These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Do many EVE players fear consentual PvP?

Author
Ila Gant
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#161 - 2013-01-23 18:34:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Ila Gant
Sura Sadiva wrote:
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Who said we needed it?
Why not make it easier to set those up and deter/detect interference from others?
How does it affect YOUR game?


Actually it does affect; it's a theme park game mechanic added in a sandbox setting.
What's the difference?
A sandobox mechanic do not give to the players a premade outcome but provide tools to build their own.

So in a theme park, for istance, you may have a quest asking you to escort an NPC from point X to point Y and the gameplay will develop along a predeterminated trail with a premade outcome.

In a sandbox you don't have this, you may have a corp mate asking you to scout his hauler from system X to system Y, the whole gameplay develops from players real interactions and needs. And the outcome is not predterminated just cause third paarties can interfere/interact.

In our case the need to set up a duel, to find a way to do it, to grant a safe area for it and so on are all things players have to work to set up; all this working produce game contents. Not only for the 2 involved in the duel but also for others.

Duelling/Arena systems on the countrary clear all the this and push (cause is an easy shortcut) a premade outcome to something that, anyway, you can already do now.

The concern here is noit the duelling system itself but the fact that devs seems to not see this difference or to not care for it, preferring to overwrite/replace sandbox logic with theme park mechanics (more easy for them to manage).

Neither dueling, nor arenas, may be categorized as sandbox or theme park. Just because a theme-park game has arenas, doesn't preclude a sandbox game from setting up arenas in a way that fits its own style.

The same goes for dueling, and the current implementation only restores functionality.

I'm not in favor of it, but Eve could have arenas with betting that were still subject to interference, and it would be a sandbox version of arenas. The key to the sandbox is that the rules may be broken by any player, and such a player must simply face the consequences of breaking the rules.

If there were a system created such that the rules could not be broken, that's when we have to worry. So instancing of arenas so that no one can shoot players in a duel or arena would be bad for Eve, and would be a theme-park style of implementation. But giving players a way to set up a tournament in hi-sec where anyone could still come along and spoil it, that's sandbox-style.

I would agree with the characterization that NPC-oriented mechanisms tend to fit in the category of theme parks. But dueling and arenas can be implemented where the focus is still interaction between players, and is not driven by NPCs at all. To use your example, if CCP provided a mechanism for escort contracts where one player can specify payment and conditions of a successful trip to another player, this would not be a theme park feature.

Adding a bucket and a shovel to the sandbox doesn't make it any less of a sandbox.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#162 - 2013-01-23 18:51:16 UTC
I'm missing the part where dueling and consensual pvp is somehow absent.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

Yuri Wayfare
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
#163 - 2013-01-23 19:11:41 UTC
I don't mind the dueling option at all. In fact I'm looking forward to gathering statistics on how many idiots accidentally push "accept" or simply put too much stock into the "without intervention" bit.

That said, I would oppose any sort of "nobody can **** with you here" mechanic. Nerf docking!

"Suddenly, trash pickers! HUNDREDS of winos going through your recyclables." -Piugattuk

Be careful what you wish for.

Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#164 - 2013-01-23 19:17:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Pahrdi
Bane Necran wrote:
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.

Arena style PvP usually is instanced PvP. It removes the dangers of non consensual PvP. If your "EVE arena style" thing would allow an unrelated third party to find and attack two groups involved in an "arena match" and ruin their day, I would be fine with whatever else you think arena style needs to be.

Remove standings and insurance.

Ila Gant
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#165 - 2013-01-23 19:48:19 UTC
Batelle wrote:
I'm missing the part where dueling and consensual pvp is somehow absent.

It isn't, and I still maintain there's nothing wrong with adding mechanisms to the game that help facilitate those activities. It would be wrong (for Eve) to have those mechanisms preclude other players knocking over the sand castle or stealing the bucket, so to speak.
Jantunen the Infernal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2013-01-23 20:15:02 UTC
All kinds of PvP are consentual. You consent to PvP when you log in.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#167 - 2013-01-23 20:17:25 UTC
Jantunen the Infernal wrote:
All kinds of PvP are consentual. You consent to PvP when you log in.

I don't. I typically try to avoid it.
Not Politically Correct
Doomheim
#168 - 2013-01-24 02:52:19 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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?


Sorry, Tippia. I only decided to drop this on you because you are annoying. Non-consensual PvP may hve been a part of the game since the 1890's, when you started playing, but was it ever a good idea? Sometimes I wonder.

Most players DO NOT consent to non-consensual PvP when they log in. They spend the whole time they are logged in hoping that no 1%ers find them.

I, for one, would be a lot happier with consensual PvP being formalized. Let the 1%ers go out and blow each other up. I can't see a downside. You serve no real purpose in the game, and you definitely don't have an impact on the economy, no matter what you think.
FourierTransformer
#169 - 2013-01-24 02:58:27 UTC  |  Edited by: FourierTransformer
Tbh It appears most of nullsec has adopted consensual pvp.

"Wargames" online.
Not Politically Correct
Doomheim
#170 - 2013-01-24 03:07:29 UTC
FourierTransformer wrote:
Tbh It appears most of nullsec has adopted consensual pvp.

"Wargames" online.


I've lost more ships in Null than I have in Hi. Most were Industrials and definitely not consensual.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#171 - 2013-01-24 03:40:47 UTC
If I had to give an opinion, I'd say that it is more to do with the notion of a player going around sending invites to PvP than anything else. If you think about it, in the context of EVE, that is rather absurd.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#172 - 2013-01-24 03:59:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Mars Theran wrote:
If I had to give an opinion, I'd say that it is more to do with the notion of a player going around sending invites to PvP than anything else. If you think about it, in the context of EVE, that is rather absurd.

Yet we still have people in local chat soliciting for 1v1's, now they have their fun directly supported. Yes workarounds exist, but since when are we against small quality of life style improvements.

Besides, between immortal demigods of the stars what is a little friendly death sport every now and then? Seems absurd to me to think our characters would never partake of such an indulgence. Cold harsh universe and all.
Bane Necran
Appono Astos
#173 - 2013-01-24 04:01:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Bane Necran
Actually, just read Tyberius Franklin's response above.

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

Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
#174 - 2013-01-24 07:31:25 UTC
Not Politically Correct wrote:
Tippia wrote:
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?


Sorry, Tippia. I only decided to drop this on you because you are annoying. Non-consensual PvP may hve been a part of the game since the 1890's, when you started playing, but was it ever a good idea? Sometimes I wonder.

Most players DO NOT consent to non-consensual PvP when they log in. They spend the whole time they are logged in hoping that no 1%ers find them.

I, for one, would be a lot happier with consensual PvP being formalized. Let the 1%ers go out and blow each other up. I can't see a downside. You serve no real purpose in the game, and you definitely don't have an impact on the economy, no matter what you think.


I think when a person uses "most" and "%'s" to try to make a point, he should post the link to the source of that information because I call bullshit.


The reality of Eve is that, if you don't love it like it is today, you should probobly go ahead and unsub. 

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#175 - 2013-01-24 09:20:26 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Not Politically Correct wrote:
Tippia wrote:
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?


Sorry, Tippia. I only decided to drop this on you because you are annoying. Non-consensual PvP may hve been a part of the game since the 1890's, when you started playing, but was it ever a good idea? Sometimes I wonder.

Most players DO NOT consent to non-consensual PvP when they log in. They spend the whole time they are logged in hoping that no 1%ers find them.

I, for one, would be a lot happier with consensual PvP being formalized. Let the 1%ers go out and blow each other up. I can't see a downside. You serve no real purpose in the game, and you definitely don't have an impact on the economy, no matter what you think.


You're basically asking if a deliberate, core design choice - one that defined the type of game EVE was and allowed it to thrive for a decade - was wrong.

Oh my.

As for people who "don't consent" to pvp when they log in, that's just a nonsensical stance to me, considering the nature of the game. It's like saying you didn't consent to getting shot at when you started up counterstrike and joined a server.
Renzo Ruderi
Doomheim
#176 - 2013-01-24 10:57:34 UTC
Not Politically Correct wrote:
Tippia wrote:
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?


Sorry, Tippia. I only decided to drop this on you because you are annoying. Non-consensual PvP may hve been a part of the game since the 1890's, when you started playing, but was it ever a good idea? Sometimes I wonder.

Most players DO NOT consent to non-consensual PvP when they log in. They spend the whole time they are logged in hoping that no 1%ers find them.

I, for one, would be a lot happier with consensual PvP being formalized. Let the 1%ers go out and blow each other up. I can't see a downside. You serve no real purpose in the game, and you definitely don't have an impact on the economy, no matter what you think.


I play mostly PvE, and I dislike the foam-at-the-mouth type of PvPers who need duels and arenas to keep their ADHD in check - but the chance of somebody attacking me as I travel through policed space is what makes the trip worthwhile to begin with. If you want an EVE without non-consensual PvP, then you are playing the wrong game.

I'm not saying that in a snide way, you really should be playing a different game. World of Warcraft Auction House Mogul is probably a better fit.
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#177 - 2013-01-24 11:32:16 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:
If I had to give an opinion, I'd say that it is more to do with the notion of a player going around sending invites to PvP than anything else. If you think about it, in the context of EVE, that is rather absurd.


This also. Is like an F16 fighter pilot flying around on our cities and asking other fighter pilot to engage just for fun. And police ive them license for it.

Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#178 - 2013-01-24 11:39:39 UTC
Not Politically Correct wrote:

Sorry, Tippia. I only decided to drop this on you because you are annoying. Non-consensual PvP may hve been a part of the game since the 1890's, when you started playing, but was it ever a good idea? Sometimes I wonder.

Most players DO NOT consent to non-consensual PvP when they log in. They spend the whole time they are logged in hoping that no 1%ers find them.



You understand this is like entering a vegetarian restaurant and ordring an hamburger, right? And insisting "why not? meat is better".

beside, this is not about non consensual PvP, is about accepting a game model developing from open interactions among players (competitive/conflictual interactions or not). Open PvP is a mere consequence of this setting, negating it means negating the interaction model as well.

The kind of game based on this are also the only one able to develop a meaningfull crafting, market, industry, trading. Is not a coincidence, there are a reasons.

Bob Killan
Dzark Asylum
#179 - 2013-01-24 11:51:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Bob Killan
The main issues aren't that 1v1 duels are allowed. Its that they are allowed in High Sec.

Low sec and 0.0 are under populated, this is the core of the game or should be in most peoples opinion. Allowing people to have structured fights in High sec can potentially reduce the number of people venturing out to Low Sec and 0.0. i mean why risk getting blob'd in Low or 0.0 when you can stay protected by Concord and PvP in High Sec?

Also there were many ways to have your 1v1. Log onto a test server, got to 0.0/low sec or war dec each others corp. It didnt need coding time that could have been better spent on the endless list of other improvements/fixes that are much more important than adding something that was already available via a number of channels.

And if its extended to arena that will make matters worse. why roam around low populated Low or Null sec looking for a fight in your group and risk meeting a bigger group when you can log onto the forums find a fight and then hook up in Jita to fight it out.

The whole idea is against what I believe was CCP original design, get to grips with Eve in High Sec then move out to Low/Null.

It's termed carebare because it is seen as such in games like WOW aswell. It was done mainly by the noobs and fools in WOW outside Stormwind on PvE servers. If you want PvP grow some balls and enter a PvP server, if you cannot hack PvP dont do it. You got some of these types defending it saying its practise for teh real thing but you never saw them in the real thing, and better practise would be going out and doing the real thing.
Peter Powers
Terrorists of Dimensions
#180 - 2013-01-24 11:52:05 UTC
PvP in EVE is consentual.
Whenever you undock you consent to PvP.

3rdPartyEve.net - your catalogue for 3rd party applications