Fixing Eve's Mission System

Avatar
am I going nuts or have you posted this exact article somewhere before. the deja-vu is crippling
Avatar
The following sentences from the article are embarrassing to read:"There was players who did not know what warping was in EVE's early days, much less how to do it.""Sure, being forced to lose a ship implying that losing ships is part of the game, but that's nowhere near what it should be. ""Sure, keep themes going on depending on the agent assigning the mission, but don't be predictable. "You guys need to take a rolled-up newspaper to the editor in charge of this article. He didn't do his job. Compelling insights like this..."Adding some arbitrary tax on an activity will do nothing to change the game landscape, player knowledge, or activity."... deserve examination by an editor who isn't asleep or retarded. It's just not fair to Marlona Sky.
Avatar
Aye I concur with this assessment. If I wanted to PvP i'd go roam lowsec places which is a conscience choice I would make. But usually the first PvP somebody in Eve encounters is a gate camp that is hardly ever a fair fight or a suicide ganker. Neither of those two are able to be overcome with proper PvP skills.
Avatar
So your saying your view of playstyle should be forced upon them?
Avatar
Probably -the- best written article to address the current underlying reason high sec is so separate from low sec is separate from null. And while not perfect, the idea demands a discussion on how to change the underlying reason why EVE is a 3 distinct space games. This has a road map on how to make it 1 inclusive universe.
Avatar
The problem with getting players to move around is there are 100's of systems to move around in, just because they aren't in one area doesn't mean they aren't in another. CCP even made this worse by implementing wormholes. Sure they are a great idea, but you don't hear anyone saying close the wormholes to get people moving.
Avatar
PVP related character skills, sure. PVP related *player* skills, not true. You may not be able to kill of the gate camp, but knowing what you're doing can get you out alive quite often. Same is true with suicide ganks.Again, the point you two are missing is that these changes don't force PVP upon you. What they are doing is introducing an environment that is still very much PVE, but gives players the tools they need to begin getting involved in PVP, if they so choose.
Avatar
In addition to the other suggestions posted here, I'd recommend watching videos/streams of some of the more prominent PVPers. I'd suggest watching some Kil2 videos on youtube, or watching Sard Caid's stream at www.twitch.tv/sardcaid
Avatar
You must have missed the part about missions moving to low sec and null sec. This would be forcing PvP on the players. That, or ship spin until the null seccers get done warring and run the missions out of their systems and back into high sec.
Avatar
I think this is an amazing idea. I've recently joined a new corp - and have had to grind missions to build standing with out corporate office station corp and I've got to say I'm bored. I hadn't been one to grind missions, so I've been going through the ranks and am doing L3's right now. Once I got offered the L3's my heart jumped and I got excited about getting into what I had hoped would be challenging fights. I've quickly learned that a Cap Stable PVE fit ship tanked for specific damage doesnt need much supervision or any manual flying. I live the idea of the agents movi g around the universe and requiring PvP type fittings. I think this could add new life back into the eve story and world too! The stories and missions of regions and systems changes and evolves as agents make their track to low sec, there would become new convoys of NPC shuttles and agents flying around. Maybe it could be a start to the whole high sec world and story becoming more dynamic and vibrant too?
Avatar
No, I didn't. When I read this part I actually laughed. The reality is that most players will simply stay in a relatively static area and switch agents as they roll through (assuming that you are not stuck with only having access to one agent at a time). Since CCP is highly unlikely to implement that restriction, the players that don't wish to go to low/null would never have to.More importantly, there are other ways that already force players into non-consensual PVP, such as suicide ganking, wars, and safaris. These are (hopefully) here to stay for a very long time, but forcing someone to actively seek PVP is not what this change should do, nor proposes.
Avatar
do you think it is a good idea to force feed carebears 'pvp skills' by changing the entire mission system into something most of them do not want and will likely abandon?
Avatar
I think that you're projecting your fear of change and hatred of non-static content onto a lot of people. People optimized running missions to maximize profit, not because they necessarily enjoy doing the same humdrum thing over and over. There are obviously people like you, though in my experience as someone who has killed a *lot* of mission runners, there aren't as many as you are indicating.Some people will leave because of this, and some people will stay who otherwise would have left. Mixing up the PVE content, in particular missions, is not an inherently bad thing. If in doing so you can help people be better equipped for PVP, that's a huge positive in my book. The proposed change isn't going to force you to go out and actively hunt and kill other players. It's going to mean you're going to have to use your head more, though there will undoubtedly be guides for many of the 'emergent situations' that you can base off of.Frankly, if that is too much for you to handle, maybe you should return to mining.
Avatar
Seems we have no dispute. I’m not against change; I’m all for new blood and we both are highly dubious of Marlona_Sky’s proposal.
Avatar
We could always use more Incursion fleets /s.Something that people need to look at with these supposed fixes is what happened to level 5 missions. They used to be group content that high sec carebear mission runnign corps used to do. Then, due to complaints from the lower sec crowds complaining about the money that high seccers were apparently rolling around in, they moved them to low sec. Mission runners stopped running level 5's, and moved to level 4 missions. These missions can be soloed (level 5 could not), and due to that fact it became more efficient for everyone to run their own level 4 mission in a pimped out ship rather than group together with logi, ewar, etc. So they pretty much killed the social aspect of high sec life.Yeah, mission runners used to be social types, that flew squads with boosters, logi, dedicated tank ships, etc. Complaints from the lowsec/nullsec crowd killed that. It remained that way for years until Incursions were added into the game and a social life started back up. PvEers had reason again to fleet up and be sociable.Any attempt to force PvEers into lowsec and null sec is doomed to failure. These types of players will simply right it off and start blitzing level 3's. Take those away, and its level 2's, or more likely mining, exploring, grouping up for Incursions, or possibly canceling sub.The main problem I see with articles and threads of this nature is it assumes that all players of Eve enjoy the same thing. This is a fallacy and is why what starts to be a good idea ("bring exciting changes to missions!") ends up doomed in misdirected attempts to make everyone a pvper.
Avatar
Marlona's article was about instituting a system that moves agents as they are used, hence the discussion of a system that would inevitably force mission runners into low/null or leave them at the whim of null sec player base.Suicide gankers and war decs are another breed of conflict that aren't currently being discussed and have no bearing on Marlona's proposed changes to mission running content." but forcing someone to actively seek PVP is not what this change should do, nor proposes."Are you addressing some other proposition here? Because it sounds to me like you are speaking about something else than what she (Marlona) has written here.
Avatar
It's a pipe dream, this will never be true. PvE skills, fits and optimizations will NEVER look like PvP. The type of tank, DPS, and mobility choices and tradeoffs you make for PvE are diametrically opposite to PvP choices, and will always be gamed and optimized by players to the specific situation. "Random" missions will fail, just like kitchen sink PvP fails. When you go out on a PvP op or roam or even solo, you're in a doctrine fit 99% of the time. 99% of the time you run into a counter fleet, you turn the other way. The game goals of PvE and PvP players are totally different.
Avatar
See. Better equipping people for PvP would be great. But lets be honest. A carebear knows how to avoid the PvP they want to avoid. What kind of carebear would support a new system that dents their relaxing mission running they do. That may impact their income. And is trying to force some PvP skills on them. This is not a theme park. If they want a Dev to hold their hand. They need another game.The tutorial needs a re-work. It needs to be way more exciting for new blood to try it out during their 14 day free trial and then they subscribe because it was fun. I think missions should broaden to cover Logi,EWAR, Dodging gate camps. Camping a gate. But it should all involve NPCs. Carebears don't want to PvP. What part of this do you not understand? Why do people not understand that if a carebear wanted to pvp. They would go look for the info they need to learn how. But some people are content to just sit in L4 missions and mission all day. Its relaxing and low stimulation. It makes them good amounts of money. It provides them they content they want.So yes. Missions need to be re-vamped. But to be more diverse. To provide the PvP like situations flying as a tackle or a logi or an EWAR ship in an NPC situation. Then if they get the inkling of. "Oh boy that was alot of fun. I really liked jamming out that ship so they couldn't shoot me." Then research comes out. They start asking questions to see what they need to get into that aspect.But to re-vamp it with a PvP Centric mindset will simply run the carebears off and potentially cause unsubs and a drop in LP items as they move away from missioning to do other stuff that doesn't include PvP.
Avatar
I disagree with forcing players to "omni-tank". I think that is a mistake, as "omni-tanking" is not necessarily ideal of PvP. A good PvP'er switches damage types to take advantage of resistance holes in the opponent, and simply encouraging people to always omni-tank really undermines this concept.I really like the concept of agents moving and progressing through levels, although I think your end-goal is unrealistic. At least, not without significant changes in game mechanics. Several issues come up:a.) An organize pirate gang will wipe the floor of disorganized mission runners... even when outnumbered 10 to 1! This makes a mass exodus of players running missions in Low/Nullsec extremely unlikely, as the lone wolf will always be on the short end of the stick when they get caught. This forces missioners to band together (which is a great thing), but I'm not sure how well they can compete.b.) A large portion of the playerbase is risk adverse enough they will simply move from level 4 agent to level 4 agent. Faction standings allow them to accomplish this, and if you create a universe where you run out of Level 3 & 4 agents, I don't think you'll see the exodus to lowsec you desire... at least, not without significant changes to the rewards that "cover" the significantly increased risks. You would also, ideally, have a new form of "standings" where you are more tied to single agents than corporations!
Avatar
The upshot of the above is really to say that PvE fits will never stand up to a proper PvP fit. Pseudo-PvP tactics against NPCs will never stand up to even a rudimentary skilled proper PvP player. PvE will never be able to simulate PvP to the extent as to "prepare" a player for a PvP scenario. In something like Quake Arena, you can lose for a week against a new bot opponent, respawning each time, until you figure out the particular bot AI and begin to develop tactics against it, and can start winning. This will not work in EVE PvE. You can tolerate many many losses in PvP, assuming you can fund replacement ships, but PvE is where those funds come from. There needs to be a reliable source of income. You can make money at PvP, eventually, maybe not today, but it will never be reliable. A bad losing streak will run you dry, and you will need to fall back to something more reliable. Is mining going to be the gold standard?
Avatar
"The reason why most players avoid and/or hate PvP is due to a lack of knowledge brought about via missioning."That's a pretty broad-reaching assumption; it's flawed on a number of levels, yet you simply state it as a fact. Do you have some sort of source to back this up? I would contend that this is just plain incorrect.The problem I see with your overall approach is that you want to make PvE more like PvP by making missions inherently more complex and difficult, while failing to understand who the PvE missioners are. Yes, there are those who do PvE missions and have no interest in PvP at all. For the most part, making the missions more difficult will not interest these people in PvP; a lack of knowledge is not their reason for avoiding PvP, it is a lack of desire, and that is something which you can not force to change. You can make changes so that some experiences better align with those desires, or make those experiences enticing enough to overcome them, but the moment you try to force someone to engage in activity contrary to their core desires, all you succeed in doing is driving them away. Then there are the PvPers who actually fund their PvP through missions. Do you think they will appreciate it if you make missions more difficult and time consuming? What you would effectively be doing is increasing the cost in man-hours of their PvP, meaning that they have to spend more time and effort in PvE to cover a PvP loss. For some, this may be enough to drive them from PvP entirely, which would have the exact opposite effect of what you intend.I would propose that the real reason a lot of missioners avoid PvP is because they see the time it takes them to afford a ship, and that time and effort is not worth the few minutes (or seconds) of fun they get before it blows up, and then they have to start all over again for what? Another few minutes, then poof. It's the old risk vs. reward discussion, but from a side that rarely gets any attention. To many non-PvPers, the risk of PvP heavily outweights the reward. To these players, the reward for PvP is more hours grinding missions, so making missions more difficult effectively decreases the incentive to PvP. If you really want to get more players into PvP, try improving the rewards so that it feels like less of a punishment. It takes a bit of experience and skill to make PvP profitable, or even less unprofitable, as you have to win at least somewhat consistently to do so. Someone just starting out at PvP is going to lose a lot; some may never get a good kill:loss ratio. If PvP were profitable enough to sustain itself for all who participated, I guarantee there would be a lot more players involved. I realize that making PvP 100% profitable is taking things a bit far, but I'm just trying to make a point. As it stands now, most players have to use outside sources to fund their PvP activities. For many players, that cost is too high; they put a lot of effort into getting to where they are, and they don't want to feel like that effort was wasted by watching it get blown up. Bottom line, it's basic economics: if you want more people in PvP, you have to decrease it's cost, not increase it (as making missions more difficult would do). If more players feel PvP is affordable, they will be willing to experiment and to lose a few ships in the process. That is how they learn PvP, by doing, not by turning missions into PvP simulators. In any game, tutorials are meant to teach you the basic mechanics. I'm not saying that the tutorials as they are shouldn't be improved, just that they should remain a starting point. For learning PvP, there is no substitute for experience. If you make the reward worth the risk, you'll get more players willing to get that experience.
Avatar
Dude she's not even a princess, just the daughter of someone who works for the company who's father went bleating to management to help after she ran away to make bank for space smack.WTF you doing picking her up?
Avatar
I disagree with several points made in the article. To begin with, forcingplayers to team up for a mission is a bad thing because instead of enjoyingcontent you're now waiting for a condition to be met. Boredom will set in fromwaiting around. The next point was that pve/pvp players grow further apart& to get them closer. Well, that's already the case with every 0,0 pilotout there who has to pve to earn isk for ships so I don't get it. Missions arejust to get you started then it's down to 0.0 for the ratting anyways. Thosethat refuse to go into low/null simply have no vested interest in pvp, livewith that fact. Finally asking players to start warp disrupting rats is a bitsilly considering most players running level 3/4's early on are struggling withthe amount of skills they already have to learn.
Avatar
Your first paragraph perfectly describes level 5 missions. There used to be corporations, very social, that would do level 5s, which could not be solos in hi sec due to no carriers. There were specialized booster, logi, tank, dps and ewar roles. The level 5s got moved to low sec, completely killing the community, until incursions were brought in, but they're hardly the same thing.Something to be said for unintended consequences.
Avatar
Incursions did at least 2 of the things you bemoaned: forced players to omni tank and move around space alot. Also since there is no tutorial for incursios it forced players to seek out other players to learn from each other.
Avatar
Stopped reading when you called Kung Pow! a terrible movie.Your opinion is forever invalid.
Avatar
...I'm sorry, but our Princess is in another POS!
Avatar
If you also don't complain about the occassional high sec gank, then I see nothing wrong with your argument.
Avatar
So, if I'm reading this correctly, you'd like to force solo mission runners to team-up to be able to enjoy their chosen play style, in a game they're paying to play - and you think that's a good idea?How about CCP forcing all Null anomalies to dump people in hisec... sound retarded? I thought so...The mission system, for those who can bear to play it, could seriously do with a revamp. The rewards are fine, but the risk is nowhere near an equal match - that's my opinion on the matter.I'm a lowsec smallgang/solo pvp'er, and the last thing I want to see is people quitting EVE left right and centre from hisec - whether they're Carebears, or not - they're paying to play, that shouldn't be forgotten.
Avatar
Oh for thelove of god don't do this killing these Carebears is so much fun anyone that put officer mods on tengu deserves to be taught a lesson. Thanks for the drops btw.
Avatar
Yea because carebear emo loners will be greatly missed...why people play this game for years solo with no intention of using that wealth to make things go boom is beyond me.
Avatar
Not my cup of tea either, but the game certainly doesn't run on charity...
Avatar
Interesting changes in a lot of ways however the migrating of agents to low/null esp sov null is a bad idea. I have a feeling what would happen is most of the agents would end up stuck in sov stations and never leave ending up in blocking up the mission pipeline unless a group of high sec mission runners is going to group up and capture sov from HBC/CFC which I don't see happening any time soon esp since very few high sec missioners have caps or any experience with caps.
Avatar
Remember GOON came from a bunch of retards in rifters coming to fight the big boys of null. Its not unthinkable to believe a bunch of high seccers couldnt do the same.
Avatar
This is as illogical as suggesting children should learn to read and write (PVP) before they learn to speak (PVE) as in the long run they will need to be able to read and write and it's very different to speaking.
Avatar
No reason you can't keep some of the easily-optimized missions that are out there now and add new dynamic ones to the mix. Keeps the sandbox feel and let's players choose whether they want to open their horizons a little or not.
Avatar
True, but they were organised and united by a common source (sa.com). Random Mission Runners United isn't such a compelling force of unity.
Avatar
i think you are projecting your fear and hatred for highsec dwellers onto me. just to be clear: i do not live exclusively in highsec. i may or may not have alts in faction warfare, w-space and may or may not be a Knight of the New Order of HighSec. but i also enjoy relaxing in lvl4s once in a while and in contrast to you, i actually communicate with mission runners a lot and therefore claim a better knowledge of what most of them do and do not want.
Avatar
Rewards from heavily used agents should be reduced over time. Rewards from rarely used agents should increase over time. No matter where the agents are located. Problem solved.
Avatar
if i were for perfect safety, i would be still playing wow. no wait. that game was horrible.
Avatar
In the exact same way that there are websites that mission runners can seek out to find out how to run missions, there are websites that aspiring PvPers can seek out to help them learn the fundamentals of PvP.As I see it, the issue isn't primarily with the mission system, it is with the mindset of players in the game. Sure, the mission system could be better at guiding players through the concepts that are required for PvP (eg no NPC mission ship actually warps away and needs disruptors to hold down), but there are plenty of resources available to anybody willing to look for them.
Avatar
PVE is a means to an end for a lot of people, I personally would like to see a set of tools made by CCP and open sourced that would enable people to make their own missions to create a more fresh content (the better missions staying in the game the bad ones plus the the possibility of making better pvp orientated missions like the 'Dread Pirate Scarlet Mission' introduced the possibility of actually wanting to fit a warp disrupter. Making more high end missions for frigate and cruisers would be good where loosing your ship is a possibility, but they are cheaper so easier to replace. Things that prevent running missions with other people are that it does not make sense in isk terms and also increases the chance of awoxing.I have to say the moving of agents to null sec is a pretty terrible idea as the current political situation stands because it only would encourage further blueing up. Also the null sec alliance would be inundated with people not really that interested in fighting other players. Never mind the coding problems it seems like a mammoth task one which may be very unpopular in a lot of quarters.Generally most pvp has grown from a grass roots level, e.g. Goonswarm were a bunch of guys that created a community that encouraged pvp same for Test and countless other entities they just made it big. The trouble people face is they have no one to fleet up with on a regular basis, we have tried to introduce ops and the response has been luke warm resulting in a lack of participation and running into 30 man gate camps two jumps in does not help either. If CCP were to do anything it would be to enable players to find other players to fleet with.If you look at the success of 'bombers bar' (in game channel check it out for stealth bombing), the community can provide if people are willing to pick up the torch 'be the change you want to see'. Sorry for the wall of text
Avatar
Well I don't agree on this. Missions should be more variable that I agree on. The tutorial should be better on training you on the mission ahead. that I agree on. Blitzing a mission should be allowed but there should be a risk in it. I don't mind if they totally overhaul the missions parts of eve. For example wouldn't it be nice if the tutorial mission gives you a "side mission" where you can choice to side with the pirates. (Wolf story line).Give the players one of several missions so that you can suite there play style.Multiple victory conditions is another way. one that allows you to be brutal and swift but very dangerous one that longer and require some travelling and doing it the easy way. and one that requires fines.
Avatar
+1 If carebears were exposed more to pvp knowledge, then they wouldnt be crying about being the victim so much to ganks, as they would have the knowledge on how to survive those types of situations by fitting thier ships properly ahead of time. They also might actually be effective at fending off Wardecs as they have some idea on what modules are more effective for this part of the game, rather then dropping corp or using some other type of cowardly tactic. This would not be forcing pvp down thier throughts, but it would make thier chances of survival spike up.Also for people trying to defend the stagnit mission running content by doing away with pvp in high sec, just remember, no where in eve is truly safe, not even empire. Most of what ive seen in this article just simply wants to educate people on mechanics used in the game for another aspect of the game. That doesnt make it wrong to want the developers to share 100% of the content they have spent the last 10 years trying to perfect. It would broaden players scope of the game to something they might end up enjoying but never got the chance too under the current system. These changes also wouldnt force carebears into low/null as they could always choose to run a mission from another agent in empire, but for those who want to try a new experience by gathering up thier corpmates who fit thier ships for potential pvp thanks to the knowledge they recieved through a newly revamped tutorial would in my opinion have a blast.
Avatar
With the changes suggested in this article you'd find that learning about how pvp players fit thier tanks wich generally try to increase resist accross the board with as much HP points you can stuff into eithef shield or armor, it wont matter what kind of NPC dmg t uh pe you come accross, youll have the resist and HP to tank it. Thats something that your just not going to learn from they way the current system runs now.
Avatar
Corpse love, best love!
Avatar
All fine and dandy but I already know how to pvp, I run missions to fund explosions or just to tool around in stress free manner when I feel like it. How that change would suit me? And probably not only me, Eve is not clearly cut between pure carebears and bloodthirsty pvpers, probably most of players live in grey area of both worlds.
Avatar
I must admit that existing PvE is underwhelming as content. However, there is one thing that stops me from going all out "hey, bring it on!" about your article. First, the thing that is well known: people are well aware that PvE is just an aspect of EVE and it's not everything about combat. Some don't know how to fight PvP, but it's not like they won't ever realize that it's a different game. Regardless of what kind of players exist in EVE, existing missions serve as a stable income source for people, no mattet how they spend it. It's not even huge income compared to some risky and demanding activities out there, but it is big enough to make most toys of EVE (the things many are playing this game for, mind you) accessible and welpable. Think about it, will you spend some serious ISK to buy Pilgrim to actually attack someone out there when you know you can grind it back in 2-3 hours at most almost for sure (and you can schedule that, taking Corp, RL and community stuff into account), or when you know that you must risk another in lowsec exploration (and rely on chance)? Granted, the latter option can be much more profitable if done right, but you still can't be sure if you are going to have your meal tomorrow, figuratively speaking.So, to put my vague thoughts into somewhat coherent thesises:1) Existing missions is a reliable way to have your fun funded. If you can fund your fun, you don't absolutely need those attempts to make grind fun (but only because those can turn out wrong).2) Successfulness of suggesting "carebears" to go out is doubtful, but creating more incentives for those who maybe want to is welcome. I, for once, think that CCP did something right with pirate epic arcs. Obviously, they should stay what they are, I just mean that additional content in lower security zones definitely won't hurt.3) New tutorial is welcome as well, but they aren't supposed to teach people how to PvP (which actually implies flexibility of thought, something one-run sequence can't provide). Instead they must get people familliar with controls and (important!) grab their attention, inspire some excitement about possibilities, make people want to stay.
Avatar
That may be the most elaborate "play my way or go away" article in years. But all in all, it burns down to some arrogant ass telling other players that they're playing the game wrong, without as much as asking them what do they think of the way they play the game.Why should anyone pay to get PvE content that suited your way, Marlona? Why should anyone aim to be like you? Because "they've been trained wrong"?
Avatar
I like the whole idea of a less static high-sec. But i don't feel that agents should move to lower security status systems after a while. I feel that instead of trying to force people into a low or null sec pvp situation, It would be wiser to open up to more pvp and competition into high sec and use missions, mining and other carebear activities to spark a pvp enviroment in high-sec.First of all, I would suggest rebuilding the missions themselves. Have more objectives and variations. Some agents should focus on soloable missions with a lot of objectives, while some could focus on non soloable missions. Limit what ship types can enter what missions and use the statistics gathered to dynamically change the difficulty of a mission based on what ship enters the mission. (For example; If tengus start ripping through a specific mission much faster than anything else, increase difficulty while tengus are in the deadspace pocket)High sec would be a lot more emergent with a flat agent system where your standings to said agent(influenced by corp standings) would dictate what kind of missions you would be able to get from that agent, so that All agents were essentially a Lv1 through Lv4 agent. But with the added twist that rewards would decrease as an agent was used(supply/demand) more than average. This would definitely decrease payouts in high-sec more and more while under utilization of low or null agents would make that the goldmine that would potentially lure people into low-sec gameplay. If nothing else, spread people out a bit more, and spark more conflicts. If the payouts they receive are to low, they would eighter have to war dec other corps living in the same hub, harass them out by can flipping/etc, look for a more quiet system or just live with low payouts.(Limiting high-sec resources as well could also spark a more merc market).Risk management is also key here, the more a player sticks his neck out the more likely he will be targeted. Its easier to sell the idea of higher risk means higher reward if the player can slowly progress and chose when more risk is right for him.Going from 0 risk in high sec to pretty high risk if you want to make the same kind of isk in low can be daunting for many.
Avatar
Some things I’ve learned in my space life:1) People resort to emotion and belittling when they lack reasoned argument to support their ideas. I’m not “pissing my pants” but I can understand why you claim that.2) It’s possible to mix good ideas and bad ideas in a post. Hiking up the excitement in the tutorials is a good idea. Redesigning all missions towards better PvP preparation is . . . not so good*. Introducing mission agents to Null-Sec sounds like a good idea to me. Doing that by filching (migrating) them out of Hi-Sec is . . . not so good.3) Marlona, do forgive me, but your hubris is showing. You’re “real PvP” endgame play is not EvE’s one true and divine endgame play. I can see this is difficult for you to understand (who’s suffering tunnel vision?). I’m pleased you’ve found your gig. Because others aren’t into your gig doesn’t a) devalue your gig nor b) mean CCP is screwing up because they are not stewarding players towards your gig. It just means that people are different.*The footnote – As already well argued by other posters, PvP is a dynamic thing making redesigning missions to better prepare players for (and thereby promote) PvP both a Herculean and Sisyphean task. If done too well it may also set up an odd perverse incentive: the better and more PvP like the missions, the less reason one has to join the sandbox for a little genuine PvP.
Avatar
I liked the content of the article and agree with the main point of bringing PVP and PVE skills closer, although I'm not so sure about the suggestions on how to make this happen. The author is correct in saying that one of the main problems is the difference in how you fit a ship for PVE or PVP. Looking beyond missioning and hi sec, the current system reduces the likelihood of engagement between the two parties, as any half decent player would not engage in a PVE fit (unless you have some uber-WTF officer loot pinata, and even that usually gets you guaranteed access to ALOD o7).Having spent some time in wormholes, I really miss the AI of sleepers which is much closer to PVP than the other retarded NPC AI. You have to focus fire, you need an omni tank, and if an unexpected visitor comes in, you stand a chance of being able to repel the heathens. I know the incursion rats are similar, but have not really done enough of those to make a comparison. However, the current system definitely favours the attacker, and does not give any chance to the PVE'er unless they are in a bait ship (even those dont always work as bait as you may not be able to tank the rats).On a final note, the only reason i continue to rat is because i need the ISK, but the actual process itself is mind-numbingly repetitive - I cant understand how people justify that as being a viable activity in a game. Had it not been for the change on rat aggro mechanics, the current system does nothing to promote an immersive environment that evolves and changes.
Avatar
I started out a mission runner, like most players in EvE. When I transitioned to PvP, understanding damage types and resistance holes was paramount to loading the right ammo. My first PvP ships were tristans, completely low-meta fit, and loading the right type of rockets into the rocket launcher made a big difference in the "close fights" I had.Resistance hole plugging is common in PvP, but there is almost always an "optimal" damage type to use. Also, if you know who your enemy is, you can metagame your tank to negate their dps!
Avatar
You interpreted this article all wrong. It has nothing to do with 'play my way' and everything to do with giving knowledge to new players and current mission runners.
Avatar
so speaks a null sec player, seems like a way for null to gain even more power and enslave all the noobs
Avatar
Ok so there's been a lot of comments covering a lot of valid objections to this. I have 2 to add which I don't think have been said. (I didn't read every word everyone wrote).1. It's not hard to get into pvp in Eve, I was ninja looting in my 2nd week in Eve and highsec gate camping in an arty thrasher for shuttles laden with bpos, with a highsec pirate corp in my 3rd. It's worth noting with your system I couldn't have done the first part easily as there would have been no lvl4 mission systems for me to prey on.2. Somedays I'm not up for PvP or PvP alike activities all I wanna do is pew some red crosses and make some ISK, if you change the mission system to make it harder I'll just not login (play GW2 or something instead). I imagine I'm not alone in this, so as well as all the hardcore carebears who'd quit coz you just made their life too hard, you'd also lose a lot of players who'd only log in when they were 100% on form and up for PvP.These are not changes I want to see.
Avatar
All k, but there's one more thing to take into the ecuation. Mish runners are mostly solo guys. They play because they can play solo. Why does noone understand that you can't "force" peole to play the one or the other? Why would someone be blamable for not be willing to pew? Personally i like pve and pvp. That's my choice. Don't blame others wich prefer just one or the other. EvE is a mixed pack. You don't like it? Counterstrike is -----> way. There you can only pew. WoW is ----> way. There you can safely hunt unicorn and bad-70's porn-like dwarfs. "...stuck fighting the same group of players over and over while wondering if new blood will come." Maybe because failing to understand that there's sometimes more on this game? Wondering why people arent willing to pew in hisec? Because hisec pew isn't real pew, for most. Excepting wardeccs, ofc. Is just like pretending that attacking a solo missioneer, during his guristas missions, with EM ammo, is pvp. Nope, it's not. Want to call it pvp, then wardecc the guy.
Avatar
Ganking missioners with correct ammo exploiting their resist hole is pvp, after all it is a "player versus player" action. It may be not nice and polite but it is 100%pvp. On the other hand in hisec it will involve CONCORD response or missioner did something stupid which allows you for free aggression, like shooting you after you looted his wreck. Anyway, let's not confuse pvp with some fairy tale honorable knight duels.
Avatar
"I truly believe there is a place in EVE for everyone, and where they go and what they do should be based on how they choose to play." Sadly, nope. There's place in EvE for everyone as long they play it in a way you like them to. Noone will play a game in a way he does not like. Some will go no matter how far just for the pew. Their choice. Some will not. Also their choice. This means this game is player-driven. Means by far not that if they go in a direction you personally consider wrong, because of no matter what reasons, it's wrong. It's just what everyone chooses to do with his gametime. And sice we all know that pvp sucks in eve, don't talk about people do not know how it goes, or they bad because they won't get willing into it. Noone won't step willing in a battle he's gonna loose 100%. Not even you. And i don't talk about fighting once. I talk about long term things. I still love 10 years old players telling all the others they noobs and fail, and no single one of them will take a fight against a same old player, with same chances, no matter for what. Because this it's what's ever for real about: cowardness and stupid shaenigans. We talk about truth, about bots, about shit. What about putting a timer on cloakers? And make this kind of "pvp" real? Lol, all want the carebears to really grow teeths, but not real ones, just the ones wich can pretend to bite. Rofl, gents, rofl.
Avatar
This is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Thanks for the laughs.
Avatar
Your idea of universal affected stay time may just end up having 1 flaw.Null much like highsec does have a lot of carebears, not quite the same number but a lot.So if the highsec missioners are pushing them down to low someone needs to run them or there will be no missions so that will be an initial source of engagement but after awhile the gears will start greasing up someone will get the missions run and its down to null sec where they will get run in their safe sovbloc space then its back to the safe highsec missioners, and so on with the only real contest possible being lowsec gank effort.Maybe it will be more difficult to run missions constantly and consistently, but i don't think it will work as you like
Avatar
awesome article very good read. I was said one of those mission running care bears. I left the game for 2 years after only a couple of months of play due to not being prepared. i probed out a high sec site and got an escalation on reaching the escalation in 0.4 i began shooting all the little red crosses and all was going well. 2 pilots entered system i thought nothing of it........ how could they find me i thought, im the only person who has the site location. Next a drake is on my overview, thought i would have a go at him im in a drake what harm can be done, i could always warp off, went to warp...... bam! WTF waht magic is this, i cant warp away then a cynabal shows up bye bye drake. I left my wreck there feeling cheated how the hell did that happen, why was i not prepared for this.

Master Tang - "Pay no attention to Wimp Lo, we purposely trained him wrong... as a joke."

This line is from a terrible movie which I will not bother naming here, but it applies to how I feel about highsec players. It is not intended in a vicious and hateful way, though. It is how I feel about uninformed players when they try to combat other pilots who are aware of game mechanics and how to use them to their advantage. Simply put, such engagements are jokes and quickly dismissed as such.

Why the vast difference? One thing EVE Online teaches is that while accumulated skill points and wealth do grant distinct advantages, they do not always guarantee victory. The differences start off very subtle, but rapidly becomes more and more obvious. Both players in the aforementioned engagement were grabbed by the hand and shown what to do. One is prepared to omni-tank their ship, while the other tanks against a specific faction. We may think of Aura as a loving and caring hologram, but the truth is she trained you wrong... as a joke.

Well, not as a joke, but because the programmers of the game could not predict the future and see how two different players end up wedged further and further apart the longer they play the game. The tutorial is infinitely better than what the old-time vets endured. I started playing EVE a few months before Red Moon Rising, and when I started the tutorial a friend told me I was wasting my time and quickly showed me the basics of how to pilot my Osprey into war targets outside Jita 4-4. She was a brave vessel, and lasted a few minutes, much like most of my ships these days. The point of this tale is that a player had given me my first bit of good advice: closing the tutorial. All of my knowledge of game mechanics and tactics have come from another players since. Not Aura. I consider myself one of the lucky few; I already had a friend before starting the game.

Most new players do not have the luxury of knowing someone who knows the game mechanics. There was players who did not know what warping was in EVE's early days, much less how to do it. So they spent the first few days slow boating around the station and off grid, not knowing where they were. The lucky few established friends ranging from forum communities to real life friends looking for a trusted wing man to help them take over the universe. Or mine asteroid belts the whole day,

The new tutorial, although better, does not gear the average starting player with the right mindset for EVE and the excitement that goes along with it. Sure, being forced to lose a ship implying that losing ships is part of the game, but that's nowhere near what it should be. The tutorial is extremely slow and lacking the excitement needed to bathe the player in the chaotic scenes of space battles we love to talk about.

[]

WAY OF THE GUN

Introducing players to basic game mechanics such as approaching an object is boring.

Players should start the tutorial with pressing the F1 key to fire the gun of a Megathron while heayv fire explodes against the hull and ships fly around. While they admire the carnage, Aura screams at them to press that F1 key to fire rounds into the hull of a Scorpion that is jamming fleetmates. As the fight progresses, they are introduced to other aspects of button pressing, like activating an armor repair module or micro-warp drive. Most of the core mechanics should initially be handled by Aura, such as approaching objects. The point is that the player should learn the exciting parts of the game first. Not how to approach a mission gate and scoop a book from a cargo container.

In this dream tutorial, players feel important right from the start. They are satisfied from pulling the trigger on a big gun and blowing another ship to hell and back. They saved the day. During the tutorial they are taught highly likely scenarios they will potentially meet in real PvP. Just from this different take on the tutorial the player is more excited to fly new spaceships. They are playing and heading down a path towards understanding how engagements work. New players in the current tutorial are thinking spreadsheets and wondering whose starter ship they hijacked and why the local channel won't stop scrolling.

WATERING THE FLOWER

We want flowers with teeth.

The reason why most players avoid and/or hate PvP is due to a lack of knowledge brought about via missioning. Or specifically, as in Wimp Lo's case, learning the wrong way to fight. Players do fine in the beginning missions and, before long, they ask for help with the difficult missions. What is linked? A third-party website that has every possible mission mapped out, from ships to fly, ammo to load, what to tank, what to shoot, and when to shoot. Wrapped up with a nice bow on top.

Gone are the lessons learned from another player inside the mission. Trying different things to see which works is completely unnecessary now. It is all right there; so much detail and information. The new player quickly does the math, and they realize if they follow the guide no harm will befall them. As long as they follow this road map, it will take them around the dark forest, bypass the troll, grab the stack of money hidden over yonder, and guide them to the fastest way out of all danger and risk. Congratulations, you just created another carebear for life who will only mission, avoid PvP, and most likely be a loner who does the occasional "I don't know you, but I'm waving to be polite anyways" high sec dweller.

There needs to be a total and complete revamp of how missions operate. They need to incorporate as much of what combat is like playing against another player as possible. There are plenty of missions that are industrial and science related, but that is something else entirely and deserves its own spotlight. From the very first level one mission, players need to be taught to fit their ship according to the most common ways they would in PVP. For example, activating warp disruptors, omni-tanking, focusing fire, and maintaining proper distance.

Also, try to avoid having players fly missions alone. Force them to meet up with another player at the mission gate. If you must, introduce NPC ships as part of the new player's fleet. I'm not saying toss them into some mission with hundreds of NPC ships blasting away, but you get the idea. The player needs to be continually prepared for situations they will find out of highsec. Missions where they are not in a battleship blasting away, but in a logistics ship trying to keep NPC ships alive. Missions where they are a scout or tackle for a fleet, and if they don't learn how to come in at an angle instead of hitting the approach button they die and the friendly fleet is not able to get a warp in.

Perhaps by far the most important aspect of this new take on missions is the addition of completely random factors. I am not talking about if the Damsel in Distress is in can number three instead of can number one. What we need to see is a cyno going up and hostile ships jumping in. Perhaps another new player's mission asks them come into your mission with the intent to carry out a different or contradicting goal. The creators of mission guide website did an amazing job, but these new missions should be impossible to document. There should be a hundred different options on fifty different aspects of the mission.

Sure, keep themes going on depending on the agent assigning the mission, but don't be predictable. Zombie pilots blitzing missions without a care in the world should never be possible. This new style should apply to all variety of mission types, from the first mission all the way up to the extremely dangerous level five missions. Going into the unknown is critical to being prepared for player interaction and adds excitement back into an otherwise boring profession.

Right now, there is a huge difference in player mindset and interaction between the Daisy player and our new Venus Flytrap player. One is singing "Over the Rainbow" while the other has scary teeth. Ignorance of game mechanics is a huge issue for players new and old. I used to prey on mission runners for a while, and while it was rewarding in ISK and humor, it only was successful because I was shown by other players how to fit and fly a ship for PVP. My unfortunate targets only knew how to shoot red crosses and assumed the same tactics would apply against me.

Most of the time these mission runners would ask me how I managed to kill them after they had died. If they weren't screaming children I would spend a good deal of time trying to teach them about PvP. About half the time - if the ship I blew up was not expensive - I fully replaced their ship with mods, ammo, and rigs. To top it off, I did my best to introduce them to player organizations that I felt they would learn from and fit in with. As for the players who made a spectacle in the local channel or on the forums, I would simply wish them better luck next time and be on my way to the next victim.

I have been exploding internet spaceships since 2005. While I do love me a good large scale fight, I thoroughly enjoy small scale PvP as well.