These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Do many EVE players fear consentual PvP?

Author
Bane Necran
Appono Astos
#1 - 2013-01-21 17:07:18 UTC
Throughout the history of this game, PvP has mostly revolved around attacking people who are unprepared for PvP, or simply outnumbering your opponent. You make sure you're going to win before you even engage, and there is little risk involved if you plan ahead. This is what your average EVE PvP player has grown accustomed to, and some are quite good at it.

Reading the negative comments on the so-called 'arena' system, you hear a lot of people saying it's more suited to carebears or something, but what could be more hardcore than a 1v1 fight between two ships fitted for PvP, with no friends to save either of them? You are on an even footing with your opponent, and only your personal ability and intelligence can save you.

Why do so many people think that's a bad thing?

"In the void is virtue, and no evil. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness." ~Miyamoto Musashi

Psychotic Monk
Arcana Noctis
Shoot First.
#2 - 2013-01-21 17:11:37 UTC
It's not the fair fights people are worried about (although there's no denying that many people feel if you fight fair you're doing it wrong).

The most significant objection to a system of consensual pvp is that it represents a move away from non-consensual pvp, which is a cornerstone of this game.
Vel'drinn
Sanguine Vipers
#3 - 2013-01-21 17:12:41 UTC
Pretty sure only the dudes that think 10 vs 1 PvP being pro have an issue with it.

It seems like a good change but it does remove the scamming aspect which is part of most EVE gameplay.

Duels in Jita are 100% legit right? Pirate
Roime
Shiva Furnace
#4 - 2013-01-21 17:14:21 UTC
How is it "more hardcore" than flying out solo and finding a fight?

Why is this mechanic needed?

.

Bane Necran
Appono Astos
#5 - 2013-01-21 17:14:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Bane Necran
Psychotic Monk wrote:
The most significant objection to a system of consensual pvp is that it represents a move away from non-consensual pvp, which is a cornerstone of this game.


If they were somehow reducing non-consensual PvP that would make sense, but they're not. People can still engage in it as freely as they ever have. All they're doing is adding even more ship combat on top of it.

Roime wrote:
How is it "more hardcore" than flying out solo and finding a fight?

Why is this mechanic needed?


Because it's only hardcore for the solo player, not the fleet he runs into that kills him easily. Equal risk to both sides = more hardcoredness.

"In the void is virtue, and no evil. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness." ~Miyamoto Musashi

4runner
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2013-01-21 17:18:28 UTC
Because that means that those who never fight alone or with some sort of ****** tricks in their sleeves would be in risk of loosing their ship now they cant call in others to finish the job.
I've had several very interesting 1v1 fights which usually ends up him warping 2-3 of his friends in to finish his job and and then they pour the smacktalk and bitchin in local about how I got baited and raped and what not lol, but I also have had very good 1v1 fights which results in a good chat in local about the fights and fittings and I respect those players, either way the fight goes haha.

A high sec battle arena would be something I likeBig smile
Myrissa Kistel
Planetary Logistics
#7 - 2013-01-21 17:19:18 UTC
Cause 1v1 duals is not really PVP. Might as well open up a chat channel with your oppenent and type in /random, highest number wins.

Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#8 - 2013-01-21 17:25:49 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:


The most significant objection to a system of consensual pvp is that it represents a move away from non-consensual pvp, which is a cornerstone of this game.



I feel it's just adding another dimension to the sandbox and no big deal.

Leave it to PvPers to actually complain about this though.

Sad really. Really limited worldview.

I guess I should complain about Ring Mining because it's a move away from traditional belts.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882

Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din
#9 - 2013-01-21 17:26:47 UTC
Bane Necran wrote:
Throughout the history of this game, PvP has mostly revolved around attacking people who are unprepared for PvP, or simply outnumbering your opponent. You make sure you're going to win before you even engage, and there is little risk involved if you plan ahead. This is what your average EVE PvP player has grown accustomed to, and some are quite good at it.

Reading the negative comments on the so-called 'arena' system, you hear a lot of people saying it's more suited to carebears or something, but what could be more hardcore than a 1v1 fight between two ships fitted for PvP, with no friends to save either of them? You are on an even footing with your opponent, and only your personal ability and intelligence can save you.

Why do so many people think that's a bad thing?


1: Your first point is wrong in that it is a sweeping remark that assumes everywhere is the same. In hisec that is the way it goes, everywhere else people expect violence.
2: It isnt that people are worried or afraid of consensual pvp, they are concerned that having arenas and so on it takes away the overall feel that New Eden is a place rather than a theme park.


Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#10 - 2013-01-21 17:27:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Simple: because the existence of non-consensual PvP means that there is no need for consensual PvP. The mechanics for the former means you can have the latter at any time you want already.

To use Malc's new favourite word: consensual PvP is a wedge proposal — you ask for a single unnecessary thing to be added, and then for the unnecessary:ness to expand to include some other portion that seems related; and then expand it further; and further; and then you suggest that, hey, doesn't this really cover all the bases? So why do we need this antiquated non-consensual system?

The core problem is that all suggestion for consensual fights rest on the presumption that engaging in one would lock you out of all other combat, and that simply cannot happen in EVE — there can be no safe havens. As a result, any such system becomes meaningless: why agree to a fight when all the PvP is still non-consensual? Why have an arena for two teams, when nothing can be allowed to restrict others to enter that arena and interfere at will?
Rengerel en Distel
#11 - 2013-01-21 17:29:37 UTC
as has been said countless time, the dueling mechanic is adding in functionality they removed with crimewatch. "arenas" are more than likely never going to be something CCP does. if players want to set up an arena system, they have the tools and areas of space to do that now, it just won't be safe from the rest of the eve players.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.

Karrl Tian
Doomheim
#12 - 2013-01-21 17:32:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Karrl Tian
I look at pvp as less of an honored duel between skilled combatants and more like a trap-contest between two chessmasters. Someone's always setting a trap and someone's always trying to avoid it while setting their own. The goal is to get the other guy in over is head because he thought he was safe/getting a free kill. The actual skill comes in how well you can set your target up for overcondifence.
Bane Necran
Appono Astos
#13 - 2013-01-21 17:32:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Bane Necran
Tippia wrote:
Simple: because the existence of non-consensual PvP means that there is no need for consensual PvP.


I doubt people are going to start having duels instead of wars. Or duels instead of gatecamps. Lol

Those things will remain unchanged and as popular as ever. What this would bring is even more PvP on top of all the non-consensual sort.

"In the void is virtue, and no evil. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness." ~Miyamoto Musashi

Roime
Shiva Furnace
#14 - 2013-01-21 17:35:07 UTC
Bane Necran wrote:

Because it's only hardcore for the solo player, not the fleet he runs into that kills him easily. Equal risk to both sides = more hardcoredness.


The whole point of EVE PVP is managing the risk and manipulating the circumstances to your advantage in an environment where no equal treatment is guaranteed.

That is what makes EVE real.

I've done my share of limited-risk, consensual PVP and agreed fights in RvB, and it's ultimately a shallow experience. A tamed simulator of what is out there in non-Concord space. The value people get from PVP is only made possible by the presence of real risk, uncontrollable events.

Agreed 1vs1 is just a subset of PVP.



.

Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#15 - 2013-01-21 17:37:55 UTC
I think what you're really seeing is a stigma.

"Arena" invokes a rather specific though. WoW, and the segregated PvP world. You "enter" an arena, that is not part of the world and has no impact on it. When you say "arena" in EVE, I believe people automatically think of WoW style arenas, were you would be ported to a "safe" place, to fight for no real loss with someone else.


Instead of arena maybe people should start saying "tournament".
A place IN THE GAME SPACE, that isn't seperated from everything else, were a number of peopel can compete in a structured match, and risk assets for the possibility to gain more assets.


I have no problem with "arenas" as long as they're done EVE style.
That would be tools that allow for players to set up tournaments, the ability to gamble on the outcome, and be able to watch as it happens; when it happesns.

If I can't fly to the "arena" and watch the match unfold, then it doesn't belong in EVE.
Bane Necran
Appono Astos
#16 - 2013-01-21 17:39:39 UTC
Roime wrote:
The value people get from PVP is only made possible by the presence of real risk, uncontrollable events.


But through planning ahead and picking your fights to make sure you're going to win, things become very controlled and lack risk.

"In the void is virtue, and no evil. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness." ~Miyamoto Musashi

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#17 - 2013-01-21 17:41:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Bane Necran wrote:
I doubt people are going to start having duels instead of wars. Or duels instead of gatecamps. Lol
I'm not talking about behaviour — I'm talking about mechanics.

All mechanics for consensual combat are encapsulated within the mechanics of non-consensual combat, and no consensual combat can ever be allowed to exist outside the real of non-consensual engagements.

Thus, consensual mechanics are either unnecessary or game-breaking. Either way, there's no point in or need to add them.
Bane Necran
Appono Astos
#18 - 2013-01-21 17:44:52 UTC
Tippia wrote:
All mechanics for consensual combat are encapsulated within the mechanics of non-consensual combat, and no consensual combat can ever be allowed to exist outside the real of non-consensual engagements.

Thus, consensual mechanics are either unnecessary or game-breaking. Either way, there's no point in or need to add them.


The point is more PvP, which even someone who isn't heavy into PvP like myself agrees is good for the game.

"In the void is virtue, and no evil. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness." ~Miyamoto Musashi

Whitehound
#19 - 2013-01-21 17:47:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
I think it is bad, because it will only show that players with high SPs win over players with low SPs. Also some ships and fittings will win more often than others.

Arenas will get boring after only a year. The large community and the open space of EVE Online allows for far more unknown endings than an arena.

Imagine we had alliance tournaments each weekend and a participation would be cheap. Within a year would we see the same fleet setups repeatedly and many fights would have similar outcome. It would be predictable and boring.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#20 - 2013-01-21 17:48:18 UTC
Bane Necran wrote:
The point is more PvP, which even someone who isn't heavy into PvP like myself agrees is good for the game.
…and the follow-up point is that the game already fully allows for it. If they aren't doing it now, they're not going to do it later when everything is still the same.

Yes, they might engage in some if it is implemented in a way that breaks the game, but that would not be good for the game regardless.
123Next pageLast page