176 (edited by Redline 2011-01-30 17:15:26)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Other wrote:

As it stands there is NOT something for everyone in the game.
...
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.

That's also where i'd start.

So Wraith, here goes. Feel free to criticize or ask - i hope you can improve this very basic concept i'm gonna start. I making it easy in numbers and transitions to criticize it more easily.

The rather complicated looking rules are pretty easy to understand if visualy integrated and they are very easy to implement in software.

There are 3 Zones:

A(sanctioned/restricted pvp) - the common starting zone (yes, life can be tricky, so make a decision where to go)
B(safezone) - current alphas
C(ffa pvp without sanctioning consequences) current betas

of which A connects to B and C but B and C are not connected.

A)
- is the melting pot of players coming from B and C
- to do direct trades without any fees
- there are instanced player housings or can be built
- guards in form of flying observers are in place
- there is a mediocre mix of ressource grinding/farming and PVE to do here
-some special random spawns to spice up usuall robot day life

B)
- is the center of megacorp commerce and station trading
- its a safezone generally similar to current alphas
- it's the only access to high lvl market terminals

C)
- are the badlands, a warzone with outposts
- similar to the current betas
- the only access to highest lvl production facilities


1. Besides the NPC faction standing there will be 2 more standing indicators:

- a personal standing (PS)
- a corp standing (CS)
- available status are green, yellow, red / G, Y, R

- PS and CS status-colors are not visible to anyone but oneself/corp
- whenever a person joins or leaves a corp, the PS is adjusted to the CS standing, unless the PS is lesser then
the CS(cant improve by leaving or joining) and G can only join G or Y corps, Y only Y or R, R only R
- starting color is Y
- PS de/increase by missions, playerkills(something higher then an arkhe2) only
- whereas CS decreases each time you successfully claim an OP in C)

- to decrease from Y to R or G to Y, you need to kill a non-R player in A)
- to increase from R to Y you need missions in A) higher gain or in C) lower gain
- to increase from Y to G, you need missions in B) lower gain or in C) higher gain, kill an R in A) lower gain
- positive changes to the PS translate in a 0.1/member count ratio to the CS, reflecting back again only 0.01/member count to each member
- increase of PS through missions and kills and thereby CS is limited by diminishing returns/timewindow
- decrease of CS through indirect player PS affection is limited by diminishing returns/timewindow

- negative changes on the PS through agressive attacking a target depend on the color-difference
- an R attacks a G results in the largest difference, R on R, Y on Y, G on G in the smallest
- negative changes to the PS translate in a 1/0.01 ratio to the CS, reflecting back again 1/1
- changes to PS and CS are listed in personal/corp menu like transactions

- the PS/CS colors are a modifiers to certain interactions:
- PS comes into play for players without corporation and as a personal modifier
- the lesser color of PS or CS overrides the higher one in means of sanctional effects
- the higher color of PS or CS overrides the lesser one in means of rewarding effects

- rewarding effects:
- they give a bonus to industrie skills where G gives the highest bonus, Y gives a small one and R gives none
- they also modify the defensive values (shield/armor) on either A), B) or C), where G gives a higher bonus then Y and R no bonus(current state)
- they increase the chance against lower value color enemies of not being looted when being killed in A) B) and C)

- sanctional effects:
- the colors define, who and how much someone will be indirectly protected by guards on A)
- R also excludes players from entering B)
- R auto-enables pvp-flag on A) and B)
- R disables protection by guards on A)
- R also nullifying any insurance on A)
- R increase the chances of being fully looted by higher value colored players in A) B) C)
- Y reduces insurances effects in A)
- dying as an R in A) results in stackable temporal-kernel dis-integrity reducing speed
- colors can only do trades with their own color and yellow. G and R cannot trade and need Y as a transition

2. PWF-flag:
- besides the usual PVP-flag there is a personal warfare flag
- this flag flags the PVP attacker on A) only visible to the victim, in addition to the normal PVP-flag
- or generally if a player issued an offensive EVP(economy versus player) attack
- this flag is stackable
- this flag reduces the PS
- this PWF-flag enables the victim(G, Y, R) to attack the wearer in A) without enabling the PVP-flag(except R) and guards taking no action
to attack the wearer even in safezone B) (only G and Y)
- the PWF-flag reduces by 1 layer (if stacked) when being attacked by the original victim by:
- means of PVP on A) or generally by means of EVP(economy versus player)
- the PWF-flag can also be reduced by a fee being payed to the victim if the victim asks for it similar to a trade


3. PVP-flag:
- works like the current one
- has the addition of PWF-flag on A)


4. EVP: economy versus player
- traders have the possibility to sell fake/malicious/low quality loot anonymously via the market(terminals exclusively) to make more profit
- this is an offensive EVP attack, an untargeted/unspecific action without the need of having been attacked
- this action flags the creator and the seller for only the buyer and user with the PWF-flag
- traders additionally have the possibility to issue retaliating EVP attacks to people wearing the PWF-flag to them from an earlier attack
- this defensive attack means having the posibility to sell an malicious item via the market only visible to the one with the according PWF-flag
- and by issuing megacorp-prosecution, resulting in decreasing their PS and indirectly their CS in addition to the normal increase through the attack on A)


5. Mechanics are people who can disasemble and loot mechs better then others. They gain more loot from NPCs and have higher chances
   to loot a player corpse allthough the victim has a higher PS. They can also modify looted modules and sell them as prerequisite
   for EVPers. And, you can build houses!


6. Guards:

- work only in A)
- are instanced objects popping up in the sky out of nowhere, 1 for each attacker thus having no LoS or availability issues
- attack the attacker except an R is being attacked or an PWF-flagged player is being attacked by the victim
- also attack supporters of an attacker
- don't attack R players if they are being attacked
- continue fire until target is dead or zoned

- guards attack strength is derived from the difference of their colors favoring G over Y over R according to PS and CS as described earlier
- maximum dmg = accum+effective HP(armor+resistances)+1 = insta kill independant of target HP, EQ and support

- G1 attacks G2: normal dmg to G1
- G attacks Y: normal dmg to G
- G attacks R: no guard dmg to G
- Y attacks G: increased dmg to Y
- Y1 attacks Y2: normal dmg to Y1
- Y attacks R: no guard dmg to Y
- R attacks G: maximum dmg to R
- R attacks Y: increased dmg to R
- R attacks R: normal dmg to R


7. Results and dynamics:

Given the different roles generally being assigned by the game goals you have traders, pvers and pvpers.
These roles are now multiplied by their PS values allowing different careers.
And in combination with their CS values again some more intensive specialisations.
Also Corporation size can affect these roles again.


I find it necessary to start on the not-so-safe A) to make people think about what they want to do. If they already know,
everybody can do as he does now.

1)
As a trader you can head from A) to B) - farm resources, grind some mob, do missions on your way to PS-green, trade, build a green Corp,
whatever you like.

If your a bit of a Marshall Braveheart guy You could also pay A) a visit to do some direct trades, with the possibility of a yellow attacking you,
because he doesnt know that you are deep-green and your protection is better then normal and watch the guards rip him apart and even loot him in the end
because your green favors you over his yellow. I'm sure you dont wanna risk your hard earned green, go yellow and attack someone here - but you can still do
that on C) - allthough a lot more reds are likely to be found in this warzone. But if you make it - you could use your deep-green bonus plus the highest lvl
facilities to build the best stuff possible! Sure it's not easy on C) as a green-scientist but its worth the try.

But - you could also stay on B) in your terminal and become a fierce EVPer - someone who sells low quality goods and even more cash. Going to A) now or just
leaving the B) terminal could now be more of a problem! If a victim or you EVP skills finds you - he can just kick your *** unharmed.

Of course - you mustnt stay in B) as an EVPer, you could aswell go to C) but those terminals there arent as good as the ones in B) - so maybe you stay on
B) and and just avoid going red there and wait until a leet PvP-Corp seeks some leet-EVPers.

2)
You are a leet PvPer and have a big *** corp? Ok then directly head for C) and do anything you like there. Kill everybody and everything, you have awesome
resources and good quality mob there. Also with these facilities your red scientists can build as effective as the green guys from far over in B) but yeah,
trading probably isnt that easy located in C).

And if you joined one of those big mega corps you prolly cant go back trade your good stuff that easily on A) or even B) because big corps easily go red
and hardly go green again - unless they support each other and do missions so you can become their transporter guy.

So get yellow. This way you can still kill some other reds on A) or some yellows - but beware of trying to have a go at a green transporter on A) with 10 of
your buddies, because maybe with that 1 kill you are whoops back to red because all your 10 friends alpha striked that guy and made your corp go red again,
because they all reflect their PS on your corp.

So maybe you just stay red better hire some guys to do that eh? Some of those guys lurking around everywhere - on A), B) and C) and they kinda seem to know
what they're doing. They cant prevail on C) because they're too small and small isnt good to hold OPs. But being a small corp favors guys accidently going
red because unlike others they can do missions or kill reds and re-gain yellow faster because their PS increases their CS more effective then in those kickass
big sized corps you control C) outposts with.


3)
You like trading? Go to B) and farm a bit while your jelly-pizza is waiting for you. You wanna grind some good mob and hang around the trading hub where
lotsa strange guys are at? And you also feel a bit strange because you eat jelly-pizza? Aight do it. Or go to C) and grind some bigger mobs. Or yes,
if you can go everywhere that easy, why dont you get some stuff from the green guys to the reds over there or vice versa? And if someone pisses you off, well,
shoot him, loot him - your chances to loot a green on A) are better then the chances of a red. And if that red doesnt pay - yeah - shoot him also! And loot back
the stuff you just sold. But beware - they now can attack you or sell you some bad machinery - and maybe you even prepared that malicous weapon that doesnt fire
or that shield that only empties you accumulator and doesnt work.

Easy, no reason to run away - you can build your house here. Neighbours are nice - there's that green guy only wanting a house for his bot collection
and yeah - from time to time you see a red sneak into the other door.

But over all its a nice place here - you can decide tomorrow if you like the green guys more or go with the red ones.




Short self-test:

-Ganking/Griefing noobs: oops your red - say byebye civilisation.

-Spies wanting to damage the CS of a corp by over and over killing an allied: cant do this with arkhes, you will die each time and have a timer-based disintegrity
on A) the only place where you can do this. Also - you go red long before you have your corp red and even if your trying - your corp has an eye on your PS/CS
actions.

-Self-assigning different roles with alts as in using your private green EVPer or producer for a red corp on C): yes you can do that, have fun transferring goods
and running around untagged on c).

-Pushing green PS by killing a red alt: yes, but doing missions is prolly faster and easier to do.

-ambushing a green hauler on A) with some untagged greens, a yellow mechanic and some red firepower - yes - but you still all get attacked by guards, the reds
insta pop, the yellow go red, the green yellow - you must really be dedicated to this. But over all A) is not their safe heaven so what.

177 (edited by Lheomuh 2011-01-28 12:17:40)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

will there be MORE PVE? Yes or No THATs the Question  yarr

178 (edited by Redline 2011-01-28 14:47:57)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

More PVE in different environments, other elements and new motivations to do it, yes - but the detailed PVE discussion is that way:
http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … ndboxgame/

This here is about rulesets and environments that enables different playstyles in PVE and PVP and thus allows for different combinations and content in PVE or PVP, because there can be new forms of conflicts and interactions if you choose to.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

christ thats a long read. Im going to say thats worth an entire thread by itself since it distracts from the original argument presented in the thread

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Redline wrote:

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?

Red, I judge all of these various ideas on my experience over the years with other games that have tried related policies and designs. I started in UO(a bit after launch, but long before Trammel). Since these games are my hobby, I've played almost all of the majors and many of the minor games(and way, WAY too many Asian grinders). 

Its that combined experience that I apply to these various proposals.  I've seen first hand the *consequences* of these game designs. I'm painfully aware of the impact that ganking/griefing has on a game, its community and its popularity in the market.

I've seen the mass western markets move away from toleration of these types of designs. Games in the modern market that allow(let alone encourage) ganking/griefing seriously niche themselves.  Is that what we want for Perpetuums future?

Yes, I know that not all of you that are advocating these changes want to gank miners and haulers. But can you deny that such is a natural consequence of some of the designs we've discussed? I'd imagine that many of you have the best intentions, but good intentions aren't nearly enough(we've seen that in the political sphere, endlessly).

Not to mention that there is a small number of shall we say ... Goons ... That DO want to be able to gank miners and haulers.  I doubt anyone who has had experience with them could honestly deny that.

We could try your proposal if you wish. But I'm uncertain what it might prove or disprove, as I'm not NEARLY as good at finding loop holes in designs as some of the obsessives in question are.

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

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Redline wrote:

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


I know how that is. I'm just getting over the flu myself.  It usually isn't that bad, but this one knocked me on my *** for the last few days.  Thankfully it seems to be fading out now.

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

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Dont do a weed wrote:
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.

You might wish to re read that post, as it was Other who used the STFU, not I... My response was the Provoke Failed perhaps you need more EP in that extension?. ^^

Next, that past history I refer to is the experience over years of various designs and their various degrees of failure to prevent ganking and/or griefing.  The other variable is the open ended time commitment on the part of the Dev's that many such systems required. In some cases they just threw up their hands and let nature take its course(not a good course for many games these days).  Over all, only a server side flag has been shown to prevent ganking/griefing. PvP Yes, or PvP No.  Its the gray areas that shade off into the "possibilities" some are so fond of that are VERY difficult to get even close to right.  Not to mention the continued time commitment required to deal with them.

No matter how clever people consider themselves to be with these systems, it almost always turns out that even more clever people find ways around them. Then the Dev's end up spending time patching that, and the next and the next... There is a clear pattern here.

No one said that mining, hauling would stop completely. No doubt some would continue. But at this point in the game, I suspect that many would simply leave. There are many, MANY options for players these days.  Losing players at this point of the game is NOT what we want.  Yes, yes I know that some have already left because they didn't have sufficient "options, challenge, risk"... But do we really want to make matters worse at this point?

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

183 (edited by Redline 2011-01-28 19:02:40)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Your right on the impact of course - id quit myself if all was open ffa pvp. I think nowbody has any interest to do so - and this wont happen im sure.

But see - a system like the above has the current alpha and beta like they are now - and doesnt force you to go anywhere else. You can keep those playstyles entirely and this is expected by the system, because it would be the easiest way to go - combining green and red players each in their extreme. Co-operation as the key.

It has also some pros added for pure farmers/traders, since the color-system would allow them to go even industry wise, since their green would compensate the lower lvl facilities in B)(alphas).

But you also could try and reach for more and try to even increase you industrie skills by reaching out for C) (betas) at the expense of having to travel through A) a more dangerous area then B) but still not as dangerous as C)

Same goes for the pure OP fighting corporations. They already have lots of benefits there and now have to decide wether they wanna be able to trade on safe B) or have to be happy with trading on A) or even must reside in C).

All of these possibilities and changes require a certain responsability concerning your playstyle because it doesnt only affect you, but also your corp in a long term. Also it can make smaller corporations able to compete with the sheer numbers of bigger corps.

One example would is, they can influence their corp standing in a more effective way and thus be able to compete on all 3 areas. Another one would be: to stay green as a small pvp corp, refrain from any forced pvp on A) and benefit from the green addition to their defense values on C) as opposed to the big corporations who have a harder task to not go red but cannot reach green if they want to maintain OPs.

You could still choose to go any else direction, be it big pvp corp or as a trader or small corp - but theres always the need on having to keep an eye on who you attack and where.

A) would clearly be the boiling point, which you can reside in - you don't have to. The gains there are not necessary for the game itself - but fee-free trading or housing at the expense of being able to be attacked is a price you may wanna pay or not.

It is an area lots of people are waiting for - as my personal experience. All interconnected other features add the necessary dynamics, gains and restrictions.

Anyone trying to use A) as a griefing or ganking spot won't have that much fun - it can work 1 or 2 times depending on your color - but you will die yourself most likely and in the case you get away - you cannot access A) until you loose your red again - which is only possible in A) and thus makes you a target without consequences for greens and yellow. Or - you have to get back to yellow waiting on C) while your corp mates indirectly reduce your PS through grinding up their CS to yellow again, which would require dedication and work.

And yes - there would be those peolpe investing all their time to kill somone on A) and invest all their time to go yellow again and repeat this over and over - but - A) is exactly about that possibility!

I will update the above posting with some modifications concerning zoning with PVP/PWF and infight flag.

I welcome anybody to test any careers and playstyles and see possibilities of very different pros and cons thus making that system more solid they way it is intended.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Damn Red, thats a LOT of work. Thanks for posting it. I'm hoping in a day or two I'll have the sustained focus I'll need to do it justice.

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

185 (edited by Greenleaf 2011-01-28 23:44:32)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Wraithbane wrote:

only a server side flag has been shown to prevent ganking/griefing. PvP Yes, or PvP No.  Its the gray areas that shade off into the "possibilities" some are so fond of that are VERY difficult to get even close to right.  Not to mention the continued time commitment required to deal with them.

No matter how clever people consider themselves to be with these systems, it almost always turns out that even more clever people find ways around them. Then the Dev's end up spending time patching that, and the next and the next... There is a clear pattern here.

Meh,. your arguments are boring and hold no weight. you reduce it all to griefing. A player like you should not be buying a game that advertises open pvp. your not the only one thats been around since UO you know..

There is plenty of games out there for you,. you said you played eve for more then a year, it has open pvp, all ways has. but yet you seem to think this pvp yes and pvp no is the only thing that works,.. so why did you play eve for so long then,?

Pk have cut you deep,. we all understand,. We do. But why your playing a game that advertises open pvp is confusing,..

The devs are all ways racing the players, no matter if there is open pvp or not. The industry is full of boring theme park MMO's and pvp yes/pvp no worlds,. Stop crying that devs just want an easy job,. Its a *** Argument.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Wraithbane wrote:

You might wish to re read that post, as it was Other who used the STFU, not I... My response was the Provoke Failed perhaps you need more EP in that extension?. ^^

Ok it was other that said that I am mistaken. But the usage of the term gankers and griefers is still a negative term used against pvpers so you are still speaking negatively of a playstyle that differs from yours. I have not seen the words carebear thrown around in these last few pages so you could give players that PvP the same courtesy

Wraithbane wrote:

Next, that past history I refer to is the experience over years of various designs and their various degrees of failure to prevent ganking and/or griefing.  The other variable is the open ended time commitment on the part of the Dev's that many such systems required. In some cases they just threw up their hands and let nature take its course(not a good course for many games these days).  Over all, only a server side flag has been shown to prevent ganking/griefing. PvP Yes, or PvP No.  Its the gray areas that shade off into the "possibilities" some are so fond of that are VERY difficult to get even close to right.  Not to mention the continued time commitment required to deal with them.
No matter how clever people consider themselves to be with these systems, it almost always turns out that even more clever people find ways around them. Then the Dev's end up spending time patching that, and the next and the next... There is a clear pattern here.
No one said that mining, hauling would stop completely. No doubt some would continue. But at this point in the game, I suspect that many would simply leave. There are many, MANY options for players these days.  Losing players at this point of the game is NOT what we want.  Yes, yes I know that some have already left because they didn't have sufficient "options, challenge, risk"... But do we really want to make matters worse at this point?

Switch the game to PvE only and make it free. You now have a self sustaining system that will attract as many players as possible now that the devs have the player base they can introduce a $ for ingame goods and services exchange to generate revenue.
You now have a self sustaining money maker just make sure you patch the game with more difficult dungeons every few months.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

to bad all the usefull comments in here are wasted as its covered and hidden inbetween countless and repeating name callling between four player here.

nice ruleset there redline - got something similar in mind during beta. They probably wont put in anything in that direction until the next step away from the Syndicate "owned" outposts is introduced, namely the real PoS.

*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

Yeah, would only make sense with a 3rd zone -since all present and proposed game elements are based around 3 tongue

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Greenleaf wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:

only a server side flag has been shown to prevent ganking/griefing. PvP Yes, or PvP No.  Its the gray areas that shade off into the "possibilities" some are so fond of that are VERY difficult to get even close to right.  Not to mention the continued time commitment required to deal with them.

No matter how clever people consider themselves to be with these systems, it almost always turns out that even more clever people find ways around them. Then the Dev's end up spending time patching that, and the next and the next... There is a clear pattern here.

Meh,. your arguments are boring and hold no weight. you reduce it all to griefing. A player like you should not be buying a game that advertises open pvp. your not the only one thats been around since UO you know..

There is plenty of games out there for you,. you said you played eve for more then a year, it has open pvp, all ways has. but yet you seem to think this pvp yes and pvp no is the only thing that works,.. so why did you play eve for so long then,?

Pk have cut you deep,. we all understand,. We do. But why your playing a game that advertises open pvp is confusing,..

The devs are all ways racing the players, no matter if there is open pvp or not. The industry is full of boring theme park MMO's and pvp yes/pvp no worlds,. Stop crying that devs just want an easy job,. Its a *** Argument.

Green, this game is obviously not just open PvP. Other wise it would have many fewer players than it does. Given the quality of some of your arguments, I'd say you are hardly one to cast stones.  I have in fact played EVE for more than five years. Its the same character name, you are welcome to check it in the data base.  I played EVE because I enjoyed collecting battleships. Its a hobby to me, not an obsession.

The Dev's are the best judge of whats best for the games future.  But everyone has an opinion. The rest of your above doesn't merit a response.

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

190 (edited by Greenleaf 2011-01-29 10:19:40)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Wraithbane wrote:

Green, this game is obviously not just open PvP. Other wise it would have many fewer players than it does. Given the quality of some of your arguments, I'd say you are hardly one to cast stones.  I have in fact played EVE for more than five years. Its the same character name, you are welcome to check it in the data base.  I played EVE because I enjoyed collecting battleships. Its a hobby to me, not an obsession.

The Dev's are the best judge of whats best for the games future.  But everyone has an opinion. The rest of your above doesn't merit a response.

I think it would have more players if there was pvp on alpha, not a wild west but some pvp yes. It is just my opinion,. we really cant prove our points either way, So we make a point by using the past as an example by observation.

but to simply say no,. its unreasonable. I like P. but it needs more layers of pvp to keep me interested.. nuff said..

eve was just an example,. I had a bunch of toons there as well, not sure why you need to prove anything like that, were not pen pals.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Red:
That's also where i'd start.

So Wraith, here goes. Feel free to criticize or ask - i hope you can improve this very basic concept i'm gonna start. I making it easy in numbers and transitions to criticize it more easily.

The rather complicated looking rules are pretty easy to understand if visualy integrated and they are very easy to implement in software.

There are 3 Zones:

A(sanctioned/restricted pvp) - the common starting zone (yes, life can be tricky, so make a decision where to go)
B(safezone) - current alphas
C(ffa pvp without sanctioning consequences) current betas

of which A connects to B and C but B and C are not connected.

A)
- is the melting pot of players coming from B and C
- to do direct trades without any fees
- there are instanced player housings or can be built
- guards in form of flying observers are in place
- there is a mediocre mix of ressource grinding/farming and PVE to do here
-some special random spawns to spice up usuall robot day life

B)
- is the center of megacorp commerce and station trading
- its a safezone generally similar to current alphas
- it's the only access to high lvl market terminals

C)
- are the badlands, a warzone with outposts
- similar to the current betas
- the only access to highest lvl production facilities
==============================================================================
Wraith:
Ok, I can see the basic idea(from another perspective) of having three zones, and having them connected in this fashion. Personally, I'd keep it to two zones, but I always default to an attempt to keep things simple.  But from a business model stand point, having new players start in A, rather than B, is just asking to lose them. Not all of them, but in todays market a good number of them.  That reality has to be kept first and foremost in ones mind. This isn't EVE, nor is it the time when EVE started.

Yes, I know that market realities can be a damned PITA, but unless one keeps them in mind during basic development, one is just setting ones self up for long term problems(Or in this case, a short term game, which we don't want).  We want new players to have the most positive attitude and perception of the game possible, in the first few days of their experience. Learning its details can be overwhelming enough, with out adding in the possiblites of getting ganked.  We all know that certain parties get their jollies from ganking newbs, so lets just keep that from happening.

You didn't mention the status of mining in B. I can understand and accept placing the most valuable ores in C, as gank bait, but there needs to be a good supply of the basic and mid range in B(with perhaps higher mid range on A). Nor did you mention the status of PvE activities on B.

Also, if we tilt too far in the direction of PvP focus, then we end up losing many of the PvE types, who  as experience in EVE has shown, well out number the PvP types. Keep in mind that while many players may be CareBears, their money is still green... ^^ On the other hand, if we tilt too far towards PvE, the PvP types will stomp off in disgust, with the usual "Damn CareBears are ruining the game!"... ^^ I do not envy the Dev's in trying to keep this balanced.
==================================================================================

1. Besides the NPC faction standing there will be 2 more standing indicators:

- a personal standing (PS)
- a corp standing (CS)
- available status are green, yellow, red / G, Y, R

- PS and CS status-colors are not visible to anyone but oneself/corp
- whenever a person joins or leaves a corp, the PS is adjusted to the CS standing, unless the PS is lesser then
the CS(cant improve by leaving or joining) and G can only join G or Y corps, Y only Y or R, R only R
- starting color is Y
- PS de/increase by missions, playerkills(something higher then an arkhe2) only
- whereas CS decreases each time you successfully claim an OP in C)

- to decrease from Y to R or G to Y, you need to kill a non-R player in A)
- to increase from R to Y you need missions in A) higher gain or in C) lower gain
- to increase from Y to G, you need missions in B) lower gain or in C) higher gain, kill an R in A) lower gain
- positive changes to the PS translate in a 0.1/member count ratio to the CS, reflecting back again only 0.01/member count to each member
- increase of PS through missions and kills and thereby CS is limited by diminishing returns/timewindow
- decrease of CS through indirect player PS affection is limited by diminishing returns/timewindow

- negative changes on the PS through agressive attacking a target depend on the color-difference
- an R attacks a G results in the largest difference, R on R, Y on Y, G on G in the smallest
- negative changes to the PS translate in a 1/0.01 ratio to the CS, reflecting back again 1/1
- changes to PS and CS are listed in personal/corp menu like transactions

- the PS/CS colors are a modifiers to certain interactions:
- PS comes into play for players without corporation and as a personal modifier
- the lesser color of PS or CS overrides the higher one in means of sanctional effects
- the higher color of PS or CS overrides the lesser one in means of rewarding effects

- rewarding effects:
- they give a bonus to industrie skills where G gives the highest bonus, Y gives a small one and R gives none
- they also modify the defensive values (shield/armor) on either A), B) or C), where G gives a higher bonus then Y and R no bonus(current state)
- they increase the chance against lower value color enemies of not being looted when being killed in A) B) and C)

- sanctional effects:
- the colors define, who and how much someone will be indirectly protected by guards on A)
- R also excludes players from entering B)
- R auto-enables pvp-flag on A) and B)
- R disables protection by guards on A)
- R also nullifying any insurance on A)
- R increase the chances of being fully looted by higher value colored players in A) B) C)
- Y reduces insurances effects in A)
- dying as an R in A) results in stackable temporal-kernel dis-integrity reducing speed
====================================================================================
Wraith:

Ouch...That gives me headaches just thinking about the coding, and the possible grinding, and gaming the system that can no doubt result from such a complex system.  It does appear simple on the surface, but some of the implications spread across the PS and CS and faction ranges, lend themselves to epic levels of gaming the system. I can see the Dev's having to revisit this repeatedly to deal with how real actions impact the G/Y/R system.   Especially as new game content is added, and as old is modified.

But a fundamental question needs to be asked here. What do you hope to achieve with this system?  A more flexible system action/consequence wise?  Given certain realities is that really a wise course to take? To paraphrase an old saying; "Flexibility is all well and good, until someone puts an eye out".  ^^

In practical reality, one would likely end up with the PvE types staying in the safe zone, some gankers in the mixed, and the PvP types free to roam all three zones at will. While that may make the PvP types happy(and the gankers also, since they can't get their jollies in the current system), what keeps the PvE types in the game? Keep in mind that there will likely be more of them, and as I said their money is still green.

Until we deal with these realities, all we are looking at is a seriously self limiting system. Which of course has seriously limited profit potential.  EVE had the advantage of coming in when it did, and  the time and resources to evolve their rule set over time. I doubt that Perpetuum is going to have that luxury.  The gaming populations attitude has changed over the last 6 plus years.  Yes, to some extent we can blame WoW, but that doesn't change the nature of the reality.  I have no doubt that Perpetuum  can find a niche, but we want that to be as wide(and thus as profitable) as possible.

Thats going to have to be it for today, as I'm running out of time/focus/energy. I'll try to address some of the rest over the next few days.
====================================================================================

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

192 (edited by Redline 2011-01-30 00:27:57)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Thanks for commenting - hope i can answer you questions with the following:

Wraithbane wrote:

Wraith:
Ok, I can see the basic idea(from another perspective) of having three zones, and having them connected in this fashion. Personally, I'd keep it to two zones, but I always default to an attempt to keep things simple.  But from a business model stand point, having new players start in A, rather than B, is just asking to lose them. Not all of them, but in todays market a good number of them.  That reality has to be kept first and foremost in ones mind. This isn't EVE, nor is it the time when EVE started.

Sure, i also like it simple. There will be new zones anyway - so this is just an idea how to use them.

I also understand your concerns about starting in A) - but this isnt as painful as you might assume as it isnt meant as the "first steps island" - B) is this still for players starting out.

Its just meant to confront people with the need to make a decision. They can are meant to either go to B) directly or stay in A). If they would just start out in safe B) there wouldnt be that direct confrontation the 3 different zones might have rdy for them. But overall - it'd also be possible to start in A), B) or even C) as a choice.

Wraithbane wrote:

You didn't mention the status of mining in B. I can understand and accept placing the most valuable ores in C, as gank bait, but there needs to be a good supply of the basic and mid range in B(with perhaps higher mid range on A). Nor did you mention the status of PvE activities on B.

I'd also imagine it like the way you just did - low to mid in B) some more mid in A) and higher in C) PVE activities are thought to take place spread evenly accross all 3 zones. They already have enough benefit themselves. Maybe high end PVE targets need to reside in C) for making the OPs worth something. If OPs would have a more tactical meaning in pvp/trading or pve - pve targets could be evenly distributed over the 3 zones.

Wraithbane wrote:

Also, if we tilt too far in the direction of PvP focus, then we end up losing many of the PvE types, who  as experience in EVE has shown, well out number the PvP types. Keep in mind that while many players may be CareBears, their money is still green... ^^ On the other hand, if we tilt too far towards PvE, the PvP types will stomp off in disgust, with the usual "Damn CareBears are ruining the game!"... ^^ I do not envy the Dev's in trying to keep this balanced.

Thats what this system is trying to do. A) would be a mixed experience, C) would have focus on pvp and area control and B) would focus on pvpless trading and pve.

To still have some diversity - i would revise my above comments and change to not evenly distribute pve over the 3 zones, but making the encounters more characteristic A) would deal with a history of mercenary allrounder thingy - specialized loot for the mechanics, while A) would have pve encounters somehow relating to indy guys whereas C) would have the more combat related pve encounters.


Wraithbane wrote:

Ouch...That gives me headaches just thinking about the coding, and the possible grinding, and gaming the system that can no doubt result from such a complex system.  It does appear simple on the surface, but some of the implications spread across the PS and CS and faction ranges, lend themselves to epic levels of gaming the system. I can see the Dev's having to revisit this repeatedly to deal with how real actions impact the G/Y/R system.   Especially as new game content is added, and as old is modified.

Actually every mediocre programmer could implement that system within a week or less for a first draft. Its a standard task and very easy to reflect in software. I do these things on a daily basis.

Additionally, there would only be a CS grind if people messed up their PS, have to reside in C) because theyre red and dont want to do missions in B) becasue theyd be free targets.

Only in this case would lead to a grind for the corp mates. The actual change of colors would go rather quickly to reflect sanctions and behavious directly onto player and corp:

- a yellow killing a green would go red immediately
- a yellow killing another yellow wouldnt, killing 2 yellows would
- a green killing a green would go yellow
- a green killing a yellow wouldnt go yellow, killing 2 would
- red would be red


Wraithbane wrote:

But a fundamental question needs to be asked here. What do you hope to achieve with this system?  A more flexible system action/consequence wise?  Given certain realities is that really a wise course to take? To paraphrase an old saying; "Flexibility is all well and good, until someone puts an eye out".  ^^

A system at all to reflect consequences vs behaviour.


Wraithbane wrote:

In practical reality, one would likely end up with the PvE types staying in the safe zone, some gankers in the mixed, and the PvP types free to roam all three zones at will. While that may make the PvP types happy(and the gankers also, since they can't get their jollies in the current system), what keeps the PvE types in the game? Keep in mind that there will likely be more of them, and as I said their money is still green.

The pvp type guys would go red automatically by claiming outposts and would have to work against that in A) by missions or killing reds there. If they didnt - they wouldnt have access to B) at all and would be free targets in A) for anybody.

The gankers would go red fast in A) and would be bait for the pvpers in A) or C) trying to stay yellow or green.

Wraithbane wrote:

Thats going to have to be it for today, as I'm running out of time/focus/energy. I'll try to address some of the rest over the next few days.

Thanks for asking. The system has a rather direct way of prosecuting violations, makes them really hard to do on a regular basis but we all know that these incidents will happen if they are possibble - so the resulting colors will feed each other to accomplish their own current goal.

193

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

I hate to say it guys, because there are some really great ideas here, but I think this is turning into a waste of time:

After reading some in-game chat with GMs, and a few exchanges with devs, it looks like PvP will eventually come to Alpha. I can't say that's official, but that's what the guys in yellow say.

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:

I hate to say it guys, because there are some really great ideas here, but I think this is turning into a waste of time:

After reading some in-game chat with GMs, and a few exchanges with devs, it looks like PvP will eventually come to Alpha. I can't say that's official, but that's what the guys in yellow say.

Oh well, thats life then. If that happens, I'll see whats involved, and likely(regretfully) move on. Always having to look over ones shoulder gets tiring rather quickly, I just don't have the interest or the energy for that any more.

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

195

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Wraithbane wrote:

Oh well, thats life then. If that happens, I'll see whats involved, and likely(regretfully) move on. Always having to look over ones shoulder gets tiring rather quickly, I just don't have the interest or the energy for that any more.

Yeah, I'm with you on this- if that's the kind of "challenge" I want, I'll buy an XBox or play World of Tanks.

I have to say that it's a serious disappointment to me- I think this game has a lot of potential for depth and complexity, but it looks as if it's rushing towards the lowest common denominator.

Eh, as you said, that's life.

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

Whats amazing is,.. the degree to witch some people dont care about the facts.

Put effort into giving the devs an Idea what would make you feel "safe" in a open pvp world. Try to meet the discussion half way. pvp No is not an option,. pvp yes is not an option,. there must be a nice blend of the two so all players can enjoy the game.

preparing the readers for a good bye post is,... Whaaaaaaaah! *sniffle*  waaaah,..!

197

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Sorry to get you worked up, Greenleaf, that wasn't my intention. But I realize you're a very frustrated young man who sees the world in a very stunted fashion, so it can't be helped, really.

Anyway, since you are unclear on what "facts" means, and able to ignore the several posts in which I make suggestions about PvP and many other things, I can safely assume that you're the lowest-common denominator type to whom the developers are looking to appeal. In which case, good for you!

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:

Sorry to get you worked up, Greenleaf, that wasn't my intention. But I realize you're a very frustrated young man who sees the world in a very stunted fashion, so it can't be helped, really.

Anyway, since you are unclear on what "facts" means, and able to ignore the several posts in which I make suggestions about PvP and many other things, I can safely assume that you're the lowest-common denominator type to whom the developers are looking to appeal. In which case, good for you!

Im not going to flame you back,. so nice troll attempt. forget about me and watch this video.

dont negate the video just cus its me posting it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbh5l0b2-0o

199

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Oh yeah, I remember him! That was funny a couple of years ago.

I'm sorry that you're only capable of thinking of me as a troll; I really am. My point was not to get a reaction from you, but I obviously overestimated. Again, I apologize.

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:

I have to say that it's a serious disappointment to me- I think this game has a lot of potential for depth and complexity, but it looks as if it's rushing towards the lowest common denominator.

Eh, as you said, that's life.

Depth and complexity is lost by adding another variable to life on the alpha's?

What?