EVE Information Portal

I have to say, I am not a fan of instanced PVP in Eve. The appeal of Eve, to me, is that PVP is an unknown quantity. When I go into a fight, I don't necessarily know what my opponent is going to do, what support they have (unless I have taken precautions to scout), and what the expected outcome will be. This adds risk to my experience, and while one could argue that the "duel" system still hold this risk to some level, it is just a step in the "dumbing down" of Eve PVP.

Eve is the only MMO that I know of where PVP really MATTERS. I PVP for space, for war, for friendship and for animosity. This is what is unique in Eve, PVP is the most critical part of the ongoing narrative designed and written by the players. While there are "casual" PVP opportunities in Eve, like RVB, these are also designed and driven by the players, not by a game mechanic. I worry that the implementation of a game mechanic that encourages sanctioned, "instanced" PVP erodes the heart of Eve, which is that space is dangerous, lawless in places, and PVP is NOT consensual, it is a mandatory part of the game. Even though the other aspects of PVP will remain, this mechanic dilutes it, and in doing so, risks diluting the thing that makes Eve special to me, that keeps me coming back for more.

I for one think this mechanic does not fit into the story or spirit of Eve, and I would not like to see it implemented.

Not sure what you try to tell me. There are no "police forces" in lowsec besides our beloved sentries - which makes pvp possible.

I'm simply trying to ascertain just why exactly you feel that a CINT is applicable to or appropriate for low or null-sec. So far you haven't really backed up that statement. In fact your statements are going more to the opposite direction, that a CINT is neither applicable to nor appropriate for low/null-sec.

You're welcome to your opinion of course, but when you're in water it's rather hard to make it more wet.

I can see your point, but I don't see why it's an issue now. "Dueling" wasn't much of a factor when it was, for all intents and purposes, based around mechanics abuse so I don't see that it would be much of a factor if it becomes a "legitimate" mechanic. Likewise I don't even really see any major population shifts caused by it. Some disenchanted solo PvP'ers might move to high-sec to "duel" and some carebear'ish types might realize PvP isn't so bad and either move to low/null-sec or go on roams, but it'll likely break even in the end.

The real issue with PvP in low and null-sec isn't "dueling" in high-sec, it's that low and null-sec aren't attractive enough for a lot of non-PvP'ers. If official "dueling" drew off a large number of low/null-sec pilots into becoming high-sec quasi-carebears then the real problem isn't dueling, it's that low/null-sec isn't attractive enough.



CONCORD Intervention Nullification Timer

I got tired years ago of people making up their own acronyms and expecting me to know what they mean so rather than continue being annoyed I decided to join them. As such e(ffective)DPS and r(aw)DPS are now part of my ship-based posting repertoire, I routinely use MW2 for MechWarrior 2 in any conversation where someone is almost certain to wonder why I'm bringing Modern Warfare 2 into it, and I decided to coin CINT as an easy way of describing what CCP is planning on implementing.

I mean nobody else was doing it, so... /shrugs.

Late on the reply, but to the OP Nice Work! A cool feature to have, should save a lot of minor niggles in game! :)

Actually not as it is the opposite of what Eve is today.



We have a different view onto Eve. I know Eve since 2007 as an open, harsh, cruel etc. game without any mercy.

It doesn't need achievements, unlocks, superunlocks, points, colorful bling bling etc. to attract the people who actually find their own enjoyable way.



They don't claim that it would, they are afraid that it could. Difference.



Putting a restricted small sandbox into a sandbox is an addition, yes. But it leads the big sandbox to a weird ad absurdum.


Please keep urself short next time.

The point where the mechanic derails from being a changed aspect of what was there to the unplesant land of arenas and sessions is when people start asking for NPCs to come in and make sure the duel itself is as they see it should be. That would be terrible. That is also not what is being suggested here.

This allows people to pew each other in high sec without going suspect to everyone. Just as can flipping did before. Only now the corporation can not warp in and WTFBBQ the person that accepted the challenge. It also means that both parties can select their range and decide who gets to start first and such things. That's it.

I'd really like to see the kill mails marked on this.

Haven't gotten around to reading all the previous posts, but was there a suggestion to add the ability to "wager"?

Thus, rather than fighting over garbage cans (sorry, jet cans) with one unit of ammo or trit, one might wager over a PLEX, for example, to make things "interesting".

However, again, I think a "duel" is only valid if there can be an option for strictly only two parties to be involved, enforced server-side, especially if there is wagering.

Which is pretty much how intra-corporation PvP is and how can-flip duels used to be. No real change there that I see.



Honestly, I agree that at least as far as high-sec is concerned nothing more than the CINT is needed. I also think that you should have to pay a CONCORD fee to obtain that CINT. You have to pay to war-dec a corporation so you might as well pay to, for all intents and purposes, war-dec a person.

That said I do think that there can be room in low and null-sec for some NPC-based additions based on the dueling idea. Create some low and null-sec duel sites in NPC-controlled space, locate them in deadspace, establish a bookie NPC loyal to the faction in control of that space with guards on the entrance acceleration gate to keep out people with standings lower than -2.0 with that faction, and work from there. They would also, of course, pay out the total pay-in to the people who bet on the winner(s) as a percentage of their "side's" pay-in, less bookie fees of course. IOW if 10 people bet 10m apiece on person A while 20 people bet 10m on person B if person A wins the first ten people get 30m apiece less the bookie's fees, say 15%.

The kicker should be that bookies should discriminate based on standings and have an upper limit on the betting. Say 1m/integer of standing in low-sec and 5m in null-sec. This would keep the upper limit of the bets you could place on a given duel at 50m and then only if you have 10.0 standing with the local (NPC) goons. If that weren't enough the NPCs are just their to protect their interests.

Shoot people with sufficiently negative standing with that faction, shoot people who attack the bookie or guardian NPCs, and otherwise ignore everything else that players do. If one side has a bunch of catalysts warp in to gank the other side so be it, s*** happens. If the people who lost their bets start trying to gank those who won them after the duel then so be it, it's not the concern of the NPCs. If people shoot the bookie, well, they (probably) lose their ships to a bunch of dangerous NPCs with crap loot drops, earn a hefty standings penalty, and if the bookie dies all bets are lost. Yes, that really does open up NPC gambling sites to douche-baggery.

Players will, of course, be free to run their own gambling sites anytime anywhere and other players will be able to use them without restriction as well. In point of fact if people wanted to gamble without grinding standings or the 10.0 caps they would have to use player-run sites.

Again, it's not something I'd personally use, but the idea has two, in my opinion potentially significant, benefits for EVE Online. First and foremost it can help funnel isk out of the economy. Secondly it helps boost the level of NPC life in the game. The more active and interactive NPCs are in EVE the more real the galaxy becomes. This method of accomplishing both goals benefits low-sec more than high-sec and null-sec most of all while putting sufficient enough restrictions on NPC-based activities to make PC-based activities more attractive to many if not most players. It also does nothing to eliminate risk, merely to provide consequences and then only if you fiddle with the NPCs themselves.

..but, if you read it, it doesn't really. It just removes the need for someone to be a suspect, prior to being able to legally attack them in Highsec. It's a UI Jetcan of sorts.

That said, I hate to say it, but it does sound rather corny.