My recent proposal to modify the bounty system was met with some opposition that I had not expected.
"Problem is does even this fixed bounty system make bounty hunting viable? Or will it just be "Ooooo that guy I just podded had a bounty!". Is it possible to make bounty hunting as a profession viable, or will it always just be a way to give someone who just popped someone you don't like a small reward? As soon as you offer rewards that are worth doing something to get, the alt/corp mate collection becomes very viable."
Drackarn's comment, as well as a couple of posts in F&I (where game ideas go to die™), pointed out something that I missed; the desire of players to perform player vs player bounty hunting as their primary means of making money.
I do not think that making one's primary earnings from collecting pod bounties is a viable goal; there is an inherent problem with trying to make a living from PVP bounties in that any PVP mechanic will be competing with EVE's long standing PVE mechanics; PVE bounty hunting provides an extraordinary amount of ISK while being highly predictable, and thus relatively safe. PVP, conversely, can be extraordinarily dangerous and is considerably less predictable than PVE. Without turning PVP into an extraordinarily cash flow positive activity, I perceive this to be an irreconcilable problem.
PVP in Eve Online is already great fun in and of itself. While it would be very neat to make one's living solely off of PVP activity, it is not a viable design goal without performing considerable, massive overhauls to the nature of Eve Online's economy and PVE systems. To me, bounty hunting mechanics would better serve as a secondary money maker in Eve Online. To that end, modifying the bounty system and allowing it to serve its originally intended function, albeit while not being the chief breadwinner, looks like the best solution available to this long standing design issue.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Fixing the Bounty system
It occurred to me the other day that everything that is wrong with the bounty system can be expressed in a single sentence:
"Bounties don't work because the payouts are worth more than the clones."
Now that implants are included in pod-mails, the market value of a destroyed clone is public knowledge; this has created an opportunity to implement a new bounty system. As the nature of the current problem is that a friend or an alt can claim an outstanding bounty, the fix is actually relatively straightforward; change the mechanics of bounty payment to only supply a portion of the value of each clone and treat the total bounty on a pilot's head as a payout pool.
With a proportional payout pool, pilots will no longer be able to take a bounty for themselves without suffering more in losses than payouts. By supplying small payments rather than a lump sum, a new incentive is created to keep podding a given pilot as long as there's money in the bounty pool.
Voila! The eternally broken bounty system is fixed!
"Bounties don't work because the payouts are worth more than the clones."
Now that implants are included in pod-mails, the market value of a destroyed clone is public knowledge; this has created an opportunity to implement a new bounty system. As the nature of the current problem is that a friend or an alt can claim an outstanding bounty, the fix is actually relatively straightforward; change the mechanics of bounty payment to only supply a portion of the value of each clone and treat the total bounty on a pilot's head as a payout pool.
With a proportional payout pool, pilots will no longer be able to take a bounty for themselves without suffering more in losses than payouts. By supplying small payments rather than a lump sum, a new incentive is created to keep podding a given pilot as long as there's money in the bounty pool.
Voila! The eternally broken bounty system is fixed!
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
A Corollary To The Mid-Game Problem
In the latest entry of Jester's Trek, RipardTeg refers to one of the big problems facing Eve Online; pilots finding themselves limited by what they can't do, with many people quitting when they're faced with the issue of what they aren't capable of.
My opinion is that part of the problem is the sheer versatility afforded to pilots who have sufficient skill points to fly ships equipped with full racks of Tech 2 modules. The reality of Eve Online's balance system is that Tech 2 is a linear upgrade over Tech 1 and meta level modules; very few popular ships are significantly limited in what Tech 2 gear they are able to equip.
When all the good ships come with the expectation of the pilots maxing them out with tech 2 modules, pilots are hitting the utility wall much sooner than they could if less skill intensive modules were more viable in combat than they are today. The right direction to tweak ship balance is, in my opinion, downwards; it should be harder to pack a ship full of tech 2 modules than it is today.
When a player doesn't have to train as many skills to fly a ship of interest, the problem of situational flexibility can become much less significant than it is today. If I'm right, nerfs might just be what the doctor ordered for improving the mid game appeal of Eve Online.
My opinion is that part of the problem is the sheer versatility afforded to pilots who have sufficient skill points to fly ships equipped with full racks of Tech 2 modules. The reality of Eve Online's balance system is that Tech 2 is a linear upgrade over Tech 1 and meta level modules; very few popular ships are significantly limited in what Tech 2 gear they are able to equip.
When all the good ships come with the expectation of the pilots maxing them out with tech 2 modules, pilots are hitting the utility wall much sooner than they could if less skill intensive modules were more viable in combat than they are today. The right direction to tweak ship balance is, in my opinion, downwards; it should be harder to pack a ship full of tech 2 modules than it is today.
When a player doesn't have to train as many skills to fly a ship of interest, the problem of situational flexibility can become much less significant than it is today. If I'm right, nerfs might just be what the doctor ordered for improving the mid game appeal of Eve Online.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
What Do You Mean, Jesus Is Dead?
In his most recent blog, CSM Member Trebor Daehdoow (Robert Woodhead) made special note of Hilmar's declaration that "The era of the Jesus feature is over.” Since the minutes aren’t out yet, I'll speculate for a bit; what CCP learned lesson is encompassed by Hilmar’s statement?
What counts as a Jesus Feature? I think we can call the self-referenced Incursions, alongside Apocrypha’s Wormholes, to be examples of Jesus Features, and relatively successful ones at that; they are, and have been, generally enjoyed by most player participants. On the other side of the coin, Tyrannis’ Planetary Interaction and Incarna’s Walking in Stations flopped for, among other reasons, being dull, tedious and devoid of entertainment value.
If these four features are examples of Jesus Features, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with making a big "Jesus Feature" the focus for an expansion. However, a big feature focus only really works if other components of the game that players like, or have, to use are not broken and not in need of work; unusable, unenjoyable or unworkable content seriously damages the appeal of the game. When big problems are neglected in favor of shiny new things, what might have been a good feature is immediately tarnished by what its introduction took the place of repairing. If the big feature just plain sucks, the results can be, and have been, absolutely devastating.
If CCP learned that big features have to be good features - for the game and for the player alike - and can’t take the place of fixing what’s currently broken, we should be in good shape for the future. If CCP has learned to not try to make big features, we’re probably in for some rough spots ahead. Time will tell what lies further down the road.
What counts as a Jesus Feature? I think we can call the self-referenced Incursions, alongside Apocrypha’s Wormholes, to be examples of Jesus Features, and relatively successful ones at that; they are, and have been, generally enjoyed by most player participants. On the other side of the coin, Tyrannis’ Planetary Interaction and Incarna’s Walking in Stations flopped for, among other reasons, being dull, tedious and devoid of entertainment value.
If these four features are examples of Jesus Features, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with making a big "Jesus Feature" the focus for an expansion. However, a big feature focus only really works if other components of the game that players like, or have, to use are not broken and not in need of work; unusable, unenjoyable or unworkable content seriously damages the appeal of the game. When big problems are neglected in favor of shiny new things, what might have been a good feature is immediately tarnished by what its introduction took the place of repairing. If the big feature just plain sucks, the results can be, and have been, absolutely devastating.
If CCP learned that big features have to be good features - for the game and for the player alike - and can’t take the place of fixing what’s currently broken, we should be in good shape for the future. If CCP has learned to not try to make big features, we’re probably in for some rough spots ahead. Time will tell what lies further down the road.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Painful but Necessary
The changes to PI taxation haven't been particularly popular; it's now substantially more expensive than it once was to import and export PI goods, dramatically increasing the overhead costs of maintaining a PI installation.
The increased pain is a good thing; there are not nearly enough ISK sinks in Eve Online. After PI was introduced, the biggest ISK sinks in the game after skills and blueprints - POS fuel, starbase structures and new outposts - no longer existed in this role. Since then, the amount of ISK entering the game has increased substantially.
Inflation is never good for the long term health of a game economy. Adding more sinks, including the 10% market rate surcharge on P.I. goods, will help the game in the long run.
The increased pain is a good thing; there are not nearly enough ISK sinks in Eve Online. After PI was introduced, the biggest ISK sinks in the game after skills and blueprints - POS fuel, starbase structures and new outposts - no longer existed in this role. Since then, the amount of ISK entering the game has increased substantially.
Inflation is never good for the long term health of a game economy. Adding more sinks, including the 10% market rate surcharge on P.I. goods, will help the game in the long run.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Now Comes The Hard Part
Crucible is a monster of an expansion. With new ships, the desire for new tools to blow other people to smithereens has been filled for the first time since Apocrypha. With engine trails and nebula, everything old is new again. Combined with V3, the game is beginning to genuinely resemble the rosiest of nostalgia tinted glasses. With dozens of interface tweaks and minor gameplay changes, Eve Online is gaining the most client functionality in ages. When the new balance factors are thrown into the mix, the dreaded era of Super Capital Ships Online might finally be coming to a close. Meanwhile, Dreadnoughts are returning to viability through more DPS and shorter siege timers. All told, Crucible is one of, if not the most, welcome, feature packed expansions in years and it's just days from being deployed. Congratulations on creating such a wonderful expansion, CCP; this is the first time I've felt excited for an expansion in years!
However, with the low hanging fruit out of the way, now comes the hard part.
While Crucible packs an amazing quantity of new features that improve the experience of playing Eve Online, it does not, nor was it ever capable of, dealing with some of the deep, underlying flaws of current game mechanics; there simply was not enough time to do so. The task that lies ahead for the task masters and game designers is to address the underlying causes of Eve's economic woes, the non-existence of Risk vs Reward, the ease of force projection, the doldrums of daily life in null security space, the limitations of modern player made infrastructure, the proliferation of outposts, and the difficulties in finding meaningful PVP across much of New Eden, among other problems.
These are not easy problems to solve. The community has been wrestling with most of these issues, in some form or another, for several years. Many potential solutions have been discussed ad-nausea, but there has not been an environment conducive towards putting new ideas for revised game mechanics into production at CCP for many years. Fortunately after the fallout of Monoclegate and the related dramas, the main stumbling blocks appear to have been pushed aside, allowing the designers a shot at delivering what they, and players alike, have all wanted to see done to make Eve Online the best game it can be. I'm looking forward to, and sincerely hope everyone's up to the challenge of, seeing CCP addressing the hard parts.
Good luck and God speed in this endeavor; it's not going to be easy!
However, with the low hanging fruit out of the way, now comes the hard part.
While Crucible packs an amazing quantity of new features that improve the experience of playing Eve Online, it does not, nor was it ever capable of, dealing with some of the deep, underlying flaws of current game mechanics; there simply was not enough time to do so. The task that lies ahead for the task masters and game designers is to address the underlying causes of Eve's economic woes, the non-existence of Risk vs Reward, the ease of force projection, the doldrums of daily life in null security space, the limitations of modern player made infrastructure, the proliferation of outposts, and the difficulties in finding meaningful PVP across much of New Eden, among other problems.
These are not easy problems to solve. The community has been wrestling with most of these issues, in some form or another, for several years. Many potential solutions have been discussed ad-nausea, but there has not been an environment conducive towards putting new ideas for revised game mechanics into production at CCP for many years. Fortunately after the fallout of Monoclegate and the related dramas, the main stumbling blocks appear to have been pushed aside, allowing the designers a shot at delivering what they, and players alike, have all wanted to see done to make Eve Online the best game it can be. I'm looking forward to, and sincerely hope everyone's up to the challenge of, seeing CCP addressing the hard parts.
Good luck and God speed in this endeavor; it's not going to be easy!
Saturday, November 12, 2011
A Counter-Argument To A Case For Keeping High-Sec
This particular blog entry is a response to Black Arturus' latest blog entry, which you can read here:
My Case For Keeping High-Sec, by Black Arcturus
In a sense, Black Arcturs' blog post is somewhere along the right track; forcing anyone into nullsec is a moot point and a pointless endeavor; it always has been and always will be, as what attracts a player to high security space is the general safety it provides. The problem with high security space is the various things that discourage a player from venturing further. Level 4 missions and Incursions provide a safety blanket of easy, low risk ISK. It's a universal human trait to fear losing what you have.
The argument has been made that the solution to encouraging people to enter 0.0 space is to increase the rewards it offers rather than reduce the rewards in High Security space. You can’t rely on power scaling 0.0 to attempt to attract more people to 0.0 space; ISK is rarely the reward, in and of itself, but income is a necessity to living in null security space, much like anywhere else. I don’t think it’s possible to generate more currency than with Incursion farming. This is a fundamental flaw with the current state of Eve Game Design, as Incursions and Level 4 missions are utterly skewing the risk/reward ratio in favor of high security space. Balancing upwards is not a valid method to balance out this equation due to the already persistent and massive problems mudflation has introduced to Eve Online.
Ultimately, I disagree with the assessment that high security space is fine as it is; it is not. The current state of High Security Space introduces far too much currency into the economy and invalidates one of the major motivators for prospective pilots to go out and explore the deep end of the game through its safe, easy, ludicrous quantities of money minted each day.
Highsec doesn’t generate the stories that draw players to Eve Online. High security Space does not create the deep social connections that hold people in game for the long term. The only thing High Security Space provides is a safety net which, by all established player accounts, is only getting safer and more lucrative with each expansion. While safe cash and easy access to replacement toys are what every player wants in the short term, all that catering to these desires accomplishes is the degradation of the long term viability of Eve Online's sandbox and ever more rapid churn of players that burn through the limited content Eve Online has at its disposal.
Eve Online is at it’s best when players interact with other players. It’s far past time that players stop lobbying CCP for even more barriers between themselves and the player vs player experience.
My Case For Keeping High-Sec, by Black Arcturus
In a sense, Black Arcturs' blog post is somewhere along the right track; forcing anyone into nullsec is a moot point and a pointless endeavor; it always has been and always will be, as what attracts a player to high security space is the general safety it provides. The problem with high security space is the various things that discourage a player from venturing further. Level 4 missions and Incursions provide a safety blanket of easy, low risk ISK. It's a universal human trait to fear losing what you have.
The argument has been made that the solution to encouraging people to enter 0.0 space is to increase the rewards it offers rather than reduce the rewards in High Security space. You can’t rely on power scaling 0.0 to attempt to attract more people to 0.0 space; ISK is rarely the reward, in and of itself, but income is a necessity to living in null security space, much like anywhere else. I don’t think it’s possible to generate more currency than with Incursion farming. This is a fundamental flaw with the current state of Eve Game Design, as Incursions and Level 4 missions are utterly skewing the risk/reward ratio in favor of high security space. Balancing upwards is not a valid method to balance out this equation due to the already persistent and massive problems mudflation has introduced to Eve Online.
Ultimately, I disagree with the assessment that high security space is fine as it is; it is not. The current state of High Security Space introduces far too much currency into the economy and invalidates one of the major motivators for prospective pilots to go out and explore the deep end of the game through its safe, easy, ludicrous quantities of money minted each day.
Highsec doesn’t generate the stories that draw players to Eve Online. High security Space does not create the deep social connections that hold people in game for the long term. The only thing High Security Space provides is a safety net which, by all established player accounts, is only getting safer and more lucrative with each expansion. While safe cash and easy access to replacement toys are what every player wants in the short term, all that catering to these desires accomplishes is the degradation of the long term viability of Eve Online's sandbox and ever more rapid churn of players that burn through the limited content Eve Online has at its disposal.
Eve Online is at it’s best when players interact with other players. It’s far past time that players stop lobbying CCP for even more barriers between themselves and the player vs player experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)