Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

I should have qualified my statement- PvP on alpha, as described by some posters, is not a legitimate solution.

Moreover, consider Wraithbane's excellent point: introducing that kind of PvP puts the developers in a loop as they constantly try to 'fix' whatever the latest abuse some griefer has found. I'd rather have them focused on new content.

Personally, I don't care what makes or doesn't make a game a true sandbox; it seems like needless hairsplitting. I do care about a growing, complex game universe- I left EVE a long time ago from sheer boredom because to me, the economy, the corps, the combat, the griefers were all one-dimensional and predictable.

So if PvE players never have to PvP, and PvP players never have to PvE, that's perfectly fine so long as it keeps them both playing.

And if, somehow, the playstyles of PvPers and PvEers can be connected in a mutually reliable and profitable manner, so much the better.

All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful - Kohelet Rabbah 7:16

"My transaction log shows all my NIC was from selling kernals.  All of it."
"Savin's outrage tears are the best tears." - Anonymous ***

77 (edited by Redline 2011-01-24 06:45:53)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Savin theres no loop with the need to fix something when its done right - doing it as decribed earlier would autobalance itself. And btw - that would be new content that brought a lot new players and kept the 75% that already left ater realizing PO is nothing but grind for nothing  since there isnt any sophisticated pve or pvp.

This game advertises itself as a pvp focussed sandbox mmo - so it should keep its promises otherwise itll fail. btw 2nd important rule in concept design - keep your promises.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

"Perpetuum is a new sci-fi MMORPG that revolves around mankind struggling for power on the distant planet of Nia inhabited by robotic lifeforms.

Its main features are a persistent, unsharded game world, fully customizable mechs and robots with hundreds of equipment items, open-world PvP and missions, player-controlled economy, extensive crafting and industry, dynamically changing environment and much more."

All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful - Kohelet Rabbah 7:16

"My transaction log shows all my NIC was from selling kernals.  All of it."
"Savin's outrage tears are the best tears." - Anonymous ***

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

This is a pointless discussion. If you want pvp goto the beta island, but you want to mine and PVE in safety stay on Alpha.

They just need to make the world bigger it is really small at the moment

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Other wrote:

I disagree that pvp on alpha islands isnt a legitimate solution.

I don't feel like this game can be legitimately be called a 'sandbox' mmo if you have that total separation of the pvp and pve players.

The unpredictability of other players being thrown into the mix of potential dangers adds a level of gameplay that no amount of programming can equal

+1 to this point of view.

The freedom of action add's color to the game, it gives it life. Its possible that this is where the soul of a sandbox comes from. It promotes Rp, *** the progress of player advancement, and fuels the games military industrial complex =p

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

It would be nice to see some kinda of system that unites random players into a fight,. I Thought old SWG had some good pvp,. it was not a open pvp game so I thought it might be a good example here.

Be cool to see some type of faction system with this red vs blue vs green concept. Assignments could play a big roll here and possible faction gear with standing restrictions.

We would only be flagged to one of the opposing colors when were on there island, and each color could have a HQ were we get specific assignments to advance a rep grind, A classic SWG twist where we could kill/farm the enemy's sentinel bots that help protect the enemy's HQ.

To be honest, I would rather see something like this before a open pvp rule set. the beta lands pvp is fine for alliance/corp turf war pvp,. but not all pvpers feel like dedicating them self to such a demanding system of teamwork and ventrillo all the time.

anyway,.. that would be my valid attempt to get some smaller random pvp action brewing and yes,. help blend the pve with some pvp..

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

I'd like the idea of a green/red status evolving out of a combination of npc faction standings and self set colors.

If you were having this idea for the alphas - it might be hard to have this in place - since youd be dead meat as soon as you would to - lets say - the transport triangle if there be some kind of support for the victim from guards.

alliance/corp war on alpha would make it hard fpr smaller corps to survive - thats why i never talked about an open pvp implementation, but just the ability to die trying.

The thing is - something needs to be done - i see the pve faction leave the game because its very limited - and seen about 100 guys from affiliated corps leave due to the lilly *** restricted pvp system - contradicted by the fact that beta access is kinda hard for small corps.

At the moment the game forces you to: a) mine or b) join an anonymous pvp guild and scout at a station

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Redline wrote:

I'd like the idea of a green/red status evolving out of a combination of npc faction standings and self set colors.

If you were having this idea for the alphas - it might be hard to have this in place - since youd be dead meat as soon as you would to - lets say - the transport triangle if there be some kind of support for the victim from guards.

alliance/corp war on alpha would make it hard fpr smaller corps to survive - thats why i never talked about an open pvp implementation, but just the ability to die trying.

The thing is - something needs to be done - i see the pve faction leave the game because its very limited - and seen about 100 guys from affiliated corps leave due to the lilly *** restricted pvp system - contradicted by the fact that beta access is kinda hard for small corps.

At the moment the game forces you to: a) mine or b) join an anonymous pvp guild and scout at a station

Beta access isn't hard at all for small corps. With 5-6 guys in your PVP squad you're perfectly fine, with the right fittings.

I find it a lot more appealing to get option c) join a PvP guild and PvP with them smile

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Hey Syn - well im talking of a reliable way to supply beta goods/activities - sure getting on beta and running around with a speed fitted group isnt that hard. we did that and farmed unharmed on DOM played hide and seek with m2s - as soon as we had a mixed setup - we been trapped sooner or later (NOP and DOM). If you get scouted as an intruder and enemies will come with a counter setup/numbers - the trip ends.

And sure - joining other corps would be the easiest way of all - but i think the game already has too less alliances or better - we dont like too big corp structures. Apart from that - remember where MO ended?

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Redline wrote:

Savin theres no loop with the need to fix something when its done right - doing it as decribed earlier would autobalance itself. And btw - that would be new content that brought a lot new players and kept the 75% that already left ater realizing PO is nothing but grind for nothing  since there isnt any sophisticated pve or pvp.

This game advertises itself as a pvp focussed sandbox mmo - so it should keep its promises otherwise itll fail. btw 2nd important rule in concept design - keep your promises.

Red, thats been the rallying cry for the guard(and related systems) for years now. The trick is to "do it right"... Its damn near impossible(in practice) to achieve that. Gankers/griefers are VERY creative/inventive when it comes to their pursuit of ruining other peoples game experience.  That means that the Dev's have to keep coming back to it again, and again.

The only way to really deal with this is a server side flag. Either PvP yes, or PvP no. If the flag is up you can be attacked. If its not, you can't be. Simple as that.  But the motivations of a player in a combat bot, that wants to be able to attack miners, and haulers I leave as an exercise to the reader... ^^

Those who seek a real FFA full loot "sandbox" would be better served to try a gankfest game like Darkfall or Mortal Online. Both of which have completely niched themselves because of their exclusive pandering to the PvP crowd.  I'm hoping the Perpetuum Dev's will not make that mistake.

If you can't kill it, don't make it mad.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

I know that its hard - they should get professionals. MO did it right btw - its raw - but works.

Your might about those two mentioned games - but the problem isnt the open pvp - MO suffers from bad codebase an really no content at all. Darkfall is more hack and slay.

Both games have very little to do with pvp except just for the sake of slaying somone.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Wraithbane wrote:

But the motivations of a player in a combat bot, that wants to be able to attack miners, and haulers I leave as an exercise to the reader... ^^

This is precisely the issue that our 'experts' fail to see, but that should come as no surprise, because it is the goal that drives them. It's fine to argue about how this or that works "in theory," or that although it has never worked, it still can "if you do it right." The problem is not the code, it's the players. People who really know about systems realize this: no matter how well the system is designed, someone or something will come along to test, break, or abuse it.

Wraithbane wrote:

Those who seek a real FFA full loot "sandbox" would be better served to try a gankfest game like Darkfall or Mortal Online. Both of which have completely niched themselves because of their exclusive pandering to the PvP crowd.  I'm hoping the Perpetuum Dev's will not make that mistake.

It's sad that "sandbox" has come to be synonymous with ganking, but at the same time, it reinforces the main point here. If you give gamers the freedom to do as they please, they almost immediately try to deny other players that same freedom.

All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful - Kohelet Rabbah 7:16

"My transaction log shows all my NIC was from selling kernals.  All of it."
"Savin's outrage tears are the best tears." - Anonymous ***

88 (edited by Other 2011-01-24 20:31:47)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Savin, have you ever played Eve Online?  The structure of this game more closely resembles that than any other game. And, it's not a gankfest, but there is some ganking that happens.  With some tweaks they could easily shift the balance of secured area PVE vs PVP that would more favor the PVEers.

PVP can be effectively done in PVE areas without it being a gankfest.  Yes, it will cause the Devs to have to be proactive in managing their product but, if they aren't proactive in ALL areas of the game then it will be broken anyway.  Eve has experienced hundreds of exploits that cover everything from macro mining, pvp, the market, pve and everything else.  Exploits aren't unique to greifers and, greifers aren't unique to pvp.  If the Devs are unable to proactively manage the game then its doomed to failure anyway as plenty of non-PvP exploits will be found and need to be patched up.

The problem I see with this artificial wall between PVP and PVE is that it is extremely restrictive on the sandbox nature of the game.  It closes all kinds of opportunities for building your own playstyle that is the attraction of sandbox style games in the first place.

In its current form you have very limited options on what you can do as a "career" in game.  Mine, harvest, build stuff, PVP, or farm NPCs.  Those paths don't vary much in their application due to strict rules in place regarding player interaction.  The whole point of the sandbox style game is to have fairly loose rules that intelligent players can exploit to improve themselves.

Those exploitations can generally be measured by risk taking.  The more risk you take and the more creative your approach, the better you do.  In its current form you can either farm Alpha islands with almost zero risk or go full on combat PVP.  There isn't much of an in between, no shades of gray.

I prefer industry over combat but, I'm bored senseless if the only form of risk comes in the form of some kind of random NPC that might cross my path while mining.  Or, I can try to hop onto Beta to attempt to mine and be insta-ganked within seconds of teleporting.

With the majority of the population sitting on Alpha islands with little risk and the rest being mostly self sufficient on Beta Islands there wont be a market to speak of.  I'm limited to nothing but the constant grind of mine, harvest, build, sell (if I can actually find a buyer).

PVE content will never create enough material turn over to support any sort of market system that would be a viable career choice.  The Perpetuum market will more resemble that of WoW than a full on sandbox MMO.  PVE players for the most part know what content will cause them to lose their gear and avoid that until they've done the grind to build the equipment they need to be able to handle it.  The only option that I can see is Bind on Equip or Bind on Pick Up items like World of Warcraft.  I think everybody in this forum would agree that WoW is not a good direction to send this game.  Besides, there's a new Star Wars MMO coming out if people want WoW in space.

That wall between PVP and PVE is really only suitable to linear style MMOs like WoW.  IMHO it will break a sandbox style game at some point.  And, the less active the market the sooner it will break.

It's not a zero sum game as far as open pvp goes.  PvP elements can be mixed into 'secured' parts of the game without the greifer types dominating it.  You just have to build game mechanics that fall somewhere on the scale in between the gankfest games and Farmville.

And the PvP flag system is silly on Alpha islands.  Flagging would be the equivalent of a self destruct button.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Yes - PO starts to stink dead already. Times running.

90 (edited by Other 2011-01-24 20:55:24)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Redline wrote:

Yes - PO starts to stink dead already. Times running.

I've got a one year subscription...

I probably wont do much though but sit in the station and let my EP build while I watch the patch notes for positive developments.

Hopefully something will happen between now and then to make gameplay more interesting.

Low expectations but high hopes at this point

Guess I should have done a little more of a study of the game mechanics before springing for a full account...  my fault I suppose.   The game feels too linear to me right now, and it seems that most of the community, at this point, is pushing for an even more linear playstyle.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

im waiting for a change that makes the difference between PvE and PvP smaller.
right now, both playstyles have absolutely nothing in common.

once they fix something for the pvp playerbase, they lose bored PvE player - then they concentrate on the PvE part, they PvP player getting bored.

you can see it - the PvP corporations, settled on Beta island breaking up - once they lose their PvE guys that are running the production and supplying them with equipment - they have to leave open PvP territory.

or is there any game mechanic in yet, that gives you NIC for participating in PvP?

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Yes, I've played EVE. I left because it was completely one dimensional, and I see that same thing happening here: players are rushing to the lowest common denominator style of play. Maybe that's the game's fault, bu I think it's really our -the players'- fault. Too many people decided it was EVE on wheels, and rushed to establish the same status quo.

The problem I see in this thread is similarly one-dimensional: people love to say 'sandbox' and 'risk-taking' and 'challenge,' but they're really only talking about one thing: combat. And the majority of the time, it's combat on their terms only: angry kid wants to grief people.

This game has nothing that approaches real risk: lose a robot, so what? Here's another. Want a better one? No problem, just turn on the free money faucet. Corp lost a fight? Eh, nothing's changed anyway, we have a hundred more bots in the garage.

And now, into this environment, some very short-sighted people want to introduce choiceless PvP, claiming that it will introduce "risk-taking." Nonsense: the risk should be shouldered by the player who wants to attack, not by the player who chooses to harvest.

Now, certainly, any kind of progression should require a measure of challenge- if I don't want to face that challenge, that should be my choice. But if I want to move on to bigger and better things, then I should be prepared to pay the price.

But why do those risks have to be combat-related? The answer is that they don't, but a few single-minded people can't imagine anything else.

In other words, I want to see real risk-taking, and that's not introduced by allowing people to gank each other.

What if the money faucet went away, and you had to take assignments from other players or player-run corps? What if your ability to fight depended on your economic status? What if your corp had to pay rent to keep those hundred bots in the garage? What if losing an outpost meant you lost 30% of your credit line?

I want to see more challenges, more kinds of risk, greater complexity. I want to see economic warfare, and real diplomacy. If I want to spend all day mining titan ore without being bothered, I should be able to do so. But if I want to get the better ores and the higher tech, I'll need to find a way to meet the challenges: maybe spend more EP in combat extensions, and gear my bot differently, or join a corp that will keep attackers out of range, or hire mercenaries to farm kernels for me.

In short: real challenges and real risk will never come about from allowing players to gank people on alpha. Real challenges and real risk will only come about from introducing more depth in more non-combat areas.

All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful - Kohelet Rabbah 7:16

"My transaction log shows all my NIC was from selling kernals.  All of it."
"Savin's outrage tears are the best tears." - Anonymous ***

93 (edited by Other 2011-01-24 21:48:38)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Savin wrote:

Yes, I've played EVE. I left because it was completely one dimensional, and I see that same thing happening here: players are rushing to the lowest common denominator style of play. Maybe that's the game's fault, bu I think it's really our -the players'- fault. Too many people decided it was EVE on wheels, and rushed to establish the same status quo...

...In short: real challenges and real risk will never come about from allowing players to gank people on alpha. Real challenges and real risk will only come about from introducing more depth in more non-combat areas.

I don't agree with much of anything you said, and I don't think we'll ever agree.  You also seem to think that everyone who believes that PvP in secured areas is good for the game only want it so we can go suicide gank somebody just trying to mine.  You seem to be projecting your bad experiences in other games on everybody else.  As I've repeatedly said, I rarely shoot at NPCs, much less Players.  I simply feel that it adds depth and meaning to the game.

PvP in high security areas doesn't just boil down to ganking miners.  A lot of it has to do with robbing transports, revenge, militia wars, etc.  But, if you're smart in Eve it's very easy to avoid getting killed in high security space. 

I'm not saying that this game should be Eve, I'm just using it as an example that allowing PvP in secured areas doesn't create a gankfest.  What I'm saying is that basically Perp at this point is two games with one chat channel.  There aren't any gray areas between the two.  And, as far as I know, Eve is the only sandbox MMO that has experienced any long term growth and success.  They must be doing something right.  I don't see anything wrong with taking what works, throwing out the rest and building a unique experience on top of it.

You talk about corporate diplomacy, what's the point without the possibly that the other side could harm you in some way? 

What are your thoughts on corporate theft?  What about scamming?  Those two don't involve destruction of equipment but the loss is just the same and, you don't get to pick the time and place of that loss.

When you start protecting the loss between players you diminish the depth and meaning of player interaction.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Doesn't really matter anyway, Perp is what it is and Eve is what it is.

Seeing as how I enjoy the industry side but I feel that it's pointless in Perp with no risk of loss and cuddly player interaction, I have a choice of either staying with Perp and only getting half of a game experience (as I see it), or return to Eve with it's half executed expansions and broken highsec corp warfare mechanics.

Right now I'm leaning toward the latter.

95 (edited by Redline 2011-01-24 22:34:59)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Other wrote:
Redline wrote:

Yes - PO starts to stink dead already. Times running.



I probably wont do much though but sit in the station and let my EP build while I watch the patch notes for positive developments.

Hopefully something will happen between now and then to make gameplay more interesting.

Low expectations but high hopes at this point

Yeah same here - its a good solid basis to start further development to bring some interesting structures.

To expand more and from a diferent view on my thought about breaking up the current system: i dont want no gankfest at all. You see - there are concepts out there where pve/traders and pvpers are fully inegrated - benefit from another and coexist.

Most of these system are based around cities with safezones in which trading and stuff resides mostly, open pvp sectors and competition like pvp sectors.

The different rulesets are not just thrown in there but are connected to real life like/percepted areas - town markets - outskirts - outposts.

It feels more natural, logic - the integration is much better. You have traders in the safezones, gankers in the outskirts and competition pvpers in the warzones fighting for outposts - and the transitions are fluent. Also you have more versatility - you have lots of ganking and pvp - but traders mostly never get targeted because a certain respect for the arose and they mostly reside in safezones - or the guards safe them on their way through the pvp-enabled outskirts.

Because people actually got more freedom and more opportunities people learned that its not wise to gank the ones selling you weapons, trading/crafting stuff for you or curing you.

On the other hand scamming and disrespectful behaviour was ensured to be condemned through the opportunity to embargo certain people - or simply kill em when theyve been asswhips.

The dynamics are so much more interesting and more mature. To achieve something like this is the ultimate goal in community driven games with interaction and social elements. because it has it all and doesnt exclude a certain playstyle.

Maybe thats the big difference to PO atm. The separation doesnt feel integrated very well, since the different ruelsets arent applied by some sort of believable logic or structures within the gameworld - but simply a teleport.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

I keep hearing the same thing I've heard for years and years now. PvP adds risk, it adds options, it adds challenge... No one seems to look at the bottom line here. Miners and haulers are mining and hauling because they CHOOSE to do so. They are not in combat rigs by choice.  The idea that adding "risk, or options, or challenge" will some how improve their mining or hauling is nonsense. All it adds is the frustration of losing a mining rig or a hauler to some bored ganker in a combat rig.

If one has to force PvP on those who have no interest in it, doesn't that speak volumes about both ones motivation, and the games dynamics as well? Contrary to some peoples perspectives, not everyone has an interest in PvP. Some people just want to mine, haul, craft or explore in peace. Why should they be unable to make that choice? Because some bored gankers want to be able to ruin others play experience? 

As far as making industry matter more, how about limiting the construction of bots to specialists?  You have to come into the game with that intention, and thus you have the specialized skill sets required.  As for making the rest matter, how about the outpost/fortress idea I've explained? That could be a *large* NIC sink(with all of the upgrades, repairs, replacements etc) required to deal with an on going war against the cyber clans. 

There are a LARGE number of possibilities, but I suspect that since there are a limited number of Dev's, that many of them aren't practical.  Thats one of the problems with indy games. They typically lack resources(talent, money) to see their dreams come to life in practical reality.  But I must say that I'm AMAZED at how well they have managed to do with their limited personnel. This has been one of the most stable client/server launches I've seen in years.

If you can't kill it, don't make it mad.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Wraith et al, you're being a little naive with the skills idea, pretty much every beta island Corp has alts that do the industry/manufacturing exclusively so that won't help provide a niche for alpha island players. They get logged in when we need to build or mine.

I'm sure the devs have ideas for expanding alpha island fun, it just takes time, let's face it we're only 3 months into the game

98 (edited by Wraithbane 2011-01-24 22:53:57)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

I'd not be surprised. Thats how its done in EVE and other such games. But I was more refering to the games future, as it evolves than right now. But we have to be realistic. Given their limited personnel(and thus limited time) they are going to have to take any improvements in small steps. I'm just hoping that they retain enough player base to make that possible.

If you can't kill it, don't make it mad.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Yes, we donkeys need more carrots tongue

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Am I missing something? Surely the solution to this problem already exists...

If you're the type of person who likes the "excitement" of possibly being nailed by a player in a combat bot while mining, turn on your PvP flag. Doesn't that make you a viable target even on the Alpha islands?

Then you can ignore the people who DON'T agree with you that it's exciting to have their hours of work (where they may only be able to play for an hour a day) blown up by someone who's bored and can't find enough PvP on the beta isles, to play they way THEY want to play.

Everyone's happy!

You can even create a group, like most people with niche interests do, of players who are known to turn their PvP flag on in the Alpha isles then, and gank yourselves silly without ever ruining the game for people who don't like it.