1

(133 replies, posted in Open discussion)

Also, does Perp have an equivalent to Eve "Low-sec"?  Seems like when i was here last it was all blobs on Beta and risk free grind on Alpha.  Has that changed?

2

(133 replies, posted in Open discussion)

I've got a question before i resub to Perp.

Are Alpha Island still 100% safe from pvp?

Does Perp still use the pvp flagging system?

meh,

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

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

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

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

Wraithbane wrote:
Heckle wrote:

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

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

wut...

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

Problem solved, no Incursions.

Heckle wrote:

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

/Other kicks himself for not saying this first

+1

Wraithbane wrote:

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

/sigh

One more time and I'm done with you.

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

You sound like a politician...

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

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

Wraithbane wrote:

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

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

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

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

Wraithbane wrote:

... All of this nonsense about "options, and risk, and challenge" is just code for wanting to be able to gank miners and haulers, and ruin other players experience.  I find it difficult in the extreme to believe that some of you aren't aware of this, and its implications...

and again.... how's that macro programming going for you?

Wraithbane wrote:

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

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

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

kthxbye

Greenleaf wrote:

Well something I enjoy the most is hunting an killing criminals. It by far keeps me playing a MMO longer then anything else.( 6 year in eve) ( 3 in Ultima) I like to kill or grief people that bully other players. I'm guilty I will admit it, and it feels good.. So I get real passionate about a rule set that prevents me from playing that way.

I would be vary surprised If I am a minority with this opinion,. its unreasonable to generalize players like me into a griefers category.. I probably only killed 40 innocent  people in 12 years of MMO gaming,.

But with all this talk of pvp on alpha,. It cant work with out a good crime N punishment system, or it will push out industry players, and pure pve players,. we should all feel at home in a sandbox world,. no matter what the play style is.

here is a great blog of someone I killed a few years back,. He was trying to grief a miner in my corp,. Its his blog to boot,. its a great read,. injoy

http://www.ironfleet.com/2008/12/24/chr … -canceled/

I think we would all love to see this dynamic in P.

I like it

It would be a simple matter of introducing stricter mechanics on the pvp side in Alpha to skew the battles toward the pve players.  Eve just leans toward the pvper side.  It all comes back to the Dev's ability to balance the game.  CCP (Eve) chooses to give the pvpers the upper hand, it's not that the players are so much smarter than the Devs that they can't keep up.

A little more chaos needs to be injected into the game so that a smart player will be able to exploit those gray areas between pve and pvp to build a unique career path.  That's my definition of a sandbox MMO... chaos.  Once a game becomes predictable to me then its worthless.

As it stands now everything feels scripted and stale.

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.

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.

Savin wrote:

...stuff...

As a result, there is a one-sided dependence: combat specialists do not depend on industrial characters, but industrialists must depend on combat specialists: industrial players are completely unnecessary to the game dynamic.

The other issue is that several people have said that the solution to the "problem" is to allow PvP on the alpha islands. This is simply incorrect, because a) the "problem" has nothing to do with the "risks" or "challenges" that industrial characters face, and b) it is a solution that forces combat on non-combat oriented players, which effectively puts them at an even greater disadvantage.

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

... Stuff...

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

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

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

Sounds more like World of Warcraft than a sandbox.

Greenleaf wrote:
Dont do a weed wrote:

Ultimately everything the PvE experience is pvp by choice because you are still competing in beating a player to a spawn, a resource, or a sale so granting pve players an immunity because they are not direct combat characters dosen't make a lot of sense to me since they have their way of beating some one and pvpers have their own way of beating someone.

It sucks getting blown up
It sucks finding a spawn fully camped
It sucks being undercut constantly

This is the kind of valid issues I try to express as well. When the game gets really busy ( with hope it dos) A pve combat corp can grief someones game experience just as easy as a pvp corp.

When Alpha gets packed, just think of the fast locking and how a corp, or 2 or 3 man team could keep a spawn for them selfs indefinitely. The potential to grief all noobs off a 1star mob is unreasonable,. Remote seonsor booster + fastlocking bot + sensor booster + skill, = my spawn? all day? possibly all weekend? cheers to safe zones,.

I need to take breaks , drink coffee,. smoke,. etc . But as we all know, there is a lot of players that would fastlock a spawn for 10 hours before eating a packet of sugar..


Sure ,. the devs could nerf the mob,. Nerf the taging of npc targets, etc, etc.. but how is that helping the pve department,? The bottom line is ,. if ya dont mix pve/pvp then the first an most obvious problem is the safe pve gets abused just the same.

+1.

Exploits and greifing aren't unique to pvp

I'm talking about pvp as in blowing other people's stuff up.   Even though i'm generally an industrialist i have no problem with it.  I think it's good for the game as i'm not going to sell much if nothing gets broken.

Dont do a weed wrote:

a straight forward answer would be dandy rather than implying something through a emoticon

Was assuming you were trolling as the majority of the population in games like this generally stick to the pve side or have played enough to understand that not everybody is nothing but pvp. I'll go ahead and assume that you're new to sandbox type MMOs.

That would be corporations that are all industrialists or combat pve.  They don't engage in pvp by choice.

A big problem in Eve for this type of corp is the amount of greifer corps that constantly keep them war decced so that the pve corps end up falling apart because the members have a choice of getting ganked immediately upon undocking or quitting the corp.

Fun for the greifer, game breaking for the pure pve people.

Game mechanics to force moderation would be reasonable for both sides.

Dont do a weed wrote:

what is the pve corp experience?

hmm

Other wrote:

Alpha Island corporate war declarations could be doable too if there were severe sanctions imposed on the aggressor if the war isn't declared mutual.

Things such as:

1.  EP accumulation is paused until the declaration is lifted for all members of the aggressing corp.
2.  Other corps may declare war on the aggressor free of charge.
3.  Progressively expensive bribery fees compounded daily (to have the "guards" turn their heads to secured area combat)
4.  No aggressive acts within 2000m of a station (but not outposts) without guard intervention.
5.  Economic sanctions.  Agressing corp pays higher fees on all transactions, including the market value of player to player trades during the war.
6.  Wars must be renewed daily.
7.  Two week cooldown period before bribery fees fall and two day cooldown on other corps being able to wardec the aggressors free of charge.

This would be a way of dislodging a competitor from an area in a competition for resources but, it would have to be worth the cost to do it.

It would also make greifer corporations extremely expensive to sustain.  Going back to Eve Highsec experiences, some PVE corps end up getting war decced for weeks on end making it so that some pure pve players can barely even undock unless they quit their corp.  That's game breaking for a lot of PVEers.

Some of my thougts on it from a different thread.  I think corp vs corp is a good idea as long as you can keep the greifers from breaking the pve corp experience.  Something to keep the "HERP DERP... CAREBEARS... HERP DERP" to a minimum.

Alpha Island corporate war declarations could be doable too if there were severe sanctions imposed on the aggressor if the war isn't declared mutual.

Things such as:

1.  EP accumulation is paused until the declaration is lifted for all members of the aggressing corp.
2.  Other corps may declare war on the aggressor free of charge.
3.  Progressively expensive bribery fees compounded daily (to have the "guards" turn their heads to secured area combat)
4.  No aggressive acts within 2000m of a station (but not outposts) without guard intervention.
5.  Economic sanctions.  Agressing corp pays higher fees on all transactions, including the market value of player to player trades during the war.
6.  Wars must be renewed daily.
7.  Two week cooldown period before bribery fees fall and two day cooldown on other corps being able to wardec the aggressors free of charge.

This would be a way of dislodging a competitor from an area in a competition for resources but, it would have to be worth the cost to do it.

It would also make greifer corporations extremely expensive to sustain.  Going back to Eve Highsec experiences, some PVE corps end up getting war decced for weeks on end making it so that some pure pve players can barely even undock unless they quit their corp.  That's game breaking for a lot of PVEers.

Wraithbane wrote:

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...

For better or worse those Goons have their place in creating demand in the type of complex market systems and player interactions that sandbox MMOs need to have to be viable.

The challenge is to build the mechanics so 14 year old Emo basement dwellers with single digit IQs don't completely dominate the gameplay of the more intelligent players for no other reason than they can.  In other words, it should require quite a bit more thought and challenge to wreck a miner's bot than it does in Eve.

Raising the difficulty of high security aggression on the part of the aggressor would require a reason to attack that 'carebear' due to complexities and challenge other than the "HERP DERP I BLOWED YUR MINUR UP HERP DERP!!1!!!!!1" that you get in Eve.

Voiding insurance policies for criminal acts on Alpha Islands would make a huge dent in that all by itself... that is as long as Perp could keep the macros and RMT at an extremely low level.  Creating and deleting an alt incuring a decent penalty, along with paid trials, will keep alpha striking noob mobs to a minimum (ex dessie mobs).  That combined with a criminal standing system that effects your ability to trade and travel in Alpha areas would make a large impact in the motivations of pointless ganks.

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.

Well, i'm glad that this thread opened up because now i realize that i'm a minority here for believing that pvp and pve should be integrated much more deeply and nobody should be completely safe at all times from other players.  Perpetuum should design their game based on what the majority of the community wants, not what i want.

I'll never see the point in designing a game platform with both pve and pvp if they are treated as separate games and are completely walled off from each other.

With that being said, have fun with Perp guys, I hope everything works out with it.  I realize that Perp won't be for me.  Back to Eve until something better comes along.

Doesn't really matter anyway, Perp is what it is and Eve is what it is.

Seeing as how I enjoy the industry side but I feel that it's pointless in Perp with no risk of loss and cuddly player interaction, I have a choice of either staying with Perp and only getting half of a game experience (as I see it), or return to Eve with it's half executed expansions and broken highsec corp warfare mechanics.

Right now I'm leaning toward the latter.

Savin wrote:

Yes, I've played EVE. I left because it was completely one dimensional, and I see that same thing happening here: players are rushing to the lowest common denominator style of play. Maybe that's the game's fault, bu I think it's really our -the players'- fault. Too many people decided it was EVE on wheels, and rushed to establish the same status quo...

...In short: real challenges and real risk will never come about from allowing players to gank people on alpha. Real challenges and real risk will only come about from introducing more depth in more non-combat areas.

I don't agree with much of anything you said, and I don't think we'll ever agree.  You also seem to think that everyone who believes that PvP in secured areas is good for the game only want it so we can go suicide gank somebody just trying to mine.  You seem to be projecting your bad experiences in other games on everybody else.  As I've repeatedly said, I rarely shoot at NPCs, much less Players.  I simply feel that it adds depth and meaning to the game.

PvP in high security areas doesn't just boil down to ganking miners.  A lot of it has to do with robbing transports, revenge, militia wars, etc.  But, if you're smart in Eve it's very easy to avoid getting killed in high security space. 

I'm not saying that this game should be Eve, I'm just using it as an example that allowing PvP in secured areas doesn't create a gankfest.  What I'm saying is that basically Perp at this point is two games with one chat channel.  There aren't any gray areas between the two.  And, as far as I know, Eve is the only sandbox MMO that has experienced any long term growth and success.  They must be doing something right.  I don't see anything wrong with taking what works, throwing out the rest and building a unique experience on top of it.

You talk about corporate diplomacy, what's the point without the possibly that the other side could harm you in some way? 

What are your thoughts on corporate theft?  What about scamming?  Those two don't involve destruction of equipment but the loss is just the same and, you don't get to pick the time and place of that loss.

When you start protecting the loss between players you diminish the depth and meaning of player interaction.