These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

low sec sentrys and pvp arenas ( csm minutes quotes )

Author
Phill Esteen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2012-08-03 11:51:09 UTC
why waste a development cycle on arenas when it would be simpler and cheaper to add a multiplayer mode to EFT?

– postum faex est – 

never forget

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#62 - 2012-08-03 14:54:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
baltec1 wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Every game that has added arena pvp has killled the pvp elsewhere in the game. Needless to say I am very worried over this.


Yes I noticed how since they introduced can flipping to engage 1 v 1 the game completely died. NGE? Trammel? Nothing compares to this abomination!


Oh wait.


SWG arenas hit and pvp everywhere else aside from space ended. Same with WoW and the many clones it spawned. Why spend your time looking for fights when you can push buttan get blap?


Don't mix different PvP games strategies please.

WoW willingly killed outdoor PvP by putting all the rewards inside the instanced PvP areas. This because WoW players could not stand the same that happens in EvE: guy does his stuff, 10 guys 40 levels above him gank him and then start with some banter.

Other games had more or less different approaches. Proper PvP games a la DAoC, WAR or GW2 put different rewards in different places so you are enticed to do a bit of all of them (including outdoor) to get the "carrots". Still a WoW-esque canned path but better.

Most of all, those instancing did two things:

1) They cater to the "sportmanship" "fair game" PvP players, who are 100 times as many as pure gankers. With the added benefit of having ladders, competitions etc.

2) By catering to this massive majority, all those who don't do it are either passionate outdoor players (a minority) willing to have to deal with NPC spawns interference and walking back a lot when they die or it's the pure gankers themselves.

Average Joes who hate being ganked (what's that 90% of the playerbase?) will choose to go inside the safety of instanced "fairness", often coupled with purely time based progress (i.e. no skill required).
So who are left in outdoor are an handful of passionate outdoor PvPers, an handful of material farmers / bots and the rest are gankers.


Conclusion: most are just scared sheep, this is why they refuge in instances.

The problem was not there to begin with: when they had no choice but to stay out and be farmed they just zerged or did not leave the "camps".
What you call "the PvP that ended" was basically PKillers ganking bads and singling out sheep. Idealistic PvP was never born (Edit: in the game where outdoor PvP was born, it'd die after the so called "classes stacking" and "FOTM combos" would be found. Teams of "pro-players" would just farm less FOTM ones).

In order to have your kind of game you have to pick the known "hard mode" games a la DFO or EvE but of course their numbers are in the tens of thousands not millions and tens of thousands is a big NO! in the eyes of most game publishers.


But look again, outside of blob 0.0 (see zergers above) and scarce small roamers (the passionate outdoor PvPers) what other PvP is in EvE NOW, before the changes? Surprise: gankers farming bads and sheep and material farmers / bots (miners anyone?).

EvE is just in that terminal PvP state plus due to the hard core label it also sports few tens of thousands of players. So we get the worst of the two worlds: small playerbase due to hard core label and scarce PvP anyway.


Guess where PvP flourishes the most in EvE? Exactly with small can flips, RvB and other similar "school corps". Exactly the bad stuff hard corers seem to fear the most for EvE.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#63 - 2012-08-03 15:08:21 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
I see no arenas. What I see is a much simpler way to arrange aggression so that two fleets can stage a fight. The fight still happens in normal space.

"Okay, has everyone taken from everyone else's cans? Are we okay on all the aggression timers? If anyone on the other fleet isn't red to you, get it sorted now or you won't be able to shoot them later." (mid-fight) "Crap my aggression on Bob ran out, I can't shoot him!"

Versus

"Fleet A wants to fight Fleet B. Agree?"

Yeah. Such a horrible idea and counter to Eve. Because it's easy.

edit: Just to make it clear, this sort of play has ALWAYS been possible. Arranged fleet battles simply makes it easy to set up, and a lot less stupid.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#64 - 2012-08-03 15:20:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Misanth
Best way to promote PvP, solo-, small as well as big scale, is to change player mentality.

* Players being scared to lose ships (isk) is a reason they don't want to fight. This is very very different from early days in EVE, even when we had no isk we'd take a cheap t1 fitted t1 frigate and still fight. I remember having Executioners I used frequently, at the cost of 40k each. Now everyone wants to fly big stuff, faction stuff, t2 fit, etc.

* Killboard padding. Am not saying killboards per se is bad, in fact I like them myself. It's fun to see statistics, getting a sort of 'condensed' battlereport etc. But alot of people do care an awful lot about their killboard stats, and so do alot of corps recruiting (which adds to players being scared to die).

* Both above encourages blob- and dishonourable tactics. I'd say tho that this is EVE, being dishonourable is not a bad thing, haha, but it does affect players mentality as well. They get less eager to engage.

* Skillpoint fear. You often hear players say "but I only have XYZ SP", or "he's played since 200x so he must be super-good!". There's an unreasonble fear that skillpoints affect the game massively. In reality, I've been taking out characters that's been 1-3 weeks old and solo-roamed just for fun, when I don't feel like losing my 40 million isk (156mil?) sp clone in a frig. You don't need massive points of sp.

* ..and on that topic, clone costs are ridicilous, I'd love to take out cheap frigs in characters like this, but why do that when your pod cost 40mil.. that's several frigs already. Forcing us to play bigger stuff, or alts? Should pure-medclone cost be a factor that limit us in PvP?

There's more to it, but this is a starters. And they all have in common; players are too scared to fight. Compare to when we started this game the early years. I remember in day one I went to belts and stole straight off the cans from ratters and miners. Then I checked ingame map, where is nearest lowsec, I'mma be a pirate! There was no limits, we just did it. Find the reasons players are so damn scared to engage today, and why they must use ship/clone x, and you are on a good way to promoting all scales of PvP. If that'd happen, noone would ever need or ask for some arena/instanced PvP.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Othran
Route One
#65 - 2012-08-03 15:37:20 UTC
We already have "Arenas"

Its called sisi (test server).

People don't use it as much as they should because mirroring is so infrequent.

Rather than screwing about with Eve why don't you just mirror TQ to sisi once a week? That way people who like to "duel" Roll can log on there and "fight to hull" or whatever the hell they do.

Damn glad I'm reducing the number of accounts I run, looks like CCP have lost the plot again.
Jim Era
#66 - 2012-08-03 15:43:34 UTC
While I detest the idea of arenas, a 'duel' might be ok, as long as you still lose your ship, and no tracking mechanic of 'arena ranking'.
Also no queue, you should have to be on the grid with the other player(s) you wish to 'duel'

Wat™

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#67 - 2012-08-03 15:49:43 UTC
Othran wrote:
We already have "Arenas"

Its called sisi (test server).

People don't use it as much as they should because mirroring is so infrequent.

Rather than screwing about with Eve why don't you just mirror TQ to sisi once a week? That way people who like to "duel" Roll can log on there and "fight to hull" or whatever the hell they do.

Damn glad I'm reducing the number of accounts I run, looks like CCP have lost the plot again.


And anyone trying to "duel" on SiSi knows how good that works.

"LF 1v1 at frigate beacon"
*player #1 warps and is greeted by 7 ships that instapop him*

"Want to test my fit, meet at XYZ"
*player #2 warps to XYZ and is greeted by 17 ships that instapop him*

"SiSi specific rules: No podding or non-consensual PvP"
*players #3 and #4 kills and pods random players travelling around, just for fun, after all, they only get a SiSi-ban until the next mirror anyway.. so who cares.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#68 - 2012-08-03 15:52:57 UTC
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:
Syphon Lodian wrote:

I don't even like the concept of being able to go "test" on SiSi with no risk. I hate that, I've never done it and never will. Fighting and "testing" should be happening on TQ. I know a lot of people disagree with me, but half the people who try to "school you" on what "Risk" is in EVE, usually test on SiSi for everything they do... Risk, what?


If you read the whole minutes. It goes into detail about the thoughts of "arena" fighting.
A: you still lose ships
B: Supports player organized events and betting with the flagging support
C: Don't have to wander around for a hour looking for someone to blob jump or for a group to challenge you.
D: Don't need sisi for instant gratification pvp.
E: Wont stop people who want to own space or break enemy infrastructure.

F: Its not an "Instanced" fight. Its just like both sides dropping a can and then stealing from the other's can is now. The "Duel" option is just a cleaner way to do what is an existing mechanic.

If there is an ongoing duel, its possible for you to stumble upon it, watch, help or hinder one side (with crimewatch consequences) salvage wrecks, loot wrecks (you become a suspect), and so on.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2012-08-03 16:19:02 UTC  |  Edited by: MotherMoon
Stukkler Tian wrote:
I love rvb but your arena fights are way different from the ones that they are suggesting even in rvb ffa's there is the off chance that one of your 3rd party will come by and crash it, or a fellow rvber will pop you on the way over. On top of that the arena that you have created is a wonderful player creation that can be destroyed by another group of players (theoretically mate). It is not a invulnerability button for the unexpected. As far as sitting around waiting for an op being boring its called solo even if you suck its still pvp and its still fun. The destroyable sheild would be neato but dreaming it and doing it are two different things

Um what ?

Did you read any I wrote? Arena would be destoryable. It's just a bubble that kills anyone for leaving. That's it, that's an arena.

My point is we use a work around Allready. But there is no way to trap people in a battle. It's not hello kitty online. It's not even consenual oblong, you could use arenas to trap people into... Omg. Yes.

Arena could be used in normal pvp. You warp in, and instead of a bubble you drop an arena. Now the enemy cant run and no one can leaven both sides are traped. If more than so many points of ships are inside then the rest are pushed out. Turning arenas into an anti blob mechanic

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#70 - 2012-08-03 16:22:14 UTC
Misanth wrote:
Best way to promote PvP, solo-, small as well as big scale, is to change player mentality.

* Killboard padding. Am not saying killboards per se is bad, in fact I like them myself. It's fun to see statistics, getting a sort of 'condensed' battlereport etc. But alot of people do care an awful lot about their killboard stats, and so do alot of corps recruiting (which adds to players being scared to die).



All the sentences were very to the point, and this one I want to talk about it.

I played 3 PvP MMOs that literally lost most of their PvP once they introduced mods similar to kill boards. They look nice and really give that "e-peen" feeling but they make all the less than super skilled never try again.

Other games made great efforts exactly to avoid having those kinds of "in the face" measurements. The latest of course would be Guild Wars 2, where you won't even be able to know what cross server guild you faced, exactly to avoid this kind of PvP avoidance.
flakeys
Doomheim
#71 - 2012-08-03 16:24:44 UTC  |  Edited by: flakeys
Lady Spank wrote:
Yet more blob support and a kick in the arse to soloers. pathetically out of touch.



For once i agree with you ... damn you for doing this to me.


And yes killboards killed eve pvp fun .

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#72 - 2012-08-03 16:25:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Misanth
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Misanth wrote:
Best way to promote PvP, solo-, small as well as big scale, is to change player mentality.

* Killboard padding. Am not saying killboards per se is bad, in fact I like them myself. It's fun to see statistics, getting a sort of 'condensed' battlereport etc. But alot of people do care an awful lot about their killboard stats, and so do alot of corps recruiting (which adds to players being scared to die).



All the sentences were very to the point, and this one I want to talk about it.

I played 3 PvP MMOs that literally lost most of their PvP once they introduced mods similar to kill boards. They look nice and really give that "e-peen" feeling but they make all the less than super skilled never try again.

Other games made great efforts exactly to avoid having those kinds of "in the face" measurements. The latest of course would be Guild Wars 2, where you won't even be able to know what cross server guild you faced, exactly to avoid this kind of PvP avoidance.


I am not going to disagree, I played before killboards popped up and it's quite obvious the difference between PvP now and then. Most of us didn't even keep the mails that was sent to us. Hey, mailbox filled up! P

We'd just take out what we had, and could afford. T1 frigate/cruiser in particular. I think I had Amarr BS 5 for 1,5 years before I even bought my first Armageddon..

The problem is what I posted above; player mentallity.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Othran
Route One
#73 - 2012-08-03 16:42:52 UTC
Misanth wrote:

And anyone trying to "duel" on SiSi knows how good that works.

"LF 1v1 at frigate beacon"
*player #1 warps and is greeted by 7 ships that instapop him*

"Want to test my fit, meet at XYZ"
*player #2 warps to XYZ and is greeted by 17 ships that instapop him*

"SiSi specific rules: No podding or non-consensual PvP"
*players #3 and #4 kills and pods random players travelling around, just for fun, after all, they only get a SiSi-ban until the next mirror anyway.. so who cares.


Aye well perhaps if you weren't in the FFA systems you wouldn't get ganked to ****?

Unless I've totally lost the plot as to what "duel" means it is CONSENSUAL PvP so you can do it wherever the hell you want on sisi.

Instancing PvP may appeal to you, it doesn't to me.
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2012-08-04 00:26:07 UTC
MotherMoon wrote:
Helen Tredius wrote:
Arena idea is something that will see the biggest exodus in history of EVE if it ever becomes live on TQ. Fundamental gameplay changer. Incarna will be a joke comparing to that. If you want to kill the game beyond recovery be my guest and do that. Because you will not recover from that type of exodus.

Sentry guns in lowsec is something to look much more into in link with more changes to low. As for example removing local. So if someone wants to mine in the belts there or pvp then he have to find the target and target have chances to hide and run. Anything at all but not only sentry guns because only sentry guns will make lowsec a desert with no population at all.

Sry to break it you, but red verus blue Allready does arena fights.

So I guess we killed eve. Oh well it was fun while it lasted.



you counter your own point. If we can already do it, then there is no need for a change. save the programming hours for crap that matters.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#75 - 2012-08-04 00:29:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Ris Dnalor
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Ris Dnalor wrote:

The idea of Arenas, to me, is counter to everything eve-like. -- Eve is supposed to be such that you can pvp with anyone, anywhere, anytime, provided you are willing to accept the consquences for the area that you are in at the time. Setting up arenas is counter to that, but also sounds like a great excuse to later on start putting hard limits on when and where you can pvp. -- don't like this idea at all.


Woe on us if we let the free sandbox game also allow for consensual PvP!


Do you need a specific reason more than "for fun and tears" to go out and gank anybody? Same applies to those willing to engage into "consensual" PvP. I call it consensual not because excludes unconsensual PvP to happen but because it's not the usual "take it well deep into the **BEEP** kind of PvP we are accustomed to see in hi sec.

Do they get their little stinky instance? No.
Do they face the *consequences* and lose their ships? Yes.
Will that enormously boost PvP in the PvP


Consensual pvp already exists. Arenas remove the ability go back on your word regarding consensual pvp. I disagree that it will be a benefit to eve, but any given person's answer to that depends on what they want eve to be.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2012-08-04 00:29:20 UTC
Ris Dnalor wrote:
MotherMoon wrote:
Helen Tredius wrote:
Arena idea is something that will see the biggest exodus in history of EVE if it ever becomes live on TQ. Fundamental gameplay changer. Incarna will be a joke comparing to that. If you want to kill the game beyond recovery be my guest and do that. Because you will not recover from that type of exodus.

Sentry guns in lowsec is something to look much more into in link with more changes to low. As for example removing local. So if someone wants to mine in the belts there or pvp then he have to find the target and target have chances to hide and run. Anything at all but not only sentry guns because only sentry guns will make lowsec a desert with no population at all.

Sry to break it you, but red verus blue Allready does arena fights.

So I guess we killed eve. Oh well it was fun while it lasted.



you counter your own point. If we can already do it, then there is no need for a change. save the programming hours for crap that matters.


Back in 2004 there were no alliances but corporations were grouping up into alliances on their own. Thus ccp created the alliance system to help those players in game, despite alliances already forming and existing.

By your logic, alliances should not have been added the game. How does that make you feel.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#77 - 2012-08-04 00:30:29 UTC  |  Edited by: MotherMoon
Othran wrote:
Misanth wrote:

And anyone trying to "duel" on SiSi knows how good that works.

"LF 1v1 at frigate beacon"
*player #1 warps and is greeted by 7 ships that instapop him*

"Want to test my fit, meet at XYZ"
*player #2 warps to XYZ and is greeted by 17 ships that instapop him*

"SiSi specific rules: No podding or non-consensual PvP"
*players #3 and #4 kills and pods random players travelling around, just for fun, after all, they only get a SiSi-ban until the next mirror anyway.. so who cares.


Aye well perhaps if you weren't in the FFA systems you wouldn't get ganked to ****?

Unless I've totally lost the plot as to what "duel" means it is CONSENSUAL PvP so you can do it wherever the hell you want on sisi.

Instancing PvP may appeal to you, it doesn't to me.


Thank god arenas have nothing to do with instances or consensual pvp! thanks for you vote to add arenas! : D your support is welcomed.

currently you can do arena combat in eve, but one side can just warp off. With an arena bubble both sides are locked in until everyone is podded and dead. including people who don't want to fight in the arena.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2012-08-04 00:34:58 UTC
MotherMoon wrote:
Ris Dnalor wrote:
MotherMoon wrote:
Helen Tredius wrote:
Arena idea is something that will see the biggest exodus in history of EVE if it ever becomes live on TQ. Fundamental gameplay changer. Incarna will be a joke comparing to that. If you want to kill the game beyond recovery be my guest and do that. Because you will not recover from that type of exodus.

Sentry guns in lowsec is something to look much more into in link with more changes to low. As for example removing local. So if someone wants to mine in the belts there or pvp then he have to find the target and target have chances to hide and run. Anything at all but not only sentry guns because only sentry guns will make lowsec a desert with no population at all.

Sry to break it you, but red verus blue Allready does arena fights.

So I guess we killed eve. Oh well it was fun while it lasted.



you counter your own point. If we can already do it, then there is no need for a change. save the programming hours for crap that matters.


Back in 2004 there were no alliances but corporations were grouping up into alliances on their own. Thus ccp created the alliance system to help those players in game, despite alliances already forming and existing.

By your logic, alliances should not have been added the game. How does that make you feel.



Making arenas will not allow for people to be deceptive about agreed upon "consensual fights" --- This is a big change to how it has been since 2003. Alliances didn't change how people fought, it merely provided some tools to help organizational leadership and logistics ( although not near enough tools by far, but there is talk more may be in the works, finally ). So it's apples and oranges, really.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#79 - 2012-08-04 00:36:00 UTC
MotherMoon wrote:
Othran wrote:
Misanth wrote:

And anyone trying to "duel" on SiSi knows how good that works.

"LF 1v1 at frigate beacon"
*player #1 warps and is greeted by 7 ships that instapop him*

"Want to test my fit, meet at XYZ"
*player #2 warps to XYZ and is greeted by 17 ships that instapop him*

"SiSi specific rules: No podding or non-consensual PvP"
*players #3 and #4 kills and pods random players travelling around, just for fun, after all, they only get a SiSi-ban until the next mirror anyway.. so who cares.


Aye well perhaps if you weren't in the FFA systems you wouldn't get ganked to ****?

Unless I've totally lost the plot as to what "duel" means it is CONSENSUAL PvP so you can do it wherever the hell you want on sisi.

Instancing PvP may appeal to you, it doesn't to me.


Thank god arenas have nothing to do with instances or consensual pvp! thanks for you vote to add arenas! : D your support is welcomed.

currently you can do arena combat in eve, but one side can just warp off. With an arena bubble both sides are locked in until everyone is podded and dead. including people who don't want to fight in the arena.


could you site your source for this detailed information on how the arena concept will work?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#80 - 2012-08-04 00:46:15 UTC  |  Edited by: MotherMoon
RiS, that's the point. We and the csm are being asked how they should work. no one wants wow arenas. I think the problem is they are using a word that strikes fear. And it is justified.

The only thing i want as an arena combat allaince member is a bubble that kills you if you try to leave. This would be useful outside of arena combat as you could drop them at POS fights and such. trap the attackers inside your grid, force combat, no running. Unless you have backup kill the shield from outside. But the nice part is the defense would be locked in too.

There are no deatails, we get to ask for what we want. And I want a way kill people who get scared and try to run.

p.s.(that's how the alliance tournament works, and they said they want it to work that way)

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg