126 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Other wrote:
Savin wrote:
Other wrote:

[qWhat 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.

You continue to say this, but it's not an issue. The latest NPCs are quite a handful, and there's plenty of PvP going on already. To say that there's not enough destruction is simply wrong.

If you reduce the rewards from assignments, and increase the drops from both NPC bots and tech, then there will be quite a bit of player interaction, all of it meaningful, just not combat.

Wait until players start advancing to high EP levels.  World of Warcraft has that problem hence the artificial feeling level caps and bind on equip and bind on pickup items.    Additionally player interaction is reduced to trolling and looking for healers and tanks.

How do you like that crafting sytem and market you get in WoW?  That's where this game is going with the walled off PvP.  It's the exact same structure as WoW with a slighlty more robust crafting system and a slightly less linear playstyle.

I still maintain that player interactions in all parts of the game need to have both the possibility of positive and negative consequences that involves the destruction and creation of finished products.

Additionally there will never be enough equipment sinks in pve areas to make up for the volume of produced materials.  The economy will grow exponentially faster than player population.  In the end, lack of demand will reduce industry to a sideline career path.  There will no need for dedicated industrialists except for major Beta corps, as it would be pointless and the least profitable path in the game.  No industrialists means harvestors and miners will not be needed at any appreciable level.

The only solution would be taxes that are paid by turning in equipment, which doesn't make any sense, or the BOE or BOP system that WoW has.  I challenge you to find a single player in this forum that feels like any part of WoW is a good direction for this game.


Abandon all hope for WoW is near!...^^

Oh lord... Did you *have* to play the WoW card??  The "only solution"?? We've discussed several other possible NIC/gear sinks that would work much more effectively that allowing miners and haulers to be ganked.  I swear some people around here have a one track mind on this subject. WHY is the ability to gank miners and haulers, and force those who have no interest in beta island antics to be victims, so important to some of you??

Go to forum: General discussion

127 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Other wrote:

Basically your mining bot needs to die at some point to make mining worthwhile.  it's an endless cycle that's necessary in keeping the market central to the game.  Unlike real life things here do't wear out, get lost, become obsolete, get stolen, go out of style, etc.  They have to disappear to have a reason to create another.

If it doesn't die then it's a never ending NIC faucet.  PvP will make you more cautious which will slow your mining down and on top of that a portion of your resources may need to be dedicated to replacing your equipment.

Additionally, PvPers are at a huge disadvatage in the market because the vast majority of their resources go to replace equipment.  The majority run second accounts to just make enough to continue the part of the game they like.  Which means they are forced to pve when they dont want to (or forced into botting or RMT).  Why shouldn't you be forced to pvp when you dont want to?  You are wanting to profit off of them having to farm npcs (which is pve) because Alpha island players will rarely need your ore.

Balance is the answer, not creating two separate games.


Yes, pity the "poor" PvP types, for they are at such a "disadvantage"... Its only "fair" that they get to gank miners and haulers... ^^  Perhaps one should note that two wrongs do not make a right? PvP types have the advantage of being combat spec, thus they can engage in PvE if necessary. Industrial types on the other hand have a HUGE disadvantage in that area.   Simply because the game dynamics require PvE, on the part of the PvP types, doesn't translate to a requirement for PvE types to have to be victims of PvP.

As far the the resource sinks go, we've discussed that any number of times.  Having Goons running around ganking miners and haulers is NOT necessary. It could be handled in other fashions.  Once again, I suspect the motivations of those who keep attempting to drag this dynamic into the Alpha game.

Go to forum: General discussion

128 Reply by Wraithbane

(42 replies, posted in General discussion)

Baske wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:
Baske wrote:

I am happy we aggree that they did not copy half a game or half a book/movie/myth to create their game and storyline.

Half? Of course not... Perpetuum obviously owes nothing to such games as Battle Tech, Mech Warrior, Centurion, or Grav Armor(to name but four that spring to mind).  Nor does it tap into many other common themes in science fantasy... Yes, the source of it all has to be a certain space game... I must tell you, that such a meeting of minds is quite rare in this day and age... ^^

Once again someone mixes up mechanics with everything else.

Will it never end?

It appears to be your lot in life to suffer the slings and arrows of outragous fortune guy... ^^  One must look below the surface for the truth of the matter.

Go to forum: General discussion

129 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Other wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to forum: General discussion

130 Reply by Wraithbane

(42 replies, posted in General discussion)

Baske wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:

Exactly my point.  I'm glad we could come to such a meeting of minds.... ^^

I am happy we aggree that they did not copy half a game or half a book/movie/myth to create their game and storyline.

Half? Of course not... Perpetuum obviously owes nothing to such games as Battle Tech, Mech Warrior, Centurion, or Grav Armor(to name but four that spring to mind).  Nor does it tap into many other common themes in science fantasy... Yes, the source of it all has to be a certain space game... I must tell you, that such a meeting of minds is quite rare in this day and age... ^^

Go to forum: General discussion

131 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Redline wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to forum: General discussion

132 Reply by Wraithbane

(42 replies, posted in General discussion)

Baske wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:

<Rolls eyes>

"Stealing"? Do you think that EVE leaped full blown and original from the brows of the CCP Dev's? They (CCP) have "stolen" ideas and concepts from lord only knows what number of games, books, movies and other such.  What matters is what they do with them.  This game has potential if the Dev's can keep ahead of the curve, and keep enough player base to make it possible to continue.

<Rolls eyes>

You are mixing up storyline and game mechanics.

And even if you think about the storyline, at least EVE has one. And it isn't just inspired from a single source But was ideas and concepts from lord only knows what number of games, books, movies and other such. That's hardly stealing, but more like inspiration.

Exactly my point.  I'm glad we could come to such a meeting of minds.... ^^

Go to forum: General discussion

133 Reply by Wraithbane

(86 replies, posted in Resolved bugs and features)

US west coast Comcast 22/4 meg connection. Its not constant, but appears to happen most in US prime time.  Other wise I get random NA spikes.  The last few days have been hit or miss that way.

Go to forum: Resolved bugs and features

134 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Redline wrote:

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

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

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

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

Go to forum: General discussion

135 Reply by Wraithbane

(42 replies, posted in General discussion)

Baske wrote:
Sven Arundhal wrote:
Felcon wrote:

Well only 27 post's ... hmmm makes me think ...

However i wish them the best and hope they create a great experiance for everyone... but EvE is still better !

tongue

stEVE is soon 8 years old, Perpetuum is 3 months old. Give the baby time to grow smile

I have faith in Perpetuum and I am very happy to be part of it, and almost from the start (missed the beta period).

Long live !

And DEVs are doing a great job.

3 months old, yes, but recklessly stealing from CCP's 8 years of hard work.

<Rolls eyes>

"Stealing"? Do you think that EVE leaped full blown and original from the brows of the CCP Dev's? They (CCP) have "stolen" ideas and concepts from lord only knows what number of games, books, movies and other such.  What matters is what they do with them.  This game has potential if the Dev's can keep ahead of the curve, and keep enough player base to make it possible to continue.

Go to forum: General discussion

136 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

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

Go to forum: General discussion

137 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

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

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

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

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

Go to forum: General discussion

138 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Redline wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Go to forum: General discussion

139 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Redline wrote:

Ok - have you read about the part with decreasing pvp dmg the nearer you are in social areas? This way even a heavy mech wouldnt kill an arkhe with 5 volleys.

Problem solved. Youd just need to connect the max dmg output value as a modifier to the decrease of pvp damage when coming closr to a terminal w/e - and the game autobalanes this itself.

Anyway - i just thought about that OP hacking minigame idea - make it a professian  -and even PVE could be more interestin when you have to hack the kernels to reveal their information OR to get them out of the PVE corpse. Hacking reqs would increase with increasing kernel quality, so that youd need a dedicated hacker for certain parts of the game - within your group.

@the motives for this simply is a well rounded coherent, non artificially devided system to not devide up the playerbase. To give people possibilities to try things. Thats what makes up a sandbox after all. I dont play a sandbox mmo to be restricted.

Not being able to defend myself against a greater number of enemies because pvp flags inhibit jumping - is a reason for me to leave the game - i never seen such bad design. Its gamebreaking.

Let me see if I have this straight. Say within a KM(1000 meters) of a alpha terminal, even locking on to someone gets you killed by flying guards.  Say at 2km you have time to lock on and fire off a volley or two before the guards show up.  That means that we have the usual gank squads roaming around looking for victims among the miners and haulers, and those trying to run assignments.  Just so long as they stay out of the guards reach, they can have their jollies at the other players expense. 

Thats supposed to be an "improvement" over the current system??  Not to mention, how long will it be before the gankers start howling that the guard system is too limiting? We need more options! You need to keep the guards inside the One KM limit!(then half that...Then half that...). Long before this of course, most of the PvE types would have left to play another game, which means much less money for the Dev's... This is not a good direction for the game to take.

Lets try a thought experiment shall we? Suppose a group of PvE players starts in with the same thing. Its not fair that the best ores are on the betas! We need more options! We need more sand in the sand box! Expand the no kill zone to the beta ore areas!

That would go over with the PvP types, just about as well as some of the proposed "solutions" for the Alphas have with the PvE crowd.  But you know, I've not seen many, if any of the PvE crowd proposing such a "solution"... Once again, I question the motivation of those who want to inflict PvP on those who have no interest in it.

Go to forum: General discussion

140 Reply by Wraithbane

(117 replies, posted in General discussion)

Lheomuh wrote:

Dead game=server down...(how many people left the game already?) From my corp with was over 50 people, over 40 left already the game because the pve problem)
This days only 3 people are online from my corp...

Just what is this "PvE problem"?  The fact that people can go about their business un attacked on the Alpha's? That's only a "problem" for those who want to be able to attack miners and haulers, and everyone else who doesn't choose to go over to the Betas.

Go to forum: General discussion

141 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Redline wrote:

Well then the loss is too small when its that easy to do / even targeting at terminals (high density areas) could trigger the guards - you dont need no remote rep there.- or the internal balancing is faulty when you can kill somone in comparable gear with 1 shot.

If its more guys - then its a math task to make the loss for several guys hard enough so that ganking a weaker target doesnt sum up.

If it takes more then 1 shot - then players could even trigger the guards themselves like in MO.  and theyd insta kill the enemy.

You could also increase the armor - or decrease pvp damage according to the guard density. So - wheres the problem?

Red, it doesn't matter what the cost is, if its possible the gankers/griefers will do it.  Thats how those clowns get their jollies after all. They LOVE ruining other players game experience.  They will go to just about any lengths to do so. Its the nature of that type of person(which says interesting things about their psychology... But lets not go there... ^^).

What this ends up being is an endless time sink for the Dev's to deal with, in order to protect their profit margin. Why not just cut to the chase, and keep the Alpha situation as is?  As I mentioned before, I suspect the motivations of those who want to force PvP interaction on those who do not want it.

Go to forum: General discussion

142 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Savin wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:

Ah... Its not ganking to attack miners and haulers?... Thats certainly an "interesting" definition.  As for the other, of course it would be an arms race. Its happened in game after game that goes the guard route. The Dev's have to keep coming back to it to deal with an endless stream of "creative" antics on the part of the gankers and griefers. You said yourself its all about trying... Talk about the creation of a perverse incentive.  Far better to keep PvE and PvP separate, and save Dev time and retain the players that would other wise leave.

Wraith, you're right, of course, and game after game has demonstrated this. But you can't compete with a guy who gains five years of gaming 'expertise' in one night. Nor can you argue with someone who thinks that when you point out how wrong he is, you "own" yourself.

Besides, as I said before, what harm could possibly come from a little German guy wanting to impose his will on everyone?

But let's get back on topic:

Wraithbane, what ideas do you have about improving PvE for those who prefer it to PvP?

Other: I think you have some great ideas- let the PvE grind have more meaning by giving the grinders some exclusive resources or recipes. Then introduce an improved economic system that increases player interaction and competition, and let us go on to flesh it out.

Well, first off, as I mentioned in another thread, make the out posts mean something more than they currently do. Make them literally fortresses that need to be defended, expanded and maintained against the robotic clans attacks.  The expansion and up keep would involve the crafter/industrial types. The defense would require combat specialists.

They would have ascending classes(just like bots) with each class having more weapons emplacements, defense shields and other such installation mods.   Once out of the basic out post class, they would have teleporters to allow for reinforcement when they come under attack by the robotic clans(and also access by the crafter/industrial types).

Expanding and maintaining the fortress system would become literally a game within the game itself.

As far as the Alpha and Beta situation breaks down, the Alphas are the planetary strong hold necessary to allow the continued access to the planet. The Syndicate(confederation of giga corps that rule earth) has decreed that since the Alphas are the key to the planet itself, there is to be *no* conflict among its member corps there(in fact with the robotic clan attacks it would literally be suicide).  On the Betas how ever, competition is allowed, as long as it doesn't interfere with the Syndicates exploitation of the planet.

Given the on going shadow war between the member corps of the Syndicate(assassins, "regime change" and other such games) on home world, their main focus is on continued access to the resources that are necessary for their continued power. Thus anything and anyone who might interfere with that access is *not* to be tolerated(its just about the only thing that all of the giga corps agree upon).

The Syndicate Council(ruling body of the Syndicate) is the usual snake pit of sociopaths, whose only goal is personal and political power.  But that is balanced out by the reality of the situation on earth, and the need for continued access to the Alpha areas.  This could end up being something like a cross between the giga corps in Shadow Run, and the Houses in Mech Warrior.  Any way, thats enough of that for now. ^^

Go to forum: General discussion

143 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Dromsex wrote:

You still havent realized what i wrote there eh? Im not talking about ganking and there woudnt be an arms race. Read ffs ;D

For the good of the game - alpha should change accordingly.

Ah... Its not ganking to attack miners and haulers?... Thats certainly an "interesting" definition.  As for the other, of course it would be an arms race. Its happened in game after game that goes the guard route. The Dev's have to keep coming back to it to deal with an endless stream of "creative" antics on the part of the gankers and griefers. You said yourself its all about trying... Talk about the creation of a perverse incentive.  Far better to keep PvE and PvP separate, and save Dev time and retain the players that would other wise leave.

Go to forum: General discussion

144 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Dromsex wrote:

You imply that those proposals would only work for griefers - while i know that a lot of pve'ers would like that extra bit insecurity as an idea. Not everybody sure - but there would be enough room in high density areas where every attacker would be vapourized within a second. So it wouldnt take away anything from those.

The system wouldnt let griefers succeed more then once in a while and let them die aswell to 99% - you'd prolly die more often to mob then to those evil eyed bastards.

The changes in fact wouldnt change a lot at current alpha business at all - while they would change the feeling big time.

There wouldnt be much a pure pve'er needs to prepare for - just not being afk. The griefer would be the mob trying to follow you, where the mob would stop due to its set parameters.

Will he succeed? If certain conditions are met in that degrading density guard system - yes. Would he get away with it - hardly. Would he try? Yes.

As a sidenote - it would break up the artificially created pvp areas for desperatly trying to flee pvpers on beta. Artificially locked up rooms - are things to be improved. Its an element from shooters - not an element of sandbox mmos. Some would flee to alpha in hope to get away - and there would be a slight chance - but mostly they wouldnt.

So the only thing taken away from your point of view would be - that pure pve'ers or traders or whatever - have a chance of being killed when bein in one of the least guarded zones, afk in a minor bot being attacked by multi million mech - that would be blown to pieces if he cannot make his way to a beta teleport - while being increasingly attacked by guards he cannot hide from. Mostly - Youd be able to loot him after his fail attempt.

What you gain is: no instanced pvp areas - improving the overall immersion and feel, the idea of trying to have a go at some alpha guy - and for the not so PVE only part of the community - a more interesting pve experience.

Did i meantion the guards insta popping people when attacking players with a certain amount of standing? Would the attacker know? Even this fact would decrease the already small chance of someone firing more then  volley at someone by 75% - and make it a roulette for the griefer - if he'll be insta popped or popped sme minuted later - if he did everything right.

No. I disagree that many PvE types are secretly yearning for the chance to be ganked. Or that such would enhance, rather that make people annoyed. As I've stated before, this is a solution in search of a problem.  I certainly have no problem with Alpha staying just as it is. I suspect that many of the miners and other such would rather have it stay this way as well. But the fact is that neither of us speaks for anyone but ourselves.

The only real benefit here is to those who want to gank miners, haulers and others who have no interest in nor are they prepared to PvP. The proposal is rather related to the goonies infamous hulk fest in EVE. I question the motivations of those who wish to impliment such a system here.

The guards system has never been more than a band aid on a gaping wound.
Not only that, but its an open ended invitation for the Dev's to use their valuable time in an endless arms race with the gankers and griefers.  Personally, I'd MUCH rather they use their limited time to create a better game, rather than using it to deal with endless ganker/griefer antics.  Bottom line, for the good of the game, Alpha should remain just as it is(PvP wise).

Go to forum: General discussion

145 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Dromsex wrote:

Again false implications. Your good at that!


Care to be specific?

Go to forum: General discussion

146 Reply by Wraithbane

(117 replies, posted in General discussion)

You make some very good points. I very much enjoyed Tablua Rasa myself(50 sniper and spy). One of the most fun aspects was the base defense against the Bane. As each wave got larger, and higher levels showed up, the pressure mounted to keep them from breaking down the gate field.  I'd LOVE to see the out posts turn into fortress style bases, with weapon emplacements, defense shields and all of the other aspects of a good tactical game.

The creation, expansion and up keep of the fortresses would require crafters/industrialists. The defense would require combat specialists. Thus it would engage everyone who wanted to take part.

The back story might be that the various robotic clans have started to suspect that they have been invaded, and they are starting to move against the invaders(while their own fights among each other continue).  The corps would thus be forced to hold(or take back) the fortress out posts.

Go to forum: General discussion

147 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Dromsex wrote:

Not at all Anni - nobody is talking about the risk of facing pvp when being not prepared. In working implementations the risk is greatly reduced and the attacker has to invest a lot while he won't be successfull if he doesnt do everything right and the victim does everything wrong. Then still odds are against him since he flags himself. Now if the PVE Com starts to have a go at each other after helping out a fella - thats a whole different part.

Being afk would be 1 thing to do wrong - manouvering into a deadend also would be one thing - but both only when lurking around in a sector where protection isnt dense enough for you to survive also is (depends on yourself, the attacker and the priority at which the guards would interrupt).

Given the guard system comes from above and the response time of defending guards depends on the vicinity of major routes, terminals and OPs AND was tied to faction standing - you could even reduce those few possibilities to 0 and the attacker wouldnt know - and itd be russian roulette for him still if he did everything right and caught a supposedly "weaker guy" offguard in a deserted alpha site.

Guard intervention at most protected areas would be a mezz and nearly insta pop for even the heaviest attackers, while an attack at a "perfect" situation: afk, weak unprepared miner caught in a lower sec area with no faction standings, arkhe for instance - would result in a dead arkhe and a pvp flagged guy getting shot at and mezzed while trying to reach a port to Beta - the only way to go for him.

Increasing number of guards and increasing waves would shatter even biggest raids. This system isnt meant to make griefing viable.

MO does something similar, though less complex - when being attacked you just type: guards and the attacker is popped instantly. The techn ical implementation in MO is pretty bad - but its effective. Once in a while somone got attacked when doing everything wrong - but the attackers got away only if the victim was afk - or the bug ridden game killed the implementation.

Now this method and chances of a surviving such an incident would neet to be recreated by an autonom system - as shown above.

And still lots of pvpers would try it though their chances are nearly null - why? Because they even have fun loosing their stuff while trying something with a success ratio of 1-2% to get away flagged to Beta where they get *** by others again.

Its just about trying.

Its just about trying what? To ruin other players game experience to get ones jollies?  It all comes down to some people(a small fraction of the players base) wanting to ruin the play experience of those who have no interest in ganking and griefing.  Rather than content themselves with fighting those who have made a choice to PvP(by being in the Betas to start with), they instead want to be able to gank those who are neither interested or prepared for PvP.

I can just imagine the horrible fustration on the part of some people, knowing that there are a lot of other players going about their business in Alpha, and they can't be touched.  Oh the horror! The injustice of it all!...<grin> Bottom line, PvP should be a choice. If people do not wish to take part, there should still be a place for them in the game. The Alpha situation is just fine as it currently exists. If the Dev's are wise, they will leave well enough alone.

Go to forum: General discussion

148 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Dromsex wrote:

The problem simply is that its immersion breaking to have some artificial place to go pvp at.

And sure im going both ways. And i doubt the majority of pve players minds a system in which theres a slight possibility for someone else to attack you. I mean hell - even wow has this and it's the most carebare game out. So - who is right now? You assume something and i do. You allege me of speaking for my narrow minded point of view in a way you accuse me of ;D

Btw - i love pvp - when it breaks loose naturaly. I hardly remember any incident in the last 15 years where i went out to gank someone - in 95% i defended myself after being attacked. Why? Dunno - its more fun for me.

No, the WoW PvE realms do not have that at this point. You simply can NOT be ganked on one of the PvE realms, if you aren't flagged.  I've played the game for more than 6 years(four 85's an 82 and some 60's) on both the PvE and PvP realms. The difference is like night and day.   

Given the goonie mentality, its little surprise that so many people dislike forced PvP.  Games with that niche themselves in the western markets.  I'm hoping that the Devs here will not take the game down that path.

Go to forum: General discussion

149 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Dromsex wrote:

Just repeating it doesnt make it true Wraith. Guards worked in some games ive played and they made it hard to impossible to be successful in ganking someone in guarded areas.

Just say you dont want it - thats fair.

So if theres a problem for 1 kind of players but not for the other then its ok and fair? Strange logics.

Im neither pve or pve focussed - thats why id like to see a congestion - and it would be a win for both partys.

I actually would like to be ganked when pve'ing without the need to go to a special place to do that. It breaks immersion.

As I stated, the guards idea doesn't *prevent* ganking/griefing. Period. I've seen it tried in game after game over years now. The evolution of Concord in EVE, the guards in WoW PvP realms, the guards in Imperial Quest, on and on. It has limited success. It also takes Dev time away from other projects to deal with on going ganker exploits.

You want to be ganked??...<rolls eyes> Ok... If you say so. I would not, and I suspect neither would a lot of other PvE'ers.  Keeping Alpha the way that it is costs the Dev's nothing. Changing it to suit the PvP types could cost them a lot of their player base.  Can they really afford that at this point?

Go to forum: General discussion

150 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Dromsex wrote:

Sure, no question about PVE need be improved - whatever that may be.

And yes, if the guard system worked it would be a good solution. But it didnt, i assume or was too easy, prolly becasue of the landscape and means to exploit hideouts and LoS.

-flying guardians could have access to anything - and waste those guys attacking in alpha
-their concentration/response time or strength is biggest at terminals and outposts and slightly decreases in desolated areas
-balancing would need to assure that even large scale pvp raids would need to withdraw with each guardian wave increasing
-it also could be adjusting numbers of guardians increasing drastically by registering the number of pvp flagged players in that area

Theres lots of ways - overall there should be a chance for a prepared attacker to get away when he goes after a not so well prepared player at a place where the guards response time isnt the fastest. There would be safe no not so safe zones. Camping would be mitigated by increasing guardian waves.

I know a couple of games where guard systems worked properly. And no - it wouldnt keep gankers from griefing - sometimes it works for the attacker - more often it doesnt.

You are still proposing a solution for a problem that only exists in the minds of the PvP crowd. We CareBears are quite happy with the situation as it currently exists.  We gain nothing from a change, and in fact lose the ability to play in our own fashion. This "challenge" some speak of is not seen as such by many others, who end up the victims of roaming gangs of gankers.

The Dev's also end up in an arms race with the gankers/griefers, which is totally avoidable by simply keeping Alpha as it is.  The guards system has been tried in many, many games. At best, its been something that the gankers have to plan around. It hasn't prevented ganking/griefing.

Go to forum: General discussion