EVE General Discussion

Like I said. 2017 is getting a good start.

My ultimate position on this: if PVe, the interaction between player and the Eve environment and NPCs (agents, rats, etc) cannot be free from intrusion or crossing paths with elements of PVP (ganks, gate camps, suspect baiting in mission rooms, MTU shooting, etc.), then in all fairness and in the all mighty, sacred, and holy aspect of the doctrines of HTFU, PVP shall also not be free from any elements of the Eve universe, agents, AIs, and other in-game elements.

Anybody who is pro PVP and/or pro gank who disagrees with that will be showing their double standard and themselves to be a hypocrite, which of course will be expected from people who gank hapless freighters and call it everything but that.

Any direction away from the vector of EQUAL intrusion into PVP by NPCs as such that PVP intrudes into PVE (and there are YEARS worth of intrusion to catch up on, I might add) will be construed as CCP once more deciding that players who prey on others are their bread and butter and everybody else should be encouraged to play something else.

I just realized something.

If Eve was as teeming with players as it should be, there would not be so much computing resources to be running AIs that can "decide" and chase players and such.

But who was it that helped keep this a niche game and drive out casual players? Who was it that would bump freighters and miners with zero consequences and then bask in making a "carebear" ragequit?

Why, the very "PVP" players who won't like improved NPC AI and their ganks... uh... content getting interfered with.

I know they'll say "but... but... CONCORD is NPC!". Yeah, because that's the only thing between the "content creator" and just about everybody new to the game leaving in a huff after 20 minutes because of "that kind of player who has nothing better to do but blap noobs by the station all day". The kind of player that nobody wants to play the same game with.
Eventually "HTFU" means nothing when nobody is listening.

But the salt and the irony is great thus far.

Considering the implications beyond some whiney gankbear complaining about losing a kill or two, this could be very epic in the long term.

Herzog:

My approach is different.

I dont perceive this as a PvE vs PvP issue at all, in any form.
This direction of development improves them both.

What matters, is that EVE as a systemic environment, starts to dynamically react to player behavior.

This is a far truer manifestation of EVE, as a game in which you make your own destiny, than ever before.
Its no longer just players you compete with, but the EVE universe itself, which interacts according to your choices, and most importantly, the choices of others (which constitutes PvP too).

EVE will remain a pervasive PvP environment, but developed into a reactionary environment in terms of systemic mechanics.
This direction includes and improves both PvP, and PvE, for the betterment of the game.
A better sum total.

We have had many debates here on the nature of difference between PvP and PvE.
The definition of PvP has congealed and is a matter of wide concencus.
But the definition of PvE, is still ambiguous.

People forget, that the "E" in PvE, means Environment.
Boiled down, as established in our definition of PvP by exclusion, it means everything else except players.

EVE, in terms of NPC interaction and dynamics, is a vast dead expanse.
The "environment" is passive and inert.

People like Remiel and Torin argue it should remain "dull and boring".
I cant agree.
First of all, dull and boring is NEVER a good thing in a game, no matter how you cut it.
Second of all, EVE is a single shard universe already overwhelmingly directed by player behavior.
But its player action on a dead, inert landscape.

The potential of NPC dynamics opens up a third dimension, parallax and degree of complication that truly integrates player behavior into EVE, and EVE into player behavior.

I would just like to point out something rather important in relation to the quoted text.

I do not consider Eve to be dull and boring.
I have never considered Eve to be dull and boring.
If I considered Eve to be dull and boring I would of stopped playing very shortly after character creation.

Mission running is, I grant you, rather dull and boring. The only time I find it not to be is when I am running missions with newbros/ friends and we are having a blast on chat. So in order for it not to be dull and boring, it just needs the inclusion of other players.

As far as other people pointing out the irony of PvP'ers whining about PvE....I find this interesting if I'm to be included in that. I've never really considered myself to be a dedicated PvP'er or PvE'er. I do both. I'm a "filthy casual" , and have been for a long time.
I do whatever takes my fancy at any given time, and would like to continue to do so without having to spend too much of my limited time worrying about "fluff". But that's just me, and it's a product of the relation between how much game-time I have versus how much of that time I need to spend doing things I consider not-fun instead of lotsa-fun.

Ultimately whatever changes are made, I will adapt. As long as the ratio of fun to not-fun remains tolerable I will continue to play. If it becomes intolerable I will not. That's a personal decision that every player makes about every game that they play. Eve is no different in that respect.

I'm really not trying to be a troll when I say, that question is far to vague.

Any development along these lines is something that could be good, or could be bad. It is very much dependent on the specific interactions and the circumstances around them.

I've said before that I'm a role player at heart. So, in very general terms I'd say that improved interactions are something that could benefit the game....But the specific applications would have to be very carefully thought out.

I would prefer (purely personal opinion) that PvP have absolutely minimal impact on, and interference from NPC's. Pretty sure I've made that clear so far

If these changes were to be made in conjunction with the removal of a players ability to join an NPC corp after the first 30 days or so, then I think the impact would be lessened. After this any player who chose for whatever reason to refrain from joining a player corp (or creating their own) would simply be listed as "freelance" or perhaps "unaligned". Subsequently killing such a player, whether as the aggressor or defender, would no longer have any impact upon NPC standings.

Then we could talk about mechanics of standings as every player would be starting from a level field. In order to gain the "protection" of NPC fleets, a player would have to actively grind the standings (as opposed to just fiddling the character creation system to put them in a favorable NPC corp).I'd still not be entirely happy, but it would at least be a start.
This net effect though is standings grind for both parties.

I do not enjoy standings grind. It is by necessity "forced" PvE at this time. This may be where you consider me a hypocrite for disliking forced PvE while supporting non-consensual PvP , but then it returns to the debate as to whether Eve is a PvP game first, with PvE "tacked on" or not. that's a different debate.

(Granted there are a few players who would say that Eve is in fact a market simulator....with occassional explosions that happen in the utterly unimportant space outside of stations)

This is a stupid question.

The old NPC AI already does this. The new AI does it differently.

It's possible to say yes, but still have a totally opposing view about what that 'yes' means.

I did, here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6779927#post6779927

That is a yes/no question, allowing for explanation of the answer.

I got your explanation, but Im still waiting on your yes/no answer.

PS: Scipio, there is no such thing as a stupid question.
Questions, by format, are inquisitive of that which one does not know.
Thus either all questions are stupid (which is inane) or none are.

Yes/no questions are famous for over-simplifying a position.
That is why I allow an explanation, as Torin produced, for the answer.
But he has not yet said yes/no as an answer.

And yet another example that Herzog Wolfhammer does not get the concept of a player driven sandbox game. Yet another example of Herzog wanting to change the game so players can avoid interaction. Never mind CCP's own analysis suggesting that lack of interaction in EVE is a contributing factor to players leaving the game.

And of course there is no logical basis for this based on what Torin Corax wrote. He suggested that standings be limited to interacting with NPCs and have little to no impact on player-on-player interactions. How one can make a leap to having totally secure mission sites from such player-on-player action is completely baffling.

Torin:

Aah, the "classic", "no, I wont answer your questions, avoid them, and blabla" approach.
Whilst ignoring what I have argued, and expecting me to deliver answers to you.

First you emailed me with an excuse to avoid answering an itemized, numbered rebuttal.
Claiming it was off-topic. Yet you returned to discussion on the same points, without answering mine.

Second, you made statements, and when I asked you for a clarification of them via a yes/no conclusion (allowing for explanation/rationale leading to it), you blame me for trickery.

This is nonsense and breaks manifold rules of debate.

If you cant answer yes/no to a simple question, even when you have the opportunity to express conditions and justification for it, there is no way to argue the issue with you.

You dont care about debate on the issue, just your own position.
Ypu are concerned with your own advantage, not a co structive debate.
Its behavior that is dishonest, lacking intellectual integrity and personal dignity.

"*Sigh*"

The problem, IMO, is alot of people don't understand emergence, either intuitively or the actual definition.

Example 1: calling the changes to can flipping by CCP a player driven change.
Example 2: calling this change to NPCs emergent, when in fact it is a top down change by CCP.

Here is a good rule of thumb, if CCP does something, it is likely not emergent.

That is not to say that CCP can't do things to promote emergence. For example, incursions. While incursions are not emergent, the way players reacted to them demonstrate emergence--disparate players setting up, for lack of a better word, institutions in game so that they can come together and take advantage of the incursions.

Granted, this change could also lead to emergence, but nobody has suggested emergent outcomes.

Instead we get people falling into their usual camps.

As for more interesting AI, I think it would be fine in say missions or anomalies. But this suddenly has NPCs interjecting themselves into player-on-player actions which is problematic in that it could discourage player-on-player interaction...the very thing this game is supposed to be about.