101 (edited by Redline 2011-01-24 23:40:02)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Its not about that - its about a better interconnected game world.

ATM PO is: a) you mine or b) you join a blob

That isnt much of a game at all - esp not in an MMO - and even less in a sandbox. Your "solution" isnt one since it would be an artificial conflict.

Instances, closed systems and pvp flags are about artificial conflicts. Most pvpers arent interested in that - theyre after conflicts which arouse because of player behaviour.

Im not the guy to shoot someone just for fun - but because he behaved like an ***. This is what were talking about.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Redline wrote:

Its not abut that - its about a better interconnected game world.

ATM PO is: a) you mine or b) you join a blob

That isnt much of a game at all - esp not in an MMO - and even less in a sandbox.

You can't interconnect them. PvE and PvP are two completely different playstyles with different expectations and motivations behind them. You can only try and provide content for both, and have a reason for them to co-exist. Making people who love PvE the prey of people who love PvP is NOT the way to do this, because you're enhancing the game for the PvP'ers at the expense of the PvE'ers.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Redline wrote:

Its not abut that - its about a better interconnected game world.

ATM PO is: a) you mine or b) you join a blob

That isnt much of a game at all - esp not in an MMO - and even less in a sandbox.

Red, it very much IS about that. Its about players in combat rigs, being able to ruin the play experience of miners and haulers.  How ever its dressed up, how ever its danced around the stage, thats what it means at its most fundamental.  My question is why should that be so? So some bored gankers can get their jollies by ruining others play experience? That doesn't make too much practical sense.

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

104 (edited by Redline 2011-01-24 23:41:59)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

No guys - for real - im sorry that you had such bad experiences but i had the opposite. These systems and games are out there working - unfortunately grown old games.

And again - where did i speak obout open pvp on alpha? I didnt.

105 (edited by Other 2011-01-25 02:42:49)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Well, i'm glad that this thread opened up because now i realize that i'm a minority here for believing that pvp and pve should be integrated much more deeply and nobody should be completely safe at all times from other players.  Perpetuum should design their game based on what the majority of the community wants, not what i want.

I'll never see the point in designing a game platform with both pve and pvp if they are treated as separate games and are completely walled off from each other.

With that being said, have fun with Perp guys, I hope everything works out with it.  I realize that Perp won't be for me.  Back to Eve until something better comes along.

106 (edited by Greenleaf 2011-01-25 03:14:19)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Elzana Tori Varess wrote:

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?

Everyone's happy!


I would find it safer to mine in Darkfall then Alpha with my pvp flag on. So this would be the best way to explain a problem by observation. why would someone advertise kil mee killll meee

History speaks volumes , The safe lands effectively starved out many gray area's of play, moved the surviving players into a different direction, and destroyed the economy for crafters. This Marked the end of the first great sandbox. -Ultima Online

If this is what P. is, then its doomed by design if the devs expect a working open pvp world, And they should know better.

107

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Okay, let's try an experiment. I will agree to allowing players to attack anyone, anywhere, but with the following changes.

First, in order to make sure we maintain 'immersion,' let's all agree that our characters exist solely in order to exploit the planet's resources and bring a profit to our mega-corporate sponsors.

Now, for the changes:

1. The "C" in NIC stands for credit: every player and corporation's NIC holdings represent a line of credit offered by the parent corporation. The parent corporation reserves the right to limit, expand, decrease, or freeze these lines of credit at any time it chooses.

2. Because the Alpha islands are considered to be 'truce' territories under the equal control of the parent corporations, any violation of that truce will be seen as a) a violation of treaty, and b) a direct threat to the profitability of the operation.

3. Characters are free to attack any other character at the time and place of their choosing, including the Alpha islands. However, any hostile action taking place on Alpha will be considered a treaty violation. Beta and Gamma islands are not covered by the treaty and therefore remain free of restriction.

4. Characters in violation of treaty will have their credit frozen for 72 hours: they may not make purchases from the central market, they may not purchase extensions which require NIC, nor will they receive any NIC reward from assignments. Further violations of treaty will cause the 72-hour period to be reset to the time of the latest violation.

5. If a character who violates treaty belongs to a corporation, that corporation must pay a fine valued at 15% of the corporation's total holdings, determined by market value. Additional violations will result in additional fines.

6. If a character violates treaty, any insurance contracts in force at that time are void. Mech owners will not be reimbursed if their machine is destroyed in any action that violates the treaty.

Now, that's just a start, but it still favors the ganker. Nevertheless, I'd be willing to consider it. Care to hear what I'd consider REAL risk?

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 ***

108 (edited by Redline 2011-01-25 07:10:36)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Go ahead - there have to be consequences and theres a lot possibilities. Effective and appropriate ones still wouldnt need to lock down a player instantly but rather over time - so that accounts arent solely created for this purpose and the concerned chars wouldnt be missing in other necessary political interventions.

As a brief example - decreasing standing step by step with an increasing effort to re-gain them resluting in guards attacking you on alpha would be better suited - than locking down a character - time based where people just could switch to another acc and let the fine paa afk.

EP would be another thing though this could be ineffective as EP deposits create a buffer in the future soon.

Over all id favor a step wise increasing and combined system.

-temporary financial embargo --> (increasing liek you proposed)
-loss of standings making alpha visits impossible sooner or later --> permanent (which would get rid of the ganker)
-percentage based EP income drain --> later loss


Since EP are shared per account - punishment also could be shared account wise, since thee sparks are kinda connected

Furthermore: the more additions are being made to the game giving certain qualities like a non static item system and bonuses to items created by better crafters or crafter getting bonuses from several sources like OPs or complete PVP-refraining - the loss of items will drastically become an increasing punishment.


But then again - there'd need to be a whole system of different rusesets for alpha/beta and charlies to make it inteersting - and of course - complete safezones would need to exist on alpha sides still since.

109

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Ok, if allowing combat-specialized players to attack my defenseless mining bot is acceptable, then, in the interest of fairness, shouldn't I be allowed to attack them in my chosen arena?

In other words, what do you propose I should be able to do to them economically or politically?

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

Savin wrote:

Ok, if allowing combat-specialized players to attack my defenseless mining bot is acceptable, then, in the interest of fairness, shouldn't I be allowed to attack them in my chosen arena?

In other words, what do you propose I should be able to do to them economically or politically?

An embargo or economic sanction

111 (edited by Redline 2011-01-25 13:33:32)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Yes.

Just out of nothing lets split the number of playstyles/roles, major ruleset areal zones and pvp means into 3:

a) economical/crafting/trading characters
-residing mainly in safezones(non pvp), sometimes in pve, lesser in pvp zones

1. having the additional pvp means of creating and selling degraded quality wares unnoticed and untargeted plus a means of generally decreasing the price only for targeted hostile corporations (resulting in a flag invisible to the eco-warfare player, but visible to the victim  granting a financial/economical more desastrous death when being killed by those specific players/corps in pve zones ) and an even more consequence stuffed death when being killed in warzones. this flag increases in quality of consequences by repeated usage and results in a less sanctioned death in pve zones from these players and an increase in economical costs for the eco-warfare attacker

2. having the major eco-pvp ability to do create/sell degraded quality and harmful wares to targeted characters, to embargo them or buy stuff ftom them cheaper when having been attacked by them in pve zones, resulting in a visible eco-warfare flag for both sides

3. no variation or consequences or specific possibilities in warzones since they're not likely to go there and could use this luring the enemy to attack to easy and exploit wars

b) pve
-residing mainly in pve (sanctionable pvp), sometimes in economical and pvp zones

1. having the ability hack PVE corpses in a more profitable way, having the possibility to reprogram only looted warez to malfunction and or being harmfull, selling them on their own resulting in the eco-pvp flag scenario a)1. from above or sell them to eco-pvpers which use them against their targets as described above resulting in no eco-pvp flag

2. having the ability to hack OPs in warzones more efficient then pvpers with a module but mainly being able to re-program targeted OPs economic trade systems to harm them and gain money from enemies transactions resulting in the eco-pvp flag above in a)2.

3. no specials in safezones

c) pvp
-residing in warzones(ffa pvp), sometimes in pve and lesser in economical zones

1. having to ability to attack anyone without consequences in warzones
2. having the ability to attack players in protected PVE zones without consequences if the attacker wears the eco-warflag as a result of a first eco-pvp tag by the a)eco-pvper or b) pve-hacker, while always having the negative effect of the general pvp-flag/guards system

3. no other special features in war or safezones

This system or something similar, just briefly outlined above) would require 1 more exclusive extension for each role negativly reducing fighting extensions on the eco-player, eco-extensions on the pvper and both in a reduced way on the pve-hacker.

Aditionally it would require the stackable/increasing modifier of sanctions of the eco-warfare flag (minor financial sanctions/loosing securing priviledges in pve zones/being attacked by guards in pve zones), same increasing effects go for the pvp flag (temporary ffa target/ffa for guards in pve zones/not being able to enter safezones)

The eco-pvp flag ouldnt go off immediately after using a degraded/manipulated module but rather after24h to make it not directly detectable. Same goes for turning it off - it wouldnt turn ofter being unequipped, so the victim couldnt find out which item it is. eco-pvpers themselves could identify malfunctioned items if the extension of the attacker is minor to his extension lvl. This way - a targeted player could at least let his whole inventory be checked by an allied eco-pvper - but not be sure. Maybe analysis if items would be a time based process like every other production is too.

It would also require an item flag making a programmed malicious charge able to go of on targeted players or corp members.

And would require the improved hacking/reprogramming feature of OPs, PVE corpses and modules.

Its not that complicated, just not well written tongue An implementation also isnt a big deal since its rather modifyable rulesets and additions to codebase elements already in use.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

You're still talking about adding mechanics to deal with a problem that only exists in the minds of a small amount of players though.

You think it adds immersion to be able to attack whoever you want, whenever you want. You might not even be the type to abuse that, but history shows that if you add such mechanics you will drive away any player who doesn't like it, because there are plenty of nasty people in the online world who will go out of their way to spoil things for as many people as possible because they get enjoyment out of it. This is why games like Darkfall are considered to be niche. Darkfalls subscriber numbers will never be close to the market leaders, or maybe even EVEs, because the sort of person who enjoys that type of environment is in a minority compared to the wider MMO-playing market.

The vast majority of PvE players have no interest in PvP, don't get any enjoyment from it, and wouldn't get any excitement out of the idea of being jumped by a combat mech while they're mining. You can't force them into mechanics that ruin their style of play just because not having it there ruins your style of play, you have to find the middle ground. At the moment I think PO does a decent job of it, as people who like to solely engage in PvE can wander around the Alpha islands and blow up NPCs and mine/craft to their hearts content while only worrying about NPCs, and the people who enjoy PvP can wander off to a Beta island and get ganked.

That's what it comes down to ironically. People who like PvP have one option, which is the Beta islands. On the Beta islands you get ganked by groups of players, and can't PvP unless you have another group of players backing you up. Some people want to be able to PvP on their own and the current system doesn't cater to that, so maybe some sort of arena system as has been tried and tested in loads of games is a possible solution?

A game has three choices: Cater to the PvP niche crowd, cater to the PvE majority, or try and put in mechanics that allow both types of player to enjoy their game. Some do the first (Darkfall, Planetside, EVE to a lesser extent), some rare ones do the second (I can't think of any PvE only games, even if the PvP is only in arenas) and most attempt the third option because that's what gives you the chance to attract the widest audience.

113 (edited by Redline 2011-01-25 14:44:58)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

No, we're talking about extending posssibilities and content in a rather stereotype and sterile game right now.

Small amount of players? 90% of the players i know already unsubbed - and those are pvers mainly.

And you should just refrain from making wrong implications - i and we never talked about being able to attack anyone everywhere. Read ffs before posting...

And again - arena fightings are even more artificial and non-related to natural conflicts we're talking about.

And furthermore - the above system wouldnt favor pvpers or pvers - it would allow for both - but just gave more freedom to decide as opposed to now.

And your talking about the pvp crown as a niche in this game while its clearly being advertised as a pvp focussing game throughout all its structures - but in a not coherent way in practice. PVE and economy is also terribly stereotype and linear.

So what we're trtying to achieve is - improve the gameplay for everybody by interconnecting playstyles and giving non-pvpers some serious means of protection and playstyle related counter and even economic attack tools.

You just skipped the what this is all about. 2/3 of the ideas above only focus on economic and pve players - while the last 3rd only reflects or adjusts the gameplay for pvp players.

Also you imply im solely a pvper - where im clearly not. If there was some more interesting pve features or crafting economic and or fluff things - id be doing this aswell. And the stuff above is an idea just to making a more versatile and dynamic ruleset.

Id favor more fluff and interesting pve in the same way and hopefully this will come but its a whole different point were takling about.

Lets try this example:

I have no interest in attacking players allthough i could(on beta) if i wouldnt have a conflict with them other then - woho i can shoot you.

So lets say Savin and i dont like each other very much. So with a system like above - Savin could sell me crap items which could be seen as the normal fluctuation of item quality on the market and i would need to try and find reliable suppliers.

If Savin wanted to harm me in specifics it (;D) would need to apply a risk on himself of being harmed in pve areas with lesser consequences to me - same goes the other way it (:P) could react on my agression and target me unharmned and specificly. Moreover he/she would need to work together with a pve player to supply him re-programmed modules.

With every sort of first attack onto each other - be it pvp or eco-warfare - the attacker invests in it on purpose and has something to lose in exchange - economical consequences for both, direct loss of equipment for the pvper additionally - and loss of freedom to wander around for both again.

Any agression allows a countermeasure - repeating any agression from any side will result in locking yourself out from the free world with the need to reside in beta only or safezones only - taking away the possibility to go on with your malicious actions.

Its like o longterm ignore function from players who have a conflict with each other and are willing to sacrifice for that.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Redline wrote:

No, we're talking about extending posssibilities and content in a rather stereotype and sterile game right now.

Small amount of players? 90% of the players i know already unsubbed - and those are pvers mainly.

And you should just refrain from making wrong implications - i and we never talked about being able to attack anyone everywhere. Read ffs before posting...

And again - arena fightings are even more artificial and non-related to natural conflicts we're talking about.

And furthermore - the above system wouldnt favor pvpers or pvers - it would allow for both - but just gave more freedom to decide as opposed to now.

And your talking about the pvp crown as a niche in this game while its clearly being advertised as a pvp focussing game throughout all its structures - but in a not coherent way in practice. PVE and economy is also terribly stereotype and linear.

So what we're trtying to achieve is - improve the gameplay for everybody by interconnecting playstyles and giving non-pvpers some serious means of protection and playstyle related counter and even economic attack tools.

You just skipped the what this is all about. 2/3 of the ideas above only focus on economic and pve players - while the last 3rd only reflects or adjusts the gameplay for pvp players.

Also you imply im solely a pvper - where im clearly not. If there was some more interesting pve features or crafting economic and or fluff things - id be doing this aswell. And the stuff above is an idea just to making a more versatile and dynamic ruleset.

Id favor more fluff and interesting pve in the same way and hopefully this will come but its a whole different point were takling about.

On and on and on... Your "extending possibilities" brings NOTHING to the people who choose to mine, haul or PvE(other than frustration at losing a mining rig or hauler to some bored ganker in a combat rig). Once again, this is a solution is search of a problem.  The inability to attack miners and haulers, and those who do not choose to PvP is only a "problem" in the minds of those whose motivations are questionable at best.

What is likely driving players away is the uncertain nature of the future.  Many can't see the potential of Perpetuum as some of us can. Part of that is due to the culture that exists in the world today(hurry hurry...). But part is due to the Dev's not showing us a clear road map for what they have planned. Perhaps even they aren't certain at this point what path to take going forward. But as with many things in life, perception tends to be reality.

They need to determine which of them deals best with the player base(or hire a CM type), and then it becomes their job to keep the player base informed, and to cheer lead for the games progression.  Couple that with even a modest marketing budget, and the game should survive its first year or two.

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

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

This pve vs pvp debate reminds of the problems in theoretical physics, haha

In search of a grand theory to unit everything,. Anyone know what epicycles are? well MMO's are full of them,. and there bad news hehe..

anyway, I hope they do something with the red/blue/green concept,. No miner needs to be involved with it,. Possibly 3 rouge npc corps at war with each other, And the ability to join one and take part in a layer of pvp that exists on alpha.

116

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Wraithbane wrote:

On and on and on... Your "extending possibilities" brings NOTHING to the people who choose to mine, haul or PvE(other than frustration at losing a mining rig or hauler to some bored ganker in a combat rig). Once again, this is a solution is search of a problem.  The inability to attack miners and haulers, and those who do not choose to PvP is only a "problem" in the minds of those whose motivations are questionable at best.

Actually your not looking at the future of the game if you feel that PVE players should be able to completely minimize loss by having minimal to no risk.  If you look at virtually every game  on the market PVE players keep their losses to a minimum by grinding equipment and skills BEFORE progressing to the next level of content.

You need a reason to build equipment to pursue an industrialist path.  With no market due to low or no demand it'll be pointless.  Corporate interaction will resemble World of Warcraft where you only interact with people who will help you progress to the next level.  Negative interactions are important to creating immersive reasons for diplomacy on an individual or group basis.  In the end you will have nothing but combat pvp and combat pve, if your player base hangs around long enough even for that.

The reason Eve is having problems now (at least from a PVEers perspective) are the half executed expansions, the lack of action in combatting botting and RMT, and the broken nature of highsec corporate warfare.  A lot of former Eve players that came here had the hopes that Perp would be able to handle the sandbox MMO playstyle successfully.  And, I'm guessing that the majority of the player base here were full time Eve players just a few months ago.

Virtually all of the suggestions I've seen here push the game further and further into a linear playstyle.  Everybody recognizes that the game is missing something, the question is what is it?  Just increasing the amount of wheels for the mice to run on by adding more pve content, without a balance between positive and negative player interaction, turns into an endless treadmill of more and more mindless content.  Might as well be strapping on the sword and shield and slaying X number of badgers and returning their pelts so that you can progress to the next quest which entails slaying X number of beavers, which are slightly tougher than the badgers, and returning their pelts.

I personally want player interaction with deeper and more complex meaning than just yelling in chat that you need a tank and a healer.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Other wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:

On and on and on... Your "extending possibilities" brings NOTHING to the people who choose to mine, haul or PvE(other than frustration at losing a mining rig or hauler to some bored ganker in a combat rig). Once again, this is a solution is search of a problem.  The inability to attack miners and haulers, and those who do not choose to PvP is only a "problem" in the minds of those whose motivations are questionable at best.

Actually your not looking at the future of the game if you feel that PVE players should be able to completely minimize loss by having minimal to no risk.  If you look at virtually every game  on the market PVE players keep their losses to a minimum by grinding equipment and skills BEFORE progressing to the next level of content.

You need a reason to build equipment to pursue an industrialist path.  With no market due to low or no demand it'll be pointless.  Corporate interaction will resemble World of Warcraft where you only interact with people who will help you progress to the next level.  Negative interactions are important to creating immersive reasons for diplomacy on an individual or group basis.  In the end you will have nothing but combat pvp and combat pve, if your player base hangs around long enough even for that.

The reason Eve is having problems now (at least from a PVEers perspective) are the half executed expansions, the lack of action in combatting botting and RMT, and the broken nature of highsec corporate warfare.  A lot of former Eve players that came here had the hopes that Perp would be able to handle the sandbox MMO playstyle successfully.  And, I'm guessing that the majority of the player base here were full time Eve players just a few months ago.

Virtually all of the suggestions I've seen here push the game further and further into a linear playstyle.  Everybody recognizes that the game is missing something, the question is what is it?  Just increasing the amount of wheels for the mice to run on by adding more pve content, without a balance between positive and negative player interaction, turns into an endless treadmill of more and more mindless content.  Might as well be strapping on the sword and shield and slaying X number of badgers and returning their pelts so that you can progress to the next quest which entails slaying X number of beavers, which are slightly tougher than the badgers, and returning their pelts.

I personally want player interaction with deeper and more complex meaning than just yelling in chat that you need a tank and a healer.

Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers! <Sorry...The Devil made me do it... ^^)
Well, the problem is that there are a certain percentage of (a suitable word comes to mind) Goons in any given player population.  These types get their jollies by ruining the play experience of the other players.  The frustration that results is NOT what most people(at least in the western markets) play these games for. The best way to keep such types in line, is a situation such as we currently have. A server side flag for PvP yes, or PvP no.

But what of the "Potentials!, The Challenge! The Risk!, The Options!"...How ever this is dressed up, and danced around the stage, its STILL at its most fundamental the ability to inflict ones play style on others who have no interest in it.  Its still the questionable motivations of those who want to be able to attack miners and haulers.

There are other dynamics that could be applied to make PvE on Alpha more entertaining and engaging. That fortress/outpost expansion, repair and maintaince system I spoke of could be developed. It would keep industrialists busy, it would keep miners and haulers busy. It would certainly keep the PvE combat types busy.  The main people who would likely not be interested would be those who want to gank miners and haulers, but one can't have everything... ^^

It would easily lend itself to Dev/GM events, of the type that would LONG be remembered. It would also be quite a draw for people who wanted to make a difference in the game. As the fortresses are upgraded, class by class, the cyber clans take them as more of a threat to their continued control of Nia. 

They would become the focus of increasing numbers of attacks, and thus would require more resources to maintain, expand and upgrade.  Given the global nature of the game, it should be possible to set things up so that even on off times, there would still be players around to continue to maintain the fortresses(which would also have some level of self repair and regeneration, as an option in the upgrade path).  Bottom line, we don't need to allow ganking on Alpha to make things better.

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

118 (edited by Redline 2011-01-25 17:50:23)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

A solution to a problem that isnt there? Are you blind?

Theres nothing questionable Wraith - a game needs conflict. Right now there is none except throwing people together in an instance to bash themselves for no real reason.

If the game doesnt involve politics, conflicts and interaction of pve/traders and pvp - then there wil be no game.

But again - where do you take this paragraph - "ganking on alpha from"? According to the ideas above it was only possible to gank some trader or pver if he had been selling malicious wares to someone randomly or in specific.

And what you ignore totally is - that im not speaing of an alpha anymore - but 3 zones overall - warzones wich would be the new charlie islands - pve zones which would be the current beta and safezones which then would be the current alphas.

If there wont we new islands - which is highly doubtable - then alpha needed to be split in safezone and protected pve zone.

119 (edited by Other 2011-01-25 21:41:28)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Wraithbane wrote:

Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers! <Sorry...The Devil made me do it... ^^)
Well, the problem is that there are a certain percentage of (a suitable word comes to mind) Goons in any given player population.  These types get their jollies by ruining the play experience of the other players.  The frustration that results is NOT what most people(at least in the western markets) play these games for. The best way to keep such types in line, is a situation such as we currently have. A server side flag for PvP yes, or PvP no...

For better or worse those Goons have their place in creating demand in the type of complex market systems and player interactions that sandbox MMOs need to have to be viable.

The challenge is to build the mechanics so 14 year old Emo basement dwellers with single digit IQs don't completely dominate the gameplay of the more intelligent players for no other reason than they can.  In other words, it should require quite a bit more thought and challenge to wreck a miner's bot than it does in Eve.

Raising the difficulty of high security aggression on the part of the aggressor would require a reason to attack that 'carebear' due to complexities and challenge other than the "HERP DERP I BLOWED YUR MINUR UP HERP DERP!!1!!!!!1" that you get in Eve.

Voiding insurance policies for criminal acts on Alpha Islands would make a huge dent in that all by itself... that is as long as Perp could keep the macros and RMT at an extremely low level.  Creating and deleting an alt incuring a decent penalty, along with paid trials, will keep alpha striking noob mobs to a minimum (ex dessie mobs).  That combined with a criminal standing system that effects your ability to trade and travel in Alpha areas would make a large impact in the motivations of pointless ganks.

120 (edited by Other 2011-01-26 01:18:38)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Alpha Island corporate war declarations could be doable too if there were severe sanctions imposed on the aggressor if the war isn't declared mutual.

Things such as:

1.  EP accumulation is paused until the declaration is lifted for all members of the aggressing corp.
2.  Other corps may declare war on the aggressor free of charge.
3.  Progressively expensive bribery fees compounded daily (to have the "guards" turn their heads to secured area combat)
4.  No aggressive acts within 2000m of a station (but not outposts) without guard intervention.
5.  Economic sanctions.  Agressing corp pays higher fees on all transactions, including the market value of player to player trades during the war.
6.  Wars must be renewed daily.
7.  Two week cooldown period before bribery fees fall and two day cooldown on other corps being able to wardec the aggressors free of charge.

This would be a way of dislodging a competitor from an area in a competition for resources but, it would have to be worth the cost to do it.

It would also make greifer corporations extremely expensive to sustain.  Going back to Eve Highsec experiences, some PVE corps end up getting war decced for weeks on end making it so that some pure pve players can barely even undock unless they quit their corp.  That's game breaking for a lot of PVEers.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

a repost from another thread that is having essentially the same discussion.

Compete with other players for kernels
Compete with other players for buy/sale orders
Compete with other players for resources

unless you are driving around in arkhes exclusively and just go sight seeing everything the PvE experience entails still involves competition with other players although through an indirect method.

This results in players ultimately interacting with PvP corporations and funding their various war machines which enables them to PvP.

Ultimately everything the PvE experience is pvp by choice because you are still competing in beating a player to a spawn, a resource, or a sale so granting pve players an immunity because they are not direct combat characters dosen't make a lot of sense to me since they have their way of beating some one and pvpers have their own way of beating someone.

It sucks getting blown up
It sucks finding a spawn fully camped
It sucks being undercut constantly

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Dont do a weed wrote:

Ultimately everything the PvE experience is pvp by choice because you are still competing in beating a player to a spawn, a resource, or a sale so granting pve players an immunity because they are not direct combat characters dosen't make a lot of sense to me since they have their way of beating some one and pvpers have their own way of beating someone.

It sucks getting blown up
It sucks finding a spawn fully camped
It sucks being undercut constantly

This is the kind of valid issues I try to express as well. When the game gets really busy ( with hope it dos) A pve combat corp can grief someones game experience just as easy as a pvp corp.

When Alpha gets packed, just think of the fast locking and how a corp, or 2 or 3 man team could keep a spawn for them selfs indefinitely. The potential to grief all noobs off a 1star mob is unreasonable,. Remote seonsor booster + fastlocking bot + sensor booster + skill, = my spawn? all day? possibly all weekend? cheers to safe zones,.

I need to take breaks , drink coffee,. smoke,. etc . But as we all know, there is a lot of players that would fastlock a spawn for 10 hours before eating a packet of sugar..


Sure ,. the devs could nerf the mob,. Nerf the taging of npc targets, etc, etc.. but how is that helping the pve department,? The bottom line is ,. if ya dont mix pve/pvp then the first an most obvious problem is the safe pve gets abused just the same.

123

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Dont do a weed wrote:

Ultimately everything the PvE experience is pvp by choice because you are still competing in beating a player to a spawn, a resource, or a sale so granting pve players an immunity because they are not direct combat characters dosen't make a lot of sense to me since they have their way of beating some one and pvpers have their own way of beating someone.

From this perspective, you are right- almost anything you do is some form of competition with another player.

That's not a bad thing in any way- it's what games are all about. But I think what is bothering people here is really two things:

First, of the three playstyles we've been discussing, there are really only two types: combat-specialized players (either PvP or PvE) and industry-specialized players (builders, miners, researchers).

The problem is that one has a clear advantage. That is, the combat-specialized player can do what the others do, but the others cannot do what the combat player does. Consider:

  • as well as being able to engage in combat and harvest high-level kernels, a combat-specialized character can harvest any resource, and may also manufacture or research pretty much anything.

  • industry-specialized characters cannot combat high-level mechs, nor can they be very effective in PvP combat. But in order to improve their trade, they must have the items and kernels that can only come from combat specialists.

As a result, there is a one-sided dependence: combat specialists do not depend on industrial characters, but industrialists must depend on combat specialists: industrial players are completely unnecessary to the game dynamic.

The other issue is that several people have said that the solution to the "problem" is to allow PvP on the alpha islands. This is simply incorrect, because a) the "problem" has nothing to do with the "risks" or "challenges" that industrial characters face, and b) it is a solution that forces combat on non-combat oriented players, which effectively puts them at an even greater disadvantage.

Wraithbane is correct, but a few people are incapable or unwilling to listen: those who most forcefully desire to allow PvP in the Alpha islands are those who want to ruin the game for other people.

  • Adding PvP to the Alphas has nothing to do with 'immersion,' for as I pointed out in a different post, it makes more sense that the Alphas would be combat-free.

  • Adding PvP to the Alphas is a combat-oriented "solution" to a non-combat problem.

The solution to the imbalance is not to provide more combat; it is to provide other forms of competition.

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 ***

124

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Greenleaf wrote:
Dont do a weed wrote:

Ultimately everything the PvE experience is pvp by choice because you are still competing in beating a player to a spawn, a resource, or a sale so granting pve players an immunity because they are not direct combat characters dosen't make a lot of sense to me since they have their way of beating some one and pvpers have their own way of beating someone.

It sucks getting blown up
It sucks finding a spawn fully camped
It sucks being undercut constantly

This is the kind of valid issues I try to express as well. When the game gets really busy ( with hope it dos) A pve combat corp can grief someones game experience just as easy as a pvp corp.

When Alpha gets packed, just think of the fast locking and how a corp, or 2 or 3 man team could keep a spawn for them selfs indefinitely. The potential to grief all noobs off a 1star mob is unreasonable,. Remote seonsor booster + fastlocking bot + sensor booster + skill, = my spawn? all day? possibly all weekend? cheers to safe zones,.

I need to take breaks , drink coffee,. smoke,. etc . But as we all know, there is a lot of players that would fastlock a spawn for 10 hours before eating a packet of sugar..


Sure ,. the devs could nerf the mob,. Nerf the taging of npc targets, etc, etc.. but how is that helping the pve department,? The bottom line is ,. if ya dont mix pve/pvp then the first an most obvious problem is the safe pve gets abused just the same.

+1.

Exploits and greifing aren't unique to pvp

125

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Greenleaf wrote:

Sure ,. the devs could nerf the mob,. Nerf the taging of npc targets, etc, etc.. but how is that helping the pve department,? The bottom line is ,. if ya dont mix pve/pvp then the first an most obvious problem is the safe pve gets abused just the same.

This is a good point, but how would adding PvP to the mix solve it?

If you make the low-level drops worthless to advanced characters, not so many of them will camp the spawns.

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 ***