Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

This thread is very solid (some great ideas and constructive thoughts). I especially like Red's overview of one possible Perpetuum's future.
Having a third zone where pvp is not all NO (alphas) or not all YES (betas) is very interesting.

To have a successful game means that it needs to satisfy the maximum of people. Make Perpetuum all pvp  and "carebears" will stop playing (it seems a consensus that they are the majority). Leave it like it is right now and pvp-ers will soon die of beredom and quit.

Make it all pvp, or even limited-pvp everywhere and for sure I stop playing the very first day it is implemented.
Pvp-er will say "Yes Sven, but understand that I too want my fun. It is limited pvp, and anyway I can kill you only once as that will make me flagged and shoot-on-sight".
"Sure, will I say... But this only-once kill makes me loose my riveler full of ore or my mech full of precious kernels, all that worth 10s of millions". Something that I have worked towards for weeks during my playtime. I play the way I want, mostly to relax after my work day. If I have to always play in a state of "terror", this is no longer relaxing... and I stop playing.

Something has to be done, we will all agree on that, I think.
+1 to several zones: Black - Grey - White

PS: and bigger zones would be nice too...

We do not stop playing because we are old; we grow old because we stop playing. - Rose
-----
It has the worst community I have ever seen. Even worse than almighty Barrens chat. - gordiflu

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.

chatlog, or it didn't happen

*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

Greenleaf wrote:

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,..!

Pretty much what I'd expect from you Green... As difficult as it may be for some to comprehend, many people simply have NO interest in MMO PvP.  Thats as valid a choice as being pro PvP is. 

One of the initial reasons I avoided Perptuum was because of the perception of it being open PvP.  It wasn't until I ran across a forum post on MMORPG that stated that PvP was limited to the beta islands, that I decided to give it a try.  As much as some may dislike CareBears, our money is still green, and there tend to be a lot more of us in the western markets.

If Perpetuum gives in to the "opportunities" crowd, it will as a consequence limit its appeal to those who have limited or no interest in PVP.  That will naturally limit its profitability as well.  If thats the future that the Dev's want for Perptuum, thats entirely their decision to make.

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

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Dont do a weed wrote:
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?

Depends on the variable. If it means that one has to always be looking over ones shoulder, that does indeed limit ones options. Thats the sad part of this. Instead of building upon what they already have(perhaps adding Reds third mixed zone), way too many are advocating inflicting their play style on others.  The current status qou allows everyone but the gankers to play as they wish. Want PvP? Go to beta. Want to mine, haul PVE? Stay on alpha.

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

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

I agree Wraith - allthough i like pvp a lot - and like risk and un-calculable situations, i wouldnt like alpha to become a pvp zone. Hence a free to choose addition with some mechanics to make it a boiling pot, still limiting griefplay to a minimum extent.

206

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Weed: "more combat" adds neither depth nor complexity, just more combat.

For more depth, there would be alternative methods- political, economic- of hurting your foe.

For more complexity, you would have to make additional considerations before opening fire on someone: how would it affect your credit rating/alliance/income/relations?

Red's idea of a third zone is a great idea. For that matter, so is PvP on Alpha if real risks are introduced.

Could someone please explain to me how, in a game with unlimited resources, free bots, and free cash, there is "risk" in PvP?

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 ***

207 (edited by Sven Arundhal 2011-01-30 16:18:43)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Redline wrote:

I agree Wraith - allthough i like pvp a lot - and like risk and un-calculable situations, i wouldnt like alpha to become a pvp zone. Hence a free to choose addition with some mechanics to make it a boiling pot, still limiting griefplay to a minimum extent.

Although I am 100% carebear (see my post #201), if there was a 3rd zone like in Red's idea, I would be tempted to go to this PvEvP zone, if I could find (for example) some rare ore and actually have a chance to mine and bring that back "at home".

That is not the case with beta islands. Even tho I am very willing to mine that beta-only ore, I will never go as there is absolutly no chance for me to come back with my riveler full of ore.

As soon as I enter the beta island via the (almost) only point of entry, I am spotted and quickly killed. 3 players, each one camping/watching one of the 3 entry points can control the whole island.

If only I could sneak in... Beach landing on a remote part of the island... That would give me a chance to survive long enough to get some mining done before I am spotted by some scout.
PvP-er's life would even be more entertaining as they would need to scout and hunt, instead of sit on the teleporter waiting for easy prey.

This is my "caricatural" vision of the beta islands access and dangers. Maybe I am wrong, but still, I am not tempted to go at this state of the game.

We do not stop playing because we are old; we grow old because we stop playing. - Rose
-----
It has the worst community I have ever seen. Even worse than almighty Barrens chat. - gordiflu

208 (edited by Redline 2011-01-30 16:32:42)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Savin wrote:

Weed: "more combat" adds neither depth nor complexity, just more combat.

For more depth, there would be alternative methods- political, economic- of hurting your foe.

For more complexity, you would have to make additional considerations before opening fire on someone: how would it affect your credit rating/alliance/income/relations?

Red's idea of a third zone is a great idea. For that matter, so is PvP on Alpha if real risks are introduced.

Could someone please explain to me how, in a game with unlimited resources, free bots, and free cash, there is "risk" in PvP?


Read up the consequences i proposed Savin - it sort of is a political system with responsabilities to your corp and your own standing, restricting you from entering industiral/social zones as a ganker - or making it possible to gain more out of your personal standing when combining it with high quality facilities.

It also requires pvpers on C) to hunt down gankers in A) to work against their constant personal/corp standing loss coming from holding OPs in C). This creates dynamics between players.

Its a beginning at least and your welcome to question it or make additional proposals.

209

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Yes, those are good ideas, Red- I think that political allegiance should mean something more than a couple of percentage points in terminal fees.

Even more to the point, you're introducing real consequences for players' decisions- and I think that's precisely why a lot of PvPers will reject it.

Personally, I'm focused on an economic counterpart to your political ideas. I'd really like to see an economy with a fully-functioning stock market. After all, we're all "corporations," so we should have to act like it. Our purchasing power should be limited by our value. We should be limited to raising money the same way corporations do, by borrowing against our assets or issuing stock.

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 ***

210 (edited by Redline 2011-01-30 17:25:20)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

That could be interesting. But youre right - the things i posted were just a quick write up - i'll be doing a 2nd draft. Stock is interesting and i already have some ideas going how stock and corps can be connected reflecting their productivity and their political actions.

Maybe you're right about pvpers rejecting this. But as i said earlier - if anybody would get what he wants to 100% there would be no need for a game - because the game consists of precisely changing the state of non-completness to more completeness, in very different ways corresponding to trade/pve or pvp. So that's what the game should deliver for all.

edit: youd be surprised how many dedicated pvpers ive seen in pvp games wanting to build their own house and water flowers - aswell as traders backstabbing a red when they had opportunity to do so ;>

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Wraithbane wrote:
Greenleaf wrote:

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,..!

Pretty much what I'd expect from you Green... As difficult as it may be for some to comprehend, many people simply have NO interest in MMO PvP.  Thats as valid a choice as being pro PvP is.

There can be pvp layers that dont effect you at all. like faction pvp, (SWG) for example.

There is no reason why there should be 100% no pvp at all in Alpha.. I been there man,. I know how bad a FFA open pvp is,. (shadowbane) it can be ***,. no one is saying there should be a lawless gank fest,.

griefers a side, There is a lot of other casual pvp players out there,. it may come to a surprise or your ignorant to it ,. But there is many layers of pvp that can be done. And not all of it will effect you in anyway,. But yet...  ya have to be draged kicking an screaming.

212

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Redline wrote:

That could be interesting. But youre right - the things i posted were just a quick write up - i'll be doing a 2nd draft. Stock is interesting and i already have some ideas going how stock and corps can be connected reflecting their productivity and their political actions.

Another draft would be interesting, but unless you're doing it for the intellectual exercise, I wouldn't bother: seems to me that the devs are aiming to make this a PvP combat game, and nothing more.

I think that something else needs to be considered as well: we may be asking too much of the game and the developers. which may be impractical or even impossible. Moreover, they may have nothing to do with Avatar's vision of the game.

For politics, economics, or a stock market to work, it would be necessary to rework a large portion of the game's systems so that resources, items, and territory have real value. Political and economic power only have meaning if the unlimited resources, free bots, and free money go away.

In other words, those systems require risk, and right now the game has none.

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

Yeah - but there need to be a layered concept to be able to implement anything step wise - and not having to re-do it each time something new is added.

All of this should have been done 2 years ago - but well - i still can re-use those concepts on other projects, so ill jsu be going on tongue

214

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

good attitude!

And yes, I think we're talking about the next generation of sandbox- multiple levels of interaction between players, dynamic environments, complex relationships. Perhaps you'll be the one responsible for it all big_smile

Let me know if you want more info on my stock market idea- I've put a lot of thought into an economic system that offers depth, accountability, and 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 ***

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Savin wrote:

Weed: "more combat" adds neither depth nor complexity, just more combat.

For more depth, there would be alternative methods- political, economic- of hurting your foe.

For more complexity, you would have to make additional considerations before opening fire on someone: how would it affect your credit rating/alliance/income/relations?

Red's idea of a third zone is a great idea. For that matter, so is PvP on Alpha if real risks are introduced.

Could someone please explain to me how, in a game with unlimited resources, free bots, and free cash, there is "risk" in PvP?

explain free bots and free cash

216

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Arkhes and assignments.

Even more free stuff if you're in a large corp.

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:
Redline wrote:

That could be interesting. But youre right - the things i posted were just a quick write up - i'll be doing a 2nd draft. Stock is interesting and i already have some ideas going how stock and corps can be connected reflecting their productivity and their political actions.

Another draft would be interesting, but unless you're doing it for the intellectual exercise, I wouldn't bother: seems to me that the devs are aiming to make this a PvP combat game, and nothing more.

I think that something else needs to be considered as well: we may be asking too much of the game and the developers. which may be impractical or even impossible. Moreover, they may have nothing to do with Avatar's vision of the game.

For politics, economics, or a stock market to work, it would be necessary to rework a large portion of the game's systems so that resources, items, and territory have real value. Political and economic power only have meaning if the unlimited resources, free bots, and free money go away.

In other words, those systems require risk, and right now the game has none.

I seem to obviously have missed something here... My impression was that the Dev's ARE the company running Perpetuum.  They have a publisher or some such, who is calling the shots??

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

218

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

My fault, sorry for the confusion.

As far as I know, they are the same. I meant for that paragraph to read "the ideas we want to see implemented may be too complicated for the game or the developers, and furthermore, those ideas may not correspond to the developers' vision."

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:

Arkhes and assignments.

Even more free stuff if you're in a large corp.

What is this large corp free stuff where does it come from?

What makes it free?

220 (edited by Annihilator 2011-01-30 22:51:52)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

What makes it free?

yeah, asked that myself too...

*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

I logged into that 'other' sandbox game last night; there were just under 60k accounts online. Surely one should be able to have a look at that game and come to some conclusion as to how to keep that many people happy.

The other point that I wanted to make, (and I'm an ardent supporter of PvP), is that EvE would have died a long time ago if it wern't for the carebears. In fact the vast majority of people, even pirates like myself have carebear toons that we use to make ISK with. No carebears means no market, and no market means no PvP.

222 (edited by Redline 2011-02-07 13:37:30)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Hm this never has been a 'carebear or pvper discussion', but how to interconnect both. And its possible easiliy, without restricting anything.

223 (edited by BigCountry 2011-02-07 15:14:44)

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

Players need to be forced off of Alpha perhaps (like in Shadowbane). This game is suppose to be a crush all command and conquer mmorpg. No one is fighting. There is no real strife. Way too much restricted PvE areas (1/2 the world map for crying out loud).

At the moment, you have 2 completely separated games. PvE on the Alpha and PvP on the beta. The 2 need to coincide somehow or else more subs are just gonna afk due to nothing but simple boredom.
sad

How about 1 PvE island. Why do we need 3?? You have 3 PvE markets literally a hop skip away from each other (3 Jitas 1 jump from each other). Why do you need this?? Let's spread that market out some into other territories....

How about 1 PvE area, the other 2 become PvP areas but you cannot take over any of the outposts? That way you leave the hubs intact on those areas for trade.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

BigCountry wrote:

Players need to be forced off of Alpha perhaps (like in Shadowbane). This game is suppose to be a crush all command and conquer mmorpg. No one is fighting. There is no real strife. Way too much restricted PvE areas (1/2 the world map for crying out loud).

At the moment, you have 2 completely separated games. PvE on the Alpha and PvP on the beta. The 2 need to coincide somehow or else more subs are just gonna afk due to nothing but simple boredom.
sad

How about 1 PvE island. Why do we need 3?? You have 3 PvE markets literally a hop skip away from each other (3 Jitas 1 jump from each other). Why do you need this?? Let's spread that market out some into other territories....

How about 1 PvE area, the other 2 become PvP areas but you cannot take over any of the outposts? That way you leave the hubs intact on those areas for trade.

or they could create 2-3 new islands with mining/harvesting outposts (like sb's mines) that when in possession automatically harvest/mine and can silo up to a certain amount to be transfered off. Have each one vulnerable randomly every day for 1 hour rotating +1 hour every day(so each mine makes its way though the timezones)

This island wouldn't have any capturable outposts other then these and these new outposts would not be dockable unless you own them. Anything silo'd here when possession changes would be transfered to the new owners.

Re: PvE vs. PvP - the endless discussion

GLiMPSE wrote:

or they could create 2-3 new islands with mining/harvesting outposts (like sb's mines) that when in possession automatically harvest/mine and can silo up to a certain amount to be transfered off. Have each one vulnerable randomly every day for 1 hour rotating +1 hour every day(so each mine makes its way though the timezones)

This island wouldn't have any capturable outposts other then these and these new outposts would not be dockable unless you own them. Anything silo'd here when possession changes would be transfered to the new owners.

I like it.

Add this and the ability to customize player owned outposts (walls, gates, sentry guns, etc) and we have a winner.
big_smile