These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

[Proposal] Sandbox + Consensual PVP?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nelus
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1 - 2011-11-02 21:47:12 UTC
This is an attempt to conciliate the demands of players who don't want to be forced into a style of play they don't enjoy (PVP) and The Sandbox principle.

On the one hand, we have players who don't want to be forced to PVP when all they want is either PVE, mine, etc. within the boundaries of High Security space without having to live in fear of being ganked.

On the other hand, we have players who want to be able to shoot and kill anything they see anywhere it goes. Players who believe that the one thing that makes the game what it is, is precisely that there is nowhere in the whole of EVE space that is 100% safe.

I suggest that it is possible to devise a set of game mechanics that accommodate both. In short:

  1. 0.5 to 0.7: Keep systems with security rating of 0.5 to 0.7 as they are now, that is, systems where non-consensual PVP is possible although it will provoke the intervention of CONCORD or, better, the Navy of the faction who controls the system.
  2. 0.8 to 1.0: Consensual PVP only for systems with security rating 0.8 or above.
  3. Dynamic, player regulated security rating system: Introduce a set of mechanics to allow players to affect the security rating of a system through their actions. It should be possible to affect the rating of the system through non-PVP methods, as well as PVP and PVE ones. A good starting point would be current Factional Warfare mechanics that allow for a hybrid of PVP and PVE, but it should also be possible to affect it by non-PVP/E means.

For instance, these are some ideas about ways in which the security rating of a system could be increased other than doing PVP/PVE:

  • Players could donate isk to the “war chest” of the Navy that controls the system, be it Caldari, Gallente, Amarr or Minmatar. Donating goods like ships hulls, modules, ammunition might be a better way to do this though.
  • Build and deploy infrastructure in space for the faction. This could be done by requesting a mission through a special agent who gives you the coordinates to a dead space pocket where players can deploy and anchor special type of Sensors that will help the Navy keep the system safe for instance. When the mission is finished, the pocket disappears and the server can redeploy it at a later stage if necessary.
  • Another method to increase the security status of a system could be by contagion, that is, increasing the security rating of adjacent systems


The principle of a self-regulated sandbox in which players govern their interactions would be respected, but at the same time it would give those who want to avoid PVP a set of game mechanics that they can use to earn the privilege of a safe heaven where non-consensual PVP is not allowed.
Montevius Williams
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2011-11-02 21:52:51 UTC
Nelus wrote:
This is an attempt to conciliate the demands of players who don't want to be forced into a style of play they don't enjoy (PVP) and The Sandbox principle.

On the one hand, we have players who don't want to be forced to PVP when all they want is either PVE, mine, etc. within the boundaries of High Security space without having to live in fear of being ganked.

On the other hand, we have players who want to be able to shoot and kill anything they see anywhere it goes. Players who believe that the one thing that makes the game what it is, is precisely that there is nowhere in the whole of EVE space that is 100% safe.

I suggest that it is possible to devise a set of game mechanics that accommodate both. In short:

  1. 0.5 to 0.7: Keep systems with security rating of 0.5 to 0.7 as they are now, that is, systems where non-consensual PVP is possible although it will provoke the intervention of CONCORD or, better, the Navy of the faction who controls the system.
  2. 0.8 to 1.0: Consensual PVP only for systems with security rating 0.8 or above.
  3. Dynamic, player regulated security rating system: Introduce a set of mechanics to allow players to affect the security rating of a system through their actions. It should be possible to affect the rating of the system through non-PVP methods, as well as PVP and PVE ones. A good starting point would be current Factional Warfare mechanics that allow for a hybrid of PVP and PVE, but it should also be possible to affect it by non-PVP/E means.

For instance, these are some ideas about ways in which the security rating of a system could be increased other than doing PVP/PVE:

  • Players could donate isk to the “war chest” of the Navy that controls the system, be it Caldari, Gallente, Amarr or Minmatar. Donating goods like ships hulls, modules, ammunition might be a better way to do this though.
  • Build and deploy infrastructure in space for the faction. This could be done by requesting a mission through a special agent who gives you the coordinates to a dead space pocket where players can deploy and anchor special type of Sensors that will help the Navy keep the system safe for instance. When the mission is finished, the pocket disappears and the server can redeploy it at a later stage if necessary.
  • Another method to increase the security status of a system could be by contagion, that is, increasing the security rating of adjacent systems


The principle of a self-regulated sandbox in which players govern their interactions would be respected, but at the same time it would give those who want to avoid PVP a set of game mechanics that they can use to earn the privilege of a safe heaven where non-consensual PVP is not allowed.


No, having ANYTYPE of safe system (non consensual PVP) just makes EVE WoW in space. Hell to the no.

"The American Government indoctrination system known as public education has been relentlessly churning out socialists for over 20 years". - TravisWB
Baaldor
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#3 - 2011-11-02 22:03:13 UTC
How exactly are they being forced again? No one forced them to pay, down load the game, consent to the rules or log in.

Are we supposed to accommodate for these sheeple because it makes them feel bad?

And why are we punishing the peeps that understand the game for what it is, and has to cater to someone that do not want to play by the same rules and mechanics?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#4 - 2011-11-02 22:10:52 UTC
Nelus wrote:
This is an attempt to conciliate the demands of players who don't want to be forced into a style of play they don't enjoy (PVP) and The Sandbox principle.



Hi, I don't like to be forced to pay the prices "market PvP" players set for the ships, modules and charges I need to play EVE with. I believe that buying things from other players should be a CHOICE, not FORCED upon me.

So everything in game should be available from NPCs at 100 ISK, so I am not griefed by greedy "market gankers".

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Smiling Menace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2011-11-02 22:36:39 UTC
What the hell is wrong with people these days?

You knew what EVE was when you downloaded it. You knew what it was when you undocked. And you sure as hell knew what it was when you fired on that red flashy in the belt that popped your shiney barge.

There is no non-consensual PVP in EVE (except suicide gankers but that's something else). You CHOOSE to shoot at people or you don't. Don't shoot and you will never know about the bad people flying around.

EVE is fine the way it is. Don't like it then why the hell play it?

Definite no from me on this proposal. In fact, any proposal that 'protects' people from EVE game mechanics will get a resounding no from me.
Gheng Kondur
Serva Fidem
#6 - 2011-11-02 22:43:20 UTC
I don't like PVP and I'm a bit of a care bear, but would have to say no. It's the danger of this harsh universe that keeps it fun.

I don't mind the idea of a grace period for noobs, but that would take a lot of work to stop the throw away alts being used for griefing
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#7 - 2011-11-02 22:53:39 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
Not this again. Please no.

There will never be arenas. Highsec will never be 100% safe. Non-consensual PVP will always exist in Eve, and the bad guys WILL get you if you have something they want. Instead of begging CCP to turn over eight years of game design, why don't you ask for help on how to avoid losing?

edit: Let me spell out what banning non-consensual PVP means. Two alliances go to war over a territorial dispute. One alliance knows a number of the highsec mining alts operated by the other. But now, with these proposed rules, those neutral alts are perfectly safe in spite of the fact that their every action contributes to an alliance that is at war. They can mine indefinitely with ZERO risk, even though they work for the enemy.

If you make a safe zone, all the industrial and research alts would never leave that zone because they would be perfectly safe there.

In other words, NO.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Nelus
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#8 - 2011-11-02 23:34:08 UTC
What I want, contrary to what most of you are reading, is not that they actually go and encroach the right to avoid PVP, but that when/if they allow for that right to exist, that they do it in a way that leaves it open for other players to challenge and contest it. What is more, I even claim the right to challenge the existence of any security status at all, since a system of contesting security ratings would leave empire open to be downgraded to 0.0 if players allow it/fight for it.

It may happen that CCP, desperate to stop losing subscriptions and eager to attract new players, makes the stupid mistake of messing with the Sandbox by introducing a form of regulated PVP in empire so that people who want to avoid PVP entirely can do it with none having the ability to challenge them. That would be the end of the Sandbox.

Instead of having CCP come up with some immutable hard-coded way of “being-safe”, I would rather have a system that leaves it up to players to determine with their ingame actions whether there are safe heavens in the first place, and I think that empire is at the moment a safe heaven. If we don't want for there to be anywhere in EVE where a player cannot be ganked, or even have the protection of concord at all, then we just have to keep the security rating of all systems below 0.8, 0.5 or plain 0.0. We, the players.

With so many of us agreeing about not wanting safe heavens, my suggestion would surely amount to as much as not having safe-heavens at all, perhaps even making all of EVE 0.0, with the difference that neither the right to shoot anyone anywhere nor the right to not be shot in certain places would be CCP sponsored but player regulated.
Baaldor
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#9 - 2011-11-03 00:00:17 UTC
Nelus wrote:


It may happen that CCP, desperate to stop losing subscriptions and eager to attract new players, makes the stupid mistake of messing with the Sandbox by introducing a form of regulated PVP in empire so that people who want to avoid PVP entirely can do it with none having the ability to challenge them. That would be the end of the Sandbox.


This is a tired argument about losing subscriptions for years, because you have non consensual surprise seks, and yet it keeps growing.

The reason that we had lost subs as of late is because CCP ****** up an expansion. They addressed the issue, realized they ****** up and now we are moving on.
Sephiroth Clone VII
Brothers of Tyr
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2011-11-03 00:46:16 UTC
If ccp really wants to keep dicks out of starter zones while players learn to play game...

A few starter systems should exist for each race that are dead ends (so no traffic to go to other systems), and have all rookie mods seeded for 100 isk each (mods that require no skills but also are very bad versions of tech 1).

The same said place also has training agents.

And only people who have trial accounts, or ones less then a month old can re-enter the newbie zones. Have it be a feature at the gate, you warp to the gate but you can't jump in due to security protocol.

This would curtail people breaking the one sacred rule of messing with noobs (harrassment or otherwise) while not having it interferer with too much of game 2-3 systems each race thats 1.0 sec and a dead end no one will notice. They leave its fairgame with whats in rest of highsec, sucide ganks and market games.

It will be sort of like current system but one gate in (and the starter system is dead end) and chars a month or older are barred from ever entering it.

It kind of breaks the open pvp rule, but ccp is banning chars who do it anyway, so why not just have any oddballs bared from messing with noobs anyway.
Rer Eirikr
The Scope
#11 - 2011-11-03 00:52:05 UTC
Absolutely not.

Really, that's all that needs to be said.
Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#12 - 2011-11-03 00:53:42 UTC
Nelus wrote:
This is an attempt to conciliate the demands of players who don't want to be forced into a style of play they don't enjoy (PVP) and The Sandbox principle.


Stop there, cancel your subscription, and uninstall EVE.

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
Parsec Seti
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2011-11-03 01:17:31 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Not this again. Please no.

There will never be arenas. Highsec will never be 100% safe. Non-consensual PVP will always exist in Eve, and the bad guys WILL get you if you have something they want. Instead of begging CCP to turn over eight years of game design, why don't you ask for help on how to avoid losing?

edit: Let me spell out what banning non-consensual PVP means. Two alliances go to war over a territorial dispute. One alliance knows a number of the highsec mining alts operated by the other. But now, with these proposed rules, those neutral alts are perfectly safe in spite of the fact that their every action contributes to an alliance that is at war. They can mine indefinitely with ZERO risk, even though they work for the enemy.

If you make a safe zone, all the industrial and research alts would never leave that zone because they would be perfectly safe there.

In other words, NO.



A lot of d!cks responding to your proposal OP - but hey, it's EVE.

This is one you should look at though - this post outlines some pretty good reasons against safe zones.

"Welcome to you're doom!"
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#14 - 2011-11-03 02:22:11 UTC
I could accept rookie systems being safe zones, for characters less than one month old. After which they must leave and never come back. But anything more and i could not accept it as reasonable.
JitaJane
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#15 - 2011-11-03 06:57:23 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
I could accept rookie systems being safe zones, for characters less than one month old. After which they must leave and never come back. But anything more and i could not accept it as reasonable.

More than a month. Really. Don't get mad hear me out. A buddy of mine had his Hi Sec Hulk ganked a while back. No bigggie right? Bought a new one and all is good. But some math (and some beers) later we figured up what that would mean to a new miner (I used his numbers I have mined less than a dozen times). A hulk is about 60 hours play time if a hulk is all you have. And a good bit more if you lost the one you just bought and now you have to earn a new one. In that scenario (first subscription player gets ganked for the bulk of his investment in the game) you are an idiot if you don't rage-quit and find something better to do. Now if you are 1/2 a year or so into the game and you get ganked you should be able to deal with it. If you get ninjaed and you don't have logi and an Orca to hot swap to PvP you are an idiot. So I would favor a longer safe zone but i would make it time dependent not sec dependent. That actually works. Because when it is not being used as a shield for protectionism it is true that Eve needs more players and a larger player base. There are systems with a dozen residents out there and to me the intent is a more populous dynamic. Selfish ***** that I am I want that and I cannot see a way to achieve it by the current system.

90% of of the time my posts are about something I actually find interesting and want to learn more about. Do not be alarmed.

Jagga Spikes
Spikes Chop Shop
#16 - 2011-11-03 09:17:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Jagga Spikes
JitaJane wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
I could accept rookie systems being safe zones, for characters less than one month old. After which they must leave and never come back. But anything more and i could not accept it as reasonable.

More than a month. Really. Don't get mad hear me out. A buddy of mine had his Hi Sec Hulk ganked a while back. No bigggie right? Bought a new one and all is good. But some math (and some beers) later we figured up what that would mean to a new miner (I used his numbers I have mined less than a dozen times). A hulk is about 60 hours play time if a hulk is all you have. And a good bit more if you lost the one you just bought and now you have to earn a new one. In that scenario (first subscription player gets ganked for the bulk of his investment in the game) you are an idiot if you don't rage-quit and find something better to do. Now if you are 1/2 a year or so into the game and you get ganked you should be able to deal with it. If you get ninjaed and you don't have logi and an Orca to hot swap to PvP you are an idiot. So I would favor a longer safe zone but i would make it time dependent not sec dependent. That actually works. Because when it is not being used as a shield for protectionism it is true that Eve needs more players and a larger player base. There are systems with a dozen residents out there and to me the intent is a more populous dynamic. Selfish ***** that I am I want that and I cannot see a way to achieve it by the current system.


instead of mining in Hulk, mine in Covetor. it's insurable. if you lose it, you can replace it for fraction of cost of new Hulk. sure, you will be making less money, but you will also be target of lower priority, which means you are less likely to have to reinvest.

manage the risk and resources, and find your comfort zone. that's EVE.
Nelus
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#17 - 2011-11-03 16:24:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Nelus
Why is it that in a bacon sandwich people only see bread and lettuce?

The key of what I am saying is that CCP should never do anything that upsets the Sandbox and that I want even more freedom than we currently have for the players to shape the Sandbox. What I want is that instead of having the security rating of systems fixed by devs, we, the players, have the means to set them through our actions.

The reason why CCP has not allowed anything like that before is because it is very likely that as soon as the flood gates open, all 0.0 powers will start a war on empire and grind down the security rating of all empire systems to at least below 0.5. That fact is the bacon in the vegetable sandwich that almost all of you have overlooked.

If CCP is seriously considering the introduction of game mechanics to allow for some form of consensual-PVP, if they go down that path, what I want is that they tie it to the security rating of a systems and make that security rating dynamic so that instead of intervening in the Sandbox, they actually make it even wilder than it currently is.

If an allince, or the whole of 0.0 wants to keep empire with a security rating of 0.0 I want them to be able to do it, and I think it is only fair that it should also be possible for players who want to increase the security rating of systems to have the means to do it. That way the Sandbox itself would find its ideal state of equilibrium without CCP putting any artificial pressures on any direction.

I don't have the actual figures of subscriptions, only CCP does, but they are the ones hinting that they may have to do something to curb “surprise but seks” in highsec. They are the ones who are looking at it from a business perspective and may reach the conclusion that it would pay off trying to appeal to new markets even if that were to upset current players, after all, there are millions of people playing WoW and just a few hundred thousand playing EVE... This time I am genuinelly concerned about them actually messing with the Sandbox.
Baaldor
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#18 - 2011-11-03 17:13:19 UTC
Nelus wrote:
Why is it that in a bacon sandwich people only see bread and lettuce?

The key of what I am saying is that CCP should never do anything that upsets the Sandbox and that I want even more freedom than we currently have for the players to shape the Sandbox. What I want is that instead of having the security rating of systems fixed by devs, we, the players, have the means to set them through our actions.

The reason why CCP has not allowed anything like that before is because it is very likely that as soon as the flood gates open, all 0.0 powers will start a war on empire and grind down the security rating of all empire systems to at least below 0.5. That fact is the bacon in the vegetable sandwich that almost all of you have overlooked.

CCP is seriously considering the itroduction of game mechanics to allow for some form of consensual-PVP. What I demand is that if they go down that path, that they tie it to the security rating of a systems and make that security rating dynamic so that instead of intervening in the Sandbox, they actually make it even wilder than it currently is.

If an allince, or the whole of 0.0 wants to keep empire with a security rating of 0.0 I want them to be able to do it, and I think it is only fair that it should also be possible for players who want to increase the security rating of systems to have the means to do it. That way the Sandbox itself would find its ideal state of equilibrium without CCP putting any artificial pressures on any direction.

I don't have the actual figures of subscriptions, only CCP does, but they are the ones hinting that they may have to do something to curb “surprise but seks” in highsec. They are the ones who are looking at it from a business perspective and may reach the conclusion that it would pay off trying to appeal to new markets even if that were to upset current players, after all, there are millions of people playing WoW and just a few hundred thousand playing EVE... This time I am genuinelly concerned about them actually messing with the Sandbox.


You know I am went through this wall of text of a thread and still trying to find your source. Please link thread that details this pending change from CCP.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2011-11-03 17:41:34 UTC
Baaldor wrote:

You know I am went through this wall of text of a thread and still trying to find your source. Please link thread that details this pending change from CCP.



This.

Proof or Get Out @ OP.

Troll senses tingleing.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2011-11-03 18:53:45 UTC
Baaldor wrote:
Nelus wrote:
Why is it that in a bacon sandwich people only see bread and lettuce?

The key of what I am saying is that CCP should never do anything that upsets the Sandbox and that I want even more freedom than we currently have for the players to shape the Sandbox. What I want is that instead of having the security rating of systems fixed by devs, we, the players, have the means to set them through our actions.

The reason why CCP has not allowed anything like that before is because it is very likely that as soon as the flood gates open, all 0.0 powers will start a war on empire and grind down the security rating of all empire systems to at least below 0.5. That fact is the bacon in the vegetable sandwich that almost all of you have overlooked.

CCP is seriously considering the itroduction of game mechanics to allow for some form of consensual-PVP. What I demand is that if they go down that path, that they tie it to the security rating of a systems and make that security rating dynamic so that instead of intervening in the Sandbox, they actually make it even wilder than it currently is.

If an allince, or the whole of 0.0 wants to keep empire with a security rating of 0.0 I want them to be able to do it, and I think it is only fair that it should also be possible for players who want to increase the security rating of systems to have the means to do it. That way the Sandbox itself would find its ideal state of equilibrium without CCP putting any artificial pressures on any direction.

I don't have the actual figures of subscriptions, only CCP does, but they are the ones hinting that they may have to do something to curb “surprise but seks” in highsec. They are the ones who are looking at it from a business perspective and may reach the conclusion that it would pay off trying to appeal to new markets even if that were to upset current players, after all, there are millions of people playing WoW and just a few hundred thousand playing EVE... This time I am genuinelly concerned about them actually messing with the Sandbox.


You know I am went through this wall of text of a thread and still trying to find your source. Please link thread that details this pending change from CCP.


+1

And if you hold up those god damn tweets as your proof, you should kill yourself. (ingame)
123Next pageLast page