These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Proposal] Sandbox + Consensual PVP?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Baaldor
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#41 - 2011-11-04 19:26:06 UTC
Takara Mora wrote:
Baaldor wrote:
Takara Mora wrote:

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.


First off all those terrible things you listed, are apart of eve. That is what gives the game it's flavor. Consensual PVP can happen, as a matter of fact you consent to it when you log in every time.

The only issue here is that you have a hard time coping with the way the game is played.

Flagged PvP is the antithesis to the spirit and foundation of this game. Once you start introducing this kind of game play, you start to weaken the foundation and then soon the game will follow suit.

tl;dr

You don't get EvE.



I didn't say those things were terrible ... they exist (plague to some, joyful mayhem to others) and in fact they will continue to exist ... unaffected by consensual PvP.

EVE IS a PvP game? - sure .... but it just doesn't appeal to 80% of it's residents so far as something they like to take part in - and there needs to be a way to bridge more people into it ... so I still don't get it ... how can adding MORE PvP (PvP missions or some sort of arrangement) be a BAD thing?



I quoted what i mentioned earlier.


Quote:
Flagged PvP is the antithesis to the spirit and foundation of this game. Once you start introducing this kind of game play, you start to weaken the foundation and then soon the game will follow suit.


As far as n00bs getting that rainbow bridge to PvP, there isn't any. There are a megafukton of corps, alliances looking for Rifter Heros. Little nubs that are sporting wood because they can now fit a point and a web.

The issue is not the mechanics, the issue is with the barracks lawyers in the NPC corps that has never left it because it scares them, yet they chest beat thinking they know wtf!

What is worse, is you have a help channel with supposed "informed" CCP drones that know even less.

And please drop the link showing your 80% of the residents as proof.


The problem with this kind of thread, is that we have peeps wanting something to change, that is totally fine, but said peeps continue to use false claims, anecdotal facts or exaggerations.

It is like, you are afraid of the response and the truth, and by slinging bullshit, you are hoping to get away with it.
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#42 - 2011-11-05 08:30:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Wolodymyr
Mal Darkrunner wrote:
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 -->

OK the one problem I have with the "Hurr Durr, go play World of Warcraft." argument is that people actually will hurr durr and then go play World of Warcraft.

If you tell people to get out of your game then they will get out of your game.

And in the long run low subscription numbers hurt an MMO.

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544
Mal Darkrunner
Zero Tau Research Institute
#43 - 2011-11-05 09:15:21 UTC
Fair enough point.

I'm afraid that the addition of arenas on Tranquility would really spoil the game for me. The way PVP works in EVE is one of the major things I like about the game, even though I don't partake in much actual PVP myself. I know it works in other games, and I'm sure it would work in EVE (from a pure mechanics perspective), but for me it really goes against the style and spirit of the EVE universe. Would it break the way I play the game? No it wouldn't, but for me it would spoil the universe I play in to some extent.

Now, to provide a more helpful answer than I did in my previous post.

EVE is a sandbox - that means a fair amount of content is player-driven rather than handed down from CCP. I'm a fan of this setup and I really would hate to see EVE turn into a wow-style on-rails game.

Rather than asking CCP to introduce new game mechanics or features to make arena-style PVP a possibility, you actually have the power to do it yourself.

Take a look at RvB for example - two corps (Red Federation and Blue Republic) that are permanently at war. You can simply sign up for one side or the other and jump into solo and small-gang PVP with them. They also run small fleets, arranged between FCs in both corps and limited to a certain number of ships or certain ship-classes.

If you want arena-style combat with rules, point-systems, prizes, etc. all you have to do is set up a corp (or a pair of RvB style corps) to provide this. That way you are in control of the rules. If you want to use the same point-system that CCP use for the alliance tournament all you have to do is copy & paste. If you don't agree with their system or you want to tweak it, then it's in your power to do so. If people don't stick to the rules of your arena you also have the power to kick them from the corp.

The SiSi test server is a perfect place to do this kind of thing (if you stay outside the main FFA arenas) as you can buy all the ships and mods for 100isk (there is a station for this in each region I believe). Another advantage of SiSi is that, unless you're in an FFA area, other players are not allowed to interfere with you.

There is literally nothing stopping people from setting this kind of thing up - all you have to do is get off your butt and do it.

Unfortunately people would rather come onto the forums and petition CCP to add new features and change (for me) fundamental game mechanics than do a little bit of work themselves.

So it's not so much that I want to see players go back to WoW, but that I want to see that kind of thinking left behind with WoW. There are already a lot of games like that, but there is only one EVE.

/rant
Rico Minali
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2011-11-05 11:26:46 UTC
NO. Eve IS pvp, like it or not, everything in Eve comes down to pvp. If you mine, you are gaining minerals to build ships, which somewhere down the line become pvp stuff, even if the fisr 4 steps are more mining ships, eventually it will feed to pvp.

Market? That is pvp. Missions? Making isk to get better than other people - pvp. Missioning just to make isk to better yourself? You will at some point sell loot or do somethign that ends up in the hands of pvp.

If you make ANY area zero risk, all that will happen is it will become clogged with pvpers alts to make risk free isk, such as my mining alt and so on.

There must NEVER be a place where pvp can not happen randomly.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#45 - 2011-11-05 14:22:59 UTC
Rico Minali wrote:
There must NEVER be a place where pvp can not happen randomly.


well, there is ship spinning... PvP doesn't happen "randomly" there...

If you choose to take advantage of that "moron" selling a PLEX for 350m (and a PLEX ... Twisted) ... it's YOU who ganked yourself
If you choose to take advantage of that "moron" buying Afterburner I's at 5m ISK per, and get stuck with his load of overpriced Afterburners ... it's YOU who ganked yourself.

If you click the undock button, you're clicking the "bring it on guys" button...

Personally, I think that for some of the activities (see:mining), they need to make it feel more like PVP. I.E. there needs to be more feeling of "these are my rocks dammit!" and conflict caused by people absolutely trashing a system on Saturday. Right now, all we have is "meh, I'll go next door"... Perhaps bringing back the 1 or 2 respawns per week mechanic?

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2011-11-05 16:07:22 UTC
Mal Darkrunner wrote:
Fair enough point.

I'm afraid that the addition of arenas on Tranquility would really spoil the game for me. The way PVP works in EVE is one of the major things I like about the game, even though I don't partake in much actual PVP myself. I know it works in other games, and I'm sure it would work in EVE (from a pure mechanics perspective), but for me it really goes against the style and spirit of the EVE universe. Would it break the way I play the game? No it wouldn't, but for me it would spoil the universe I play in to some extent.

Now, to provide a more helpful answer than I did in my previous post.

EVE is a sandbox - that means a fair amount of content is player-driven rather than handed down from CCP. I'm a fan of this setup and I really would hate to see EVE turn into a wow-style on-rails game.

Rather than asking CCP to introduce new game mechanics or features to make arena-style PVP a possibility, you actually have the power to do it yourself.

Take a look at RvB for example - two corps (Red Federation and Blue Republic) that are permanently at war. You can simply sign up for one side or the other and jump into solo and small-gang PVP with them. They also run small fleets, arranged between FCs in both corps and limited to a certain number of ships or certain ship-classes.

If you want arena-style combat with rules, point-systems, prizes, etc. all you have to do is set up a corp (or a pair of RvB style corps) to provide this. That way you are in control of the rules. If you want to use the same point-system that CCP use for the alliance tournament all you have to do is copy & paste. If you don't agree with their system or you want to tweak it, then it's in your power to do so. If people don't stick to the rules of your arena you also have the power to kick them from the corp.

The SiSi test server is a perfect place to do this kind of thing (if you stay outside the main FFA arenas) as you can buy all the ships and mods for 100isk (there is a station for this in each region I believe). Another advantage of SiSi is that, unless you're in an FFA area, other players are not allowed to interfere with you.

There is literally nothing stopping people from setting this kind of thing up - all you have to do is get off your butt and do it.

Unfortunately people would rather come onto the forums and petition CCP to add new features and change (for me) fundamental game mechanics than do a little bit of work themselves.

So it's not so much that I want to see players go back to WoW, but that I want to see that kind of thinking left behind with WoW. There are already a lot of games like that, but there is only one EVE.

/rant



Fair enough Mal, thanks for your insights. IMO, the current mechanics around PvP are already "contrived and artificial" enough, and the barriers to doing the things you mentioned hassle enough (tho not insurmountable, just unlikely for new players to do) to make it worth providing an in game "battleground system" or "PvP Missions" worthwhile. But seems like a legitimate difference of opinion / matter of taste.

The real question then (one which CCP will have to decide), is which method would best sustain/increase EVE's subscriber numbers, with the least impact to existing playerbase?
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
#47 - 2011-11-05 16:11:55 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Personally, I think that for some of the activities (see:mining), they need to make it feel more like PVP. I.E. there needs to be more feeling of "these are my rocks dammit!" and conflict caused by people absolutely trashing a system on Saturday. Right now, all we have is "meh, I'll go next door"... Perhaps bringing back the 1 or 2 respawns per week mechanic?


This.

This would increase competition for roids, and this maybe make the carebears a little more protective and violent.

Also, it would make mining less of a "start game for free ISKies" type of thing. Might turn some of the carebears into real Industrialists.

I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Devil your parents warned you about.

||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Bowhead||
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2011-11-05 16:22:46 UTC
Jack Carrigan wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Personally, I think that for some of the activities (see:mining), they need to make it feel more like PVP. I.E. there needs to be more feeling of "these are my rocks dammit!" and conflict caused by people absolutely trashing a system on Saturday. Right now, all we have is "meh, I'll go next door"... Perhaps bringing back the 1 or 2 respawns per week mechanic?


This.

This would increase competition for roids, and this maybe make the carebears a little more protective and violent.

Also, it would make mining less of a "start game for free ISKies" type of thing. Might turn some of the carebears into real Industrialists.



Hmmmm .... the current "harrass the mining fleet via can flipping until they warp out" mechanic isn't working?

Trying to turn carebears violent? --> Meh, they'll just go next door (to another game that makes them feel more powerful, more easily).

And I know most of you will simply say "great, let them leave, what do we care, HTFU" ... but I hope you won't be that short sighted.
JitaJane
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#49 - 2011-11-05 21:02:55 UTC
Jagga Spikes wrote:
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.

I don't mine. RIF. I was speaking of a newb who does mine. In who's case a hulk gank (considering he is new and not as well informed of such dynamics) pretty much ruined his entire investment in the game. Oh wait no I wen mining a couple of times in a Maelstrom because I was hanging out with a buddy and bored. Do you have any idea how pathetic T1 mning layzors are?

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

Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#50 - 2011-11-06 06:28:00 UTC
Anybody else notice the trend here presented by all these PvP tears?

PVP must be everywhere.... Industry must be in places where PVP can ruin it's day.. A very lopsided and 1 way argument.

It's like asking Iran's opinion of America. There is no common ground.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Rer Eirikr
The Scope
#51 - 2011-11-06 06:42:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Rer Eirikr
Takara Mora wrote:
so I still don't get it ... how can adding MORE PvP (PvP missions or some sort of arrangement) be a BAD thing?


You really, don't get EVE, and should stop thinking your ideas make sense. Perhaps that's a bit rude, rather, you should play EVE a bit more so you'll understand why that's a bad idea. Blink


Asuka Solo wrote:
Anybody else notice the trend here presented by all these PvP tears?

PVP must be everywhere.... Industry must be in places where PVP can ruin it's day.. A very lopsided and 1 way argument.

It's like asking Iran's opinion of America. There is no common ground.


This has nothing to do with PvP vs. Industry, and has everything to do with "once you implement a non-PvP area into EVE it will drastically change the scope of the game". Whether you can see that or not doesn't really matter, but it is nevertheless true.

The idea of a PvP safe haven would in practice drive margins of items down due to invincible miners/producers, and just in general goes against the very creed of EVE: A Risk vs. Reward Game.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#52 - 2011-11-06 13:48:49 UTC
Takara Mora wrote:
Jack Carrigan wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Personally, I think that for some of the activities (see:mining), they need to make it feel more like PVP. I.E. there needs to be more feeling of "these are my rocks dammit!" and conflict caused by people absolutely trashing a system on Saturday. Right now, all we have is "meh, I'll go next door"... Perhaps bringing back the 1 or 2 respawns per week mechanic?


This.

This would increase competition for roids, and this maybe make the carebears a little more protective and violent.

Also, it would make mining less of a "start game for free ISKies" type of thing. Might turn some of the carebears into real Industrialists.



Hmmmm .... the current "harrass the mining fleet via can flipping until they warp out" mechanic isn't working?

Trying to turn carebears violent? --> Meh, they'll just go next door (to another game that makes them feel more powerful, more easily).

And I know most of you will simply say "great, let them leave, what do we care, HTFU" ... but I hope you won't be that short sighted.



TBH, a lot of the trouble is there is absolutely zero competition for rocks. I can warp in with a fair-sized fleet and absolutely trash an entire goddamn system and *none* of the other "industrial" corporations will take offence to that. The only thing that will happen is "meh, we'll wait til they respawn tomorrow, and then get the rocks".

can flipping and decs out of the blue from "PvP" corps that only care about padding their killboard with easy targets are honestly part of the problem.

The issue is three-fold here:

1. Rocks spawn too damn fast. They used to spawn on Mondays and Fridays (give or take), and you had to be there to get the rocks or get nothing. This was changed to better accomodate rookies, whose 1.0 and 0.9 systems were getting trashed by bots.

2. There are too damn many sources of minerals.

3. There are too damn many "Industrial" corporations. You can look in nearly any station in hisec and see offices held by "5 man newbie-friendly industrial corporation #123432235".


Possible (though likely flawed) solutions:

1. Put the rocks back to respawning every few days to encourage "claiming" resources. 1.0 and 0.9 systems can respawn every day (or at least with more rock in the case of "every few days"). I've run through a number of newbie systems recently, and have seen rocks with tens of thousands of m3 in them -- YOU SHOULD NOT SEE THIS IN HISEC. If barges and exhumers become a problem, put in *something* to inconvienience people wanting to stay in newbie-space in these specialised ships (hell, even something as absolutely daft as "no concord intervention" if you're gonna gank them -- in other words, leave newbie space to the newbies).

2. Not really sure here... getting rid of trash drops from (all) rats may help here -- this one is delicate though, as meta 1-3 modules might be considered trash to one person, and treasure to another. Assuming that the bounties on them are factored by a combination of rat "difficulty" and what loot you may get, then possibly increase the bounty pay-out to compensate.

3. This one really needs a lot more than quick/simple fixes. I mean, it's impossible to give a newer guy access to research/production slots without letting him have the ability to view (and cancel) all of the rest of the corps. If there's only research happening, this isn't necessarily a bad thing (meh, you lose a slot for up to 30 days, it sucks but isn't the end of the world) ... but if there's production happening (say 30 battleships), you lose *everything*. In addition to this, the simple fact that they can *see* what you have in the cooker can be potentially hazardous. Fix for this should be allowing for at least two:

  • Research/Production installer. Can install Research/Production jobs, but can not "see" what's in the slots if they're taken (like what happens in an alliance research tower now -- you just see that the slot is unavailable for 2d 4h 5m). Cannot deliver anything.
  • Research/Production manager. Can deliver jobs, as well as see what's in the oven (i.e. the current setup)

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2011-11-06 15:09:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Takara Mora
Velicitia wrote:



TBH, a lot of the trouble is there is absolutely zero competition for rocks. I can warp in with a fair-sized fleet and absolutely trash an entire goddamn system and *none* of the other "industrial" corporations will take offence to that. The only thing that will happen is "meh, we'll wait til they respawn tomorrow, and then get the rocks".

can flipping and decs out of the blue from "PvP" corps that only care about padding their killboard with easy targets are honestly part of the problem.

The issue is three-fold here:

1. Rocks spawn too damn fast. They used to spawn on Mondays and Fridays (give or take), and you had to be there to get the rocks or get nothing. This was changed to better accomodate rookies, whose 1.0 and 0.9 systems were getting trashed by bots.

2. There are too damn many sources of minerals.

3. There are too damn many "Industrial" corporations. You can look in nearly any station in hisec and see offices held by "5 man newbie-friendly industrial corporation #123432235".


Possible (though likely flawed) solutions:

1. Put the rocks back to respawning every few days to encourage "claiming" resources. 1.0 and 0.9 systems can respawn every day (or at least with more rock in the case of "every few days"). I've run through a number of newbie systems recently, and have seen rocks with tens of thousands of m3 in them -- YOU SHOULD NOT SEE THIS IN HISEC. If barges and exhumers become a problem, put in *something* to inconvienience people wanting to stay in newbie-space in these specialised ships (hell, even something as absolutely daft as "no concord intervention" if you're gonna gank them -- in other words, leave newbie space to the newbies).

2. Not really sure here... getting rid of trash drops from (all) rats may help here -- this one is delicate though, as meta 1-3 modules might be considered trash to one person, and treasure to another. Assuming that the bounties on them are factored by a combination of rat "difficulty" and what loot you may get, then possibly increase the bounty pay-out to compensate.

3. This one really needs a lot more than quick/simple fixes. I mean, it's impossible to give a newer guy access to research/production slots without letting him have the ability to view (and cancel) all of the rest of the corps. If there's only research happening, this isn't necessarily a bad thing (meh, you lose a slot for up to 30 days, it sucks but isn't the end of the world) ... but if there's production happening (say 30 battleships), you lose *everything*. In addition to this, the simple fact that they can *see* what you have in the cooker can be potentially hazardous. Fix for this should be allowing for at least two:

  • Research/Production installer. Can install Research/Production jobs, but can not "see" what's in the slots if they're taken (like what happens in an alliance research tower now -- you just see that the slot is unavailable for 2d 4h 5m). Cannot deliver anything.
  • Research/Production manager. Can deliver jobs, as well as see what's in the oven (i.e. the current setup)


0. Are you proposing that small industrial corps are a bad thing? (please elaborate - interesting - I'm guessing you're not implying that Hisec should go the way of Nullsec so we can all become Meatshield #209135) :)
1. No rocks? Meh, still not worth going to Nullsec/Losec where you'll simply lose your Hulk --> better to just leave the Hulk in dock and go run missions instead.
2. Hisec Belt rats drop nothing of value - no one cares about them.
3. Hopefully already being fixed by team "10 million papercuts" or whatever, tho not likely to affect the PvP question?

The pattern I'm seeing here over and over, is "hmmm, we need more PvP inroads/training/bridge for new players" in Hisec ... but the proposal isn't really adding anything ... rather people keep gravitating towards "well, let's just start removing perks from Hisec until people hate it so much they'll be forced into Losec and Nullsec" ....

Do you REALLY think they'll just up and start LOVING Losec and Nullsec? When there are so many other options (other games) available to them that offer instant PvP action? Sure, we all know these ppl probably are never going to be the nullsec Hardcore you're looking for .... but they could be paying subscribers ... but to them, why bother with gatecamping, having to play the pirate/ganker, etc., when other games (even DUST) are going to let you log in and get right in the action, EVERY time ... reliable, adrenaline pumping, PvP .... less real? Maybe ... but there are already "less real" parts of EVE all over the place, and we're able to adapt them into the big picture.

Not to mention, just how much "Pure PvP" could a game take, after all? Are there any actual "Pure PvP" games out there (where losses are real I mean)? There MUST be some "balancing point" of PvP vs. Safety .... both for new players, and simply for PvP losers to be able to recoup their losses so they can try again (since in EVE, losses are real) ....

For the Old Bitters in the game, EVE PvP is basically equal to WOW PvP Battegrounds (simply respawn in station, and slap yourself into a new ship from your Tech moon fund or whatever), go find some more noobs to gank, etc. ... but for younger players, its still real .... insurance can help the very new but only to a point (I don't even bother with it myself) ... it's really only useful for the very new or suicide gankers ... you can only lose so many BC's in a day before it affects your wallet as a new player .... it's part of the beauty of EVE, sure, but I'm just saying, there must be limits if we want to retain playerbase.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#54 - 2011-11-06 16:23:46 UTC
tl;dr -- I don't want to see people pushed out of hisec, but I do want to see people pushed to realise that there isn't as much of a hard split between PVP and so-called "PVE" activities.

Takara Mora wrote:

0. Are you proposing that small industrial corps are a bad thing? (please elaborate - interesting - I'm guessing you're not implying that Hisec should go the way of Nullsec so we can all become Meatshield #209135) :)


In a sense, yes I am implying small indy corps are a bad thing. The problem with the small corps is that they're no different from one another. Rather than have 1 25 or 50 man strong corporation that can realise the goals they've set for themselves (supplying massive amounts of ships/minerals/whatever to their local markets), you have 5 or 10 5-man corporations that all can barely scrape by because they don't bother to realise they would be much better working together. I think a lot of this is the general EVE mentality, coupled with the simple fact that no one really wants to be in these types of corporations. You're right in that I'm not trying to imply people should strive to be a meatshield.

A lot of the problems are most likely caused by the terribad corporate mechanics that I mentioned...

Furthermore, corporations of this nature (small/industrial) seem to be where the ideas that people should be allowed to play "alone" without any risk to their hulk (i.e. stop suicide ganking me!) because they're just PVE people are propogated. I used to be in that boat, then there was one wardec where I finally decided that enough was enough, and I was going to defend my ability to mine with my guns. I had three of my corpies follow me out, and we all died horribly -- after the engagement though, they convo'd me and we worked out the framework for a mutually agreeable relationship (however, my CEO at that time didn't like the plan, so nothing came out of it).

Takara Mora wrote:

1. No rocks? Meh, still not worth going to Nullsec/Losec where you'll simply lose your Hulk --> better to just leave the Hulk in dock and go run missions instead.


I never said go to low/null for the rocks (though it is an option). Really, I want to see something that causes the miners to want to either come to trade agreements or fight with the other mining corporations in their area. Obviously, fighting always has the risk that the "miners" are actually combat-hardened vets looking for easy kills ... but then they'd dec you first probably.

The prevalance of rocks is honestly a bit mortifying ... it's just too easy to get materials now.

Takara Mora wrote:

2. Hisec Belt rats drop nothing of value - no one cares about them.


Fair enough, but what about the mission rats? you can get some nice stuff running L4s...


Takara Mora wrote:
3. Hopefully already being fixed by team "10 million papercuts" or whatever, tho not likely to affect the PvP question?


Yeah, the "solution" was simply throwing an idea out there. I think having fewer small corps will help with the PVP thing, if for nothing more than because you will have more people around to help in case trouble starts. I mean, seriously a 5-man indy corp has nearly zero chance in the event there's a wardec ... a 25-man corp might not have much of a chance, but if they're all on together (i.e. not 3 here, 4 missioning over there, and no real sense of camradierie), 25 frigs/cruisers may be able to inflict a few expensive losses on the other guy.


We need more PvP inroads, so that players stop thinking that EVE has a real split between "PVP" and "PVE" content like other MMOs have -- like those battlegrounds in WoW. You lose nothing by losing (except maybe trinkets or something). Hell, in WoW, you don't even lose your STUFF when you die ... it just gets a little beat up, and you fork over some ISK and get everything fixed up again with no tangible loss.


Not sure about your comment about people simply starting to love low/null. Low is stupidly broken right now (and pretty much worthless), and I've been out of null for far too long to really know what's going on. I don't want to PUSH people anywhere in EVE. If people are happy with the low yields of hisec, and don't want to deal with the risks of low/null for the better rewards (in theory anyway), then that is their perogative.

As far as "pure PVP" -- eve comes pretty close. Or, at least it used to. There's much more of a "walled garden" feeling in hisec these days (I suppose it was there when I started, but my travels through null and W-space have opened my eyes to this).

Yeah, for nullsec people with alliance-funded ships and stuff, I suppose there is a reduction in the feeling of "crushing loss" when something bad happens (especially with the fact that supers seem to be a dime a dozen these days). And you're also right about the rookies having trouble with ISK.

Most of this is caused by one side not being able to see things from the other side's point of view. If you would have asked me these questions 3ish years ago, I would have firmly been in the "hisec should be safe for me to mine, stop ganking me!!!" crowd. I have however, had the (mis)fortune of being in a nullsec group as part of their mining/industry team; which has let me see things differently.

Does this mean I'm out to gank newbs, or wardec people for the lulz? No, but it does mean that I can see the reasoning behind something like the goons invasion into Gallente space...

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Ms Twitch
Brittas Empire
Pandemic Horde
#55 - 2011-11-06 19:36:08 UTC
Montevius Williams wrote:
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.


Sorry I have to agree, we really don't want an Eve WoW in Space - would have be called WEVE :)
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2011-11-06 23:04:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Takara Mora
Ms Twitch wrote:


Sorry I have to agree, we really don't want an Eve WoW in Space - would have be called WEVE :)



Ummmm ... it still wouldn't be WOW is Space guys ... b/c there would still be non-consensual PvP, everywhere, just like today ... and when you lose a ship, you really lose it ... it doesn't respawn like in WOW ....

I think it's a big stretch to assume that adding consensual PvP would decrease the amount or level of non-consensual PvP in EVE ... I actually think it would give ppl a taste of adrenaline, so they'd want to go out and PvP for REAL more ...

I just completely don't get the "EVE has absolutely no place for consensual PvP" attitude ... in a game where there is already consensual PvE (you choose your Missions, the missions are canned, etc.), and current PvP is little more than Blob warfare or Derr - Gank-abily ... you would complain about adding a new type of PvP that is no LESS contrived than those ... and a type of PvP that is industry leading (as far as what most ppl want to play ... and this includes games like DUST which will be essentially consensual PvP since you basically log in and start blasting the other team that gets MATCHED to you presumably).

Sorry, just smells like FUD to me.

And ... cue the "you don't get EVE" posts ... now.
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2011-11-06 23:29:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Takara Mora
Velicitia wrote:
tl;dr -- I don't want to see people pushed out of hisec, but I do want to see people pushed to realise that there isn't as much of a hard split between PVP and so-called "PVE" activities.

In a sense, yes I am implying small indy corps are a bad thing. The problem with the small corps is that they're no different from one another. Rather than have 1 25 or 50 man strong corporation that can realise the goals they've set for themselves (supplying massive amounts of ships/minerals/whatever to their local markets), you have 5 or 10 5-man corporations that all can barely scrape by because they don't bother to realise they would be much better working together. I think a lot of this is the general EVE mentality, coupled with the simple fact that no one really wants to be in these types of corporations. You're right in that I'm not trying to imply people should strive to be a meatshield.

A lot of the problems are most likely caused by the terribad corporate mechanics that I mentioned...

Furthermore, corporations of this nature (small/industrial) seem to be where the ideas that people should be allowed to play "alone" without any risk to their hulk (i.e. stop suicide ganking me!) because they're just PVE people are propogated. I used to be in that boat, then there was one wardec where I finally decided that enough was enough, and I was going to defend my ability to mine with my guns. I had three of my corpies follow me out, and we all died horribly -- after the engagement though, they convo'd me and we worked out the framework for a mutually agreeable relationship (however, my CEO at that time didn't like the plan, so nothing came out of it). ...


Yeah sds very familar ... I wonder if people's loathing to join large corps/alliances tho, might have a lot to do with ppl's innate willingness to avoid other ppl ... I mean, many ppl are naturally shy, distrustful (and EVE doesn't help that), some are loners/introverts, etc. ....

And ... 10 man corps really do have something larger corps may not ... a feeling of family, which a lot of ppl want, and which tends to die once your organization grows beyond a certain size.

I actually think it might be a huge tragedy if CCP doesn't "foster" solo play .... which a lot of Hisec is actually ... I didn't join EVE to play with 35,000 other ppl ... I just joined to play alone ... I bet there are plenty of other ppl like me .... yeah, the bitter vets can complain that "it's not designed to be a solo game" or "HTFU - join a large nullsec alliance already", whatever ... the fact is, it's just not going to happen, because a heck of a lot of ppl JUST DON'T LIKE that.

There are parts of EVE you just can't play solo; other parts you can ... and why can't that be "OK"? As long as the EVE universe is big enough to support all types of play ...


Velicitia wrote:

We need more PvP inroads, so that players stop thinking that EVE has a real split between "PVP" and "PVE" content like other MMOs have -- like those battlegrounds in WoW. You lose nothing by losing (except maybe trinkets or something). Hell, in WoW, you don't even lose your STUFF when you die ... it just gets a little beat up, and you fork over some ISK and get everything fixed up again with no tangible loss..


Yeah ... there's no reason EVE "battlegrounds" would have to be like WoW tho ... other than providing a "matchup" system - EVE could still keep it's supposed "harshness" (tho PvP to the big Nullsec guys really is the same as WoW, since they probably could lose 1000 ships and still not feel a dent in their moon mining income).

Velicitia wrote:

Most of this is caused by one side not being able to see things from the other side's point of view. If you would have asked me these questions 3ish years ago, I would have firmly been in the "hisec should be safe for me to mine, stop ganking me!!!" crowd. I have however, had the (mis)fortune of being in a nullsec group as part of their mining/industry team; which has let me see things differently.

Does this mean I'm out to gank newbs, or wardec people for the lulz? No, but it does mean that I can see the reasoning behind something like the goons invasion into Gallente space...


Agreed yeah .... the great lows that are possible, also leave room for great highs ... iow, if you didn't allow Goons to do their ICE blockade ... you also couldn't allow some other major coalition of "good guys" to say, completely blockade them OUT of hisec, etc., or do some other incredible feat of gamesmanship that no other game system can allow ...
Mal Darkrunner
Zero Tau Research Institute
#58 - 2011-11-07 09:05:17 UTC
Takara Mora wrote:
Stuff...


I agree with you that EVE needs to provide opportunities for solo play in both PVP and PVE, as there are a lot of people who like to do things on their own, be independent, or whatever you want to call it. Trying to force people who enjoy this play style into joining up with other people probably won't work, so all you can really do is provide opportunities for them to do things with others if they feel like it (and maybe incentives for doing so). For me personally I spend my time in a mixture of solo and group play - I'm happy to run missions/explore/whatever by myself, but will join up with fleet roams, incursions or mining ops every so often when I have the time and inclination.

Now, I'm afraid I'm still going to have to disagree on the arenas/matched pvp system. For me, having CCP implement such a system, still goes against the sandbox and the 'lore' of the galaxy. If it's something players want, I still believe they (they players) should create it by forming their own corp(s)/organisations to implement it. Again, I'm going to point to RvB as an example of people already doing this sort of thing.

One of the things that I really don't like about an arena/battleground system is that it would make it too easy to find fights. Too easy? Yeah, you heard me. A big part of PVP currently is the process of finding opponents (or prey or victims) - the process of intel gathering, scouting, scanning, roaming ... the decision of how to act on that intel, and what to do when new intel comes in. The point is that you generally have to expend some effort in order to find fights that you/your fleet can manage. Of course PVP sometimes comes to you, but then it's the other side that has put the effort in to track you down, and of course the fight is now on their terms ... or is it ... Twisted

I fear that if getting PVP fights becomes too easy - just a case of joining the nearest battleground/arena queue and waiting your turn - that a lot of "real galaxy" PVP will wither and die, especially the intel/scouting side (something I really enjoy doing btw).

It's my belief that the plexes in faction warfare were intended to promote some of the more balanced PVP that people are looking for when they bring up arenas (by restricting fights to certain classes of ships). I'm not totally against these as you still have to look for a complex that's occupied, scout out the occupying force to ensure it's manageable, gather intel to ensure that a reinforcement gang isn't waiting in the next system to spring a trap...

I guess my point is that PVP in an arena happens in a bubble - there are no consequences to it apart from the loss of a ship, there's very little effort required to find the fight, no scouting or intel-gathering required, and no chance of aything unexpected happening (reinforcements for either side, traps, third-party involvement, etc.). In short, none of the things that make EVE PVP so varied, interesting and unpredictable.
Antipokeman
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2011-11-07 11:33:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Antipokeman
People who say EVE is PvP and will always be. Did you ever consider it is mainly that way because the people who didn't like that fact quit? While CFO is trying to save the ship in a competitive market of evergrowing mmos they need to do something that can at least somewhat appease both sides. PvPers should be able to PvP if they want as well as people who don't want to shouldn't have to. Telling people if they don't like it then don't play is the mentality that has gotten ccp to these subscription numbers.
ExhumeToConsume
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#60 - 2011-11-07 12:15:48 UTC
Antipokeman wrote:
People who say EVE is PvP and will always be. Did you ever consider it is mainly that way because the people who didn't like that fact quit? While CFO is trying to save the ship in a competitive market of evergrowing mmos they need to do something that can at least somewhat appease both sides. PvPers should be able to PvP if they want as well as people who don't want to shouldn't have to. Telling people if they don't like it then don't play is the mentality that has gotten ccp to these subscription numbers.


If the amount of stupidity present in your post had mass, it would collapse into a black hole and suck the entire universe in with it.