Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I'm a carebear. Hello. It seems that there is much hatred on the forums against my kind. We are called 'risk averse' which is a nice way to call us a mean name (you know what I'm saying).

The thing is, I'm not averse to some PvP. What I am averse to are overwhelming odds and being bullied just because someone thinks it's fun to 'harvest moar tearz.' EVE is a game that I play to have fun. The problem with PvP for me is that I'm terrible at it, and getting 'ganked' doesn't teach me anything or give me any satisfaction. In fact, it does the exact opposite. Being ganked only makes me not want to log in. That's bad for EVE. I've learned way more about how to avoid PvP than I've learned how to get better at it. Right now PvP is a disruption to the activities I do for fun.

What I see as the root of the problem is that there is no actual exposure to PvP in the tutorials and any exposure to PvP in EVE at large is always against our will at the hands of players with huge SP and experience advantages. That's not fun.

Here's what I would think would be fun:

PvP Career Agent Tutorial:

• Create a new tutorial agent for PvP
• Have missions that teach the use of PvP modules (scram, web) and tactics (staying out of scram range, closing fast with MWD and orbiting close)
• Teach new players why their bigger guns aren't hitting those small target (and other game mechanics)
• Have at least 2 of the PvP tutorial missions be against another player also doing the tutorial

This last part is a little tricky. I would love to see a mechanic that pairs up players in the tutorial against each other. It's no use to give a new player a civilian warp scram and have them activate it on an NPC. It teaches us nothing other than how to click on a module in the UI.

Not only that, but I would love to see PvP missions added into NPC agents. Before some of you start pointing out that there is FW, I'd like to remind you that joining FW makes you a legal target everywhere at all times. For that reason many carebears like myself don't want to go near it. Be in a permawar with lots of players who are all better than you? No thanks. With PvP agent missions you get a chance to PvP when missions become boring which allows you to 1) get better at PvP and 2) see PvP as an enjoyable activity.

What I envision is something like this:

Level 1 PvP missions allow up to destroyers
Level 2 PvP missions allow up to cruisers
Level 3 PvP missions allow up to Battlecruisers
Level 4 PvP missions allow up to Battleships

PvP missions would be in deadspace pockets with acceleration gates that only allow up to a certain mass and ship combination. (for instance for a level 3 mission you can fit into the mission any combination of ships that is equivalent to a battlecruiser). This will encourage teamwork in the higher level missions, but still allow some players to solo PvP if they have the skills.

Anyone who leaves the mission site is unable to warp back in and if one side of the mission completely leaves the field, then they fail the mission.

Since there will obviously be one person who fails the mission, remove standings losses for these missions only.

Winners get ISK + LP as well as NPC corp standings gain.

In my mind the mechanic goes something like this:

• High sec player goes to a PvP agent and is flagged as wanting a duel.
• Low sec player goes to a Pirate NPC corp PvP agent and is flagged as wanting a duel.
• Server matches up the two closest players (one pirate, one carebear) and sends an eve-mail to both with the location of a high sec deadspace 'null sec' pocket that needs 'defended' from the (invading pirate/snooping carebear)
• Players enjoy consensual PvP and hopefully a 'good fight'

Players like myself who are bad at PvP because we don't have any way to actual learn anything against roaming HAC gangs in our T1 frigates get a chance to learn, and pirates who bemoan the lack of PvP get their fix. Eventually carebears like myself will become better at PvP and will stop fearing low sec because we'll have the skills to fight back.

TL;DR
More PvP for everyone, but not the lopsided "I'm going to kill everything in my HAC because these noobs wandered into lowsec with T1 frigates or ships that can't fight back" kind of 'PvP' that isn't fun for us carebears. Basically, duels that you don't have to sit outside a major trade hub for

First off: Risk-averse is not a colloquialism. In your own OP you state you would rather not log in than be 'ganked'.

Eve was built with non-consensual PvP as one of it's selling points.

It is very easy to learn PVP and how to survive in low/null sec. All it takes is time and effort on your part.

No amount of staged 1v1 or XvX pvp in a hidden deadspace area can prepare you. You would learn how to use this system well, then as soon as you hopped into low, you'd be blapped again and be even angrier than you are now.

Currently you are angry that you get killed because you don't know PVP.

If you spent all those hours "learning PVP" in this system you propose, and got killed just as easily, you'd not only be angry but crestfallen. This would break you.

If you really want to learn something about the lower security spaces and get some PVP, you join a PVP corp based out of one of those areas. Then you buy a stack of frigates that reach the sky. You start out as Hero Tackle and move up from there.

I don't want low and null sec to become "Tarren Mill" just so some PVE-centric players can build a false sense of security.

It's actually pretty damn easy to avoid being ganked. If you don't learn anything from your deaths, then that indicates a problem with you and not with the game.

The idea of PVP tutorials is good. However, watering down actual PVP (ie implementing anything in this thread other than the tutorial suggestions) is not the answer.

I think there is a difference between 'risk averse' and not doing something I don't find enjoyable. Getting wardec'd by a dedicated PvP corp for not paying a ransom isn't fun for me when they're roaming around in battlecruisers and more than half my corp can't even fly battlecruisers (for the record, we hired mercs and the corp that wardec'd us turtled up in station and dropped war after a week... turns out those gankers didn't want to fight, they just wanted to bully newbs).

I understand that non consensual PvP is a part of EVE, and I'm not interested in changing that aspect of EVE at all. I'll admit that it's a rush when one of my corpmates calls for help in chat because they're being ransomed (lesson here is not to shoot at ninja looters)!

I want to learn how to PvP and I have made an effort (see my posts on low sec)! However, I don't want to PvP as my primary activity in EVE, so joining a PvP corp or moving to low/null sec does not appeal to me. Everyone in EVE plays the game a bit differently, and the fact that I like to shoot at red crosses and asteroids shouldn't exclude me from enjoying PvP casually.

I feel like joining a PvP corp is exactly a bunch of "1v1 or XvX pvp" that you say won't teach my anything. Yes, it's in a staged arena. An arena that I can choose to engage or disengage. The thing is, though, that I would be much more inclined to engage against an opponent I might have a chance against and if there was a reward for engaging. I'll get better the more I engage. I like getting rewards for doing missions so I can afford to buy more ships. Put the two together and I think there's something useful there.

I'm not angry that I died (to be fair, I was when I first started). I'm just disenfranchised at how PvP is set up now (i.e. no way to casually PvP and still learn and progress).



I like the way you phrased that "arena" style PvP. Personally I think that does teach you something as you still pit your ship and skills against another player. It was brought to my attention elsewhere that FW sites are used for this purpose, so I think in game there is already a play style that works around 'staged arenas' for smaller ship combat.

I agree that becoming good at PvP cannot be done in a tutorial, but it will expose brand new players to PvP. Those players now understand why they can't warp off when someone tackles them and have a basic idea of what a PvP engagement is like.

As a side note I think the arena style engagements would do a lot to teach new pilots about the capabilities of different ships and techniques. Do a whole bunch of frigate PvP missions and eventually you learn what all the different frigates are capable of. Get good at frigate combat and move on to cruisers. One of the unknown elements is that you don't know what's gonna be in the 'arena' and will have to evaluate the situation quickly and decide what tactic to use or if it's better to disengage.

See my comments above in response to joining a PvP corp.

Thank you. I do mean well and any constructive ideas are certainly welcomed!



I agree that it's easy to avoid being ganked. It's easy because the only thing I learned from being ganked, is how to avoid it. I didn't learn how to PvP, I learned how to run away (or ignore baiters).

You're the second person to say that my suggestion would 'water down PvP' and also the second person to not explain why that is so I have no information to reconsider my suggestion with.



I like the idea of being able to have a 'hunting mission' against those who have committed crimes in the constellation! I like the idea of getting carebears involved in PvP more, and I especially like the idea of fighting back against those who would force us into non-consensual PvP or take advantage or our position of relative weakness

Agent Standing: 0.1

Rykki Atruin,

Just the person I needed to see. I have a job for you to do. Recently the Minmatar Militia has been getting scammed hand over fist by militia members who operate in a manner which constitutes gross dereliction of duty. They stand watch over strategic assets in poorly fit vessels, with no intention of actually defending these assets. I need for you to provide an example that will deter some of these 'farmers,' for lack of a better term. Find members of the Minmatar Militia and engage them in combat, destroying those that are unfit for duty.

Objective: Destroy Minmatar complex farmers in the low sec areas of the Metropolis Region.

Reward: 10 million isk.


Why are you still here? You haven't completed the last job I gave you.

Target selection and evading ganks are some of the most important PVP concepts. The actual mechanics of sitting in front of another ship and fighting them are not actually all that interesting.

Furthermore, you make the assumption that because fights will contain ships of equal class, they will be fair. That is not so. A breacher vs a TD slasher would be a laughable fight. A kiting frigate vs any frigate with an afterburner is similarly a laughable fight. Real PVP involves evaluating what your ship can kill and what it can't, and choosing fights based on that. "Good fights" happen when two or more people think they can kill the other and go for it. This does not happen when your fights are chosen for you.

Arena PvP, which is essentially the "instanced PvP" you're requesting, has many drawbacks.

Do a forum search, as arena's have been proposed many times before:
Deadspace Nullsec Arenas
Consensual PvP Arenas
Virtual Arenas
Tourney Arenas
Controlled Arenas
Lowsec Arenas
Dueling Arenas
Ship Restricted Combat Zones
Dueling Contracts
PvP Arenas
Colosseums
Simulated PvP
PvP Simulator
Null and Lowsec Arenas
Duel Mode
The Thunderdome

Here are some of the points to think about:

Arena PvP is EXTREMELY BIASED, so what is the point of it?
---Does it have a time limit? boundaries? rules?
---How do you deal with fleet boosters & bonuses?
---How do you enforce fitting limitations (number of asb's, faction/officer mods)?

Without these rules (as upheld in AT and SCL tourneys) by Referees, the games break down... terribly so.

Outside of addressing the actual arena, you need to address:
---How is this good for PvP??? (people fear it will interfere or obsolete everyday PvP!)
---Why is this needed?? Is there a problem this is correct, or is this another "wouldn't it be cool if" thread...
---Is instanced arena's the only real solution to whatever problem it is correcting??

Most people believe instanced (arena) PvP will deter people from roaming for a fight (which is true, and already somewhat problematic). Less people out, means it is harder to get fights, which means more people stop roaming, etc.

The truth is, you need to learn the basics of PvP (you can find TONs of good literature and blogs about this, check out The Altruists Know your Enemy series, check out EvE-Uni's wiki, check out Agony's Wiki, etc).

Really, the basics can be brought up in a tutorial (and I think the new "seminars" from CCP will help with that), but the actual PvP'ing experience should be learned while out roaming for a fight.

I understand this is hard to do "Part time" like you want, but it should become much easier in Rubicon (as you can go out fighting in a combat inty and be pretty hard to catch since they'll be nullified!).

I do agree that some basic PVP-centric agent missions given with NPCs that can warp scram, web, etc (Mission beacons that land in bubbles) be given, and Civilian versions of these same modules be handed out for these missions.

It won't be PVP, but an introduction to these mechanics would be good.

Still, though, I will happily contract you some free PVP tackle-frigates if you'll take the experience and do the same for your corp-mates.

Send me a mail in-game and we can work out the details.

How is this in any way different than current mechanics? You die, learn from it, and hopefully do not repeat the mistake.

What does the addition of arbitrary restrictive mission mechanics do to help this, other than teach people that 'real' PVP is a vacuum where you will only ever have to deal with one other person of the same ship class?



If you die because you get tackled and someone brings in backup, then that's still something to learn. The mistake you're making is that blobbing is not valid PVP and that there are no steps you can take to avoid it. There are, and the fact that your idea seeks to eliminate that is a problem.

Furthermore, some of the most fun and interesting PVP is asymmetrical. Just because the enemy has more guys than you doesn't mean you can't kill something squishy and get out, or bring a more powerful ship to engage their superior numbers.



So...I get this "PVP mission", I fly out, find out that the guy coming for me is not in something I can reasonably take out and then...what? I warp out, trek all the way back to my mission station, close the mission and get a new one?

I feel like learning about PvP by using civilian modules on NPC rats is a lot like learning about sex ed from a slideshow in homeroom... not anything like what's really going to happen and in no way prepares you for the main event.

I will happily lose all of those frigates in honorable duels. Name the high sec system (except in Amarr space... they don't like me there)



1) I am a carebear. My mindset is not "can I make is just to blow it up in PvP" and thus earning ISK for the sole purpose of blowing it up confuses me. However, blowing up a ship that was obtained for the sole purpose of honorable 1v1 duels intrigues me.

2) I've heard about the test server, but never used it. Perhaps I should look into that as well (remember, I'm not only a carebear, but a new player who has much to learn.

3) It is my understanding that Syndicate is null sec, and my impression is that just getting there is dangerous (especially as I am not 'blue' to any null sec entities that I'm aware of). Again, I'm a carebear and need some coaxing to come out of my den of hibernation... Although personally I am very interested in your offer and may very well take you up on it.

4) I would consider 'Consensual PvP' as an engagement between players that was wanted by all players involved. I concur that flying in wormhole/null/lowsec implies that PvP can happen at any moment (consensual or non-consensual). I would also agree that high sec is no exception. I do not agree that flying in these zones stipulates consent, but rather acknowledges threat.

5) Perhaps you do not need a reward for PvP as killmails are your reward. I, however, am a carebear and my killboard stats mean nothing to me. The loot is something I would like to have, but until I have PvP skills it is something I cannot obtain. A reward I would want is needed to entice me to engage. I agree that the adrenaline rush is enjoyable, however it is not (in my mind) a reward.



1) Current mechanics have only taught me how to avoid PvP and do not reward my engagement with other players in any way meaningful to me. I consider "Real PvP" (a term I did not use until just now in response to you) as any PvP. I'm simply suggesting a means to encourage players uninterested in the current mechanics to engage in PvP.

2) I agree that that your scenario presents a valid lesson to be learned. You are attributing a "mistake" to me that I did not make. At no point did I question the validity of specific PvP tactics. I have no intention of eliminating any form of PvP currently in game. My suggestion is to find a form of PvP that I would be encouraged to engage in and be rewarded for engaging in. I see no reason why asymmetrical PvP could not continue in game if my suggestion were implemented.

3) That is the general idea. The player(s) who did not warp out are rewarded for being able to intimidate the other player(s) while the party who decided to leave forfeits any reward. The idea is to encourage PvP. If there were standings loss for not engaging I would never even talk to the agent. If I was rewarded for flying out there and attempting to engage, I'd be more willing to risk my ship and might take a fight (even if it's because I didn't know how badly it would end for me). There probably needs to be more thought put into the mechanics on my part in regards to this.