These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#201 - 2013-01-25 22:10:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Sura Sadiva wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

So if there are mechanics that enable PvP avoidance how can logging in or undocking be considered consent for combat? Dwelling in highsec is one of those means, so unless you are giving up your eligibility for concord retaliation it doesn't seem you are giving consent to aggressors.


Isn't so.
High-sec do not prevent anyone to attack. Concord mechanics simply sanction "illegal" aggression, do not prevent it.
Open PvP in EVE is enabled everywhere in the same identical way. What can change are the possible effects/ consequences of it (security status, cocncord intervention and so on).

The only mechanics preventing direct PvP engagment is, indeed, docking. This is where the say "when you undock you consent" come from.

Again, who said "prevent" in relevance to highsec? I said avoid, not prevent. Note I specifically said "retaliation" rather than "protection" in regard to concord actions. This was intentional.

And there are such means (warp stabs/interdiction nullification/high agility ships/situational awareness/etc) that do not include docking. Using highsec consequences as a deterrent is one such means. They do not guarantee success so they are not prevention. But they are used as avoidance. So how is someone who is using any of the above or others I may have omitted consenting people engaging them when they are actively working to avoid that engagement?
Not Politically Correct
Doomheim
#202 - 2013-01-25 22:21:32 UTC
Sura Sadiva wrote:
Not Politically Correct wrote:

Oh, I have a very small impact on the economy. See, I'm one of the ones who produces things for ship construction and POS refueling. I know it is a pretty weird thing to do, but I enjoy it a lot more than blowing things up.


Cool. And don't you see as if your gameplay is viable and you can enjoy building things is just because someone else blow those things up and need to rebuy?

Is not abstract theory, has be experimented:

In Ultima Online (another game known for his open brutal PvP setting and in deepth crafting system and player driven economy) at some point they decided to make everyone happy to split the game world in two:

Trammel (only consensual PvP) and Fellucca (open PvP)

This totally destroyed the game economy, most of the players found more convenient to stay in the "consensual PvP" world also if the open PvP one was far more ritch as resources. Soon everyone farmed safe till becoming dirti ritch, had everything and there was no more need of crafting, the igame economy collapsed under the inflaction and the game died fast.



I don't see that happening at all. That's why I disagree with all this stuff about PvP being essential to the economy.

Eliminate most of the PvPers and you eliminate many of the bots. Mineral prices go up. Use the minerals, and PI to build POSes. Mine 'moon goo'. Explore. Expand. Even without PvPers mining in 0.0 is dangerous. Lost ships = production opportunities.

But I don't even advocate getting rid of all PvPers. Let them play around with themselves. Once again, Lost ships = production opportunities. The ones who are really rabid will stay.

But look at it another way. What good are they? If we weren't here, they wouldn't be either.

Now I have studied economics. Probably more than most. I don't think this economy has ANY need for PvPers, but they do have some role in the appeal of the game. Fine. Like I said, let them play with themselves. Because a big problem is that the ones who aren't good enough to get easy kills turn into hatchery poachers, and gankers. Personally, I can't see any reason, in game or out, for catering to these people.
Theodoric Darkwind
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#203 - 2013-01-25 22:22:43 UTC
WoW is that way -------------->

non-consensual pvp has always been a part of EVE.

nerfing the sandbox aspect of EVE by making PvP consensual would remove the one thing that makes EVE different.
Galaxy Pig
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#204 - 2013-01-25 22:25:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Galaxy Pig
They are not consenting tothe engagement directly, rather consenting to the possibility. Ihopee this has helped you understand EVE better. :)

Highsec is owned by players now. Systems 0.5-1.0 are New Order Territory. All miners and other residents of Highsec must obey The Code. Mining without a permit is dangerous and harmful to the EVE community. See www.MinerBumping.com
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#205 - 2013-01-25 22:28:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Galaxy Pig wrote:
They are not consenting tothe engagement directly, rather consenting to the possibility. I hole this has helped you understand EVE better. :)

Then the statement at hand is objectively false. There is consensual PvP. And there is no reason it can't be supported so long as it in no way detracts from non-consensual PvP.
Not Politically Correct
Doomheim
#206 - 2013-01-25 22:29:38 UTC
Theodoric Darkwind wrote:
WoW is that way -------------->

non-consensual pvp has always been a part of EVE.

nerfing the sandbox aspect of EVE by making PvP consensual would remove the one thing that makes EVE different.



For me, WOW is NO WAY.

Just because something has been done a particular way for a thousand years, doesn't mean it was ever the right way to do it.

So go out and run over your neighbor's kid. That should keep you amused for a few minutes.
Theodoric Darkwind
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2013-01-25 22:37:40 UTC
Not Politically Correct wrote:
Theodoric Darkwind wrote:
WoW is that way -------------->

non-consensual pvp has always been a part of EVE.

nerfing the sandbox aspect of EVE by making PvP consensual would remove the one thing that makes EVE different.



For me, WOW is NO WAY.

Just because something has been done a particular way for a thousand years, doesn't mean it was ever the right way to do it.

So go out and run over your neighbor's kid. That should keep you amused for a few minutes.





You can already have a consensual fight if you want, just ask someone for an arranged 1v1. If they honor it great, you got your consensual PvP, if they dont honor it, welcome to EVE where people can and will stab you in the back.
Not Politically Correct
Doomheim
#208 - 2013-01-25 22:43:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Not Politically Correct
Theodoric Darkwind wrote:

You can already have a consensual fight if you want, just ask someone for an arranged 1v1. If they honor it great, you got your consensual PvP, if they dont honor it, welcome to EVE where people can and will stab you in the back.


If I wanted to get stabbed in the back, I would just go outside, not play Eve for the virtual version.
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#209 - 2013-01-25 23:01:19 UTC
Not Politically Correct wrote:

But look at it another way. What good are they? If we weren't here, they wouldn't be either.



Yes, of course you're right, it's creation/destruction cycle.

However I don't see too many post complaint on the forum against people building things. So maybe "the others" understand the sinergy (and the game logic) better.
And nobody post on the forum demanding to change industry in a way so that "consent" from PvPers to build should be required. You can do your game freely and do not need any consent to it, why don't want to allow the same for the others?
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#210 - 2013-01-25 23:05:15 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
[quote=Sura Sadiva]
And there are such means (warp stabs/interdiction nullification/high agility ships/situational awareness/etc) that do not include docking. Using highsec consequences as a deterrent is one such means. They do not guarantee success so they are not prevention. But they are used as avoidance. So how is someone who is using any of the above or others I may have omitted consenting people engaging them when they are actively working to avoid that engagement?


That's not avoiding "pvp" that's managing to survive a pvp engagment.

If your transport is catched on a gate and you outmanouver your aggressor you're engaged in PvP (like or dislike it), and if you manage to get out you win it.

The "you give your consent to pvp undocking" is only a way to say that is impliit in the game mechanics, there's no /pvp on /pvp off switch.
Damn, is like playing tetris and then compalining cause you never gave your consent for those blocks to fall down.
Galaxy Pig
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#211 - 2013-01-25 23:06:48 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Galaxy Pig wrote:
They are not consenting tothe engagement directly, rather consenting to the possibility. I hole this has helped you understand EVE better. :)

Then the statement at hand is objectively false. There is consensual PvP. And there is no reason it can't be supported so long as it in no way detracts from non-consensual PvP.



No, actually there are tons of reasons, see the last 10 pages.

Highsec is owned by players now. Systems 0.5-1.0 are New Order Territory. All miners and other residents of Highsec must obey The Code. Mining without a permit is dangerous and harmful to the EVE community. See www.MinerBumping.com
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#212 - 2013-01-25 23:15:10 UTC
Galaxy Pig wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Galaxy Pig wrote:
They are not consenting tothe engagement directly, rather consenting to the possibility. I hole this has helped you understand EVE better. :)

Then the statement at hand is objectively false. There is consensual PvP. And there is no reason it can't be supported so long as it in no way detracts from non-consensual PvP.



No, actually there are tons of reasons, see the last 10 pages.


The only reasons I've seen are "slippery slope" arguments where it's "first we get duels, then we get arenas, next thing you know there's no ganking in highsec."

The duel system as detailed in the devblog is great. It's an LE on demand without having to muddle through suspect flags. Saves time for those parties who just want to jump straight in to the LE. Anything above that would be wrong...but I'm not going to argue against duels because some carebear idiot wants arenas to go with it.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#213 - 2013-01-25 23:25:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Galaxy Pig wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Galaxy Pig wrote:
They are not consenting tothe engagement directly, rather consenting to the possibility. I hole this has helped you understand EVE better. :)

Then the statement at hand is objectively false. There is consensual PvP. And there is no reason it can't be supported so long as it in no way detracts from non-consensual PvP.

No, actually there are tons of reasons, see the last 10 pages.

I have. None of them were good. They all boiled down to either the denial that the activity which the dueling system would support exists despite the fact that people have been working around other mechanics to do so for a long time, or various incarnations of slippery slope fallacies.

If you have something to add, I'd be glad to know what it was.

Sura Sadiva wrote:
That's not avoiding "pvp" that's managing to survive a pvp engagment.

If your transport is catched on a gate and you outmanouver your aggressor you're engaged in PvP (like or dislike it), and if you manage to get out you win it.

The "you give your consent to pvp undocking" is only a way to say that is impliit in the game mechanics, there's no /pvp on /pvp off switch.
Damn, is like playing tetris and then compalining cause you never gave your consent for those blocks to fall down.

Actually it is attempting to avoid PvP. All those items I listed can be targeted at the idea of not being where the PvP is. the fact that you may get caught and survive doesn't negate that you didn't want to get caught in the first place. Yes you had an encounter of you got caught, but that doesn't change the fact that you would rather not have had it to begin with, just that you were unsuccessful at complete avoidance.

The "You give your consent to pvp when you undock" statement isn't the only way of saying it. It isn't even the best as, if we include all competitive events between players we see that there are competitive events, and thus PvP, that happens when docked and non-competitive elements that can happen in space.

The lack of a PvP on/off switch in a game with non-combat centric activities, that can be ones primary activity, pretty much exemplifies non-consensual PvP. Being able to interfere with someone. Being able to confront them in a variety of ways. Being able to do it when they least want it and when it hurts them the most. That would be non-consensual PvP.
Not Politically Correct
Doomheim
#214 - 2013-01-25 23:26:28 UTC
Sura Sadiva wrote:
Not Politically Correct wrote:

But look at it another way. What good are they? If we weren't here, they wouldn't be either.



Yes, of course you're right, it's creation/destruction cycle.

However I don't see too many post complaint on the forum against people building things. So maybe "the others" understand the sinergy (and the game logic) better.
And nobody post on the forum demanding to change industry in a way so that "consent" from PvPers to build should be required. You can do your game freely and do not need any consent to it, why don't want to allow the same for the others?



Could it possibly be because gankers interfere with doing constructive things? Do you think?
Sarah Schneider
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#215 - 2013-01-26 00:11:33 UTC
Not Politically Correct wrote:
I don't see that happening at all. That's why I disagree with all this stuff about PvP being essential to the economy.

Eliminate most of the PvPers and you eliminate many of the bots. Mineral prices go up. Use the minerals, and PI to build POSes. Mine 'moon goo'. Explore. Expand. Even without PvPers mining in 0.0 is dangerous. Lost ships = production opportunities.

But I don't even advocate getting rid of all PvPers. Let them play around with themselves. Once again, Lost ships = production opportunities. The ones who are really rabid will stay.

But look at it another way. What good are they? If we weren't here, they wouldn't be either.

Now I have studied economics. Probably more than most. I don't think this economy has ANY need for PvPers, but they do have some role in the appeal of the game. Fine. Like I said, let them play with themselves. Because a big problem is that the ones who aren't good enough to get easy kills turn into hatchery poachers, and gankers. Personally, I can't see any reason, in game or out, for catering to these people.

Few things...

  • There has been no correlation whatsoever between PVPer and bots, infact, pure miners/industrialists are more likely to bot than your average null/lowsec PVPer. So unless your statement is backed up by CCP statistics, it has the same weight as random rambling.
  • Without PVPers nowhere is dangerous, unless you're dying to rats, which is stupid.
  • You're underestimating the importance of "ships" in Eve. Ships are the center of Eve's economy, most of the things produced are directly or indirectly related to ships in some fashion. Industrialists makes profit from building ships and ship related items solely because ships kept being blown up everywhere in Eve. Nullsec contributes over 50% of these losses and PVP contributes over 90% of these losses. This keeps demand high, especially due to the fact that most ships being used in null comes from hisec. So no, you take PVPers away, the market will crash.
  • If you're referring to "we" and "they" as industrialist carebears (those who doesn't/refuses to do PVP at all) and PVPers, then you're dead wrong. You see, while Eve needs balance between both creation and destruction (industry and combat), player-wise, if viewed by mentality, Eve can lose it's industrialist carebears just fine and the economy will correct itself in time due to the fact that PVPers do or can do industrial stuff if needed (some already does) but not the other way around (I can't count how many times I've seen carebears stated that they rather quit than do PVP). So again, no, you take PVPers away, the market will crash.


"I'd rather have other players get shot by other players than not interacting with others" -CCP Soundwave
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#216 - 2013-01-26 00:29:01 UTC
I can't believe people are still feeding the troll.

The Tears Must Flow
Not Politically Correct
Doomheim
#217 - 2013-01-26 00:34:09 UTC
Sarah Schneider
Few things...
[list wrote:

  • There has been no correlation whatsoever between PVPer and bots, infact, pure miners/industrialists are more likely to bot than your average null/lowsec PVPer. So unless your statement is backed up by CCP statistics, it has the same weight as random rambling.
  • Without PVPers nowhere is dangerous, unless you're dying to rats, which is stupid.
  • You're underestimating the importance of "ships" in Eve. Ships are the center of Eve's economy, most of the things produced are directly or indirectly related to ships in some fashion. Industrialists makes profit from building ships and ship related items solely because ships kept being blown up everywhere in Eve. Nullsec contributes over 50% of these losses and PVP contributes over 90% of these losses. This keeps demand high, especially due to the fact that most ships being used in null comes from hisec. So no, you take PVPers away, the market will crash.
  • If you're referring to "we" and "they" as industrialist carebears (those who doesn't/refuses to do PVP at all) and PVPers, then you're dead wrong. You see, while Eve needs balance between both creation and destruction (industry and combat), player-wise, if viewed by mentality, Eve can lose it's industrialist carebears just fine and the economy will correct itself in time due to the fact that PVPers do or can do industrial stuff if needed (some already does) but not the other way around (I can't count how many times I've seen carebears stated that they rather quit than do PVP). So again, no, you take PVPers away, the market will crash.
    • [/list]



    First, you should have started this with 'IMHO' unless you have information that the rest of us don't have.

    The rest? Same as the first.
    Not Politically Correct
    Doomheim
    #218 - 2013-01-26 00:39:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Not Politically Correct
    Vaju Enki wrote:
    I can't believe people are still feeding the troll.


    Why are you still reading this? You are more of a troll than anyone else. You don't have an opinion. You don't state any facts, or even theories.

    You are posting for no other reason than to illicit a response, and you don't seem to care what it is.

    I post my posts because they are what I believe. I may be wrong, but no one has given any proof that I am.

    This is supposed to be one of the sources of input for CSM, who seem to be ignoring what goes on here with spectacular dignity and grace.

    It's a FORUM. Look it up. A place to express opinions. NOT a place to try to polish your E-peen.

    EDIT: Sorry, that was gratuitous, but I get cranky late at night.
    Vaju Enki
    Secular Wisdom
    #219 - 2013-01-26 00:50:06 UTC
    Not Politically Correct wrote:
    Vaju Enki wrote:
    I can't believe people are still feeding the troll.


    Why are you still reading this? You are more of a troll than anyone else. You don't have an opinion. You don't state any facts, or even theories.

    You are posting for no other reason than to illicit a response, and you don't seem to care what it is.

    I post my posts because they are what I believe. I may be wrong, but no one has given any proof that I am.

    This is supposed to be one of the sources of input for CSM, who seem to be ignoring what goes on here with spectacular dignity and grace.

    It's a FORUM. Look it up. A place to express opinions. NOT a place to try to polish your E-peen.

    EDIT: Sorry, that was gratuitous, but I get cranky late at night.


    When you need to take a dump, please use the WC, not the EvE Online forums.

    The Tears Must Flow
    Not Politically Correct
    Doomheim
    #220 - 2013-01-26 04:32:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Not Politically Correct
    Vaju Enki wrote:
    Not Politically Correct wrote:
    Vaju Enki wrote:
    I can't believe people are still feeding the troll.


    Why are you still reading this? You are more of a troll than anyone else. You don't have an opinion. You don't state any facts, or even theories.

    You are posting for no other reason than to illicit a response, and you don't seem to care what it is.

    I post my posts because they are what I believe. I may be wrong, but no one has given any proof that I am.

    This is supposed to be one of the sources of input for CSM, who seem to be ignoring what goes on here with spectacular dignity and grace.

    It's a FORUM. Look it up. A place to express opinions. NOT a place to try to polish your E-peen.

    EDIT: Sorry, that was gratuitous, but I get cranky late at night.


    When you need to take a dump, please use the WC, not the EvE Online forums.


    Same to you. At least I think I am providing meaningful content. You just seem to have a gas problem. :)