open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked PVP Missions (Player VS Player)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Joey1
Priory Of The Lemon
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.26 11:51:00 - [1]
 

Hi GuysnGals,

Why not have PVP Missions (Thats Player VS Player Missions).

This would work by having playerA request a PVP Mission from a agent, this agent then waits for another randomly selected PlayerB request over say 60 mins. A system is then picked between both playerA and playerB.

Player A is the attacker he is given the information 15 mins after playerB with a location, building and/or objective.

PlayerB is given 15 mins to reach the system, prepare his ship and setup the battlefield.

Only PlayerA & PlayerB will be allowed into the complex. They must protect or destroy the building depending on what side they are on.

This would be pritty cool, methinks...

Flapkonijn
Diamonds and Guns
Posted - 2009.06.26 11:58:00 - [2]
 

Kind of like Capture the flag kind of thing.
Could be fun specially for smaller groups.
But should not be possible in high sec!
PVP is only for low sec and no sec. (Only exception is war decs)

Flap

Ausser
Bubba Gump ORE Corp.
Posted - 2009.06.26 12:02:00 - [3]
 

Welcome to battlegrounds/arenas. You have shown how to implement it. Rolling Eyes

Remove the plex restriction, make it scannable.

It should not have a gate at all to prevent smartbombing inside.

Give the location of the spot to meet to both players at the same time.

Anything else is up to the two guys to prepare for and to deal with. Eve is a hard world and lots of stuff can happen.

Reward? None. Just the kill mail and fun.

Maybe then it's acceptable.

the plague
Anthraxus Defense Laboratories
Posted - 2009.06.26 12:07:00 - [4]
 

Joey your a geek go away!

Joey1
Priory Of The Lemon
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.26 12:17:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Joey1 on 26/06/2009 12:18:30
@Ausser: I see it working with some empire missions for the less experienced to engage in some PVP action for rewards with the faction/militia. For the more experienced have a 0.0/Lowsec based PVP missions that involve higher risk of being jumped by people mid mission...

@Plague: :P shup, talk to me on msn.

On a side note, it could be good for corps to request missions so a group of 5 people from X corp can work to protect x building against a group of 10 smaller ship types invading...

Ausser
Bubba Gump ORE Corp.
Posted - 2009.06.26 12:35:00 - [6]
 

It does not work:

You try to restrict access to only the two players. Here it fails.

Ppl will, by nature, attempt to gank the other guy. Thus both will bring friends. Nothing wrong with that.

The one who first shows up at gate, has his gank squad there. Thus, the other one (if he is really that dumb to come solo) will get ganked. Or he brings friends too, then we have a nice traditional battle. Usually with cynos and lots of stuff jumping in.

After looting, the survivors will send their guy into the plex to 'capture the flag' and get rid of the the pvp mission to get the next one.

Le Verde
I.M.M
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2009.06.26 12:40:00 - [7]
 

as a foundation for new types of game play it sounds like a platform from which further expansion & player built/driven orientated game play environments could thrive....

something ccp should have a long hard look at
Cool

Ausser
Bubba Gump ORE Corp.
Posted - 2009.06.26 12:51:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Le Verde
as a foundation for new types of game play it sounds like a platform from which further expansion & player built/driven orientated game play environments could thrive....

something ccp should have a long hard look at
Cool


There is no need for 'new types of game play' in eve. Eve is good in it's own type of game play, the dark and evil one.

Once you mess it up with arenas/battlegrounds you cant fix it any more. Take a look on the other mmo games. Ive played DAoC, great pvp/rvr game. But the community was split by the battlegrounds (and later by allowing artifical 1vs1 and 8vs8 duels in the rvr zone which was originally intended for mass battles, zergvszerg).

There is no need to implement any and all features (which sound good on themselves when looked on it isolated) into eve.

There are games which focus on arena and duel stuff and they are good by themselves. But they are not eve and they dont try to become it.

But that's offtopic, there are other threads where this is discussed.

/btt

Joey1
Priory Of The Lemon
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.26 13:13:00 - [9]
 

@Ausser: The idea for empire pvp misisons is to bring a new style to mission running and prepare people for real pvp... At present people go and shoot boring targets that can be predicted and countered, being able to fight another player with objectives and in a free form 1v1 format.

This sort of mission should be limited to the smaller ships in eve T1 Cruiser/Frigs etc...

0.0 Will always be a risky place, the idea of pvp missions can be extended to 0.0 by many ways and to incorporate the "clusterfudge" that people enjoy in 0.0. People get a mission to protect X complex from attack, this then gets a beacon placed on the map allowing people to send waves of attacks to try and break them down and destroy the protected building/objective.

Rewards for killing the objective of protecting the objective for the time span should depend on the amount of risk endured. How could this be done?

I would like to see people move away from spending their life in empire hitting NPC's for virtual pixels and start to enjoy the idea and tactics involved in PVP, having a empire PVP mission system would allow for people to try out PVP and giving them the bug that so many of us enjoy :P YARRRR!!

Ausser
Bubba Gump ORE Corp.
Posted - 2009.06.26 13:58:00 - [10]
 

@Joey1:

I agree, there we have consens.

The problematic part is to address this issue without to mess the game up.

What we need is a way to encourage such kind of 1vs1 or SquadVsSuqad without to isolate it from the whole gameplay model. And this is a challenge that cannot be solved by just putting a 'you cant enter with mates' flag on some kind of odd pve gate.

Some contructive thoughts to contribute:

The player must reduce to 1vs1 by intention. He must think:

"Okay, i must go solo there and do the job by myown. I could bring friends, but then i would fail to achive my goal. I dont want to mess this up for my friends/ally/corp so let's rock."

Game mechanics will only be used indirectly. They direct and provide environment, but they dont enforce. If the guy wants to bring friends, he can do, but he will fail.

Furthermore, whatever it is, what the guy needs to do solo, it cannot be some kind of simple agent mission. It must be part of the whole large picture.

I dont have an perfectly worked out concept on this detail, but a good view where to start with. Parts of the basis are allready visible here in Photus IFF thread in this forum. Atm it just shows the direction, lots of stuff is undefined, parts you can read between lines and parts are not even visible there. It will need moths of work. Read it when you have some time, it's tl;dr stuff.

You will notice, there is also space created for ppl who dont like to undock (the player operators) ... but after a while they will get bloodthirsty, the battlefield will call them.

Sometimes problems need verry strange ways to become addressed.

Le Verde
I.M.M
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:40:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Ausser
There is no need for 'new types of game play' in eve. Eve is good in it's own type of game play, the dark and evil one.

Once you mess it up with arenas/battlegrounds you cant fix it any more.



ccp have delighted in adding new features to the game which initially have caused uproar and been dismissed off-hand, only to be embraced full-heartedly by the player base. This idea has vast posssibilites, look at the new 'WH space' and deadpsace fucntionality ccp have instigated over recent patches.

you could have deadspace that not only allows certain ship types but that also have a limit on players numbers or sp's/militia/'mods allowed to be used' within these certain deadspace arena's for example.

how it would be implemented is something for ccp to decide, as it is this idea does pose an interesting 'what if ?'

Cool
Verde



Ausser
Bubba Gump ORE Corp.
Posted - 2009.06.26 15:14:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Ausser on 26/06/2009 15:14:53
I have a rough demonstration idea how 1vs1 could look like in the Military Intel Network stuff.

You need to be familiar with the network stuff in the thread linked above.

It's just one idea, other ways are possible too. So please continue contributing ideas. The more ppl work in this direction the more likley something shows up that acutally could really work.

This one might not work at all, but it shows how to approach. I didnt balanced and analyzed it, it's a quickshot.

Network Hacking

Like described, there are ways to tunnel trafic of your network on another network, to extend area coverage.

I've not published hacking atm, but it works something like this:

You hack a hostile network and force it to carry the traffic of your network too, effectivley extending your network coverage without permission of the hostile operators.

Integrating 1vs1 Into Network Hacking

What we want is to have two guys engage in 1vs1. This could look like this:

HostileScout1 is atm hacking your corps/allies/factions/whatever network. This has been detected. You want to stop him, and maybe turn the attack against him. Your problem is: If you try to send a squad, he will notice (somehow) and escape.

So you send FriendlyScout1 to do the job. Because of some reason, this can be done without to alert HostileScout1 (and his operator).

Time elapses ... bot engage ... profit (for one of both).

Controlling 1vs1

We need some tools to encourage both guys show up solo.

The idea is to use encryption keys, which you need to access a) your own network and b) the hostile network.

HostileScout1 must have both of them on board (or nearby, whatever) to do his job. These can be captured when killing him. Thus there are two reasons to kill him:

  • Mess up his attempt to hack own network


  • Get your hands on that valuable hostile network encryption key

You can stop HostileScout1 from hacking if you shoo him by sending a squad, but then you dont get his key. So you send only FriendlyScout1.

Now the other side must be controlled, it's HostileScout1:

The model must have the characteristic so if HostileScout1 shows up with a squad, two things are likley to happen:

  • The attempt to hack the hostile network will fail or take forever


  • It is verry likley the whole operation will be discovered to a degree in a way he and his corp/ally/whatever will not like it.

    Practically, i would completly deny the ability to detect approaching squads in this case. Thus HostileSquad1 and his gang would be blind.

    FriendlyOperator1 would know there is a hostile squad involved, he would know about the fact they cannot detect any kind of counter before it hits them thus he would send enough forces to ensure the hostile squad gets anihilated in time and the hostile encryption key is captured.


Ausser
Bubba Gump ORE Corp.
Posted - 2009.06.26 15:29:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Le Verde
ccp have delighted in adding new features to the game which initially have caused uproar and been dismissed off-hand, only to be embraced full-heartedly by the player base. This idea has vast posssibilites, look at the new 'WH space' and deadpsace fucntionality ccp have instigated over recent patches.

you could have deadspace that not only allows certain ship types but that also have a limit on players numbers or sp's/militia/'mods allowed to be used' within these certain deadspace arena's for example.

how it would be implemented is something for ccp to decide, as it is this idea does pose an interesting 'what if ?'

Cool
Verde


Joe1's concerns and what he wants to address is valid. Joe1 now had an idea to address the issue. He bough up this thread to become feedback, and that's what i do. I show up where i can see problems and how these could be adressed - instead just to come with the standard 'go away, we dont want arenas, thats something for WOW or WAR'.

Because of the nature of the problem the feedback is not 'dont allow module x' or 'limit to ship x', since it would not fix anything.

Limiting mods/ships/numbers does not solve the problem in general, since it has nothing to do with mods/ships/numbers but with how it is embedded into the general gameplay.

I'm not sure what you want to tell me. To not to post feedback because ccp will do what they want either? I'm really clueless now.

Le Verde
I.M.M
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2009.06.26 20:12:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Ausser

I'm really clueless now.


i suggest removing safety labels from everything you own, will make it all the quicker !!

Laughing

Skulldara
Gallente
PRO Space Hunters
HUNTER'S BROTHERHOOD
Posted - 2009.06.26 22:22:00 - [15]
 

I think that could work... You go to an agent to request a solo or fleet battle. Here you can specify the terms, the maximum ship size/class and amount to be wagered. Winner takes all.

The agent would then evemail the other party saying someone has requested a duel/fleet battle. They check in with the agent. Both parties would get separate coordinates to their own deadspace acceleration gates that launch you onto opposite ends of the field, along with a key that activates the gate. The gates don't activate until both parties have used their keys so everyone arrives on the field at the same time.

Solo duels would only allow 1 ship per key, fleet battles would have a 10 sec timer on the gate after the key has been used so that the fleet can warp in. The key is used up once the gate is activated. (No returning) The gates will only let the correct size/class ship in.

As soon as the players enter the deadspace field, both parties are flagged for aggression with each other. Just like they stole something from each others cans.

Depending on the terms, you could have different types of goals. One type of match could be capture the flag:

Both sides have a structure they must defend 100 km behind them. Each structure contains the flag that must be acquired and turned into the agent to receive the wager. If a player warps out, they forfeit the bet and the other player can destroy their structure and claim the prize.

Another type of match could require some type of item that has to be recovered from the opponent's wreck. If the opponent flees, a container is spawned that contains the item. That item is then turned into the agent for the wager.

Winner also gets to stay on the field until aggression timer ends... If the loser has warped off he can try to make it back to station, but still has aggression timer and can be targeted for being a coward... ;-)


Riessa Mc'Neil
Posted - 2009.06.26 22:43:00 - [16]
 

Umm is it me or has no one in this thread ever heard of factional warfare?

This was allready implimented in the form of factional warfare mission you get special missions where you get to duke it out with other capsulars in high sec. The bring friends you bring friends had a huge press release too with many people leaving there current corp or entire corps joining the various militias.

In fact you can gain status with the militias by doing these missions nice shinny metals to put on yer shirt.

Ausser
Bubba Gump ORE Corp.
Posted - 2009.06.26 22:52:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Skulldara
The agent would then evemail the other party saying someone has requested a duel/fleet battle. They check in with the agent. Both parties would get separate coordinates to their own deadspace acceleration gates that launch you onto opposite ends of the field, along with a key that activates the gate. The gates don't activate until both parties have used their keys so everyone arrives on the field at the same time.


Clean and nice approach.

Since a deadspace is a verry small area, i would launch probes, wait till the other guy shows up and gank him at his gate. I know he cant enter.

You need a three pocket deadspace to address this issue. The first one after each gate is where you or your fleet will wait. The following one is the battle area.

However, something like this will never be implemented since it's easy exploitable. Ppl will abuse such arenas as safe spots.

You need another model.

Ausser
Bubba Gump ORE Corp.
Posted - 2009.06.26 22:54:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Riessa Mc'Neil
Umm is it me or has no one in this thread ever heard of factional warfare?

This was allready implimented in the form of factional warfare mission you get special missions where you get to duke it out with other capsulars in high sec. The bring friends you bring friends had a huge press release too with many people leaving there current corp or entire corps joining the various militias.

In fact you can gain status with the militias by doing these missions nice shinny metals to put on yer shirt.


They want have it in low sec for everybody. Dont ask me why.

Skulldara
Gallente
PRO Space Hunters
HUNTER'S BROTHERHOOD
Posted - 2009.06.29 21:06:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Riessa Mc'Neil
Umm is it me or has no one in this thread ever heard of factional warfare?

This was allready implimented in the form of factional warfare mission you get special missions where you get to duke it out with other capsulars in high sec. The bring friends you bring friends had a huge press release too with many people leaving there current corp or entire corps joining the various militias.

In fact you can gain status with the militias by doing these missions nice shinny metals to put on yer shirt.


Well, I would imagine the OP is talking about a one-off PVP fight in high sec. One that doesn't involve leaving your corp and completely changing your playing style. Its like the whole almond joy/mounds thing. Sometimes you feel like a nut, and want a little Pew pew action, sometimes you don't.

Skulldara
Gallente
PRO Space Hunters
HUNTER'S BROTHERHOOD
Posted - 2009.06.29 21:10:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Ausser

Clean and nice approach.



Thank you!

Originally by: Ausser

Since a deadspace is a verry small area, i would launch probes, wait till the other guy shows up and gank him at his gate. I know he cant enter.

You need a three pocket deadspace to address this issue. The first one after each gate is where you or your fleet will wait. The following one is the battle area.

However, something like this will never be implemented since it's easy exploitable. Ppl will abuse such arenas as safe spots.

You need another model.


Well, I was imagining this as a high sec type arena, otherwise you wouldn't really need aggression timers. In high sec you wouldn't be able to gank them outside the arena without getting concorded.

ViRUS Pottage
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.29 21:12:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Flapkonijn
Kind of like Capture the flag kind of thing.
Could be fun specially for smaller groups.
But should not be possible in high sec!
PVP is only for low sec and no sec. (Only exception is war decs)

Flap


No.

PVP is not only for lowsec and 0.0.

Flapkonijn
Diamonds and Guns
Posted - 2009.07.06 11:56:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Flapkonijn on 06/07/2009 11:57:11
Originally by: ViRUS Pottage
Originally by: Flapkonijn
Kind of like Capture the flag kind of thing.
Could be fun specially for smaller groups.
But should not be possible in high sec!
PVP is only for low sec and no sec. (Only exception is war decs)

Flap


No.

PVP is not only for lowsec and 0.0.


I meant that this idea should only be low sec or null sec.
Sorry i wan't more precise.
Reason being is if you introduce these arena's in high sec more pvp will be done in high sec and low/0.0 sec would become more and more empty

(Except for the huge alliances that make 1bil/minute with their uber moons and 50+ titans gaurding it.)


 

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