Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Faction Warfare.

But forcing PVP on a PVE player would not add rewards to PVP, it would simply give PVP players a bunch of easy targets to rub their epeen to, while making PVE even more of a chore. If you want to argue for PVP to be given more rewards (beyond what FW already provides), by all means proceed. But forcing PVE players to have to get killed by PVP players is not content generation.

And yes, mining takes effort, and has risks, and has rewards (comparatively low rewards to other forms of income such as incursions, FW or L4s). Your point?Erm... OK so by definition, a PVE player is a player who enjoys PVE. This is not a concept I defined. It covers mission runners, traders, miners, manufacturers, etc. People who only engage in these tasks obviously enjoy them otherwise they would do other things. Forcing players like that into PvP will only satisfy PvP players with easy kills.

Well actually no. AFK cloakers force people to change system, nothing more. It's players that can quickly get in and lock a PVE player that would be an issue should intel be nerfed. Without local, a quick ship could be on grid before you realised he was there. He doesn't have to be skillful and doesn't have to put in effort, since a PVE ship is hardly a thread to most PvP Players. I think the point you miss here is that he's talking about removing local, which would make the quick ship considerably less avoidable.

He refers to current PVE as "world of snorecraft", while saying that he want challenge, insinuating that PVE is currently without challenges. He aggressively puts forward his same idea over and over, attacking anybody that disagrees. Maybe you should read more than the last couple of posts. At the end of the day, I like EVE how it is, and his idea would kill off a huge portion of the playerbase. No thanks.

It's null. Everything is done in the context of PvP.

The WHOLE point of null PvE being more rewarding, is completely due to the presence of unrestricted PvP.

Did you actually think the belt rats justified better ore?
Did you assume that the IHUB upgrades are balanced for no reasons?

If the risk from PvP is diminished below high sec, people really will be going back to high sec, because the rewards will be higher there then.

The rewards can never be balanced, unless they are justified by the effort and risk demanded by them.
Holding sov is rewarded by moon returns, because anchoring a POS is the return on that investment.
PvE rewards are balanced by PvE risks, and they both rise and fall together.

Yes it is. Meaning you can play it how you want. Meaning PVE is as valid as PVP. Meaning PVE players should not expect to be forced to PVP because the PVP players don't think the PVE players are dying enough.
I tell you what, PVP players can force PVE players to have to engage in combat when PVE players can force PVP players to have to do 10 hours of mining between each engagement. That way, nobody gets to do what they want. Fair?

Several times I've said I'm happy to live with the AFK cloak issue. It's an issue I recognise, but it's way way way down on the priorities. Maybe if my coalition ever stops owning half of EVE and I run out of systems to run around in it'll be higher up the list.

And you want to introduce forced PVP on PVE players. How can you possibly not see how that would reduce subs? Like this hasn't been discussed a thousand times over.
For starters, those 20 man isboxer fleets would suddenly become to dangerous to run in null. So for each of those that's probably 16 cancelled subs.

"Forced" PvP is part of the game dude....has been from day one. It was there even before day 1, it was there from the moment of conception.

Yes you may be able to try and avoid combat PvP, but equally others may try and force it upon you when they can. That's the whole point of the sandbox CCP has created. Not only that, but as the whole game is PvP centric, it's expected.

That comes off somewhat misleading.

A greater chance of dying to pvp... Well, if you ignore mistakes from fitting and tactics, as well as client error due to lag or the player simply not paying attention.... A ratting carrier, for example, is gambling that no hostile enters the system at all, considering their limited means of evasion.
It is possible to make ISK with zero actual PvP risk. Now, this does not include moving between systems, but neither is moving between systems actually a required aspect of PvE income either. That is separate.

Now, if you have to make an effort to replace an absolutely flawless and perfect intel system, yes, you create the chance to increase PvP. The chance is precisely equal to the degree you fall short of duplicating the flawless and perfect nature of that intel, to be more specific.

Then, you would need to compete against the hostile player, to see who made the right effort at the right time, or simply made a better effort overall.
On the plus side, the hostile player would need to sacrifice their vaunted immunity to detection, which would make it possible to actually clean out a set of systems completely.

So, to sum up, the PvE player loses the zero risk, in theory.
The hostile player really does lose the zero detection defense, and must now make continual efforts to be evasive against potential hunters, or risk being ambushed.

Or, we leave things as is, which while mutually broken, IS balanced.

I never said you couldn't try to avoid it...hence the quotation marks around the word forced. So your characterization is just flat out wrong.

Well gosh, If you cut off the section where I qualify that response to such a degree, that it changes the meaning of that section entirely, sure.
Heck, for that matter, I can take your comments out of context too, and claim you like truly bizarre ideas.


I am no authority to declare what is balanced. True. I never claimed to be, despite the way you refuted the idea.

The CCP devs, however, ARE the authority on what is balanced. In some cases, it changes based on fixing bugs, or wildly unexpected emergent game play aspects.
This does not apply here, as this situation has existed more than long enough to say:
"If it could be easily changed to be more balanced, it would have already happened"

Considering the simplistic nature of a timer or fuel idea, we can safely rule those out as having been rejected in favor of something more carefully considered. They already have both timers and fuel in the game, so difficulty in coding is a non issue.

As to having a mechanic to replace local, that is a given. I think I can point out more than one suggestion for making local better, and more competitive, in this thread.

See again here you highlight the whole issue. You seem to think that PVE has zero risk, and that zero risk is created by local. But that's wrong, utterly wrong. It's zero risk IF we make the right choices. Exactly the same as how PVP is zero risk if you make the right choices too. The choice of ship, location, activity as well as actions during the task affect how much risk you are exposed to. Local is not automatically making PVE risk free. You seem to dismiss all effort that PVE players put in as if they are just automatically safe, then you are trying to take away the automatic safety that you made up. It's truly ludicrous.