Dynamic Missions Part 2 (CSM)

See also: Dynamic Missions (CSM)

Stats

• Raised by: Ankhesentapemkah
• Submission Date: 6 June 2010
• Meeting ID: 5.003
• Issue ID: tbd

Summary

Introduction

While PVE is not everyone's playstyle, a lot of players still rely on PVE as income source to fund other activities, whenether it is by grinding missions or running the same old 'exploration' sites over and over. CCP released not-so-epic mission arcs in their attempt to create exciting PVE content, but these obviously do not solve the problem as they just add more static content. In 2009, CCP answered that "Players like the grind and don't want surprises", which is a pretty stupid excuse for failing at creating interesting PVE content.

Dynamic Content

PVE content should be dynamic and/or modular. Missions and exploration sites should be generated from components randomly put together. Spawns can be dynamic and unpredictable as well, with a 'budget' to select rats from to ensure players aren't dropped in the middle of 50 battleships.

Missions and exploration sites could have multiple acceleration gates leading to new pockets (similar to worlds collide), with players having to find their way to the objective. Secondary, optional objectives should be included as well (similar to the Extravaganza Bonus Room, or the Secret Meeting envoy etc).

Competetive Missions

Another complaint is that missions are mostly solo content and that it scales into infinity, with agents offering unlimited missions to every pilot that visits them.

Instead, mini-events should occur in the game world, which spawn a hidden site. Agents will drop clues to the existence of this site. However, multiple players will soon learn of this mini-event. Players (or corporations) will have to compete with eachother to complete the objective first and claim the reward.

If players do not complete the mini-event in a set timeframe, the event may escalate and worsen, and more players will be informed of the situation and called into action.

An example of such a mission: The Guristas are building a base in a remote low-sec system. Some players are informed that something is up in that particular constellation, ships disappearing and so on. If the players manage to destroy the base, the threat is countered and succesful players rewarded. If nothing happens, then the base is completed. Rats start appearing in the belts and on the gates. Word arrives that the Guristas have seized a Caldari industrial full of military supplies, and hid it in a deadspace pocket in a nearby system to unload the goodies. Players are urged to act quickly, destroy the Guristas on-site and reclaim the empty industrial and fly it back to Caldari Navy base X. The corp/player that brings back the industrial gets a sizable reward. If the industrial gets destroyed, a small reward is granted to players on the killmail. If they fail doing either, the Guristas base receives some annoying turret upgrades. And so on.

Less is More

Currently, rats lack proper fitting and intelligence and are generally just carry-bags full of loot. As a result, missions often rely on swamping the player with many weak rats. To make gameplay more interesting, CCP should consider having much fewer rats which use more realistic fittings and bring at least some degree of intelligence with them.

Realistic Objectives

At the moment, KILL-type missions/exploration sites are just that, shoot everything that moves. Instead, PVE objectives should rely on realistic mechanics such as scrambling a target to prevent it from warping off, or providing objectives where the player has to use webs or electronic warfare intelligently, or use piloting skill.

Pros

• Provides exciting PVE activities
• Can be used for both missions and exploration as well as other content
• Can be tied into PVP systems

Cons

• Can't think of any besides that it needs devtime, like anything else

Relevant Forum Threads

• [1] - Issue thread

Useful Links

• [2] - Dynamic Events in Guild Wars 2
• [3] - Dwarf Fortress, please play
• [4] - Related 2008 CSM issue
• [5] - Related 2009 CSM issue

Votes

For/Against: 9/0