hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Eve PvE Fix: Multiplayer Nano PvE battlefield

  1. #1

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    2,578

    Eve PvE Fix: Multiplayer Nano PvE battlefield

    PvE in Eve is boring. It is boring partially because there has been no effort at creating new content, and the basic design generates no variety emergently at all.

    Instead of trying something extremely weird to make Eve PvE interesting, I have here attempt to make the PvE experience more like small gang Pvp experience, which is commonly considered the most interesting part of Eve gameplay.

    Core Ideas:
    I. Shared PvE Grid
    II. Nano rats

    I. Shared PvE Grid
    Instead of every mission runner having their own deadspace and grid to work with, missions will send a set of mission runners (~15 active missions) to the same grid with spawns adjacent to each other, separated by some 40~70km. Rats are labeled so that players can know which ones they need to kill for their mission.


    II. Nano capable Rats
    The stupid behavior of rats in PvE makes it tactically uninteresting. Instead of rats that do some variant of burn into range and shoot until it dies, it is more interesting to have rats have proper self preservation behavior.

    1. Rats have MWD and moves at proper speeds. >800m/s for battleships >1km/s for BC >1.5km/s for Cruisers >2km/s for frigates. They may also relocate via warp.
    2. Rats will try to burn away from incoming DPS if damaged beyond a certain point and even warp far off on grid in self preservation.
    3. Rats will have limited weapons range, ranging from point blank to 50km
    4. Rats will commonly have short ranged dps reducing Ewar (ECM, TD) (5-25km range) to promote people kiting. Damps also become common, however with reduced strength to prevent stunlocks. Webs/point/Scrams are also mounted on bigger, named ships, however less commonly on frigates since they are too fast to kite.
    5. Rats are stronger and fewer in number. The amount of local active rep in rats is significantly reduced, with EHP increased. Rats will also attempt maintain non-zero traversal while approaching/burning away from a dps applying source.
    6. High Value Spawns will have strong self preservation behavior. For example a high valued faction spawn can warp off grid (despawns) if too many NPC ships from its group dies, or it takes too much damage. To kill this you need to tackle the target while not killing the group. One can also make such rat's wrecks not have ownership (anyone can loot, first come first serve) to add to the competition.

    -----------

    The existence of other players and parallel missions in the same space greatly increases the potential for interaction and unique situations arising. Some players will leeroy rats into others in order to get them killed, some may cooperate, others may try to take salvage, take bounties, steal loot, and other means of getting an economic advantage at expense of others.

    The design of rats is to promote fighting at fast moving "medium" ranges where point is/can be applied. The high mobility of the groups means spawns from different players can easily merge and get mixed up to produce interesting and unique tactical problems to solve.

    With strong balancing work in rat spawns and ship PvE performance, a diversity of ships and tactics suited for all skill point and organization scales could be opened up with different PvE niches operating in the same space as well, for example those that blitz completion triggers with snipers, those that loots high value spawns with fast brawlers, those that farm bounties with massive medium range dps with bonused point and interacting with each other in complex ways.


    *.Troubleshooting lame tactics:
    Sniping: Sniping far out ranged Rats is tactically uninteresting. Rats will respond to snipers by either aggressing close enemies that it can hit if there is one, warping off, or warping closer if not. Defender missiles also should be made more common, however have its velocity tweaked so it is mostly effective against missiles from above 40km. (defenders don't work if you fire from a close range)

    Bastion mode: Rats will burn away/warp off from this obviously unengageable opponent. However a marauder can fight normally and get normal behavior, and use bastion only as a means of escaping a bad situation.

    ---
    With fast paced gameplay from mobile medium range combat combined with the unpredictability of other players doing PvE in the immediate proximity, I believe the design offers great potential for varied, emergent gameplay, both tactically and socially while being accessible to solo players under tight time constraints. This also prepares players for PvP in ship fitting and operating tactics better then alternatives.
    Last edited by Shin_getter; January 13 2014 at 07:40:30 PM.

  2. #2
    Varcaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 15, 2011
    Posts
    20,906
    Game desgin & Balance Discusssions Fix:
    Ban Shin_getter.

  3. #3
    Super Moderator DonorGlobal Moderator whispous's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Mails Tegg > пошел ты на хуй
    Posts
    4,742
    Quote Originally Posted by Varcaus View Post
    Game desgin & Balance Discusssions Fix:
    Ban Shin_getter.

  4. #4
    Ophichius's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 15, 2011
    Location
    Hedonistic Imperative
    Posts
    5,251
    Stupid design TBH. You know why nano works? Because you can disengage anything slower than you. By making rats disengage from threats -and- making them faster than anything tanky you're pushing tanked ships out of a role in PvE completely.

    The idea of having smarter rats is good, but nanoing them all is fucking stupid.

    If you wanted to argue for non-critical rats being nano and disengaging when too damaged, sure I could see it. Then your mission management becomes "Drive off nano group to reduce incoming DPS, blap targets until nano group returns, drive off nano group, etc." Which is mildly more interesting, but still succumbs to the basic issue of Eve piloting being fucking boring.

    What makes PvP in Eve interesting is that pilots don't act predictably. People get impatient, they get stupid, they get overconfident. Sometimes they're drunk and give no fucks. This makes fights with other players interesting in a way that NPCs simply aren't. It's the same reason that fighting games vs AI suck, but fighting games vs players are amazing. The game is simply a medium to match skill and wits with another person.

    -O
    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those Thukkers, that way I wouldn't have to have any goddamn stupid useless conversations with anybody.
    Failing the Voight-Kampff test, one tortoise at a time.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    2,578
    Saying that Player against environment is bad and Eve spaceships is bad is not really an valid argument against it. PvE will exist, and it must exist. Eve is the game in question here, and jumping the shark by pulling a SW Galaxy New Game Enhancement there is no changing what the core gameplay mechanics is about. One can only change the pieces.

    The question ought to be: is it better, can it be implemented, and is it worth it?

    -----
    Just about every subcapital with mwd can reach the speed and damage projection requirements needed to actually kill targets, if with a bit of overheat. (you can hot swap mods with depot if it gets burned out anyways) Get tackle on it and its dead. Get enough dps onto rats before it could burn out of range and/or slowly 'align' (assuming it even warps) and its dead. Even if the rat warps, it is still on grid (excluding rare drops), and warping to a wreck/struct/etc and/or use sniper weapons and it is still dead. Burning around a lot for battleships might give serious cap problems, however rats can be tweaked to drop capboosters consistently.

    Mission management is always dependent on objectives and capabilities. A total n00b running these content could be trying to kite himself while bouncing nano-groups away to control dps, something running heavy drone rattlesnake made for brawling rats with >2000dps tank would be about slignshots for getting tackle on target, while someone flying an tach paladin blitzing LP would be sniping triggers from across the grid while dodging warp-ins with mwd and mjd by non-essential rats.

    Mission DPS does not result in interesting battle management in most cases anyways, as tanks scale very well with isk and sp. Any content that is not very inaccessible to n00bs due to incoming dps is easily tanked by vets, especially solo content.

    DPS application is potentially a far more interesting factor to focus battle management upon then tanking. With short range ewar rats and escaping rats and somewhat improved sigtanking abilities, killing rats efficiently can become a complex battle management problem. Do I kill those sigtanking cruisers and long range or try to kill that ECM battleship that is closing into range fast? Do I match orbit with some battlecruisers to improve dps, or burn away from web frigs that will hold me down while my drones kills it slowly. Is that battlecruiser too far away to kill before it burns out of range after the 2nd volley, or I can get 4 volleys in to kill it before it burns out of range or should I heat my MWD now to get it killed for sure?

    Of course, single player games can never quite match PvP in interesting types of unpredictability, so the proposal did its best to put multiple players on the same grid with close by spawns. Other PvE players are just as unpredictable as PvP players, and they can heavily influence a PvEr's game, as someone who gets 5 mission worth of rats aggroed on them would soon learn.

    That said, Lets see some good alternatives if any actually have been posted somewhere.
    Last edited by Shin_getter; January 19 2014 at 03:30:02 PM.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    North Britain
    Posts
    1,998
    so... you're saying that afterburner frigates with short range guns, flown by newer characters, should not be able to perform any PvE task ?

    And that a new player should wait until they've trained enough skills to use a MWD, before they attempt to make any isk by shooting pve targets ?
    And that frigates with fewer than 3 midslots should be useless in PvE ? That shield tank PvE frigates shouldn't be possible ?
    That you shouldn't have to expend any effort in probing for mission runners? just accept a random mission, and get landed with 14 on grid to decide which to gank ?

  7. #7
    Super Moderator Global Moderator QuackBot's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 7, 2012
    Posts
    21,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophichius View Post
    Stupid design TBH. You know why nano works? Because you can disengage anything slower than you. By making rats disengage from threats -and- making them faster than anything tanky you're pushing tanked ships out of a role in PvE completely.

    The idea of having smarter rats is good, but nanoing them all is fucking stupid.

    If you wanted to argue for non-critical rats being nano and disengaging when too damaged, sure I could see it. Then your mission management becomes "Drive off nano group to reduce incoming DPS, blap targets until nano group returns, drive off nano group, etc." Which is mildly more interesting, but still succumbs to the basic issue of Eve piloting being fucking boring.

    What makes PvP in Eve interesting is that pilots don't act predictably. People get impatient, they get stupid, they get overconfident. Sometimes they're drunk and give no fucks. This makes fights with other players interesting in a way that NPCs simply aren't. It's the same reason that fighting games vs AI suck, but fighting games vs players are amazing. The game is simply a medium to match skill and wits with another person.

    -O
    Stupid fucking hipsters tbh.

  8. #8
    Tetsuo's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 7, 2013
    Posts
    2,066
    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophichius View Post
    Stupid design TBH. You know why nano works? Because you can disengage anything slower than you. By making rats disengage from threats -and- making them faster than anything tanky you're pushing tanked ships out of a role in PvE completely.

    The idea of having smarter rats is good, but nanoing them all is fucking stupid.

    If you wanted to argue for non-critical rats being nano and disengaging when too damaged, sure I could see it. Then your mission management becomes "Drive off nano group to reduce incoming DPS, blap targets until nano group returns, drive off nano group, etc." Which is mildly more interesting, but still succumbs to the basic issue of Eve piloting being fucking boring.

    What makes PvP in Eve interesting is that pilots don't act predictably. People get impatient, they get stupid, they get overconfident. Sometimes they're drunk and give no fucks. This makes fights with other players interesting in a way that NPCs simply aren't. It's the same reason that fighting games vs AI suck, but fighting games vs players are amazing. The game is simply a medium to match skill and wits with another person.

    -O
    Stupid fucking hipsters tbh.
    This.


    So far the best suggestions I've seen for high sec PVE is to make it more like PVP engagements. Less ships that are harder to kill versus mindlessly blasting 70 dumb rats split into three entirely predictable waves. More than anything I think the ship requirements for PVE should be downgraded so that you can do them in a battlecruiser at the highest level, and then the unpredictability should be scaled up in some way so that losing your ship is a semi regular occurance. I think the element of actual risk would make it far more interesting, and the balancing to use a more disposable ship will make it easier to get players to buy into this (ie, nobody is going to run level 4s if you need to invest in a fitted battleship, will only make 40m an hour, and will lose a ship every 10th mission).

    As for unpredictability, random spawns would certainly help. As well as situations similar to PVP situations where rat frigates tackle you and a big fuckoff blob lands 100km away such that you need to kill off the npc tackle before the blob kills you. Maybe situations where you need to take a nano ship and kill off a single brawler that tries to slingshot you repeatedly.

    That's just some ideas, but I think core principles to making PVE more interesting need to be;

    a) A degree of unpredictability
    b) A much greater potential for loss, with a lower ship requirement to make missions worth running even though you will lose ships.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator Global Moderator QuackBot's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 7, 2012
    Posts
    21,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Varcaus View Post
    Game desgin & Balance Discusssions Fix:
    Ban Shin_getter.
    But you can't fix my ban.

  10. #10
    Varcaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 15, 2011
    Posts
    20,906
    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Varcaus View Post
    Game desgin & Balance Discusssions Fix:
    Ban Shin_getter.
    But you can't fix my ban.
    Do it anyway quackers.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    2,578
    Quote Originally Posted by Tetsuo View Post
    a) A degree of unpredictability
    b) A much greater potential for loss, with a lower ship requirement to make missions worth running even though you will lose ships.
    There is unpredictable, and there is unpredictable in a way that generates ship losses.

    There are already unpredictable elements in Eve pve that causes ship losses, like eating two wrecking hit in short succession a stealth bomber, or warp into a room from acceleration gate at the wrong angle and draw whole room aggo on landing, or even perma-jammed to capped-out losses, to invariant disconnects, server fails and human errors. None of them are interesting at all.

    Given that Eve is a game where it is possible to have fleet comps that is nearly invulnerable to loss barring piloting error to anything less then a full fleet of dreads, unpredictability doesn't do much. Unless rats actually alpha or do something on the order of >10k combined applied dps, there are compositions that'd tank it with no problem. If you designed randomness to favor ship killing, you'd have 9 missions of no dps and 1 mission that just randomly spawn massive dps & tackle on top of opponent with no warning. (to prevent folks from using scout alts, fighting far outside tackle range and warp out upon killing a group and likes) "Cost of business" would soon be factored into the activity and adjusted as the new, boring baseline concept like invention probability and someone will spreadsheet that crap to figure out the optimal ship/tactics to do every mission given a LP rate, skill points and current market cost of ships and likes since the statistical distribution of the randomization can be figured out.

    I don't think focusing design to kill player ships is good since the only way to reliably do it means factoring out player ability to avoid them and that is unpleasant and adds nothing to player effort or skill requirements. It is like mining and random catalyst blob on top of you....no one wants to play that game.
    ---------
    Focusing the game on rat's applied dps is not interesting at all, and pvp about dps trades isn't either. It is just a question of buffer, Rep/RR value and reaction times. For solo, it is even worst because 99.9% of the time is spent with zero threat to your ship as the dps drops below the point that is actually threatening, while in 0.1% of the time full room aggo/pilot error/etc gets you killed in seconds as tanks breaks and the buffer can not possibly hold up, and tank is extremely dependent on ship type and money so something willing to put a few deadspace mods can just go afk while a n00b would struggle heavily.

    As you've implied in your post, Nano-ing situations is far more interesting and that is why I proposed Rats to actually move at fast speeds. Fuckoffblobs or brawlers are meaningless when they move at 400m/s max.

    The problem with the DPS approach is why I propose rats to have advanced defensive AI that avoids damage. It makes it engaging no matter if there is 20 rats or 2, and it can be run in a ship with 300 dps tank or 3000dps tank and rewards player skill and efforts for both. Also instead of randomization that is hardcoded and can be reverse engineered, I add randomness via other players.
    Last edited by Shin_getter; January 26 2014 at 07:14:14 AM.

  12. #12
    THE PUNISHED
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Fuck UngoodTuesdays
    Posts
    10,505
    Quote Originally Posted by Shin_getter View Post
    PvE in Eve is boring. It is boring partially because there has been no effort at creating new content,
    You're either an idiot or a liar.

    1) Wormholes and their environments
    2) Sleepers and AI
    3) New missions do come out actually
    4) Incursions and AI
    5) Officer rats with new AI
    6) Anomalies
    7) 7/10s and 9/10s
    8) Agent and standings changes
    9) Factional Warfare (partially)
    10) Level 5 missions


    that's been in the last 2-3 years.

    They do make changes, they do add content and it is for PvE. Is it perfect? Hell no. but you're still wrong.

    I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your post because in the first sentence, you fuck it up (as usual).
    Last edited by Ralara; February 11 2014 at 12:36:58 PM.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Ralara View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Shin_getter View Post
    PvE in Eve is boring. It is boring partially because there has been no effort at creating new content,
    You're either an idiot or a liar.

    1) Wormholes and their environments
    2) Sleepers and AI
    3) New missions do come out actually
    4) Incursions and AI
    5) Officer rats with new AI
    6) Anomalies
    7) 7/10s and 9/10s
    8) Agent and standings changes
    9) Factional Warfare (partially)
    10) Level 5 missions


    that's been in the last 2-3 years.

    They do make changes, they do add content and it is for PvE. Is it perfect? Hell no. but you're still wrong.

    I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your post because in the first sentence, you fuck it up (as usual).
    1) I know the 3 best ways of doing c5-6 wormholes in quasi-imunity.
    2) look up
    3) how long until they get on eve-survival?
    4) there is a single optimal setup for incursions
    5) they don't respawn after downtime and let me tell you something, no one clear belts.
    6) anomalies are a mission without an agent
    7) there again, optimal strategy abound
    8) now I can do the same missions in different systems also!
    9) fac war pve is a joke
    10) nobody does them anymore since they are only doable in low sec.

    PVE is boring in eve. They only interesting thing you get from it is interaction with others like fighting for plexes or baiting bitches in fw plexes.

    Add more other players in missions without making it mandatory and you'll make it better.

  14. #14
    THE PUNISHED
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Fuck UngoodTuesdays
    Posts
    10,505
    Quote Originally Posted by Baarhyn View Post
    Add more other players in missions without making it mandatory and you'll make it better.
    Isn't that FW sites?

    :S



    I like your counter-points, they're probably valid. I was refering to Shitgetter's line of "there has been no effort in creating new content".

    That is either a lie or he's an idiot. There has been MASSIVE efforts. Have they always worked? No. But the effort was there, and I listed 10 things off the top of my head that show changes made. Nothing more

    I'm not defending PvE.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Ralara View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Baarhyn View Post
    Add more other players in missions without making it mandatory and you'll make it better.
    Isn't that FW sites?

    :S



    I like your counter-points, they're probably valid. I was refering to Shitgetter's line of "there has been no effort in creating new content".

    That is either a lie or he's an idiot. There has been MASSIVE efforts. Have they always worked? No. But the effort was there, and I listed 10 things off the top of my head that show changes made. Nothing more

    I'm not defending PvE.
    Yeah the point wasen't to antagonize you're point.

    What I meant by that sentence is something like shared missions compounds where the agent give you a ship requirement while it gives another to someone else and send you to kill the same npcs.

    Imagine that, you accept a mission asking you for an battleship while another dude is asked for a rapier or bellicose with webs or a falcon/blackbird with ecm.

    Then you have one gate and you can only go through when both guys are on field.

    The web mission has those bitchy drones that orbit real fast with a 20km orbit ( you need long webs to slow em' down

    The other have a heavy tracking disrupt ship with low eccm.

    The mission is offered to both pilots at the same time, it opens up a convo like incursions, when you both accept the mission it puts you in a closed fleet

    Tada!

    Something like that, I just wrote that down it's probably full of holes but you get the point.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    2,578
    I see no point in giving credit to folks pretending to fix things when actually fixing things is possible

  17. #17

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    1,378
    I think that they could do something interesting with an Aeon of Strife style 'mission'.

    Two feuding (AI) groups constantly sending ships at each other, you have to help one side defeat the other. Secure resource sites for your AI guys to 'mine' to build more/better ships, change ship building priorities, gank enemy resource gatherers, help push through the front lines etc.

  18. #18
    Yankunytjatjara's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    1,600
    Sounds like a dota/lol minigame
    My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude!
    Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors

  19. #19

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    1,378
    Dota descended from Aeon of Strife so yes. It lets you increase complexity because you don't have to balance the mission around "can one player in one ship kill this rat".

    Although, to be honest, I'm not sure that DOTA is the best analogy. There are definite elements, like tower defense and AI controlled forces that would be common to both. However I'm thinking a lot more RTS elements like resource gathering/sabotage, tech growth, some unit objective control.
    Last edited by Nax; February 23 2014 at 07:16:32 PM.

  20. #20
    Super Moderator Global Moderator QuackBot's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 7, 2012
    Posts
    21,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Baarhyn View Post

    Yeah the point wasen't to antagonize you're point.

    What I meant by that sentence is something like shared missions compounds where the agent give you a ship requirement while it gives another to someone else and send you to kill the same npcs.

    Imagine that, you accept a mission asking you for an battleship while another dude is asked for a rapier or bellicose with webs or a falcon/blackbird with ecm.

    Then you have one gate and you can only go through when both guys are on field.

    The web mission has those bitchy drones that orbit real fast with a 20km orbit ( you need long webs to slow em' down

    The other have a heavy tracking disrupt ship with low eccm.

    The mission is offered to both pilots at the same time, it opens up a convo like incursions, when you both accept the mission it puts you in a closed fleet

    Tada!

    Something like that, I just wrote that down it's probably full of holes but you get the point.
    Or defend bits of that ship.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •