These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Prevent players from activating their weapons on other players in highsec unless not in war
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
#221 - 2012-04-04 14:38:42 UTC
Niko DelValle wrote:
I didn't say it was a huge problem, I just really don't feel like playing PvP. If it's better for game stability with it, then I can handle that. It just kind of annoys me how PvE pilots have to get forced into participating in a part of the game they don't want to.

Because I really like the PvE parts of EVE.

Ok.

Unfortunately (to you) it does seem to me that a complete PvE server would be waste of time; EVE economy is so driven by player-exploded spaceships that it would simply be waste of time. I see your problem, but I doubt a PvE server would be a solution for you, since you say you enjoy the PvE aspects of the game. Are you perhaps counting manufacture and trade as "PvE" actions? Because if you do, you are missing something very cool and crucial about the game.

As someone said before (if I recall correctly, it was even in this thread), PvE and PvP are not really terms that fit EVE all that well. Pretty much the whole economy is PvP - it is driven by PvP combat, and it is a PvP market game. What makes industry (including all of mining, production, trade) fun is that it is a game you play with other players: demands on the market fluctuate with player actions, the other sellers on the market are other players too, and you can make profit by delivering to more dangerous places (made so by other players).

What you do not enjoy in EVE and want to minimize is probably participation in combat, not PvP. What would promote it for you would be high-sec made more secure, not a PvE server.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#222 - 2012-04-04 14:43:22 UTC
I wonder how many specialist gankers were buying their isk from RMT sites?

Team Security may have just made high-sec a bit safer.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Globext Carnitine
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#223 - 2012-04-06 03:58:18 UTC
Niko DelValle wrote:
+1

I'm seriously tired of being forced to participate in a part of the game I am not interested in. Although I do think a PvE exclusive server is a better solution.



C'mon man, a PVE only server would BLOW. It would be like watching Star Wars without The Empire exisiting. Or Southpark without Catman.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#224 - 2012-04-06 04:03:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Globext Carnitine wrote:
Niko DelValle wrote:
+1

I'm seriously tired of being forced to participate in a part of the game I am not interested in. Although I do think a PvE exclusive server is a better solution.



C'mon man, a PVE only server would BLOW. It would be like watching Star Wars without The Empire exisiting. Or Southpark without Catman.


Further, imagine the relative economic stagnation as nobody but morons lost anything, ever.

On second thought, mortality rates in all levels of missions could end up being considerably higher on said server...

I'm just trying to picture the tears from the "tough" PVE mission crowd from said server...

"That Kruul is a big bad meanie! He blew up my last CNR! Now I'm going to have to slum it while I'm skint in this stupid CN Scorpion! ABLOOBLOOBLOO MAKE RAT AI EASIER PLOX"

Yes, I now support a PVE-only server. But it can't have a market or contracts. Or anomalies. Or low-sec. Or null-sec. Or high-sec.

Enjoy your station environment, I guess.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Asudem
Black Spear.
#225 - 2012-04-06 04:16:12 UTC
The OP made a nice April fools joke. And it seems everyone felt for it! xD
Ranta Knallente
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#226 - 2012-04-06 05:40:46 UTC
Zaaark Quasar wrote:
Stop suicide ganking.

It´s totally out of balance, there isn´t any other counter on it than not logging in or sitting in station. It doesn´t add anything in the sandbox, it just makes CCP lose subscriptions.

Suicide ganking is not pvp content, it´s just griefing.

Pilots that don´f have balls, should grow a pair and go to 0.0 or lowsec, or drop a war declaration. Those are good for the game.

One reason for EVE online low subscription number is the fact that this game is ******** towards new players and pve players.

PVE players do bring the same cash flow to CCP and if someone wants to spend 15$ montly just for shooting npc´s then so what? It doesn´t take anything away from 'pvp' pilots.

Suicide ganking doesn´t have any valid reasoning behind it, it´s just seriously bad game design.

CCP should really show some respect on all those players who pays their paychecks.


Go Hard or go Home.
SGT FUNYOUN
Elysian Space Navy - 1st Fleet
#227 - 2012-04-06 06:18:37 UTC
No.

Saying suicide ganking is an invalid tactic is like saying the insurgents in ANY country in the world aren't a threat to our country. Suicide bombers are deemed a validly deadly tactic, why wouldn't the same be true in a game where the point is to kill your enemies?

Not saying the terrorists are right but, the tactic is still brilliant. A smart bomb that can think for itself. I morbidly and hatefully have to give the little bastards a little respect for the balls it takes to do something like that.

Takes a real warrior's spirit (and a f***ing nut job mentality of course) to do something like that. Of course it takes the same thing to go diving on a grenade to save your buddies.

Both folks are crazy, it just depends on the reason for doing it that makes them a hero or a villain.
Dansan Dusaka
Asset Safety Wrap
#228 - 2012-04-06 13:12:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Dansan Dusaka
*wow*. Isn't part of the problem here that EvE is a game which a lot of people play in different ways. PVE and PVP are both valid ways of playing the game, and the thing is that some people *like* mining. They don't want to make a **** ton of profit, but they do wan't to mine becuase it relaxes them. They are contending with Rats in belts, and thats what they want to do.

If they wanted the tension, and the profit, of low or null sec mining, they have that option - but it should be an option. CCP have made it attractive because you can earn so much more out there.

Now there are people out there like this: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Roosterio . I understand the argument that if the ships the miners are flying in are tanked then they wouldn't loose them but:


  • Bounties are currently broken
  • if you're a young character, who is trying to get a way of earning money whilst flying, your skills are probably all over the place. So "tank" fits don't always work
  • Suicide Ganking seems to be a matter of pure DPS - the faster you can put out required damage to kill a [hulk/covetor] before concord get you, the better.
  • The argument of everyone who this dosn't affect seems to be 'play better' but essentially
  • high security, isn't.


The entire attitude of people who are low sec / null sec pilots going "oh, carebears just need to be shot up a bit" does seem to be a bit .. well.. stupid.If enough players want a "ultimate sec" (i.e. 1.1, 1.2 security) then we should listen and respect them: Lets suggest a solution (and then discuss whats wrong with it).

Heres four ideas, some are crap, some are better, but the point is its a start of a discussion:

  • Ultimate Sec: 1.1 / 1.2 security status: these should have some kind of side effect such as new ores there being worth even less, (exponentially?), or rats being harder? Combat changes: perhaps some kind of disruption that effects guns (even against rats?).
  • War Decs- allow individuals to declare against individuals. Perhaps have some kind of 'mini war' fight. that becomes active after 30 min for 24 hours?
  • Fix Bounties somehow. (easier said then done)
  • Non-War kills in high sec don't drop loot? or loot is retrieved by concord and returned to the killed player when they arrive in a station?
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
#229 - 2012-04-06 13:40:52 UTC
You are mistaken considering mining a PvE activity. It is not, for two reasons: 1) People can blow you up while you are doing it, and this is a feature intended by the game devs, and 2) What you mine you sell to other players, on a player-driven market. You can be of the opinion that this should not be so, but trying to argue that since mining is essentially a PvE activity, people who enjoy pure PvE should be left to do it without risk just starts from the completely wrong premise.

And high-security is. It's just not complete-security.

The counter to getting suicide-ganked while mining is not tank, btw. But about that in some other thread maybe.
Dansan Dusaka
Asset Safety Wrap
#230 - 2012-04-06 14:23:21 UTC
Elsebeth Rhiannon wrote:
You are mistaken considering mining a PvE activity. It is not, for two reasons: 1) People can blow you up while you are doing it, and this is a feature intended by the game devs, and 2) What you mine you sell to other players, on a player-driven market. You can be of the opinion that this should not be so, but trying to argue that since mining is essentially a PvE activity, people who enjoy pure PvE should be left to do it without risk just starts from the completely wrong premise.


Good point: I don't think anyones suggesting that you should be completely invulnerable: but instead that certain conditions be set or protections are in place;

Quote:
And high-security is. It's just not complete-security.

The counter to getting suicide-ganked while mining is not tank, btw. But about that in some other thread maybe.


Perhaps some more ideas:

I'm liking the idea of if a kill in high sec (lets say 0.8 and above), that if not at war, or no reason for the kill (i.e. hasn't can stole or something), that the dropped modules/loot would be claimed by concord and transported.

I'm also liking the idea of mini-person-person war decs, that take perhaps 10 minutes to come into being - this would allow someone to heavily disrupt mining in an areas.
Richter Enderas
Kaesong Kosmonauts
#231 - 2012-04-06 22:24:21 UTC
Absolutely not. How will my industry bros make money off of Thrasher and Brutix hulls?
Katerwaul
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#232 - 2012-04-07 03:31:46 UTC
Asudem wrote:
The OP made a nice April fools joke. And it seems everyone felt for it! xD


Get rid of ganking...in a world where the the recruitment video shows someone getting ganked, then working their way through friendships, corporations, and into that person's alliance just to screw them over by taking everything.

Get rid of ganking...in a world where we have real life headlines like "EVE Online player steals $45,000 worth of ISK in massive investment scam"... because clearly ganking is the only thing we need to worry about.

This has to be the best troll I've seen in months.


---

And for the record -- I'd hate to see the deflation of value & allure in the universe if they took ganking away. Sure it can be pricey if you aren't paying attention..but think of all of the afk mined ore & scripted mining avoided by ganking that would otherwise flood the marketplace...

As for the "new player experience" - part of it is realizing how much is out there, going through the pain & loss, meeting people you can trust and work with to really enjoy the game. The best ways to avoid being ganked while mining? Fleet mining ops with your corp & vigilance.
Working with everyone to improve New Eden -- Internet Spaceships Iz Serious Business.