Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Other wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:

Once again, I suspect the motivations of those who keep attempting to drag this dynamic into the Alpha game.

You suspect my motivations?  I suspect your motivations.  I think you just want a futuristic version of WoW.  Maybe you're a Chinese NIC farmer building up your reserves so that you can sell it through third party websites full of malicious software.

Try to make an intelligent argument instead of casting aspersions or STFU and let the adults talk.

kthxbye

Attempt at provoke failed... Perhaps you need more EP in that extension? <grin>

Other, lets be realistic here, and look at not only past history, but the dynamics involved, shall we?  What at its most fundamental, is the natural CONSEQUENCE of allowing these changes in the rule set that some of you are advocating? Miners and haulers get ganked, and PvE types have to deal with PvP types, when they clearly do not wish to(other wise they'd be over on Beta).  One doesn't have to look very far (that history thing...) to realize what the very possible motivations involved are.  Now shall we continue this discussion in a more civil fashion, or are you going to waste more EP in that extension? ^^

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

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Other wrote:
Savin wrote:

...stuff...

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.

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

... Stuff...

I don't think that anybody has suggested that allowing pvp on Alpha has anything to do with a game balance problem between pvp and pve income levels and skill specialization.  By not mixing the two you are suggesting that there can't be a balance and they should be two separate games. 

What I am suggesting is that the PVE side will have no meaningful player interaction, and no meaningful market without a large amount of equipment destruction, both combat pve and industrial pve equipment.

PVE will be nothing but gear grind and a race to see who can collect the most NIC.

Sounds more like World of Warcraft than a sandbox.

Ah, the sacred "sand box"... Have you ever seen what happens in the typical "sandbox"?  Not only do the Dev's end up having to protect their business model(think about the evolution of Concord in EVE), but they have to waste valuable time(and believe me they never have enough of that resource) on dealing with the on going antics of the gankers and griefers.

Why? Because such types make up a SMALL percentage of the player base, and they tend to drive off many other types of players unless checked. Thats NOT good for the companies bottom line. Make no mistake about it, in todays gaming market, the closer a game is to a "sandbox", the more narrowly it niches itself. Thus limiting the profits to be made, and also the expansion possibilities. In a very real sense, such games become self limiting to the extent that they stay "sandboxes".  Is that what we want for Perpetuum?

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

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Savin wrote:
Greenleaf wrote:

I dont think you will like my Answer,. but its force. I think a corp/group of this fasion should be killed to extinction, this type of item farming is like a wild fire that needs to be stomped out religiously. Merc takes this role,. hero's take this role,. Vigilanty suicide ganks,. and sadly,..  griefers,...

No. There is no way that adding PvP to Alpha will stop the problem of players camping low-level spawns. The only way to get them to stop is to make it worthless for them to do so.

But even then, let's face it: there's a large portion of the 15-25 year-old crowd whose definition of fun is to ruin the game for others, so even if it costs them, they'll continue to do it. There will always be more gankers than vigilantes.

Force is not an answer, at least not in the way you describe it. The problem is not combat-related, so adding more combat is not a solution.

Ultimately, you are not asking for "force" to stop an abuse; you are asking for the ability to force other players to play the way you want them to play. This has nothing to do with the issue.

Exactly. We are not asking to inflict our play style on the PvP types I might note(they are more than welcome to Beta). To the contrary, they are the ones advocating inflicting their play style on us. Not to mention that some fly off the handle when one mentions the obvious motivations of some. ^^

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

154

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Wraithbane wrote:

Exactly. We are not asking to inflict our play style on the PvP types I might note(they are more than welcome to Beta). To the contrary, they are the ones advocating inflicting their play style on us. Not to mention that some fly off the handle when one mentions the obvious motivations of some. ^^

I wasn't flying off the handle.  I was turning your own reasoning around and using it against you by assigning ulterior motives to your arguments.

As I said before, I am an industrialist.  I build things.  I want more things to blow up so that I can build more.  I hate combat pve and dont have any interest in combat pvp for my own reasons.  I really truly believe that some form of pvp in Alpha areas will add depth to player interaction and give meaning to the market.

I think I was absolutely clear in explaining my motivations.  If you actually read what I'm saying without suspecting some kind of evil plot to ruin your game then we can have a reasonable conversation.  By acting like a child you're not helping your side of the debate.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Dont do a weed wrote:

Where are you getting this age number for people who's definition of fun is to ruin the game?

Why is it that only direct combat pvp ruins the game but spawn and market competition does not ruin the game for someone?

I try to sell/buy something at a certain cost but some one outbids me past my break even point I lose time and money, the exact same thing that happens if I engage in combat and lose.

Adding pvp risks to camping of alpha spawns does make it worthless because then players have to factor in the now increased chance of financial loss if they lose their ship by staying in a popular high traffic area be it for kernels or resources.

You are trying to force players to be complacent with the way you want them to play.

With that playstyle being engaging in non-consensual Market and Spawn PvP on the alphas and non-consensual combat only on the Betas

First in the market sense, you are not out NIC, because you still have what ever it is you wished to sell.  If you can't compete with that item, then try something else.  If its time you are worried about wasting, you are in the wrong hobby. MMO's are infamous for costing a LOT of time to take part in. ^^

Adding the ability to attack people farming a given spawn, would have no doubt interesting consequences... Such as larger and larger numbers of people at the spawn site(ganking anyone who comes near). That may sound like "heaven" to certain types, but believe me, it gets OLD fast. Not to mention the spill over to miners and haulers. Making it possible to ruin others play experience, doesn't make good business sense, nor is it necessary.

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

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

An innocent question here Wraith ... what do you actually use the NIC for, if you aren't losing any bots, modules etc?

Annihilator said: Walking careless onto hokko without masking is like jumping into a bathtub with the hungry 30cm piranhas (infestation)
GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Other wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:

Exactly. We are not asking to inflict our play style on the PvP types I might note(they are more than welcome to Beta). To the contrary, they are the ones advocating inflicting their play style on us. Not to mention that some fly off the handle when one mentions the obvious motivations of some. ^^

I wasn't flying off the handle.  I was turning your own reasoning around and using it against you by assigning ulterior motives to your arguments.

As I said before, I am an industrialist.  I build things.  I want more things to blow up so that I can build more.  I hate combat pve and dont have any interest in combat pvp for my own reasons.  I really truly believe that some form of pvp in Alpha areas will add depth to player interaction and give meaning to the market.

I think I was absolutely clear in explaining my motivations.  If you actually read what I'm saying without suspecting some kind of evil plot to ruin your game then we can have a reasonable conversation.  By acting like a child you're not helping your side of the debate.


This is not flying off the handle?

Other:
"You suspect my motivations?  I suspect your motivations.  I think you just want a futuristic version of WoW.  Maybe you're a Chinese NIC farmer building up your reserves so that you can sell it through third party websites full of malicious software.

Try to make an intelligent argument instead of casting aspersions or STFU and let the adults talk.

kthxbye"

It certainly has all of the ear marks of such... Including the final kthxbye, and STFU...<face palm> ^^
Notice my remarks have always been general(not directed at anyone in particular), and include "suspect" or some such. You took yours personal. Notice the difference?

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

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Heckle wrote:

An innocent question here Wraith ... what do you actually use the NIC for, if you aren't losing any bots, modules etc?


Innocent?  <raised eye brow>. I use NIC to purchase bots or mechs I currently do not have. I have an AB of all types, and a Ty mech.  Once I complete my collection, it remains to be seen what else it will be used for. Perhaps wait for new additions.  So far, I've managed not to lose any bots(but no doubt thats just a matter of time), given the discons and NA problems.

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

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Thanks.
So the threats you face in this game to your bot collection are disconnects and N/A pings, as per your response.
Once your bot collection is complete, it remains to be seen what else you will be able to use the accumulated NIC for, again in your words.
How long do you think this accumulation for no identified purpose will retain your interest? (sort of a rhetorical question, really).

Annihilator said: Walking careless onto hokko without masking is like jumping into a bathtub with the hungry 30cm piranhas (infestation)
GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard

160

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Wraithbane wrote:

Notice my remarks have always been general(not directed at anyone in particular), and include "suspect" or some such. You took yours personal. Notice the difference?

/sigh

One more time and I'm done with you.

You're saying that I should have said that "I suspect that those that don't want pvp in Alpha areas just want their macro miners to be safe from getting ganked."  would not have been directed at you?

You sound like a politician...

Don't assign ulterior motives to others.  Just try intelligent debate.  You're simply building up a straw man and knocking it down to avoid any substantive debate on the subject.  I find it transparent and ridiculous.

Not agreeing with you doesn't make everybody else disingenuous liars.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Heckle wrote:

Thanks.
So the threats you face in this game to your bot collection are disconnects and N/A pings, as per your response.
Once your bot collection is complete, it remains to be seen what else you will be able to use the accumulated NIC for, again in your words.
How long do you think this accumulation for no identified purpose will retain your interest? (sort of a rhetorical question, really).

Well... I did the same thing in EVE(only there I collected battleships) and I was there for more than five years... ^^ I only left when they started forcing a given play style on the high sec players in Incursions.

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

162

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Heckle wrote:

Thanks.
So the threats you face in this game to your bot collection are disconnects and N/A pings, as per your response.
Once your bot collection is complete, it remains to be seen what else you will be able to use the accumulated NIC for, again in your words.
How long do you think this accumulation for no identified purpose will retain your interest? (sort of a rhetorical question, really).

/Other kicks himself for not saying this first

+1

163

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Wraithbane wrote:
Heckle wrote:

Thanks.
So the threats you face in this game to your bot collection are disconnects and N/A pings, as per your response.
Once your bot collection is complete, it remains to be seen what else you will be able to use the accumulated NIC for, again in your words.
How long do you think this accumulation for no identified purpose will retain your interest? (sort of a rhetorical question, really).

Well... I did the same thing in EVE(only there I collected battleships) and I was there for more than five years... ^^ I only left when they started forcing a given play style on the high sec players in Incursions.

wut...

so the highsec pvp wasn't forcing a playstyle on you?

Problem solved, no Incursions.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Other wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:

Notice my remarks have always been general(not directed at anyone in particular), and include "suspect" or some such. You took yours personal. Notice the difference?

/sigh

One more time and I'm done with you.

You're saying that I should have said that "I suspect that those that don't want pvp in Alpha areas just want their macro miners to be safe from getting ganked."  would not have been directed at you?

You sound like a politician...

Don't assign ulterior motives to others.  Just try intelligent debate.  You're simply building up a straw man and knocking it down to avoid any substantive debate on the subject.  I find it transparent and ridiculous.

Not agreeing with you doesn't make everybody else disingenuous liars.

"Politician"? Now lets not get personal, Other... ^^

You actually believe that people advocating a certain course of action, with predictable consequences shouldn't have their motivations questioned?  And you call ME a politician?? ^^
I've been making very substantive points, and I've yet to see any one refute them, with a clear understanding of the consequences involved.  In many cases, disagreeing with me simply means a difference of opinion. But again, the actions/policies one advocates have consequences. One may well be well intentioned(the path to hell is paved with good intentions...), but that doesn't change the reality of the consequences.

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

165 (edited by Wraithbane 2011-01-27 20:27:28)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Other wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:
Heckle wrote:

Thanks.
So the threats you face in this game to your bot collection are disconnects and N/A pings, as per your response.
Once your bot collection is complete, it remains to be seen what else you will be able to use the accumulated NIC for, again in your words.
How long do you think this accumulation for no identified purpose will retain your interest? (sort of a rhetorical question, really).

Well... I did the same thing in EVE(only there I collected battleships) and I was there for more than five years... ^^ I only left when they started forcing a given play style on the high sec players in Incursions.

wut...

so the highsec pvp wasn't forcing a playstyle on you?

Problem solved, no Incursions.

In five plus years I've only been attacked once in EVE. Some idiot in a frig attacked one of my Rokh's in a 0.8 system.  But then I tend to be paranoid, and careful about such things. To most PvE types, thats an alien mindset, and not worth the effort. They will simply find another game.

Also note, that EVE didn't start out with its current rule set.(it was MUCH worse in the first year or two), but thats before my time.  Perpetuum has already established the difference between Alpha and Beta.

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

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Wraithbane wrote:

I've been making very substantive points, and I've yet to see any one refute them, with a clear understanding of the consequences involved.

Well I had to step in here,. But its obvious.

hmm lets Refute.

Deflation of ore,. oops did I just say that?

promotes lack of interest,..

lowers the value of items,..

Fires up heated forum debates in a game that advertises open world pvp..

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Wraithbane wrote:

"Creating"?? The game is *already* two separate games.  You have the miners and haulers, and PvE types on Alpha, and the PvP and ganker types on Beta.  Thats all the "balance" we need in actual fact.  The game can be evolved rather well along those dynamics, and the story line I've out lined would back stop that rather well.   All of this nonsense about "options, and risk, and challenge" is just code for wanting to be able to gank miners and haulers, and ruin other players experience.  I find it difficult in the extreme to believe that some of you aren't aware of this, and its implications.

The game does not exist as two separate games unless your actions include exclusively driving around in light bots with t1 fittings you are competing against someone.
Every action in this game is a competition against another player unless you exclusively use light bots or arkhes with t1 equipment.
This is an assumption also what authority do you have that decides what balance is needed?

Wraithbane wrote:

Attempt at provoke failed... Perhaps you need more EP in that extension? <grin>

Other, lets be realistic here, and look at not only past history, but the dynamics involved, shall we?  What at its most fundamental, is the natural CONSEQUENCE of allowing these changes in the rule set that some of you are advocating? Miners and haulers get ganked, and PvE types have to deal with PvP types, when they clearly do not wish to(other wise they'd be over on Beta).  One doesn't have to look very far (that history thing...) to realize what the very possible motivations involved are.  Now shall we continue this discussion in a more civil fashion, or are you going to waste more EP in that extension? ^^

What is this past history?
Why is it bad that players that engage in all but one form of player competition now must pay attention to the potential all forms of player competition.
If I do not wish to engage in market competition why am I not given the luxury of free robots of my choosing?
Instead if I choose not to interact with players I must run transport missions in a light bot perpetually or roam the alpha islands not shooting at or mining anything because that would deplete a resource and time investment that another player values

Wraithbane wrote:

Ah, the sacred "sand box"... Have you ever seen what happens in the typical "sandbox"?  Not only do the Dev's end up having to protect their business model(think about the evolution of Concord in EVE), but they have to waste valuable time(and believe me they never have enough of that resource) on dealing with the on going antics of the gankers and griefers.

The time investment on the Devs part is not the most efficient one if the game is not being developed into a play model that advocates real world currency exchange for in game goods or services the game is now inherently flawed because it does not use that business model.

Wraithbane wrote:

Why? Because such types make up a SMALL percentage of the player base, and they tend to drive off many other types of players unless checked. Thats NOT good for the companies bottom line. Make no mistake about it, in todays gaming market, the closer a game is to a "sandbox", the more narrowly it niches itself. Thus limiting the profits to be made, and also the expansion possibilities. In a very real sense, such games become self limiting to the extent that they stay "sandboxes".  Is that what we want for Perpetuum?

Once again if the bottom line is the primary focus a cash for ingame goods or services system should be implemented

Wraithbane wrote:

Exactly. We are not asking to inflict our play style on the PvP types I might note(they are more than welcome to Beta). To the contrary, they are the ones advocating inflicting their play style on us. Not to mention that some fly off the handle when one mentions the obvious motivations of some. ^^

What are these obvious motivations?
Your playstyle is already inflicted on players that engage in all forms of player interaction due to the influence of the market

Wraithbane wrote:

First in the market sense, you are not out NIC, because you still have what ever it is you wished to sell.  If you can't compete with that item, then try something else.  If its time you are worried about wasting, you are in the wrong hobby. MMO's are infamous for costing a LOT of time to take part in. ^^

You are out NIC because of the transaction fee.
How can you tell me that if I cannot compete with a player I should do something else when the threat of further player competition on equal fields will apparently ruin the game?
We both make time investments we both participate in the market but participation in direct nonconsensual combat is a no?

Wraithbane wrote:

Adding the ability to attack people farming a given spawn, would have no doubt interesting consequences... Such as larger and larger numbers of people at the spawn site(ganking anyone who comes near). That may sound like "heaven" to certain types, but believe me, it gets OLD fast. Not to mention the spill over to miners and haulers. Making it possible to ruin others play experience, doesn't make good business sense, nor is it necessary.

No one said anything about spawn sites being free for alls against players who enter them, even so what is the difference between shooting npc’s over and over again as opposed to shooting players over and over again. Would these both not get old fast?
Being undercut or over bid on the market ruins others play experience but this is ok?
Once again business sense comes down to making the game into a $ for perpetuum goods and or services system.

Wraithbane wrote:

This is not flying off the handle?
Other:
"You suspect my motivations?  I suspect your motivations.  I think you just want a futuristic version of WoW.  Maybe you're a Chinese NIC farmer building up your reserves so that you can sell it through third party websites full of malicious software.
Try to make an intelligent argument instead of casting aspersions or STFU and let the adults talk.
kthxbye"
It certainly has all of the ear marks of such... Including the final kthxbye, and STFU...<face palm> ^^
Notice my remarks have always been general(not directed at anyone in particular), and include "suspect" or some such. You took yours personal. Notice the difference?

You accuse people of assumptions and talk of intelligent arguments but you are making constant personal attacks towards individuals.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Dont do a weed wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:

"Creating"?? The game is *already* two separate games.  You have the miners and haulers, and PvE types on Alpha, and the PvP and ganker types on Beta.  Thats all the "balance" we need in actual fact.  The game can be evolved rather well along those dynamics, and the story line I've out lined would back stop that rather well.   All of this nonsense about "options, and risk, and challenge" is just code for wanting to be able to gank miners and haulers, and ruin other players experience.  I find it difficult in the extreme to believe that some of you aren't aware of this, and its implications.

The game does not exist as two separate games unless your actions include exclusively driving around in light bots with t1 fittings you are competing against someone.
Every action in this game is a competition against another player unless you exclusively use light bots or arkhes with t1 equipment.
This is an assumption also what authority do you have that decides what balance is needed?

Wraithbane wrote:

Attempt at provoke failed... Perhaps you need more EP in that extension? <grin>

Other, lets be realistic here, and look at not only past history, but the dynamics involved, shall we?  What at its most fundamental, is the natural CONSEQUENCE of allowing these changes in the rule set that some of you are advocating? Miners and haulers get ganked, and PvE types have to deal with PvP types, when they clearly do not wish to(other wise they'd be over on Beta).  One doesn't have to look very far (that history thing...) to realize what the very possible motivations involved are.  Now shall we continue this discussion in a more civil fashion, or are you going to waste more EP in that extension? ^^

What is this past history?
Why is it bad that players that engage in all but one form of player competition now must pay attention to the potential all forms of player competition.
If I do not wish to engage in market competition why am I not given the luxury of free robots of my choosing?
Instead if I choose not to interact with players I must run transport missions in a light bot perpetually or roam the alpha islands not shooting at or mining anything because that would deplete a resource and time investment that another player values

Wraithbane wrote:

Ah, the sacred "sand box"... Have you ever seen what happens in the typical "sandbox"?  Not only do the Dev's end up having to protect their business model(think about the evolution of Concord in EVE), but they have to waste valuable time(and believe me they never have enough of that resource) on dealing with the on going antics of the gankers and griefers.

The time investment on the Devs part is not the most efficient one if the game is not being developed into a play model that advocates real world currency exchange for in game goods or services the game is now inherently flawed because it does not use that business model.

Wraithbane wrote:

Why? Because such types make up a SMALL percentage of the player base, and they tend to drive off many other types of players unless checked. Thats NOT good for the companies bottom line. Make no mistake about it, in todays gaming market, the closer a game is to a "sandbox", the more narrowly it niches itself. Thus limiting the profits to be made, and also the expansion possibilities. In a very real sense, such games become self limiting to the extent that they stay "sandboxes".  Is that what we want for Perpetuum?

Once again if the bottom line is the primary focus a cash for ingame goods or services system should be implemented

Wraithbane wrote:

Exactly. We are not asking to inflict our play style on the PvP types I might note(they are more than welcome to Beta). To the contrary, they are the ones advocating inflicting their play style on us. Not to mention that some fly off the handle when one mentions the obvious motivations of some. ^^

What are these obvious motivations?
Your playstyle is already inflicted on players that engage in all forms of player interaction due to the influence of the market

Wraithbane wrote:

First in the market sense, you are not out NIC, because you still have what ever it is you wished to sell.  If you can't compete with that item, then try something else.  If its time you are worried about wasting, you are in the wrong hobby. MMO's are infamous for costing a LOT of time to take part in. ^^

You are out NIC because of the transaction fee.
How can you tell me that if I cannot compete with a player I should do something else when the threat of further player competition on equal fields will apparently ruin the game?
We both make time investments we both participate in the market but participation in direct nonconsensual combat is a no?

Wraithbane wrote:

Adding the ability to attack people farming a given spawn, would have no doubt interesting consequences... Such as larger and larger numbers of people at the spawn site(ganking anyone who comes near). That may sound like "heaven" to certain types, but believe me, it gets OLD fast. Not to mention the spill over to miners and haulers. Making it possible to ruin others play experience, doesn't make good business sense, nor is it necessary.

No one said anything about spawn sites being free for alls against players who enter them, even so what is the difference between shooting npc’s over and over again as opposed to shooting players over and over again. Would these both not get old fast?
Being undercut or over bid on the market ruins others play experience but this is ok?
Once again business sense comes down to making the game into a $ for perpetuum goods and or services system.

Wraithbane wrote:

This is not flying off the handle?
Other:
"You suspect my motivations?  I suspect your motivations.  I think you just want a futuristic version of WoW.  Maybe you're a Chinese NIC farmer building up your reserves so that you can sell it through third party websites full of malicious software.
Try to make an intelligent argument instead of casting aspersions or STFU and let the adults talk.
kthxbye"
It certainly has all of the ear marks of such... Including the final kthxbye, and STFU...<face palm> ^^
Notice my remarks have always been general(not directed at anyone in particular), and include "suspect" or some such. You took yours personal. Notice the difference?

You accuse people of assumptions and talk of intelligent arguments but you are making constant personal attacks towards individuals.

"Constant personal attacks towards individuals"? Thats a rather broad generalization. Is that in some recent posts, or all posts? Are you perhaps refering to my teasing Other about his attempt to provoke me? That was a rather measured response on my part(and clearly indicated to have been made with humor).

As for assumptions, I'm as guilty of those as anyone. Also of using past history as a guide to the future. But that is what we humans tend to do, as we go about our daily lives.

Turning to some of the other(I really dislike this editor system).

So, all levels of player competition are, or should be equal? The ability to gank miners and haulers, should be allowed, because of competition in the market sector of the game?  Do you really consider the two examples to be equal?

You answered your own question in regards to non consenural attacks. In the market competition, all parties consent to take part(by virtue of being in the market). In the PvP area, unless the player is on the Beta island, they have not consented to take part in PvP.

As the rule set stands now, there is something for everyone. If one wants to mine, haul, PvE then stay on the Alpha Islands. If one wants to PvP, then stay on the Beta Islands. Thus everyone gets what they want(except for a small percentage, but then making them happy, makes MANY others unhappy).

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

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Another problem is we dont want every tom *** an harry with a epeen to gank people all in one place,. It will just make beta more impassable to the pve player,..

Once the pop rises you really think the pve players are not going to fill this forum with tears cus they feel they cant play in beta,..?

Im going to generalize now,. tongue

- pve players are like a swarm of locusts that want want want,. give them an inch now and they will out number everyone, and if the devs like the revenue then beta will just see sanctions eventually, and the game will slowly become more an more ,. /cough pve only...

Im going to be *** now,.

Some people say to just nerf the mob,. nerf the item,. nerf the spawn,. make the spawns worthless,..Nerf everything,. hell,. get rid of the npcs ,. orrr wait,.. hmmm.. -think i just got stupider,. what are NPCs for again? right right,..there's a pve player playing... all most forgot..

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Yes, Wraith didnt even read properly - so he assumes every system being proposed and designed is open to gankers and hides behind the DEV vs. ganker arms race, traders being driven off and because he thinks this logic is evident - he implies everybody here promoting any change is a griefer.

If your accepting Wraith - let's do an experiment - ill post a simple ruleset which gives some more opportunities and you attack it - and tell me where it fails for you - aight?

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Redline wrote:

Wraith - at some point you should stop implying griefer motives - in this entire thread theres not 1 single post pointing at that direction - its the opposite. people try to find a way to make the game less sterile, give more possibilities to each side and actually give the player possibilities without making it griefer friendly.

Red, its difficult not to see the consequences of some of the rule sets being advocated, when I've seen this many, many times over the years before.  I've never implied that any specific individual here was advocating for ganking/griefing, but that IS a clear consequence of some of these rule sets. They also tend to turn out to be time sinks for the Dev's, as they struggle to deal with the antics of the gankers/griefers.

Remember, Concord and the high sec rule set didn't first appear in their current state.  CCP was dragged kicking and screaming into making each additional change. They are REALLY pro PvP, and so it must be almost physically painful for them to have to take these measures to protect their business model. ^^ But that IS the reality of the current game market.

Making more possibilities available doesn't have to include the ability to gank and grief. But if past history is any judge, that WILL happen, unless the Dev's are VERY careful(and willing to make an open ended time commitment to evolving their response to the gankers/griefers). Wouldn't it be better if they didn't have to make that commitment in the first place? It would likely be much better for the game(profit wise)  if they simply added to both sides of the current game.

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

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Wraithbane wrote:

Making more possibilities available doesn't have to include the ability to gank and grief. But if past history is any judge, that WILL happen, unless the Dev's are VERY careful(and willing to make an open ended time commitment to evolving their response to the gankers/griefers). Wouldn't it be better if they didn't have to make that commitment in the first place? It would likely be much better for the game(profit wise)  if they simply added to both sides of the current game.

I think the only answer then Wraith is 2 separate servers.. sadly but yea.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Wraith, gotta work again some hours - be back then and give you a ruleset to test on.

174 (edited by Other 2011-01-27 21:47:01)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

meh,

As it stands there is NOT something for everyone in the game.  You have a choice of mob pvp on Beta or full protection on Alpha.

There aren't any gray areas where quite a few people like to play (I would argue most but that'd just be speculation).  Maybe they could make an island type that would fit in between the two and improve the different areas based on the amount of players that live there.  But, with this approach a new debate will pop up as to whether resource gathering in this new area should be higher than Alpha.

It either changes and a portion of their players will stay or it doesn't and that portion will go elsewhere.  Nobody has been playing here so long that they are married to the game.

I'm just advocating my point of view.  Disagree with it or don't.  But, I'm not the only one that feels this way based on other posts in this thread.  You may want to assign bad intentions to those that feel the way I do and therefore feel that it's just a small minority that agree with me but, you'd be wrong.  I have played eve for about 3 years and have never ganked anybody and actually have less than 10 kills total.  I just feel that that aspect of competition add to the gameplay on a level that an army of programmers can't.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Wraithbane wrote:

"Constant personal attacks towards individuals"? Thats a rather broad generalization. Is that in some recent posts, or all posts? Are you perhaps refering to my teasing Other about his attempt to provoke me? That was a rather measured response on my part(and clearly indicated to have been made with humor).

Saying Shut the *** up and let the adults talk is calling someone a child implying they are beneath you unless I have misread what you said.

Wraithbane wrote:

As for assumptions, I'm as guilty of those as anyone. Also of using past history as a guide to the future. But that is what we humans tend to do, as we go about our daily lives.

Being guilty stills makes you guilty, you haven’t presented any of this past history but rather imply what happens without backing any of it up also this is not an argument about the behavior of humans.

Wraithbane wrote:

So, all levels of player competition are, or should be equal? The ability to gank miners and haulers, should be allowed, because of competition in the market sector of the game?  Do you really consider the two examples to be equal?

I never said the ability to gank miners and haulers I said the threat of PvP I gave no details leaning one way or the other on implementations of a pvp system on the alphas that goes outside of the current pvp flagging system.
Market competition and on the field competition are both fights for a time investment both can end in small or massive losses depending on how risky your investment to either is.

Wraithbane wrote:

You answered your own question in regards to non consenural attacks. In the market competition, all parties consent to take part(by virtue of being in the market). In the PvP area, unless the player is on the Beta island, they have not consented to take part in PvP.

All players take the risk of fighting on the market due to the interdependency that this game sets up I do not see why it is players that compete against players in the field do not get the same opportunity for competition based upon their time and EP investment.

Non consensual Market and Rescource competition exists on the alphas and betas
Direct Combat competition only exists on the betas and in the consensual pvp flagging system

Wraithbane wrote:

As the rule set stands now, there is something for everyone. If one wants to mine, haul, PvE then stay on the Alpha Islands. If one wants to PvP, then stay on the Beta Islands. Thus everyone gets what they want(except for a small percentage, but then making them happy, makes MANY others unhappy).

Where is the number?
Why does hauling and mining stop completely if the rules change no one here has said that a complete industrial side freeze is the goal.