Background
This proposal is intended to look at possible options to balance PvP in the classic PvP vs Carebear argument. As a background, I have spent many many years playing MMOs and tend towards sandbox type games. I am not a carebear, but I am also not a hardcore combat PvP'er, I like to enjoy the fruits of both pursuits but am aware that in playing the game, catering to all types is difficult.
Problem Statement
PvP is a very exciting and thrilling experience, even for Carebears. However, PvP which is unbalanced leads to a stale state where there may be too few targets to keep the hardcore entertained and too little destruction of assets to fuel a stable economy. The challenge therefore is to provide incentives for the majority of players to participate in PvP activities (i.e. not just fighting) for the betterment of the game.
Assumptions
1) This proposal works with a majority populous case, i.e players who only play 2 hours per week or players with 5 accounts are considered edge cases.
2) A generalisation of player type is made to simplify discussion, four types of players are considered:
Type tP :- Players who prefer to fight over other activities
Type tN :- Non-committed, casual players, willing to cater to PvP or Non-PvP activities but not generally committed to serious consistent play
Type tC :- Carebears, dedicated to industry/missions/non-PvP but invest a lot of time into the game
Type tE :- Engaged players, players who invest significant time in the game and are active in both PvP and non-PvP activities.
3) As a sandbox game, ownership of assets and status within the game is key to differentiation and therefore acts as a motivator to all players types apart from [tN].
4) I categorise PvP as all activities which can be used to assist or disrupt other players, I do not limit it purely to combat, it can also involve politics, industry and standings.
5) There will always be alts, and there will always be alt accounts. Their effect can be negated sightly and it should be more beneficial to have all chars in one corps than spur off others.
6) Comparisons with other games (EVE etc) will be required but should not be taken as either support or derision of game mechanics used as evidence. All games have their particular way of dealing with issues and this proposal is intended only to address specifics in PO.
Introduction
Throughout my time in gaming (a long time) the constant tug of risk and excitement has always drawn myself, and many others, to games where risk and the rewards are a major part of the game. The one thing that has always bugged me is that in emulating reality within the game world, the entirety of the experience cannot be crafted and therefore certain aspects are 'moulded' to fit the constrints inherent in an emulation.
This therefore causes tension when the assets or time that people invest heavily in an experience are affected in a manner which is seen as unfair... To give a brief example, [tC] type players in a sandbox want to build and create, [tP] players want to destroy (a weeping stereotype I know!). Now in fulfilling the desires of [tP] the [tC] players are put at an increased risk of loss, not only their direct assets but those collective ones, POS for example. In order to fulfil [tP] they need only their direct assets and nothing else. This places the balance squarely on the [tP] side of the fence, and in my mind, places less onus on [tC] to do anything which would assist in fulfilling [tP].
A simplistic example I know but it fits what we see in sandbox games. [tP] players are in a position where they have less to lose materially than any other group in the most simplistic sense. In EVE, the main issue was alts to my mind, consistently, there were groups of [tP] players with nothing material in the corporation to lose (due to all funding and materiel coming from alt sources) which meant the only way for non [tP] players to retaliate was in the pure fighting sense. A heavy industrial [tC] or [tE] was not able to leverage their inherent strengths (industry, capital, standings) to participate in PvP activities.
This further imbalances the PvP state, those who specialise in other areas cannot compete evenly on a purely combat field, that much is fact, the issue is that their strengths (and therefore their enemies potential weakness) cannot be exploited, putting them at a disadvantage which removes many incentives from non[tP] players to engage in the PvP landscape.
So where does this leave us? I myself sit in the [tE] camp, I love to fight, but I don't want to do it 100% of the time, I want to build something, I want to build reputation and standing within the community be that overall or only within the community in which I play (corporation/alliance). I need both the [tP] players so I can have my PvP and I need [tC] so I can satisfy my industrial, creation side. They in turn need need me and each other to keep the game from becoming stale.
In order to incentivise each of these camps, we need to ensure that strengths and weakness can balance each other out making sure that each camp has an ability to directly influence and affect the others. In simplistic terms, we want to maintain stability in across the areas such that if one camp becomess too powerful, the other two have the ability to correct that balance, this is a hard problem to solve!!
The Problem with Combat
I think PO has gotten one thing really right. The fact that EP is account based is fantastic in my mind as it places some level of control on alts. I hate alts, but they are also a necessary evil. They are used for scouting, they are used for hauling or market watching, but they can also imbalance the game.
The PO method goes some way to alleviating the effect that alts can have.
The main issue for me is that combat chars can be self reliant (stick with me on this), they get loot from any PvE and they get drops from Combat which can fuel their gamestyle. Good PvP'ers are less reliant on the factions as they lose less, this is exactly as it should be. The issue however is that they do not suffer from any weakness in this pursuit. They have the same access to markets as any other player, they can access the same industrial skill sets (albeit at a lower level, but access none the less) and will control access to important areas of land. This cannot be said per se of the other types of players with them being FORCED to play wholly within the realms of the [tP] playstyle.
This is where our imbalance comes from, it doesn't take any skill to mine. Any combat char can mine or create an alt to mine and the only differentiator is the time required to mine a given amount. Yes, a skilled industrial char can mine 1m Titan ore in x time and it takes a combat char 10x, but the end result is the same. This cannot be said of combat, a combat char invests EP to use bigger mechs and bigger guns so they can fight longer, harder and for better profit in PvE, this cannot be achieved by the same overall EP player of the [tC] variety when looking purely at combat, time isnt the factor.
So on to some ways of dealing with this. I will detail some concepts which try to address the problem statement both on a game wide basis, but also at the Alliance, Corporation and solo levels.
PvP must have a balanced wheel of strengths and weaknesses
This isn't a new concept, its the basis for every game out there. Anyone played Magic: The Gathering? The five colors of magic? Same principle, where a particular color was strong in some areas, it had natural weaknesses in others. SO how do we balance those [tP] corporations such that the other two areas can influence and impact their ability to operate?
Corporation size linked to Infrastructure as well as skill
EVE bugged me, you could have a 100 man corporation and no weak point. You didnt have to have anything to defend, you could literally log in, go Pew Pew and log off with no sense that your existence (either individually or as a corporate entity) was in jeopardy. In order to deal with this I propose that corporation attributes should be linked to in game assets and infrastructure.
Proposal - All corporations would be required to own and hold POS to facilitate certain functions dependant on how that corporation wishes to operate.
The POS will grant certain bonuses and will be required to perform certain actions in the game world.
The below are some examples, it is not intended to be extensive, nor final but an illustration of how functions could be implemented.
1) Headquarters - required by all corporations wanting to go above a certain size (e.g. 50). The HQ is the 'home' of the corporation and contains the required upgrade slots to build other functionality.
These can be built in either of two states:-
a - Syndicate space, safer than non-Syndicate but is has fewer upgrade slots, lower defense capability and has to pay a significant % rent to Syndicate for the privilege, module slot increases cost big bucks
b - Non-Syndicate space, more dangerous, many upgrade slots, higher levels of tech, higher defense, no payment, module slot increases are more reasonable.
This requirement caters for both styles, HQ will always be attackable, but those in the safer zones are not as capable, harder to hit but provide less of a bonus to the corporation. This caters for the [tC] players whilst still having the incentive to PvP and go in to non-Syndicate areas. HQ will require certain commodities (some available only in non-syndicate space) to continue operation.
2) Ouptosts - MiniHQs in effect, used to run operations or to secure land away from main HQ. Can do all the same things as HQ except fit habitats and are completely destroyable.
Note on Modules below : All modules also grant access to technology levels which are not available normally. This is a give or take feature depending on how tech is handled going forward. Having certain modules will allow the use of particular mechs or equip which cannot be accessed without the relevant module. For example, a refining module may grant access to a specialised Miner Mech and Miner modules which would not be available to corps without that module. Think of a 'Termis Alpha' with an extra industrial slot, bigger cargo etc.....
3) Logistics Modules - for example, fitting bays, repair bays, storage, transportation. These types of modules will be quite common but will offer bonuses such as increased cargo space, better repair bonus, lowered cost of fitting etc to members of the corporation. They act as corp wide buffs. These are chosen based on play style again, a [tP] corps may choose more offensive modules, a [tE] or [tC] corps would choose those which cater to their strengths for hauling etc.
4) Industrial Modules - for example refinery, factory, research bay. These would grant corps wide bonuses in the relevant areas but with an important difference. Installing these would reduce the effectiveness of NPC facilities. In a storyline sense think of it like this, currently you refine at ICS Alpha and the corps takes a cut, now you stick two fingers at them and say you are doing your own, so they increase their cut if you ever have to use their facilities. This is a good thing in two ways...
One, when you get into PvP you get in to PvP, no running operations in safety in the background and two it provides a strength point for the [tC] crowd. [tC] will generally have many more skills in industry than a [tP] player, this means that even if their corps has a refinery, the impact of the NPC price hike is much less than the effect on [tP] players who do the same. Therefore, [tP] who go down industry module routes, suffer a penalty both in terms of effectiveness of refining but they would also limit their combat modules.
5) Combat Modules - these will grant bonuses to combat such as firing speed, accumulator use etc. The negatives here would be that installation of certain types of Combat module would preclude the installation of a comparative other module.... I harken to Starcraft II in terms of picking your research upgrades. At each level you had to make a choice, one or the other, the same would apply here.
You want more Pew Pew? Then you can't have big Haul Haul.... etc 
6) Habitats - These determine the number of members of the corporation and would have differing negative effects on the corproation if destroyed.
Important notes on POS
1) Main HQ can never be destroyed only damaged to be less efficient, i.e. turning off buffs or abilities.
2) Modules on main HQ cannot be destroyed only put inoperable
3) Outposts are destroyable as are the modules attached
4) Both MiniHQ and HQ will have defense capabilities dependant upon size and the amount of cash spent, all defenses structures are destroyable. They also get weaker the further away from the centre they are, upgrades to slots and habitats will push the size out where they have less auto defense.
5) Modules of the same type stack in the same way as bonuses stack now. i.e. 3 firing speed modules which give 5% does not mean 15% total increase.
So there it is, PvP has a meaning for everyone. [tC] players can have some relative safety but have a reason to fight. For example, should a 50 mech group come a knocking, the combination of 30 [tC] mech and base defense is worth fighting with. Better to lose 30m in mechs and have the base survive with damage rather than logging off and losing 200m of base modules and being crippled.
It also means that PvP corps have a weak point and some negatives. They can't be totally self sufficient in corps, they NEED [tC] and [tE] corps (or sufficient players) to support their activities. They also now have targets but they can't get too cocky, over-committing now has a penalty, stray too far and you are liable to a costly counter attack.
Skills need to have comparative trees
This is mainly a gripe with [tC] skill trees. As I evidenced above, everyone can mine everything, some just do it better than others. The same cannot be said of combat, not everyone can shoot everything.
The simple fix I see here is that [tC] activities need to be tiered like combat ones are, not just in the ability to do something well but the ability to do something at all. Top tier ores should not just be limited by location but also by skill. My proposal is that mining and harvesting should be tiered in that you cannot mine the higher ores without having accumulated the relevant skills below. It makes being the [tC] camp have meaning. You can do something the [tP] camp cannot, just like they can shoot big Pew Pew and you cannot.
As an example, EVE suffered big time on this. Everyone could use T2 miners with little skill investment. That meant, when we got the chance in corps, everyone could mine Zydrine. EVERYONE. Just because someone had all the best skills in mining only gave them a time advantage, they could do it quicker. I saw people who lost everthing PvP'ing just take a week off to mine, they had no reliance on the [tC] or [tE] crowd, it just took longer.
I propose that high tier mining and harvesting should require similar investments in EP as getting big Pew Pew. If it takes a combat char 20 days EP to just use Large Lasers, then it should take a comparative amount of time to be able to mine Epriton. This then adds a need for the camps to come together. Not much point losing mechs to secure a good Epriton field if I can't mine it.
[tC] corps can negotiate access based on ability to mine and manufacture for the [tP] corps and it is a NECESSARY relationship. EVE again suffered that the PvP corps didnt NEED to have [tC] or [tE] corps, it was a nicety to have as a cash flow but once it got boring or too much hassle, the non [tP] corps can be easily ejected.
The same can be said for manufacturing, research, logistics. Everyone can do the base amount but there are some things you will never do without specialising, exactly the same as it is with Combat.
Standings need real meaning
Another area with great growth potential and also a way to empower [tC] and [tE] corps. The market is generally a good leveller, but it suffers from the fact that in making trade easier, it removes a strength that non[tP] corps have, the ability to control supply.
The reason [tP] corps need [tE] and [tC] is to supply them with materiel for their wars, and lets face it, war is profitable. However, a completely open market means the [tP] folk don't have to worry about supply. If [tC] corps A is being attacked and steps up manufacturing to support their war effort, they could be selling to their enemy!!! Not generally a great stratgy in my humble opinion!!
The mechanic I propose can be done two ways, one is easy but circumventable the second is way more complicated but emulates a form a reality which is more palatable.
The Easy Way
Standings for a corporation would be applied at purchase. This would allow certain controls to be applied such as, 'if lower than -5 do not sell, if -5 to 0 add 20%, if 0 to 3 add 0, if 3 to 5 minus 10%, if 5+ minus 20%'. Now the non-buy bit is easily circumvented with alts but the advantages of standings but having the standings affect price also then encourages people to stay in corporations to gain advantage.
The Hard Way
The concept is that all manufactured equipment and mechs would be stamped at the time of manufacture with the standings list for the creating corporation. This would in effect lock the mech such that -ve standings corps could not use the mech or equipment. This would be much harder to implement but also opens up an alternative for skills like hacking or advanced industry which could allow the 'unlocking' for cost and necessary skills and/or HQ modules.
This provides a way for the [tC] and [tE] crowd to have an effect on corps/alliances which has meaning. If a particular [tP] alliance gets too strong, [tC] and [tE] corps can restrict their ability to buy materiel. This means one of two things, either the Alliance has a strong [tC]/[tE] component and can sustain itself (but this means exposing industrial players to attack!!) or they eventually weaken through attrition and scale back to a size which is sustainable.
This mechanic is missing, non[tP] corps do not have this influence right now. They cannot control their supply to have a meaningfull effect. The same can be said of raw materials like Titanium. [tC] corps will eventually be the main source here, they will have the skills and equipment specialised to rip this stuff out of the ground in the required quantities at which point to do any form of construction etc, other corps will want to buy from them at low prices. Being able to limit this purchasing may mean that a heavy Titanium producing corps could restrict the flow of minerals to a corporation known to support their enemy.
So what about the casual players?
There's a great untapped resource in all these discussions. For the [tE] and [tC] crowd they are the staple that buys materials and provides a level of supply. For the [tP] players, they are a great untapped pool of red dots!!
In the proposals above, [tN] players can still participate by working as free agents, they could run Player created missions, align with corporations/alliances without necessarily being always part of them or act as mercenaries, paid to assist [tE] and [tC] corps in defense or attack.
The proposals can still encourage more PvP from the casual player without necessarily tying them down.
Conclusions
I love PvP, but I want it to be more than just Pew Pew. If I can build something, and I can defend it, then it stands as an achievement and it gives me a reason to go boldly into the fray and potentially lose my mech, but at least I do it for a reason. the [tC] crowd don't want to lose things unnecessarily, getting ganked is no fun, I'm sorry but it isn't. When there isn't an ability to retaliate, that's when PvP'ers are actually doing harm to the game rather than helping.
I remeber a time in EVE when tanking the sentries was in. It seemed daft to me, someone got to the point where they could tank the guns and still kill people in supposed 'safe space'. This isn't fun, when was the last time you saw a bank robber use this tactic? Never, if the police don't get you the first time, they find a way. The issue was that the industrialists had no retaliation, they couldn't sneak attack a weak point for these guys as it didnt exist. So they couldn't bring their minimal combat strength to any sort of use. Guerilla Warfare is a valid tactic but in many games it still takes constant combat to be effective.
I took a bunch of miners in EVE and made a useful combat unit, we couldn't stand toe to toe with hardcore PvP'ers but we could do something, unfortunately that small something had little to no effect on self-sufficient [tP] corps. With some of the proposals above I could, I wait until they go blobbing somewhere and there is a target I can attack, I might not destroy their whole HQ, but maybe I can attack a single module, knock out a habitat to hurt them. Then [tC] and [tE] players will WANT to PvP, not just that the PvP crowd feel hard done by as there are no more targets.
I have quite enjoyed putting this together, and I hope it spurs on discussion. I'll be wrong about some things, people will hate certain parts but my intention in all this is to try and balance it out such that everyone can PvP, there are plenty of targets and that everyone has a desire to duke it out.
Have a merry christmas and a Happy New Year!!
