Assembly Hall

OK, so having no "safe zones" might make sense ...

But how would it hurt to add in the ability to play "PvP Missions" ... i.e.-using force balancing mechanics similar to alliance tourney's and such, you dial in ur agent and select "1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 5v5", "total fleet ship points up to 10 or less", etc., and both sides can gate into the mission area and have some fun w/o the normal neutral reppers all over the place?

Ship destruction or not, kill mails or not ... up for debate (maybe let people choose when selecting the mission, and make rewards proportionate - mr. noob is after all going to lose, and lose, and lose, and lose, so might be hard to replace his ship every time, or not, whatever).

I think this would make PvP more accessible to newer players ... and provide an alternative to having to play the bad guy (pirate, thief, can flipper) just to get some PvP experience. Maybe then they'd be more willing to move to nullsec as the new crop of meatshields, cannon fodder, or gank victims the nullsec folks are looking for.

Please let's not have arenas in EVE ... it would totally cheapen the rich and dynamic sandbox that has been grown over the last 8 years.


<-- SiSi test server is that way


WoW is that way -->

SiSi does NOT count ... a) noobs aren't going to be using it; b) it doesn't solve the issue of neutral reppers; c) it doesn't solve the issue of being forced to be "the bad guy" in order to partake in PvP (and no, PvP'ing with corp mates doesn't count either).

And I'm still waiting to hear ... how exactly does it HURT anything in the game to add this? What would it take away? I know people are afraid of it as they've stated time and again "oh no, it will kill the sandbox" .... so, how exactly?

Currently there is NO way to arrange consensual PvP that isn't plagued by neutral reppers, can-buddies hiding around the corner, or that doesn't require using your own corp mates .... non of which is "real PvP" anyway.

To have a legitimate concern, all that needs proving is:

1) There has been a change of attitude in the part of CCP towards empire dwellers from the good old “HTFU” to the present day in which war declarations have been watered down to a form of consensual wars since it is now allowed to exploit game mechanics to avoid war decs in addition to the beefing up of concord of recent times.

2) Subscriptions are in decline/stagnated: Quarterly Economic Newsletter (QEN) is no longer going to be released, which was our main source of information regarding the number of subscriptions. Still, looking at the last information that we have available in the last QEN of 2010 and judging by the events of the first three quarters of 2011, it would be fair to suspect that the number of subscriptions is in decline or at the very least stagnated.

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=2299

3) CCP is not in a strong position after the Incarna fiasco. The letter of apology from CCP Hellmar is strong evidence that he must have seen a dire picture emerge from his data to go from his initial “it is time to stop listening to what players say and start looking at what players do” to his “You have spoken, loudly and clearly, with your words and with your actions[...]I was wrong and I admit it.”

4) It makes sense from a business perspective to look for ways to appeal to new potentially huge markets. However much we despise WoW, there are aprox 11.1 M subscribers to that game whereas there are roughly 350k subscriptions to EVE. What makes us love EVE is what makes many of those 11.1 M people not want to play it. I am not saying that EVE should be more like WoW, only that a CEO of a company in the business of making money would be forgiven for thinking about ways to appeal to those markets.

Having said all that, the main point that I am labouring is that contrary to what most people think, the Sandbox ideal, that is, an environment in which the players shape the game with as little intervention from the developers as possible, is not in conflict with incorporating forms of consensual PVP. All you need to do is tie consensual PVP to something that players can act upon, for instance, a dynamic security rating for solar systems.

I see now that it is a very subtle argument and that most of you did not understand it. My hope is that some of the members of the CSM will understand it and if CCP comes at them under the NDA with the intention of implementing some form of consensual PVP, that they will have a counter proposal ready that enhances the Sandbox instead of undermining it.

You may or many not agree with me that CCP is considering doing something along those lines, and even then, requesting a set of game mechanics that allowed players to alter the security rating of systems would be a worthy end on itself, if only because it would move some of the power that is now at the hands of developers to the hands of players.

I think that instead of trying to convince developers to favour one side or the other of the argument “Sandbox versus Consensual PVP” (of which I am not taking part, despite your accusations) we should ask developers for game mechanics that let us, the players, take that argument to the playing field and fight it out and shape the game with our actions within the game.

Are you planning to answer this, or are you content with your thread going down in flames as a troll?

And there it is.

WTFBBQPWN Senses tingleing....that or the OP just got thread ganked. :)

I agree that the main feature of EVE is PVP, I even agree that PVP is the best feature of EVE. I am just asking that Dev's let us players fight to shape EVE. At the moment there is an artificial division between 0.0 and empire. I want those walls down, and I want players to be able and willing to fight. I am afraid though, that the only reason why people would want to fight in empire is precisely to uphold their right to be left in peace. I would be glad to put the right to shoot at them on the table if they are willing to put on the table the right not to be shot.

OP should get a thumbs up just for the entertainment value of this thread. But...no thumbs up from me. I do however need to go to the store for more popcorn...I will assuredly run out reading this thread.

This is a terrible idea and there is nothing to reconcile. Placing non-PVP areas completely disrupts the game's uniqueness and mechanics.

"EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world; it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world."
-CCP Wrangler

Eve is an awesome scifi mmo in it's own right but the above sentence is why I love this game and have been playing for all these years.

We just went though the summer of rage because of Nex, WIS and CCP's lost focus on FIS. In my opinion having non-consensual PVP areas (even in noob areas) is much worse.

I'm pretty heavy into mining and trading (check my KB stats). In all this time I've only ever lost two barges (due to my own stupidity). I've mined in all areas of new eden including wormholes, low and null, hulkageddons and countless war decs. Instead of saying mechanics need to change I'm of the mind that the people who complain of, "ganking" or "non-consensual PVP" just suck at the game.