Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No, what exists now, is a default contest against a timer.
If I have my PvE ship properly prepared, nothing the hostile can do will ever be enough to stop me.

His effort becomes meaningless.

Calling that a draw isn't really accurate. He has to stay in system to maintain his threat.
If he leaves he simply resets the system, and PvE can resume as before.
Till he does, I can simply go elsewhere, next system over, HS, a different alt... what have you.

I am not obliged to remain, as he does. It is only a draw if I sit there with him.

To part one:
Noone truly reacts perfectly. Perfection implies a clear limit, beyond which everything else loses meaning.
You automatically win, when you meet or exceed this level, as your needs have been met completely.

I am suggesting that the reactions of both sides be compared.
If the PvE player's reactions are so well executed that they seem perfect, then the chances of the hostile's effort beating them, require them to be even more perfect by comparison.

The efforts of each player defines the scale against which their opponent's efforts are judged.
Could a draw be possible?
Perhaps, but it would seem far more likely to be a rare occurance. Even luck could be a defining aspect with such close comparisons present.

I want the perfect response off the table for both sides.

To part two:
Actually, both sides have two options, only the PvE player has draw / win, while the hostile is limited to lose / draw.

As the PvE player, I can stick around and do nothing, supporting a draw.
As the PvE player, I can do something else, making my time again under my own control, supporting a win.
I am NOT defined by wanting to perform a single action, so blocking just one option cannot force a draw.

As the hostile, I started the process by entering.
I can remain, and maintain the uncertainty and potential fear... assuming no PvE would undock, I create a possible draw so long as PvE players refuse to go elsewhere.
If I leave, I have compromised the process, collapsing it. While possibly inconvenient in delaying some specific play till then, my influence in that system is gone at that point. By leaving I surrendered the possibility of a draw.

Just going to point out you've essentially loaded the deck. You make the point, that if you are dropping out of warp and a hostile interceptor is there you are dead. However, that leads to the question, how often does that happen? It is essentially an event that is the combination of two events.

Probability(Dropping out of Warp)

And

Probability(An Interceptor is there),

Assuming these two events are independent, then it is Probability(Dropping out of Warp)* Probability(An Interceptor is there) which is likely a really small event. In other words, catching that PvE ship is dumb luck and not skill.

Then the killboards are SUPER broken, because it's showing there as being loads of PvE ships killed, which obviously can;t be the case because they are so safe and the chances of people catching them are so minimal.

And the PvE player has to concede their current system to go elsewhere. Only if the PvP player decides to concede can the PvE player continue. One has to concede for the other to continue. If neither does the stalemate remains.

And there is no other option. If both player perfom "perfectly" (I know I know, no such thing as perfect, etc, etc, but work with the hypothetical situation) then if the PvE player gets caught, then that means he is disadvantaged. If all goes well on both sides he still loses. His only option for even keeping his ship is to hope the attacker is terrible. As it works now, nobody loses anything if both sides achieve "perfection". I can't see that changing without kissing goodbye to most of the PvE in nullsec.

The killboards are not broken. You are confused. Note, I was talking about the instance you used as an example to try and show that the PvE player is at a considerable disadvantage. I noted that in fact, the probability of those two events occurring is very, very rare. There is a huge difference between:

Probability(A given PvE player loses his ship)

And

Probability(Dropping out of Warp)* Probability(An Interceptor is there).

The latter event is actually a small, probably extremely small subset of the former. So noting there are “loads of PvE ships killed” is in no way evidence against what I wrote.

As for the larger issue of skill involved in catching a PvE player Nikk’s point can be summarized (in my veiw) quite simply as:

No amount of skill is sufficient. You yourself have made this point, but then go on to make an even more ridiculous point. You have stated that if the PvE pilot is “perfect” (and your words this is clicking warp to safety during the first server tick once the hostile enters system) then he’ll get away. However, there is literally nothing the PvP pilot can do at that point. No amount of player skill will beat that. Ever. In other words the perfect PvE pilot will always beat the perfect PvP pilot. However, a more reasonable outcome in this hypothetical is that the results be 50-50. Half the time the PvE pilot will get caught and half the time he’ll get away. We can argue about the exact numbers, maybe it should be 80-20 in the PvE pilot’s favor, but having it be 100-0 is just bad. In that case, catching a PvE pilot has less to do with skill and the PvE pilot screwing up and the worse the screw up the less skill is involved in catching him.

Nikk can correct me where I’m wrong.

And no, the perfect PvP will always fail given the current mechanics. To suggest otherwise is just blatant nonsense.

I never said anything about having guaranteed success. Having a non-zero probability of success is not a guarantee of success. And no, having a non-zero probability does not mean you can repeat the process and get a kill every time. Well, okay, maybe for awhile you could, like say you could make 5 attempts and get 5 kills, but that is not going to continue indefinitely. This is basically the inverse argument people make when they claim invention is broken because they got N failures out of N trials usually when N is not very large.

And Eve does have random. Invention makes use of a random number generator, for example. Using weapons that shoot rounds also has a random component to it as well. However, when I was discussing things in terms of probabilities I was not suggesting that a mechanic for randomness be involved. Probabilities can be objective or subjective…I was using probability in the latter case.

just to point a few things out ... yes it is old but it makes a point

http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=9568301

check the damage from the hulk,

Just saying you all talk in absolutes,

No it is not skill. There is little to no skill if the PvE guy is AFK taking a dump. On that specific point you are going to have to go a very long ways to change my mind.

I myself am explicitly arguing against both random, as well as the absolute perfect defense.

I want this to be strictly limited to player action, modified by both skill and preparation.

If you use the right tactic and the right fittings, you are guaranteed neither victory nor failure.
It is only after comparing the other player's tactics and fittings, that such a determination is possible.

No default action can prevent such a contest, once it has begun. That is my goal.

So: If a PvE player makes an excellent effort of fitting the ship properly, and has the discipline to stick to proven tactics, he is still possible to catch.
But, unless that player rates below average when compared to other PvE players, the hostile players are unlikely to find catching him cost effective, and likely too much effort as well.
This translates into that PvE player's efforts keeping him safe, at least until he encounters an even better prepared hostile pilot.

The less common your efforts are, at being matched or surpassed, the less likely you are to see failure result.
The hostile players are in the same situation, they should have a comparable contest of skills running.

And this is simply to determine whether the encounter gets to the point where they see each other on grid at all.

The fight itself should be a separate contest, balanced and handled so that neither player feels compelled to avoid it, but rather having enough confidence to try and beat the opposing player.

This is a fantastic opportunity here, let's not let it slip passed us any longer!

It is not effort based, in a competitive manner.
I don't need to outperform anyone, when defending myself as PvE in this context.

I need to beat a timer, not another player.
The other player's input is limited to choosing to enter the same system.
After they choose to do this, I am set to beat a pre-determined clock, which by succeeding I avoid any consequences to the new player arriving.

It is not that I must beat their effort at all, simply not screw up my own, in order to beat the threat.
Their effort is meaningless, which diminishes a game intended to have player interaction. If we were meant to be satisfied beating automated challenges, this game could be played as a non-mmo.

Your adherence to best possible performance, which seems to imply such an absolute should or does exist, is misleading.

Best for one player, should not be simply duplicated or achieved.
If it took very little actual effort, then a different player should be able to surpass it by simply putting in more effort.

I could have an entire fleet on standby, ready to jump in and annihilate an attacker.
But if I simply warp away, rather than remain, the fleet becomes meaningless, the attacker becomes meaningless, and I can swap to an another system and ignore the whole circumstance.
My best performance, most efficiently executed, is the one with the least effort here. Because that is all I need to do.
Just warp off while the attacker is still loading system. Next challenge!

Isn't this level of play too simply to be considered as satisfying?