Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The bears already aren't leaving hisec. In fact, hisec isn't even the edge of PVE space. According to the proposal, there's less of it. Which doesn't matter, because hisec isn't where "bears" are going to sit doing nothing. You can't afford to do that according to the proposal.

I mean, hisec isn't anywhere NEAR the proposed "split" between PVP and PVE zones.

That's why I don't think you've read it. I think you read the rather biased TL;DR. Unfortunately, the document I posted IS the TL;DR. That's about as brief as I could make it. The methods by which these would be primarily employed have been omitted and I tried to stick to only one or two examples of necessary additions.

It is very important to read the document, especially throughout. Space divisions are a small part of a very large integrated solution. I'm not proposing a small-ball solution. That won't help EVE right now.

PvP is PvP and sandbox is sandbox, they are only slightly related.


A sandbox game is a game that has no set goal and no clear end condition and it doesn't necessarily have to incorporate PvP to be a sandbox game, although PvP is a feature some sandbox games have to increase the depth of the sandbox and improve it by allowing all manner of player interactions.

However PvE games like Skyrim are sandbox games in the true sense of the word since to paraphrase Yahtzee , 'you can choose to ignore the story and can walk 78 miles in the opposite direction, put a cooking pot over a dog's head, and swat at his knackers with a woodsman's axe until he howls himself deaf', sandboxyness is achieved by taking a story off the proverbial plot rails to a greater or lesser extent and allowing players to tell their own story rather than having a story told to them, so that the player is a participant in the storytelling process rather than a character in a sandbox game.

TL;DR: PvP is an ingredient that will improve a sandbox game, but a game can be a sandbox game without PvP.

It can be. The goal is how you get PVE content that is meaningful without making it a "theme park." Believe me, I've tried to take things like this into account; players don't want this to turn into WoW and I can respect that. However, current PVE tends now to be even more linear than you'd like.

I mean, consider this. All the PVE ratting sites are always the same. They are scripted in waves. They maybe have a few variations of possible enemy numbers. Missions are even more linear. They are started in one place, timed strictly, and send you through a set of very progressive and linear elements.

In the proposal, I've tried to eliminate this by using a sort of ship rating. I proposed a method by which the ship's class, additions, and equipment can be used to essentially uptune encounters in real time and provide almost infinite variation. Specifically, let's say this:

A destroyer enters a cosmic anomaly. His ship, equipment, and other non-pilot elements (the pilot rating is not taken into account, giving players who train up a small advantage) add up to a number let's arbitrarily call 10. It looks exactly like a salvage site, which is also randomly placed items in a randomly placed site of asteroids (it's not hard for the computer to spin up a totally randomized site according to certain criteria. On entering he triggers an ambush (though he may not have in other sites, he just turns out unlucky). You can count on the ambushers having what amounts to a tackler, but perhaps this site rolls its dice and decides to give him the works. It takes his ship rating of 10 and decides to send a fleet worth 50 at him from all sides. Now, this means he could be surrounded by 5 Destroyers of equal equipment to him, or perhaps a much larger number of frigates, or perhaps even a few cruisers or a battleship. Most likely, it will be a combination of both with mixes of equipment and arms common to whatever pirate faction he faces, if any.

That sounds complex, but it's not really hard for a computer to RNG up. Even teaching the computer player combat tricks isn't hard, it has a limited set of controls to interact with. However, it is entirely unpredictable.

It's certainly less of a theme park than EVE PVE is right now. I don't think there's anything in EVE more dangerous than that. At least a player is a player, if they're outgunned, they'll leave you alone. Part of my PVE proposal is a system that can ALWAYS outgun you, doesn't run, and doesn't have any fear.

Well, I'm not sure what to tell you. About halfway down the second page, I've already made sure that everyone's very well aware there's no server division. And I've said that numerous times, but the actual proposal is in there. It's still one large server. So within two pages, the text itself, with two diagrams, has already lost someone.

The problem with a TL;DR is, very obviously, that if people are already gleaning incorrect information from the base text that is being very obviously discounted, what do you think they'll do to an even shortened version of the text into bullet points? They already see what they want to see, they aren't trying to comprehend the proposal.

I'm not intending to be seen as anything other than just some random poster making a random thread. I'm not any different from a large group of EVE players out there. We, as people, aren't special. That's the proposal's job.

Obviously, people here are adamant that some kind of nightmare PVE server that mirrors the game and lets Tranquility die never happens. If people are really worried about that, let me assure you, that's not in there.

I'm very aware that if there was an alternative server where people could choose not to PVP, Tranquility would be a very empty place. I'm getting around the implications of that because people like the game and if we can avoid a division like that, we should. I'm trying very hard to avoid that.

I just can't make a proposal specifically about answering player complaints and avoid what is a rather large elephant in the room. That situation is, for better or worse, the single largest and loudest player complaint. Not including some kind of solution that avoids its reputed pitfalls would really be sticking my head down in the sand.

So I included a way to do it where it functions as a region of space effectively, but still feeds into the PVP space, and somewhat more efficiently. Instead of aiming to bring PVP to people who don't want it in the worst possible form (ganking), I tried to integrate it so that social relationships are formed organically and the PVP is a bit more competitive and spectacular. That way, people can feed into the system and the PVP is far more interesting than it is right now, but people who are really that averse to PVP do have an area that is going to try to kill them.

That's why it's so long. There's not really a TL;DR solution that can handle all of that. That Page 11 stuff you're talking about that "makes up for it", that's necessary to make a better playing experience everywhere. It is possible for everyone to come out ahead, it's just not easy. You don't just have to install PVE, you have to make the PVE lethal, to make the PVP enticing, and in the end that should create a constant siphon that works more efficiently than the current hisec-nullsec relationship.

That would be a bit like summarizing your post by saying, "I know what your post meant as soon as I read the words 'interested' and 'dress'."

I think perhaps it would be better to split the ideas across different threads. Especially if my TLDR was un fair.

Imagine my surprise when you claim the only real PvP is honourable PvP. You're missing the point. When you get attacked where youre vulnerable its more visceral, more emotional and more 'real' than any arena style warfare.

Ultimately, engaging pve and PvP sandbox are not exclusive. Splitting them up has been demonstrated to destroy games more than help them.

Unfortunately, I don't think I can. The evidence is here. If you're trying to create any division that handles the PVE and PVP topics, there is absolutely now way I can see that does that individually. That's why many previous efforts have all failed, they're all piecemeal. You're already compartmentalizing and that, I believe, is why you apply the logic you do. Because if you cut out everything else, and all you're thinking is "separating PVE from PVP", you'd be absolutely right. If there's no attempt to make the systems work cohesively and you set them in nothing but direct competition, PVP is going to lose. As you've noted, it always has.

I specifically avoided doing that, but to do it requires all of the things I've typed. You make a PVP-less area and it's too safe? PVP will die a horrible death; it's not compelling enough on its own. You don't increase the PVP participation by providing an incentive for nastier PVP combat, and nobody's going to play it. EVE's PVP isn't strong enough on its own. You separate them into two servers, there will be no cross-pollination and you get what we have now, a wall with less social interaction. You try to make PVE harder without increasing the elements at hand to BE dangerous and random, you get a theme park, which people will prefer for isk/hr. If you give people in a PVE area access to the kind of hardware PVPers get, you will upstage the client. Do it the other way, and you make the extra PVP resources trivial.

Specifically, that's why I can't really break it out, and you can't understand it in bite sized chunks easily. I can try to explain it that way, but the proposal's a big, heavy fix intended to solve problems the only way they can really be solved. All at once. Otherwise, very little of this works. You might be able to install the ramming mechanics or boarding without it, but those are examples. You can't drive PVP the way I'm proposing, though, with the game in its current state.

I try not to bring my personal feelings about PVP into it too much, but my association is pretty clear. I tend to PVP in games a bit nastier than EVE. However, what I am trying to say is that there are two kinds of people being lost at this moment. It's not just PVEers, it's the more brutal end of the PVP spectrum. The game lacks a real incentive to go after hard targets, and at this point the hard targets are looking for soft targets. That said, yes, if you want my personal opinion, EVE's PVP is a bit of a wet noodle for what I'm personally enjoying. However, there aren't many PVP games that handle like EVE. As I said, EVE's unique for a lot of reasons outside its environmental mechanics. The faction warfare is nice, but it's sort of limited in its scope.

I understand liking being vulnerable, but I was dragging a computer to LAN Quake games back in middle school. I'm used to games being a little less forgiving. Still, as I said, I'm trying my best to accommodate everyone. players would have FAR more reason to poach in richer Free Space than Treaty Space if they were maximizing ISK/hr and liked the risk. There are a lot more minerals proposed to be out there at any one time. The only technical casualty from the current iteration is suicide ganking players in hisec. The proposal is to make Treaty Space a lot more dangerous in and of itself and Free Space a lot more rich in unpredictable ways. If you do it all at once, it makes a much broader game where pretty much every element is better from the bottom to the top.

It's just not something you can do the easy way.

You keep saying this... but obviously you are not getting what we are saying...

PvE-only areas is a non-starter.
Consensual-only combat areas is a non-starter.

It doesn't matter what other workarounds or added mechanics you thought up... those things are against the core of what EVE is to us.


Ummm... sorry... but other games have tried procedurally generating missions and FAQs for those missions came out within hours of them being run through.

Not once have I ever seen PvE content that hasn't been eventually mastered and min/maxed to hell and back.
And you want to know the reason for that?
Because procedurally generated missions still follow certain patterns and perimeters that can be gauged, quantified, predicted, and eventually crunched.

Keep in mind that EVE Online's market is NOT procedurally generated. It is almost entirely player run. And that makes it VERY, VERY unpredictable... except it isn't. EVE's in-game markets have been gauged, quantified, predicted, and crunched. And people routinely play "games" with it.

DEVs (especially DEV's of small companies) simply can't keep up with the voracious appetites and number crunching skills of players who outnumber them 1000+ to 1.
So the best method is to just throw a limited number of tools at players and let them sort it out with each other (see: multi-player sandbox).


No. It is a PvP game.
CCP even said so in their published FAQ.

http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/communityassets/pdf/EVE-Online-New-Pilot-FAQ.pdf

Part 1: Section 5.3
In EVE Online, any player may attack any other player if they choose to, no
matter where they happen to be. This is because EVE Online is essentially
a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core.

Part 2 Intro
once you enter New Eden you must consider every action you take as a form
of PvP since this is the core game concept.

Part 2: Section 7 Intro
The essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox
environment. As has been mentioned in previous sections any player can
engage another player at any time in any place.

Part 2: Section 7.1
There are various ways that players can engage with others in EVE. Simple
combat is one of the most common forms of PvP; ranging from a one-on-one
fight between frigates or cruisers to a massive fleet battle with battleships,
dreadnoughts, carriers or even titans, with hundreds or thousands of pilots
involved. Then there is Factional Warfare and Duelling as mentioned previously.
There are a variety of ways to make your way in EVE if you wish to concentrate
on PvP; you can be a pirate – preying on pilots on popular trade routes or taking
part in ‘gate camps’, where you lie in wait for pilots who jump from system
to system. Maybe you’d prefer to become a bounty hunter; tracking down
other pilots for a rich reward or the simple glory of the kill. Or even become
a renowned fleet commander; directing the actions of hundreds of other pilots
in one of the massed battles mentioned earlier.

Section 7.2
No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be
completely avoided. The safest systems are the ‘rookie systems’ where new
players start their journey in EVE. In high-sec systems, you are less likely
to be attacked since CONCORD will exact retribution on pilots who attack
another pilot without good reason. But, for example, if you are flying a ship
with a high value cargo, a player may attack you to destroy the ship and steal
anything from the wreck if they think that it’s worth the effort. Such attacks
are known as ‘ganking’ and if the profit they’ll make is sufficient, pilots are
willing to accept the expense of losing their ship to CONCORD and having
their security status lowered for their crimes. So it will be up to a pilot to remain
vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time


The point of the game is that every activity of the game is supposed to step on the toes of everything else.

Warfare requires resources and money... which requires harvesting and industry... which requires "safe places"... which requires warfare and conflict to carve out and maintain those "safe places."

THAT is what makes EVE challenging.
THAT is what turns off a lot people from EVE.
THAT is why I play this game.

Sometimes... shooting for the ideal and missing is just more important than doing everything possible to "be the best" and wringing out as much value as you can (which is a general complaint I have with the gaming industry at large).

If EVE were to go the way of Ultima Online (as you are functionally proposing)... there would not be another game like that does the same thing.
And so I would wait until another old-style U.O. or EVE comes out... and we'll be right back here making the same arguments all over again.


I say this very rarely OP... but EVE is not for you. Go away and let us "fail" the way you are convinced we will. I would rather this game shut down due to its stubborn integrity than be perverted into another "Trammel" because some people can't take the heat.

I don´t like the idea of a save pve zone. Exept you can´t make any or hardly any isk in it and the systems have no stations. That would be okay with me. Otherwise most of the players from highsec would go into those systems and avoid to getting shoot and wonder why the hell the industry path gives less and less isk and leave the game. Second part why would the be a "insurance" of 60% for lost ships on wars which both sides agree, doesen´t make sence to me.

An optional change would be to give all NPC´s a Doomsday like the one from the drifters (with the same strengh).


To be honest i stopped reading there, because if such a thing would impelemented i would quit eve instant.

-1