The questions came in from all over, however, so apologies if I don't attribute the questions to the right speaker in all cases.
I would personally LOVE for missions to get harder.
That's... fine, but it's really not what I'm talking about. When I said the mission NPCs should get about 10 times harder, I also said there should be about one-tenth as many of them. That isn't about difficulty, but about teaching players in missions that five ships can be a credible and dangerous threat, so that when they see five players coming at them, they don't think "oh, I can tank 50 NPCs -- I've got this in the bag."
More about his further into the post, actually.
One core aspect of PvP is evaluating and taking a risk against ultimately unknown odds – namely your human, unpredictable opponent. No AI will ever be able to emulate that, no matter how PvP-like the mechanics are. PvE would have to simulate the inventiveness of real players to clear this hurdle, and I don’t see it happening in any game.
Absolutely. There's really no way the AI is going to get as good or as hard as playing against another good player (it can easily simulate fighting a bad player, though) -- you can rebalance the NPCs to be generally harder to defeat, however, and use fewer OF them, to teach players better threat recognition.
Also, far more of what I'm talking about for these missions is about what the player's are called on to do, not what they're going to fight. Missions right now are stupidly, stupidly simple: go in, kill everything, and (sometimes) grab A Thing and bring it back or (rarely) deliver a thing to a box. It's fucking terrible.
More on that further down.
... or move more missions to low sec but increase the rewards to reflect the increased risk from PvP ambush.
Two thoughts on this:
I don’t personally believe that moving currently-highsec missions to lowsec will do any good — ultimately, I think it will harm the game, to be honest, because there are people playing the game who, if forced to travel to Low or Null sec to continue doing what they enjoy doing (missions), will simply quit playing. Most of us know we don’t want that, and the people that say they do are idiots. Multiplayer games only work with multiple players.
With that said, I do think missions in low-sec should have higher payouts than they do currently. Missions given in highsec but going to lowsec should pay better than highsec going to highsec, and lowsec-located agents sending you to lowsec should pay very well indeed — in Loyalty Points, especially.
I don’t believe in forcing players a certain direction, but I do believe in luring them. :)
What I’m advocating in this series of posts are mission changes that call for techniques and ship fitting philosophies that have use and merit valuable in areas of the game OTHER than PvE.
I don’t care where people live. At all. I definitely don’t see the ‘natural flow’ of the game to be High -> Low -> Null. That's just group-think from a (very) organized minority in the game.
What I do care about is whether or not players feel as though they are suitably equipped to take a weekend roam into low-sec, or spend a month ‘deployed’ to the constellation controlled by Mordu’s Legion. Missions don’t do that right now, they could, and really they should.
I don’t agree that you can improve EVE PVE content by making it more like PVP. PVE players and PVP players want different things and trying to turn one into the other will just annoy both.
There is already one type of mission in the game which meets most of your criteria: the universally reviled low sec courier mission.
Forcing some hi-sec distribution-mission-running hauler to go into low-sec for a mission isn’t “making the missions more like PvP” — that’s just taking someone and throwing them into an environment where they don’t know what to do. That’s not what I’m after at all.
As I said, I have no interest in trying to force all high level missions into more dangerous space. That is often the solution that people talking about this come up with, especially if they just happen to be from nullsec. I think, personally, it’s a bad solution.
What I’m talking about is changing the design of PvE missions so that they can be completed following the same basic approach and fitting philosophy as PvP. For instance:
- Mission runners should know the difference between a Warp Disruptor and Warp Scrambler, why you’d want one over the other in different situations, and how it interacts and/or complements a Stasis Web... or a tracking disruptor... or whatever. More, there should be missions that call on players to use one or the other (or, for a real challenge, both at the same time on two different targets).
- One of the primary design differences between PvP and PvE fittings is Cap Stability, or how long you can run everything on the ship before you run out of juice. Standard Mission Fits go for 100% cap stability forever, because slow and steady wins the day. In the process, however, you sacrifice so much on your ship fitting that your ship is laughably easy to destroy in PvP. PvP ships, conversely, aim for about 2 minutes of functionality in a solo or small-gang situation, and if they get more that’s either a specialty-fit ship or a happy accident. Active Capacitor Booster modules are a mystery to Mission Runners, because why would you use something that only keeps you Cap Stable until the charges ran out... and fill up your hold with the Charges in the meantime? THAT'S WHERE MISSION LOOT GOES. Conversely, passive Cap Rechargers are horrible, horrible things to see on a ship that’s intended to be used against other players, and I see them on people’s ships ALL THE TIME. I think Sleeper-killing PvE ships are quite close to a happy medium between the two — closer to the sweet spot for PvP-teaching PvE content than anything else out there right now: my alt’s Drake can run everything on the ship for about eight minutes, which is just about enough to clear a Class Two sleeper site, solo. If I’m not solo, it’s even easier, because I can flip off some of my tank in between, and more to the point, I'm fit in such a way as to be a semi-credible threat if I happen to get attacked while running sites.
Those are a couple examples. I’ll have more in part four of the series.
The point of all that is this: when a pilot decides to join some friends for pvp roam, and the FC says "Just bring something fast with short range guns, MWD, scram/web, and a buffer armor tank", the pilot in question can say something besides "Whut?"
Your posts got me thinking about one of the things I've always disliked about Eve.
5 low investment, low cost ships can and will demolish far more massive and expensive ships.
To this day I think that the cost of ships is out of balance in Eve. If a ships material cost is going to be 10x more than another ship, it needs to bring the firepower, armor and abilities at 10x the magnitude. Eve doesn't do this, except in PvE.
I don't know if you agree or disagree, but I'd love to hear you address the ship size/cost imbalance in PvP.
Man, there is so much to talk about here that it could easily be its own post, but I'm going to stick to my guns and get all these comments addressed.
So let me just break this into tiny parts and talk about each one.
5 low investment, low cost ships can and will demolish far more massive and expensive ships.
First, I will challenge the term "low investment." If you're talking about skill points, Frigates use EXACTLY the same gunnery, missile, and tanking support skills as battleships. Especially when it comes to tanking skills, a well-skilled Frigate pilot and well-skilled Battleship pilot are IDENTICAL.
Further, with the skill tree changes, there is very little training time 'distance' between a well-skilled frigate pilot and a well-skilled battleship pilot in terms of just flying the ships around. The Navigation skills for a good pilot of either are identical, and training distance from level 4 Racial Frigate to Level 4 Racial battleship is ~12 days.
So the only truly significant difference in training time is the guns, because right now, if you want to shoot tech 2 large guns, you need to train both tech 2 small guns and tech 2 medium guns. I think it's important to mention that because once the new expansion drops, guns will be only thing in the game that works that way. Missile systems and Drones have never worked that way, and all the Ship skill trees that work that way today (you need tech2 Assault Frigates to fly tech 2 Heavy Assault Cruisers) are being changed in a month or so. I think it won't be long before the Gunnery skill tree changes as well -- it sure as hell should change, because it's stupid to have it work differently than everything else in the game.
Anyway, ignoring guns (which I am), you're talking about less than two weeks of training time between a well-skilled frigate-only pilot and well-skilled battleship pilot, so I'm dismissing the idea of "low investment" in terms of skills, because in the "five frigates versus one battleship" example you give, the amount of training represented by either side is -- all other things being equal -- vastly in favor of the five frigate pilots.
What about cost?
There's a tendency, when comparing ships, to just look at hull costs, and that's terribly misleading, because ships have fittings, and those fittings narrow the cost gap between ships immensely, even if you fight on a budget.
For example, almost every one of the frigates I fly -- all of whose naked hulls cost about half a million isk, give or take -- will be worth about 12 to 13 million isk once they are fully fitted and supplied with appropriate amounts of ammunition for PvP (read: enough for two reloads, most of which will never be used before the ship explodes). If I'm flying a Fed Navy Comet (which I can acquire for rougly 1.5 million isk via Faction Warfare, but which retails on the open market for roughly 13 to 14 million for just the hull), the value of the ship goes up to about 22 million, all told -- roughly the same value as the Destroyers I fly.
(Yes, you can fly them cheaper. You can also fit them more expensively. I'm using my fitting standards as the baseline, because it's what I know.)
By comparison to my average Comet, this Vexor we killed is actually the cheap ship -- the hull plus fittings were only 15 million. I'm pretty sure I've lost Tormentors more expensive than that, and I don't really even like Tormentors.
"But," you protest, "that's a bargain basement fit for a cruiser. That's hardly a fair comparison to your frigate, which is fit with mostly tech 2 modules."
Sure. This Thorax is closer to 40 million -- about the cost of three of my frigates or two of my destroyers, and as a general rule I would think it fair to expect it to BEAT or drive away three of my frigates or two of my destroyers in an otherwise-even fight.
But if three frigates brought exactly what they need to fight a thorax (read: a lot of tracking disruptors and enough webs to keep me from jumping a gate), I might die without killing any of them. That's just preparation on their part and poor target-selection on mine: that particular thorax is a terrible choice for fighting frigates, and in any case that's not what I built it for. (I didn't build it to fight two battlecruisers and two tech 3 cruisers either, unfortunately, even though that's what I ended up facing.)
On the flipside, I might take a Vexor (which is now entirely comparable to and a better brawler than the thorax) against worse odds -- three destroyers, for example -- and hope to kill one and escape the other two. These things happen.
Let's get to bigger ships, though. How about this Myrmidon? Aside from some changes I'd made to the tackle modules, there's really nothing wrong with that fit as far as PvP goes -- it's a fairly traditional triple-rep Myrm, and comes in at right around 105 to 110 million isk. (I'm adding a bit, because of the drones he was attacking with that don't show up on the kill.) Based on the value of the ship, that should be the match of 8 to 10 of my 12-13 million isk frigates, right?
Maybe. Or maybe it really isn't that hard to find a single frigate that's worth just as much. Are those two ships comparable? Could one kill the other?
Is the Isk value any kind of indicator of the correct answer?
Of course not. That's no more relevant than the fact that Guardians in LotRO have really expensive gear and Loremaster's armor is relatively inexpensive by comparison. Remember one of the Principles from yesterday: You are not your ship.
To this day I think that the cost of ships is out of balance in Eve.
Bottom line: don't try to tell me that the Isk value of the ship's naked hull is any relevant indicator of its threat level. If you point me at a Battleship, I'll point you at a frigate that cost more, and I won't even have to look that hard -- that fight was last night, and frankly I'd rather try to solo the Armageddon than the Hawk.
If a ship's material cost is going to be 10x more than another ship, it needs to bring the firepower, armor and abilities at 10x the magnitude.
The fittings on the ships level out actual difference in ship values in many cases, and even if they didn't, ISK value is no indication of actual worth, any more than Plate Mail should mean that you always beat the guy wearing the robe. It helps, but it doesn't determine the winner.
Second, when it comes to little ships killing bigger ships, I have two words for you: Star Wars. Here's another two: Battlestar Galactica. How about...
Actually, no: it's easier to say that the idea of smaller ships being able to hurt larger ships if they can get in close enough to get "under" their larger, slower guns is one well-established in the genre, and leave it at that. Big ships expecting to fight smaller ships either need support from smaller ships, or need to fit themselves in such a way as to be able to deal with little ships.
Which brings me to...
Third, when you're talking about battleships getting demolished by five frigates, your usually not talking about a PvP-fit battleship -- you're talking about a PvE fit battleships who think they are badass and are actually incredibly poorly fit for PvP.
The video's sadly been taken off Youtube because of the background music used (which is stupid: that background music encouraged me to buy three of that band's albums), but I've seen a solo Dominix pilot fight a gang consisting of a Brutix, Hurricane, three Rupture cruisers, and a Stiletto interceptor, kill all but two of the ships, and leave the field intact.
Would I do as well in such a ship? No, obviously, but that's on me, not the ship -- I'm bad at Eve. With the introduction of the Micro Jump Drive, battleships really have a new lease on life in solo and small-gang PvP, because they can force engagements into their best effective range (where things like Heavy Neuts can be applied to pesky small ships) or, if their opponent won't come in and hold them down, they simply leave the field with the MJD. And all of that really ignores the updates coming to the Battleships with the summer expansion.
Battleships are better than frigates. Frigates cannot be fit in a such a way as to deal with every eventuality, from fighting a battleship to fighting frigates. Battleships can be - making them quite literally a bristling island of threat versus whatever they might face.
Can they deal with 50 opponents at a time, like they can in PvE? Of course not, because PvE missions are incredibly misleading.
If a ship's material cost is going to be 10x more than another ship, it needs to bring the firepower, armor and abilities at 10x the magnitude. Eve doesn't do this, except in PvE.
This is where a tremendous amount of the disconnect comes between PvE missions and PvP. Missions set a terrible expectation for new Eve pilots, and the first time a PvPer shows them the reality of the situation, it is a cold slap in the face.
The problem is, I know exactly why the missions are set up the way they are and (worse) given the reason for it, I can even understand and conceptually agree with it.
The thing you ABSOLUTELY MUST remember about current mission NPC is this:
You Are Not Fighting Capsuleers
Now, as soon as I say this, everyone who knows anything about the lore of the game will nod their heads and say "right, right..." but how often do you really think about that in the game? Almost never.
But the fact of the matter is, YOU are playing someone who, with little or no crew (depending on the size of the ship) is controlling a space craft the way you would control your own body. It is your body, for all intents and purposes, and when you face mundane ships crewed with mundane humans, who all have to do everything so incredibly slowly, you fucking destroy them, because you are quite literally a god among mortals -- an adult challenging first graders.
Yes, you are the match for fifty or sixty or even more of these insects. Good for you.
The problem is, you kick the shit out of grade-schoolers for months on end, and you start to think this is normal -- that this is how the whole universe matches up to you -- 50:1, with the advantage to the 1.
Suddenly you run into someone else like you.
They aren't slow. They aren't weak.
And they haven't been spending their time fighting seven-year-olds at recess. They've been fighting with other grown-ups.
I call this the Amberite Issue -- a tribute to the Amber series by Roger Zelazny -- also known as "What do you mean there are other gods?" In short, you are immortal and impossibly powerful to nearly anyone you'll meet in whole universe... except for the other people like you. To them, you're just another young punk who needs to get his ass whupped a couple times to learn some respect and actually become marginally useful.
I know why CCP does this: you are a god, and you should get a chance to feel like one. I get that. Some of those ridiculous "50 vs. 1" missions need to stay, if only for flavor.
But when they come, they should REALLY be pointed out by the mission agent.
"Listen, they have an entire fleet defending this base -- support craft, battleships, missile batteries, everything -- but they don't have any capsuleers, so really this is going to be a walk in the park."
(I mean, that's why Sleepers are so nasty -- they're almost capsuleers.)
Then do a mission where the whole defense force is, say, "a small squad of five novice capsuleers" and have it be just as hard as the full fleet of normal pilots.
When that's done, make sure the mission agent mentions that while that was hard, at least they weren't actual full-fledged capusleers like yourself.
Make sure they say that, and make sure they say it a lot.
That, plus getting the pilots some experience with tactics and modules, might help with the shock of trying PvP.