM ?
So, if your goal is to have a dialogue, this forum is a fine place to do it, but allow me to make a suggestion:
Consider limiting your post to the top 1 or 2 suggestions, talk about the flaw with the current mechanic, and offer some suggestions on how it could be improved. By keeping your argument focused- will make it much easier for people to understand where youâre coming from, either agree or disagree, and possibly offer an alternative solution. CCP/CSM (if they read the thread) can see the discussion around that mechanic, and assess if anything needs to be one.
Resist the urge to go all out because it comes off as more of a rant. Many people are going to stop reading half way through, and those that do read it are going to struggle to understand or respond to your point(s). Itâs information overload.
1 Like
Even though I donât agree with some of your ideas, I still gave you a like for thinking of how to help improve the game, which is a lot more than what most of these naysayers do.
Just gotta remember that posting any mention of changing the game here in the forums will almost always incite a lot of opposition.
I quit reading here:
Remove all implants⌠itâs going to be with modules.
That just seems like utterly useless. I assume your other suggestions are even worse, as people generally start with their best idea. Please reconsider your essay and resubmit after it has been given more thought.
Well, you must be from some backwards country then because the best is usually saved for last.