These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why Eve needs PVP eveywhere
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Green Beans
R and J Inc.
#21 - 2011-11-12 02:47:01 UTC
All players in EVE have one thing in common: we play to have fun. For some people, PvP is just not fun for them. They should be able to do whatever they want to. If this game becomes purely PvP, do you think those kinds of people would enjoy getting their asses kicked over and over again?

This line for rent! YOUR AD HERE!

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#22 - 2011-11-12 03:27:52 UTC
Green Beans wrote:
All players in EVE have one thing in common: we play to have fun. For some people, PvP is just not fun for them. They should be able to do whatever they want to. If this game becomes purely PvP, do you think those kinds of people would enjoy getting their asses kicked over and over again?

This game can't "become purely PvP" because it was already created as purely PvP. The industrial aspect exists simply as a subdivision of PvP, and wouldn't exist at all if there was no PvP.

Before you say "well, PvP can't exist without industry either," please remember that industry is PvP. PvPers are perfectly fine with some people not wanting to engage in the actual destruction of ships, but concentrating on production instead. In fact, we salute those people.

It's the true, vile carebears who want to remove PvP entirely so as to further their industrial goals that we have a problem with.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Killstealing
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2011-11-12 04:22:55 UTC
Lyris Nairn wrote:
PVP is already everywhere

This, if you disagree post the system you are in


it might come to you
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#24 - 2011-11-12 09:35:46 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Alright C&P, it's time to get serious. Since CCP seems to be bowing to the carebears and giving them their every want and desire for the past month, I think it's important that we step back and look at the potential impact some of the recently-requested things might have.

tl;dr: PVP is good, and nerfing it hurts Eve's publicity and by extension its subscription rate.

What I've seen a lot of lately as the empowered bears ask for more and more is, the ability to not be ganked. CCP is already apparently looking to remove insurance from ships destroyed by CONCORD--a move I wouldn't object to, so long as they also remove it for self-destruction--in order to making ganking riskier. That's fine, I'm all about risk in Eve. The tension of constant risk is what attracted me to this game in the first place.

The problem is, CCP has been trending toward risk-free play recently. Some people want to be able to play Eve without any danger of other players destroying their ship, something unheard of in the history of Eve. It's feeling more and more like CCP is trending that way, and I'm beginning to feel like we're treading a slippery slope where one wrong move could result in the Eve universe becoming boring as hell.

The recent actions of the Goons should demonstrate that even highsec ganking of miners can be as a serious strategy of market manipulation, NOT just mindless violence. They've been able to drive up the price of gallente ice products substantially through their tactics and have created a compelling storyline (content!) driven completely by the players. This is what separates Eve from other MMOs: stories and campaigns and risk are created primarily by the players.

Without the risk of ganking and with the ability to scrape off wardecs as they see fit, highsec could easily become a region completely devoid of risk, where people can simply do the same PVE content over and over and over feeling completely safe. I understand that's what some people want, but are these really they people CCP needs to be listening to?

What's going to happen to those people once they've trained up to perfect skills on the battleships and pimped them out with faction mods? Do you think they're going to just keep playing the game for years on end, running the same missions? It's been my experience that people who never venture beyond PVE stay in the game for about two years before it starts getting old to them. They get tired of grinding for PLEX, they don't want to pay $15 a month for what is basically single-player content, and they are easily distracted by other games that offer something NEW and DIFFERENT.

The compelling content of Eve has always been made with PVP. Market manipulation, high-value ganks, epic alliance wars, scams, corp thefts--they are all PVP where one player profits at the expense of another. Most of you wouldn't have even heard of Eve if it weren't for the occasional article on some gaming site about how someone stole or destroyed thousands of dollars worth of in-game assets. *IF* the current trend continues in the coming months we will see a notable decline in the occurrence of such stories, to the point that it could impact subscription levels. And nobody wants that.

Before you post:

"Go out to low/nullsec you nub": I like my sec status too much to wreck it in lowsec PVP and every foray I've taken into nullsec has resulted in a "who has the biggest fleet" contest. It's hard to get squad-sized fights out there, and that's what I enjoy.

"Griefer tears": Seriously, learn wtf tears look like. I'm trying to keep Eve from turning into SpaceWoW. You might want that, but it's not what I signed up for.

"Let me play Eve my way!": Fine. I honestly don't care how you play the game. I did missions, mining, exploration, and wormholes in my first 16 months. I've been you. The difference is, I didn't cry when bad things happened to me, I learned to avoid them. Then I learned to do them to other people. Turns out, that's more fun.


TL;DR

PvP is everywhere, remember Player VS Players is not only shooting people... DA

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#25 - 2011-11-12 13:36:27 UTC
Green Beans wrote:
All players in EVE have one thing in common: we play to have fun. For some people, PvP is just not fun for them. They should be able to do whatever they want to. If this game becomes purely PvP, do you think those kinds of people would enjoy getting their asses kicked over and over again?

Who said anything about it being purely PVP?

Grinding PVE content isn't fun for me, but it's a game component that is often necessary for standings and money-making. PVP might not be fun for them, but it's been a reality of the Eve universe since its inception that PVP can happen to anyone at any time. There are people looking to make PVP-free zones, and my concern is that CCP will start trying to make everyone happy and give them what they want.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Nephilius
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#26 - 2011-11-12 14:20:54 UTC
I hardly believe that CCP is listening that much to PvEers, as you can still gank to your hearts content. I do agree that Dec Scraping should never have happened, but I believe that it may have happened due to people being griefed by the mechanic rather than totally trying to remove PvP. The insurance thing? I'm really surprised it took that long to fix that crazy mechanic of gank, have some insurance money. It was insane that a ganker could take little risk and be rewarded, which is usually what gankers complain about when it comes to PvEers and the things they do. And the RR thing...also needed the fix that it got. Is the game headed for a day where PvP is the exception, not the norm? Nope. Short of Dec Scraping, everything will be as it should be. Dec Scraping should be reversed, and considered an exploit once more, I agree.
"If."
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
#27 - 2011-11-12 14:38:53 UTC
Pel Xadi wrote:
disillusional wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:

blah blah blah.


^ Spoken like a boss


^ Spoken like a pawn. ;)


^ Spoken like a ***** who can't post with their main.

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||
Justin Credulent
Luv You Long Time
#28 - 2011-11-12 19:09:55 UTC
CCP is letting people play EVE the way they want to.

The result is griefer tears.

And boy do they taste good.

Null-Sec needs to HTFU and stop crying to CCP. If null-sec wants PvP, they need to stop being carebears and start fighting eachother - after years of bot-mining, they have the ships!
Pel Xadi
Doomheim
#29 - 2011-11-12 19:44:02 UTC
Jack Carrigan wrote:
Pel Xadi wrote:
disillusional wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:

blah blah blah.


^ Spoken like a boss


^ Spoken like a pawn. ;)


^ Spoken like a ***** who can't post with their main.


Yes, how does it feel to be spouting stars at a ghost?

Seriously beleive I'm going to reveal something about who I am, that seems a bit naive to me.

Mind judging by the lack of cognitive capability in the recent Skunworks propoganda threads it doesn't suprise me that one of their sympathisers might also equally like to shout at walls. lol.
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din
Commonwealth Vanguard
#30 - 2011-11-12 20:25:35 UTC
Im a pvper, its all I do. I agree with the changes being made, suicide ganking should be as much as a risk to the ganker as to the gankee.

Wardecs are a rubbish mechanic used by the (slightly) stronger to terrorise the weaker. If you want war, wardecc someone else who wants war, there are plenty of you out there, though when you are decced by a corp who want war, the griefers wont fight. The current wardec mechanics arnt about war, tehy are about griefing. It needs to change.

Hisec should NOT be safe, but it should not be a playground for greifers either. If you want real pvp, get into a war with other real pvpers.

To balance this, NPC corps should tax more, so that people dont jump ship lightly. Possibly have a war follow a corp for say 50% of teh remaining time rather than 24 hours, stuff like that. Do things to encourage better teamwork, more diversity in corp. A reason for all corps to have at least a military wing. But Hisec should not be a place where griefing the weak is easy.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#31 - 2011-11-12 22:59:21 UTC
Rico Minali wrote:
Im a pvper, its all I do. I agree with the changes being made, suicide ganking should be as much as a risk to the ganker as to the gankee.

Wardecs are a rubbish mechanic used by the (slightly) stronger to terrorise the weaker. If you want war, wardecc someone else who wants war, there are plenty of you out there, though when you are decced by a corp who want war, the griefers wont fight. The current wardec mechanics arnt about war, tehy are about griefing. It needs to change.

Hisec should NOT be safe, but it should not be a playground for greifers either. If you want real pvp, get into a war with other real pvpers.

Here we go, another post by a mouth-breathing nullblob jockey. It's amazing how someone who's never activated his guns outside of a 120-man Hurricane fleet is so quick to talk about a gameplay aspect he barely understands. Why don't you go ahead and start up another drive for the implementation of arenas on petitiononline.com or something? If you're going to ruin something nice and unique, you might as well go all the way and not limit yourself to ship toasts on the forums.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Andrei Taganov
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#32 - 2011-11-13 00:51:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrei Taganov
So quick with the slinging of insults over arguments that you're not even paying attention to; all of the Ad Hominem is silly and facetious... Furthermore, your face!

This thread looks to me to be pointing out that CCP are only half fixing flawed game mechanics--and maybe there is a recent trend in those halves being the whiny carebear halves, but that's the not underlying issue. Everyone should agree that if they think suicide gankers shouldn't receive insurance payouts (based on a logical argument), that neither should self destructs (based on the same logical grounds). Everyone should agree that if neutral RR hi-jinx mechanics like those that SKNK. used to great effect while ganking Incursion bears don't belong in this game, that the remaining neutral RR hi-jinx mechanic of not fully aggressing when repping also don't belong (especially now that there is no more grounds to whine about receiving aggression without warning in these situations). The wardec thing, well it's just still broken, and I don't know how to fix it either. Now, why aren't CCP actually fixing these things, instead of hotpatching whatever gets the most tears this week?

If you're really so short sighted that you can't admit that Eve needs balanced changes to be a balanced game, then enjoy your lame niche content for as long as it lasts (and pray that someone doesn't target your preferred mechanic with the voracity that logi aggression was recently targeted).

Then cry and unsub, and the rest of us will see where we stand in the aftermath. I, for one, hope CCP can get their ship together and figure this out ASAP, so that I can rest assured that my space-endeavors aren't for naught, because the Secure Insurance Commission minimum payout certainly won't cover self destructing your software company...

~Andrei.
Zedrik Cayne
Standards and Practices
#33 - 2011-11-13 02:10:41 UTC
As someone who has always picked apart the mechanics that govern our little sandbox. I would like to encourage CCP to make changes that on the surface seem to make things safer.

Because that is what it always is. Something on the surface. There remains underneath the placid surface of the toiling beast of EvE. Those of us who can look at the new toolbox. Wander over to SiSi to test a theory or two. And then proceed to continue having fun withing the rules. Should an Industrial be able to tank most people's idea of a PVE fit cruiser? No...can it? Yes.

Should aggression transfer through RR? Sure as shootin it should. Will this make lots of people explode as they suddenly gain aggro to someone with a ton of gank power just waiting for it? Yes.

Should you get insurance for concord involved 'incidents'. You currently do. But I like the whole idea of 'no insurance payout because concord got in on the action'. Mostly because it will turn of one hell of a big isk faucet. (We really don't need more of them). And then I don't have to remember to insure a ship.

Unless they go all the way to 'You cannot use an offensive module against another non-npc in highsec' there will always be non-consensual pvp occurring in highsec.

And even if they go that far, I know I can always have fun in other ways other than shooting folks. Heck, I was lining up a nice contract a while back to to a hostile take over of a lowsec market to screw with the denizens living there. But that is another story that will not be told because it didn't happen. But it would have been glorious had the man with the isk not balked at the expense.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
TalonKarrde84
Ysalamiri Ltd
#34 - 2011-11-14 02:17:51 UTC
Quote:
Griefers said:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!


LolLolLolRollLol
ElCholo
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2011-11-14 06:22:34 UTC
Pel Xadi wrote:
disillusional wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:

blah blah blah.


^ Spoken like a boss


^ Spoken like a pawn. ;)


^ Spoken like a troll.
Pel Xadi
Doomheim
#36 - 2011-11-14 07:27:54 UTC
ElCholo wrote:
Pel Xadi wrote:
disillusional wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:

blah blah blah.


^ Spoken like a boss


^ Spoken like a pawn. ;)


^ Spoken like a troll.


^ Spoken like an serious idiot with no sense of humour.
Antipokeman
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2011-11-14 08:01:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Antipokeman
I think most people are worried about not being able to gank. PvP will always be in EVE. Remember it's PvP not PvUnsuspectingP.

Everybody keeps saying keep highsec PvP when what they really want is to keep highsec ganking.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#38 - 2011-11-14 09:10:27 UTC
Antipokeman wrote:
I think most people are worried about not being able to gank. PvP will always be in EVE. Remember it's PvP not PvUnsuspectingP.

Everybody keeps saying keep highsec PvP when what they really want is to keep highsec ganking.

I don't.

Ganking is something that needs to exist in highsec. I've got no problem with making it more expensive (removing insurance) but preventing it entirely means that neutral alts are completely safe and are no longer valid targets during a war. They're prolific enough with the risk of them getting ganked.

But that's not what I'm talking about here. Some people want highsec to become 100% safe, free of wardecs, canflipping, ninja looting, and anything else that allows one player to interfere with the activities of another. Not only does that fly in the face of everything CCP has always said the game is about, it also makes it very hard to take a fight to an enemy if they could simply hide away in high sec.

The point of this thread was always to express a strong distaste for the POSSIBLE direction Eve might take should CCP continue to pander only to one side of this argument.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
ElCholo
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2011-11-14 09:17:22 UTC
Pel Xadi wrote:

^ Spoken like an serious idiot with no sense of humour.


An serious idiot?

Roll
Pel Xadi
Doomheim
#40 - 2011-11-14 09:30:39 UTC
ElCholo wrote:
Pel Xadi wrote:

^ Spoken like an serious idiot with no sense of humour.


An serious idiot?

Roll


Thousand apologies for the gramatical error, maybe add grammar police to the list?

Still it compounds to the anal behaviour nicely and helps to support the message I was trying to convey I suppose, sorry if it was so hard for you to translate.