These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2011-11-07 12:21:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Antipokeman wrote:
Telling people if they don't like it then don't play is the mentality that has gotten ccp to these subscription numbers.

Actually, no. The game being what it is, is what got CCP to the subscription numbers they have now. Them not developing the game for 18 months is what caused that number to go down a bit from their peak.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
#62 - 2011-11-07 14:30:30 UTC
Get the hell out of my sandbox punk.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#63 - 2011-11-07 14:50:38 UTC
Takara Mora wrote:

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.

While both of these are true on some level, the trouble with it is in doing things like this it's stupidly hard to get things done, and continues to lead to the feeling that CCP needs to cater to these "small fish" groups more. If the intention of the game was to foster hundreds of small corporations, there wouldn't be skills in the game to allow for corporations in the thousands.

While, yes I was saying that having so many small "indy" corps was a bad thing, I don't necessarily have a problem with small corps in general (I do agree, they can be quite fun). It's the "we're the 10 pilots of Super Awesome Mining Corp, Inc. and we demand that everyone leave us alone to mine in peace" mentality that small corporations usually foster I have a problem with.

Now, if S.A. Mining (5-10 man mining corp) looked arount their system, and then started working with "Alpha Team Combat Division" (5-10 man PvP corp) and "Dynamic Heavy Industries" (5-10 man industrial corp) to secure their system from interlopers (say, "Rock Bashers Mining", and "Omega Squad"), things are better for everyone. S.A. Mining gets to mine (fun for them), Dynamic Heavy Industries gets a reliable source of minerals (maybe even a little below market... more profit = more fun for them), and Alpha Team gets reliable deliveries of cheaper ships (more 'splosions = more fun for them). The player interaction amongst these three corporations has just led to more fun (and safety) for everyone involved... and what they can accomplish now is significantly greater than what the three corps could do individually.

Takara Mora wrote:
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 ...


EVE is a MMORPG. If you want an engaging/rewarding/easy solo game, you're playing the wrong game. It's that simple. Hearing "I want to play alone, and I don't want to hear anyone say this is wrong" is no different than someone complaining that the other team is shooting them in DUST or Battlefield or Call of Duty...

Yeah, this is a bit blunt, but you knew that this was a multiplayer game when you downloaded the trial.

That isn't to say there are NOT things that can be done solo -- but that solo players shouldn't expect to get nearly as many nice things as the people who want to work together.


Takara Mora wrote:
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).


You want a "matchup" or "arena" system? go make it. Why does CCP have to give us everything? Why can't the players build it themselves?

Yeah, yeah The Alliance Tournament is put on by CCP ... but it is a completely different beast in that it is an annual production, and winning actually means something to those who are involved.

As for moongoo, you're assuming that the grunts on the frontlines have access to the ISK that is generated. Sure, alliances will help their guys out (same goes for corps), but the assumption that the grunts on the frontlines have access to all the alliance's wealth is simply flawed. Losing 1k ships is still a blow ... even more so if they don't have 1k ships in reserve (because now they need to get new ones which means shipping in minerals, or shipping in hulls, both of which bring the risk of getting caught in a freighter by the other guys)

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
Antipokeman
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2011-11-07 14:56:40 UTC
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.


I do like the idea of the sandbox principle, but it also has its flaws. While many peoples sandbox is wanting to mine and be left alone there really is no option to make that happen in said sandbox. Therefore it can't be shaped that way.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#65 - 2011-11-07 15:21:26 UTC
Antipokeman 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.


I do like the idea of the sandbox principle, but it also has its flaws. While many peoples sandbox is wanting to mine and be left alone there really is no option to make that happen in said sandbox. Therefore it can't be shaped that way.



What?

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
Antipokeman
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2011-11-07 15:23:49 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Antipokeman 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.


I do like the idea of the sandbox principle, but it also has its flaws. While many peoples sandbox is wanting to mine and be left alone there really is no option to make that happen in said sandbox. Therefore it can't be shaped that way.



What?


Miner mining wanting no fight... Can't happen in sandbox. understand?
Velicitia
XS Tech
#67 - 2011-11-07 16:18:25 UTC
Not fighting absolutely *can* happen in EVE for Miners or Industrialists. They just have to find a system with a low population. If you choose to mine in a system with 100 (neutral) pilots, that's your prerogative. You do not *have* to mine there, in a relatively risky system, but you choose to -- i.e. you getting ganked was your own fault.

What Miners (and Industrialists, to a degree) have to realise is that they are the grease in the larger industrial/military machine that EVE is. As has been pretty well shown by the Goons in their recent escapades into Gallente space, it is *very* easy to throw a spanner into the works, and cause the machine to grind to a halt.

That hundred million Tritanium you just sold to someone *WILL* be used to manufacture weapons that *WILL* be used to cause someone (potentially you) to explode.

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
el alasar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2011-11-17 23:35:34 UTC
Nelus wrote:

  1. 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.

i am not sure how non-censensual pvp could be forbidden - you would not be allowed to fire any weapon or smartbomb in those ultra-highsec-space anymore?! NOT to my liking. BUT i would like to see ganking made harder...

otherwise yes, the sandbox - also in higsec - should be able to be shaped by players. pvp and pve need to blend. i see lots of potential for FW to interact here. give us influence on lots of factors e.g. concord response times, and give your standings more meaning!

check the moderated 10000 papercuts evelopedia page! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Little_things_and_ideas_-_low_hanging_fruit_-_10000_papercuts comment, bump(!) and like what you like
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2011-11-17 23:48:30 UTC
el alasar wrote:
i am not sure how non-censensual pvp could be forbidden - you would not be allowed to fire any weapon or smartbomb in those ultra-highsec-space anymore?! NOT to my liking. BUT i would like to see ganking made harder...

So in order to make solo ganking harder, you want to make all ships have more HP, thus having a potential huge effect on all PVP?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
el alasar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2011-11-17 23:57:25 UTC  |  Edited by: el alasar
Lord Zim wrote:
el alasar wrote:
i am not sure how non-censensual pvp could be forbidden - you would not be allowed to fire any weapon or smartbomb in those ultra-highsec-space anymore?! NOT to my liking. BUT i would like to see ganking made harder...

So in order to make solo ganking harder, you want to make all ships have more HP, thus having a potential huge effect on all PVP?

yes, exactly, i would like to see all fighting / pvp changed in that direction - longer engagements. maybe just increase hull HP - those HP would then usually not be available to repairs in combat... but it would be fun to see some hull logistics out there ;)

maybe make modules fail when you go into hull... but the way it is currently, being killed by a few shots, possibly before you have even targeted back, i find this just ridiculous. and i think with tier 3 BC this will get even worse... lets see...Ugh

check the moderated 10000 papercuts evelopedia page! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Little_things_and_ideas_-_low_hanging_fruit_-_10000_papercuts comment, bump(!) and like what you like
Rico Minali
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2011-11-19 12:06:42 UTC
There must never be a place in Eve where you cant be killed. Ever. If that ever came to be, you would have massively overcrowded space anyway in those systems.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.