open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked remove non-consentual pvp
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Spurty
Caldari
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2009.03.07 06:58:00 - [1]
 

this is to keep the neutrality in check (and a troll of those upset about the existence of empire/people that don't want to undock into a blob and die over and over and over) oh and cause I can't play at the moment, I'm on baby duty!


To consent to pvp, you just enter 0.4 or lower systems.

What would be the effect on the markets?

What would be the effect on the subscriptions?

What would be the effect on alliance numbers?

Is any of this going to affect CCPs profit?

How different is this from what we have now?

No more Concord needed, still room to grief.

hahaha .. I don't seriously want this as I've not really thought about it much, but its not been discussed yet, so lets see if its a good/bad idea.

DISCUSS!!

Wet Ferret
Posted - 2009.03.07 07:08:00 - [2]
 

Originally by: Spurty

No more Concord needed, still room to grief.



If you couldn't shoot anyone in highsec, how would the presence of CONCORD (or lack of) affect griefing?

Ruze
Amarr
Next Stage Initiative
Posted - 2009.03.07 07:17:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Ruze on 07/03/2009 07:16:59

What would be the effect on the markets?
- Markets are driven by ship destructions. The more secure you allow players to be, the less of a tendency they show towards risking their ship, thus decreasing the number of high-end ship losses.

What would be the effect on the subscriptions?
- Very little change. Some players would leave at this gross change in policy, many others would adapt. A lot would feel betrayed, however, and it would create a lot more dissension. Right now we call call the fanatics idiots. After this happened, they'd be a little too legitimized.

What would be the effect on alliance numbers?
- A lot, actually. Alliances know that a constant stream of new players need to be coming in to replace those leaving. Give players more security, as has been proven over the last few years, and they will be less likely to risk it. The longer players stay in hisec, the less likely they are to move out.

Is any of this going to affect CCPs profit?
- It would effect CCP's reputation more than it's immediate checkbook. This type of hit to their reputation, however, could be cataclismic. Bad word-of-mouth drives away more consumers than any other form of game representation.

How different is this from what we have now?
- Now, the players who pretend this is a single-player game can be proven wrong. With this change, they would be correct. Why play EvE, when you could probably have more fun playing another sci-fi game that does PvE better and doesn't have all the bitter haters calling you names all the time for, in effect, ruining the game they loved?

Quote:
hahaha .. I don't seriously want this as I've not really thought about it much, but its not been discussed yet, so lets see if its a good/bad idea.



Believe it or not, it has been discussed. I have personally seen more 'I hate pirates' and 'get rid of ganking' posts in my time playing EvE-O forums, than I have 'get rid of carebears'. The pure quantity of players who absolutely hate playing a game where they have to be responsible and protect themselves from other players is extraordinary.

In fact, many players, myself included, believe it's exactly this mentality that has lead to the current status of stagnation in 0.0, and the big imbalance between losec effort versus hisec reward. Cries about level 4 missions being too hard. Cries about being 'forced' to group with other players in order to be successful. Cries about hisec players deserving to be able to fly capitals, do moon mining, all in the safety of CONCORD protection.

Personally, I feel that if you live in Empire (losec or hisec), you should be taxed. Empires don't show enough control, and should exercise it more. It should be a difference between living under the thumb of an NPC, or living under the thumb of a player who you might effect and change.

Instead, it's 'live free and rarely if ever be put in danger, or work your butt off for something you could more easily get in hisec'.

Spurty
Caldari
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2009.03.07 07:17:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Spurty on 07/03/2009 07:21:25
Interesting answers .. keep em coming ;0

I'm going to act as chair while I'm up (Neutral, no bias for either side, god only knows I need the practice).

So, ships will still carry on being destructed so rather moot point on that front.

Sandboxes are places some children go to play on their own in the real world. Eventually, they get bored and change their habits out of curiosity and free will, not by dictatorship.


Jaunis
legion industries ltd
Posted - 2009.03.07 07:17:00 - [5]
 

I predict the failure of this idea.

Spurty
Caldari
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2009.03.07 07:26:00 - [6]
 

Taxing people in empire idea is interesting.

How would that work? What exactly would those taxes do? i.e. what service is being provided?

The proposition is that non-consensual combat can't happen in empire, not that it wont. Is the theory about taxes to pay for whatever inhibitor is used to stop ships breaking this rule?

See, its actually got merit if you spin it like that, otherwise, its just plain silly.

Spurty
Caldari
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2009.03.07 07:30:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Jaunis
I predict the failure of this idea.


Of course, but the purpose of the thread is to discuss why all the QQ's about carebears is the joke of the year.

Without them, EVE will fold in on itself somewhat in a really bad depression sort of fashion, but if surprise butt secks pvp vanished, the effect would be <blank>.

You fill in the <blank> with your opinions and perhaps we can finally put an end to all this whining on the forums.

Ruze
Amarr
Next Stage Initiative
Posted - 2009.03.07 07:31:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Spurty
Edited by: Spurty on 07/03/2009 07:21:25
Interesting answers .. keep em coming ;0

I'm going to act as chair while I'm up (Neutral, no bias for either side, god only knows I need the practice).

So, ships will still carry on being destructed so rather moot point on that front.

Sandboxes are places some children go to play on their own in the real world. Eventually, they get bored and change their habits out of curiosity and free will, not by dictatorship.




Many, myself included, don't consider it forcing. No more than you are should be 'forced' to leave the beginner island in other games. It should be a simple evolution. Players who want to use their skills more effectively, players who want to get paid more for their deeds, players who want to get the good items and the decent content ... should WANT to leave hisec.

As it stands, why leave? You've got a bugged sovereignty system, you've got one moon in every hundred that's worth moon mining in (which in itself, moon mining is VERY hands off), and you can park your capital in a losec station and just clone out to it whenever you feel the need to roll big. Otherwise, there is no content, nor any reward, that you cannot obtain in hisec.

In this view, EvE is one game, one playstyle, that evolves and raises in level and difficulty and reward as you drift out to the ends. I understand that others, however, see it differently. They see EvE as two distinct games, copying other mainstream MMO's by setting a clear 'PvP-ONLY' zone. They are confused as to why CCP would allow unprovoked PvP in the non-PvP zone.

I, obviously, like the view of 'one EvE'. It's the way the game was when I started, and even though the balance is off, it's the way the game still is. We're all PvPers, we're all PvEers, and we're all citizens of the same galaxy.

If I wanted a game where PvE and PvP were separated, I'd probably play one of the many others on the market that do so (like SWG).


Ruze
Amarr
Next Stage Initiative
Posted - 2009.03.07 07:34:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Spurty
Taxing people in empire idea is interesting.

How would that work? What exactly would those taxes do? i.e. what service is being provided?

The proposition is that non-consensual combat can't happen in empire, not that it wont. Is the theory about taxes to pay for whatever inhibitor is used to stop ships breaking this rule?

See, its actually got merit if you spin it like that, otherwise, its just plain silly.


That's an old idea, actually. You're basically taxing Empire dwellers for the cost of CONCORD. It's nothing more than an equalizer, the easiest way to be unbias and not focus on JUST mission runners, or JUST traders, etc. You take production, mission rewards, everything.

This tax only cements in the players mind the concept that 'security isn't free'. In 0.0, you work hard with other players to be secure. It takes effort, and skill. In hisec, you let NPC's take the place of teamwork and effort.

I just personally believe that we shouldn't get that protection for free.

Franga
NQX Innovations
Posted - 2009.03.07 07:37:00 - [10]
 

My mum thaid I wasth cooel.

Spurty
Caldari
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2009.03.07 07:47:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Ruze

Many, myself included, don't consider it forcing.



And yet, it is, so we place that idea in the 'someone else says this is how you have to play in this sandbox' column over there in the dictatorship side.

Free will > Forced will.



Jaunis
legion industries ltd
Posted - 2009.03.07 07:53:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Jaunis on 07/03/2009 07:53:57
Originally by: Spurty
Originally by: Jaunis
I predict the failure of this idea.


Of course, but the purpose of the thread is to discuss why all the QQ's about carebears is the joke of the year.

Without them, EVE will fold in on itself somewhat in a really bad depression sort of fashion, but if surprise butt secks pvp vanished, the effect would be <blank>.

You fill in the <blank> with your opinions and perhaps we can finally put an end to all this whining on the forums.



Ok it seemed to me like you were wanting them to remove the "your not 100% safe anywhere" from the game..

As far as my opinion goes their should be more of an ISK sink in Empire. Taxes or whatever else CCP can come up with. This would keep the ISK farmers from getting "free" isk and lessen the ISK dilution.

Also as its been said before the risk vs reward system needs to be updated, too much can be made too easy in empire.

Lowsec is almost a failure because of Pirates (nothing against them their suffering from this too though) as people are so afraid of lowsec that they don't even bother trying to see if its worth it and at this moment it isn't. Pirates are feeling this in less targets even though the amount of Pies in lowsec is ever increasing. (its fun I don't blame them)

In the last CSM minutes they discussed the SOV issue in 0.0 so hopefully their will be a fix in this issue in the near future

CCPs problem is that their a company, they want to make money and thats what they do. They would rather add more to the game than fix the problems that it has already.

Ruze
Amarr
Next Stage Initiative
Posted - 2009.03.07 07:54:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Spurty
Originally by: Ruze

Many, myself included, don't consider it forcing.



And yet, it is, so we place that idea in the 'someone else says this is how you have to play in this sandbox' column over there in the dictatorship side.

Free will > Forced will.





It's no more 'forcing' than anyone is 'forcing' you to train up skills to fly a bigger ship or do more damage. No more forcing that requiring you to work for an agent for however long before you move up in mission level or get a better agent.

It's a game mechanic, a game mechanic which should still exist like it has before. A game mechanic which said: If you want more rewards, you have to work harder to get it.

You aren't forced to leave hisec. You're encouraged. Just as you aren't forced to ever get out of a frigate, or do level 2 missions.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.03.07 07:56:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Spurty
this is to keep the neutrality in check (and a troll of those upset about the existence of empire/people that don't want to undock into a blob and die over and over and over) oh and cause I can't play at the moment, I'm on baby duty!


To consent to pvp, you just enter 0.4 or lower systems.

What would be the effect on the markets?

What would be the effect on the subscriptions?

What would be the effect on alliance numbers?

Is any of this going to affect CCPs profit?

How different is this from what we have now?

No more Concord needed, still room to grief.

hahaha .. I don't seriously want this as I've not really thought about it much, but its not been discussed yet, so lets see if its a good/bad idea.

DISCUSS!!



Agreed. Make Hi-sec a safe starter area - with safe starter area profits.

Lastgaspachura
Posted - 2009.03.07 08:02:00 - [15]
 

I am just waiting for the day you scram someone and they get a pop up saying "<player> is attempting to warp scramble you, do you accept?"

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2009.03.07 08:23:00 - [16]
 

What? Remove trading?
That's about the only non-consentual PvP I can think of. You give your conset to all other kinds already by clicking the "Undock" button.

Spurty
Caldari
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2009.03.07 08:37:00 - [17]
 

Ruze, Free Will is why people log in and pay their subs.

Let people experiment in safety, when they get bored of it, they will leave it ... of their ... own free will.

When they do, they will be 'ready' for whats out there, stop rushing them.

I learned nothing about PVP having had my Ibis's shredded by battle cruisers in the first 2 weeks of play. That training came 10mill skill points later.

If there wasn't an empire to go safely train up in, CCP would have made 1months subscription from me and none from all the people I directed to come check the game out and stayed.

I live in 0.0 now by the way, I care nothing for what goes on in Empire. Nothing ever does. Jita never gets overrun by reds, security of systems never changes.

There is no profit for me there, I'm just curious about the lack of understanding of *need* for those that live there *at the moment*.

Kyra Felann
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.03.07 08:51:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Tippia
What? Remove trading?
That's about the only non-consentual PvP I can think of. You give your conset to all other kinds already by clicking the "Undock" button.


Trading is consensual also. You consent by opening the "market" window.Very Happy

Ruze
Amarr
Next Stage Initiative
Posted - 2009.03.07 08:55:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Kyra Felann
Originally by: Tippia
What? Remove trading?
That's about the only non-consentual PvP I can think of. You give your conset to all other kinds already by clicking the "Undock" button.


Trading is consensual also. You consent by opening the "market" window.Very Happy


So pretty much, the only non-consensual PvP is ... well, there isn't any, is there?

Maybe forum PvP. There's no warning message for that one.

Kaivos
Pyydys
Posted - 2009.03.07 08:57:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Spurty
this is to keep the neutrality in check (and a troll of those upset about the existence of empire/people that don't want to undock into a blob and die over and over and over) oh and cause I can't play at the moment, I'm on baby duty!


To consent to pvp, you just enter 0.4 or lower systems.

What would be the effect on the markets?

What would be the effect on the subscriptions?

What would be the effect on alliance numbers?

Is any of this going to affect CCPs profit?

How different is this from what we have now?

No more Concord needed, still room to grief.

hahaha .. I don't seriously want this as I've not really thought about it much, but its not been discussed yet, so lets see if its a good/bad idea.

DISCUSS!!



I dont see the problem with the current rules and system....

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2009.03.07 09:01:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Ruze
Maybe forum PvP. There's no warning message for that one.
Hmm… how do you forum-pod someone, and does it give killrights?

Ruze
Amarr
Next Stage Initiative
Posted - 2009.03.07 09:03:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Ruze
Maybe forum PvP. There's no warning message for that one.
Hmm… how do you forum-pod someone, and does it give killrights?


It's always a little surprising how many forum discussions bleed over into the game, hahahah ...

And it's not killrights, so much as confirmed kill counts. If you get a kill, and it's authored by 'neutral parties' (i.e. people not in your corp or sycophants), you get a confirmed.

5pinDizzy
Amarr
Pillow Fighters Inc
Posted - 2009.03.07 10:07:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 07/03/2009 10:52:10

Edit : Grammar.

I always find it amusing what people consider non consensual pvp.

Your OP is made of fail about empire wardecs because ;

1. Despite certain idiots who don't seem to realise and get the snot beat out of them anyway (deservedly if they can't figure out basic mechanics) you can surrender to a wardec straight away, free of charge.

2. If you're in a corp/alliance that decides to persist with a wardec and you don't like it because you decided you still wanted to play Industrialist and got caught. Tough, by choosing not to leave that corp/alliance for at least the duration of the wardec you are consenting.

Non consentual pvp is what fuels the economy, if noone ever lost what they COULDN'T afford to lose, it wouldn't matter whether you had a lot of isk or not as ingame items became worthless.

If empire became a non combat zone, what's to stop people building a 20 billion isk mission running battleship anyhow?

Right now they're put on the side of caution and tend to limit it to a budget of 3 billion or so.

Miners/Industrialists complain that people who blow everything up don't appreciate them because they build their ships and that's why they should be left alone.

What they don't appreciate is everyone who keeps blowing everything up means the Miners/Industrialists time spent on making new stuff stays worthwhile.

iiiiit's the ciiiiircle of liiiiiifeee!

AAND it Ruuuules uuuss allll!!!11...

Rawne Karrde
Bre-X Interstellar Shipyards
Ejectile Dysfunction
Posted - 2009.03.07 10:15:00 - [24]
 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, EvE does have consensual pvp and you agree to it when you login. nuff said.

Cadela Fria
Amarr
x13
Raiden.
Posted - 2009.03.07 10:16:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Cadela Fria on 07/03/2009 10:16:11
Originally by: Spurty


I'm going to act as chair while I'm up (Neutral, no bias for either side, god only knows I need the practice).




Please explain to me how you can act as chair/unbiased party when you're the one who proposed the idea of non-consensual combat in the first place?

Holy Lowlander
Lone Star Joint Venture
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2009.03.07 11:13:00 - [26]
 

its a mayor part of eve. People might not fully realise it but they do like it , its a certain risk wich keeps things interesting. We don't want WoW in space here.

kkthx.

Sheriff Jones
Amarr
Clinical Experiment
Posted - 2009.03.07 11:18:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Sheriff Jones on 07/03/2009 11:17:54
"To consent to pvp, you just enter 0.4 or lower systems."

This is how it is now.

If someone shoots you, they get the CONCORD end of stick.
If you shoot them for something they did, it's on as usual.

Only exception is suicide ganking.

The Tzar
FinFleet
Raiden.
Posted - 2009.03.07 11:35:00 - [28]
 

This is EVE, you consent to pvp by logging on.

I agree that people enjoying the instalock, instajam, instaneut, instapop services of concord should have to pay a hefty tax.

If people want consentual pvp, go play a different game!

There are plenty of other $hitty hold your hand mmo's why do people so want to turn this game into yet another generic warcraft copy. JUST GO PLAY WARCRAFT FFS!

Sheriff Jones
Amarr
Clinical Experiment
Posted - 2009.03.07 11:47:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: The Tzar
This is EVE, you consent to pvp by logging on.

I agree that people enjoying the instalock, instajam, instaneut, instapop services of concord should have to pay a hefty tax.

If people want consentual pvp, go play a different game!

There are plenty of other $hitty hold your hand mmo's why do people so want to turn this game into yet another generic warcraft copy. JUST GO PLAY WARCRAFT FFS!


This is EVE, not counterstrike in space.

Those people who want to kill anything they see, anywhere, anytime, should go play those games and not turn this game into another generic headshot simulator.

Get the point? Laughing

Discrodia
Gallente
Symbiosis International
Moose Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.07 12:35:00 - [30]
 

Okay, speaking as a carebear who has tried both the 0.0 alliance scene and FW, I can say without much doubt that highsec is working as intended. It's completely reasonable for me to a paranoid **** while running through highsec in a faction frigate with 150 mil of stuff in my cargo. You DON'T autopilot or w/e like that, unless you wanna die. It's the same way you don't leave an Aston Martin on the street in the Bronx.

If nothing else, I say highsec could do with some MORE PvP. All that there is is the occasional wardeccs, but if, say, at 4 times each day when CONCORD changed watch, for an hour any PvP could occur in highsec, no loss other than sec status for fighting. Just an idea.

To your questions:

What would be the effect on the markets?
The prices would collapse as Carebears would be free to do whatever without and harassment other than rats. Ships in particular would quickly collapse in price.

Subscriptions?
A large number of players who work the carebears would leave, along with a great number of veterans who'd be shocked and dismayed at this change.

Alliance Numbers?
Alliance numbers would probably recieve a big increase from the afforementioned griefer group who would put their skills to work ripping enemy indy opperations to shreds. 0.0 would descend into even more chaos as this happened.

CCP Profit:
To unexperienced and uninformed players, this would be a boon, and new player subscriptions would rise. To returning veterans and people looking for escape from WoW-esque player protection, this would not help.

Difference: It's more boring and stupider. QUIT YOUR WHINING FANATIC CAREBEARS, THIS IS HOW THE GAME'S MEANT TO BE PLAYED.


Pages: [1] 2 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only