open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked No more PVP on High-Sec
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Yulinki Atavuli
Minmatar
Caldari Investment and Security Industries
Innovia Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:55:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Malken
ccp needs to fix the wardec system so you arent immune to wardecs.
if you cant figure out how to do it then theres always the npc corps for you


i'll tell everyone because i hate the random corps that war-dec for no reason.

basically, you have an alt in a one man corp outside your corp that keeps war-decing your active corp. so there is always a war-dec open.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Posted - 2011.08.02 20:09:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Yulinki Atavuli
Originally by: Malken
ccp needs to fix the wardec system so you arent immune to wardecs.
if you cant figure out how to do it then theres always the npc corps for you


i'll tell everyone because i hate the random corps that war-dec for no reason.

basically, you have an alt in a one man corp outside your corp that keeps war-decing your active corp. so there is always a war-dec open.


FYI... this is considered an exploit of the war-dec system.

HELLBOUNDMAN
Posted - 2011.08.03 02:36:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: ShahFluffers
Originally by: Yulinki Atavuli
Originally by: Malken
ccp needs to fix the wardec system so you arent immune to wardecs.
if you cant figure out how to do it then theres always the npc corps for you


i'll tell everyone because i hate the random corps that war-dec for no reason.

basically, you have an alt in a one man corp outside your corp that keeps war-decing your active corp. so there is always a war-dec open.


FYI... this is considered an exploit of the war-dec system.


In this case I submit war dec's on indy/mission corps because they're easy prey and easy padding of kills mails is an exploit of war-dec system, weaknesses of pve vs pvp vessels, and the killmail system.

War-dec system because you're war deccing them just because you know you can beat them, but yet unwilling to get involved in real wars where you actually are risking something.

It's an exploit to the weakness of pve ships vs. pvp ships because everyone knows a pve ship stands no chance in winning because they're typically tanked specifically for missions and doing mission specific damage.
A good griefer can come in on your mission and be able to tell generally what damage you're tanking and doing just by looking at the npcs.

It's an exploit to the killmail system because those players are padding their killmails with kills that are quite easily attained by the second exploit of using the fact that they're pvp against them.

Nezumiiro Noneko
Posted - 2011.08.03 03:02:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: ShahFluffers
FYI... this is considered an exploit of the war-dec system.


so is using the war dec system to grief a player by following him around when they cleary don't want the dec after several corp hops. Still happens even if you complain. CCP would have to do something about that exploit to have a basis to stop this one. mainly because griefing war decs are why its used lol.

Why I always say...want to blow up people that bad, they keep on avoiding decs however, shoot the ship, leave the pod. Sec status after a few lv 4's....concord all happy and loves you again. want to pod....well your lv 4 grind be a bit more. many successful empire gankers have impressive kb's and don't live in permanent exile in lol sec....thier secret is space out the killing and get damn good at mission spamming to fix sec status fast.

Substantia Nigra
Posted - 2011.08.03 03:23:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: SGT FUNYOUN
Because PVP IS THE POINT OF EVE.
Every activity you do in EVE;...


Entirely and completely untrue!

This is a meme perpetuated by the short-attention-span collective to justify their own existance. The purpose of all eve gameplay is to support us industrialists. The only point of PvP is to wreck ships and other equipment so ppl have to buy new ones from us ... at hopefully highly inflated prices.

Nezumiiro Noneko
Posted - 2011.08.03 03:50:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Substantia Nigra
Originally by: SGT FUNYOUN
Because PVP IS THE POINT OF EVE.
Every activity you do in EVE;...


Entirely and completely untrue!

This is a meme perpetuated by the short-attention-span collective to justify their own existance. The purpose of all eve gameplay is to support us industrialists. The only point of PvP is to wreck ships and other equipment so ppl have to buy new ones from us ... at hopefully highly inflated prices.





sssshhh...don't let the pvp or death people in on the secret. Way too many pvp'ers already know the ways of the indy alt to fund the pvp char, we don't need more competition lol.

PVP funny like that...many see their side lose hard and go we suck or I am broke. Me I go...oooh, corp/alliance jf be hitting jita soon for restock, guess I'll alt tab to see what I can put on market to catch some of them their sales they will generate lol. Why I wish I had a carrier...cut out the middleman. Past few places I have been, man...would still make out with deeper discounts than what I have seen from 0.0 market price lol. GUess I jsut have a different idea of what corp/alliance discount means. guess to some it means well you'll need less ky, but still need it all the same.

Then there is the alwasy fun...hey now we are popping all these moons, lets buy low and sell high since I know some moon goo will be shooting up in price.





Well that and market pvp is way more brutal than actual pvp.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Posted - 2011.08.03 05:51:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: ShahFluffers on 03/08/2011 08:34:21
Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN

I submit war dec's on indy/mission corps because they're easy prey and easy padding of kills mails is an exploit of war-dec system, weaknesses of pve vs pvp vessels, and the killmail system.

War-dec system because you're war deccing them just because you know you can beat them, but yet unwilling to get involved in real wars where you actually are risking something.



Taking advantage of a person's "weakness" within a given situation is hardly against the rules in EVE. In fact, it is tacitly encouraged. If this were not so, suicide ganking would have been listed as a bannable offense LONG ago.

No, when a war is declared a message goes out to the entire corp stating that they will be at war and that they have 24 hours to get ready. The fact that people STILL go out in PVE ships to run missions or hop into barges to mine says that they either a) aren't taking the war seriously or b) completely lack situational awareness (i.e. that they might actually be in danger).

And no... it isn't a matter of "people need to be better informed by CCP" about the "rules." The term "war" is pretty self explanatory. It means someone is coming to kill you and it probably isn't a good idea to keep doing what you were doing before (at least, not without some precautions).

As far as fits and tactics are concerned... that's something a player needs to learn from another [more experienced] player and/or read up on and experiment with.
Now granted, it is a tad difficult to do the former. But this is why you see many advise new players or budding PvPers to "just get a T1 frigate, go out, and get killed." It's cheaper to experiment with T1 stuff and learn.
Moreover, there are no REAL difference between a PvE and PvP ships except in how they are fitted and used. Hell, the skillsets are almost identical (PvP just requires a few more).

Personal story:
During my first war dec I shat bricks. I didn't know what a war dec was, what it entailed, or what I was going to do... but I knew that "war" is not a term to be taken lightly... especially when it comes in a nice, neat message from the NPC police.

I stopped doing my mission, grabbed my hauler, and went to all the systems where I had stuff in thinking that the people who have war decced me will be able to steal my stuff in station (yes, I was THAT big of a newb). By my (then) logic, I would be able to better defend all my stuff from a single location.

I was lucky. My corp was pretty decent as it was led by a bunch of "bitter-vets." They pulled everyone together, got the corp a bunch of T1 frigs and cruisers, told us how to fit them, baited out the war deccers, and then threw us at them. It was exhilarating.

Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN

It's an exploit to the weakness of pve ships vs. pvp ships because everyone knows a pve ship stands no chance in winning because they're typically tanked specifically for missions and doing mission specific damage.
A good griefer can come in on your mission and be able to tell generally what damage you're tanking and doing just by looking at the npcs.



As I mentioned before... WHY is the "victim" running missions during a war in the first place? He/she got the a corpmail saying that war is 24 hour away. Once the war is live the "enemy" can be seen in local with a big red star next to his/her name.
Does none of that imply that "business as usual" isn't an appropriate course of action?

Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN

It's an exploit to the killmail system because those players are padding their killmails with kills that are quite easily attained by the second exploit of using the fact that they're pvp against them.


Again... as mentioned before... there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of a situation. If killing ships that cannot feasibly fight back was "against the rules" then all shuttles, industrial ships, and freighters would effectively be "non-attackable" and thus "invulnerable." Hell, most frigates would fall into this category

Chaos2341
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.03 10:51:00 - [38]
 

There is a real discussion about this topic ^^.

But it doesn't change my opinion that PVP must be forced out from High-Sec or better - the war-dec-system must be forced out on High-Sec.
If we want war, wie can go to low-sec or we can create PVP-Corps and than attack other pvp-corps. To attack indy/mining corps is for me stupid
because these players ar to bad to play EVE while they don't attack an PVP-Corp. because they are weak.

This means, that weak PVP-Corps. attack Indy/Mining-Corps. and that must be stoped!

EVE is not build for PVP only! And the marked is not dependent from the War or the PVP! How is thinking that the marked ist depending from PVP isn't
a real EVE-Player because the Request from the marked items depends the marked and not more!

So CCP must be change the War-dec-Sys on High-Sec and have to force it out for all the Time or to reduce it of 0.5 & 0.6 only! Otherwise many players would left EVE and this can be mor then 40% of all Players!

EVE don't have the Right to become a real only PVP Game! EVE must be more a PVE Game and PVP can go to low-sec - thes are my last words about it!

Medidranda Livoga
Posted - 2011.08.03 11:34:00 - [39]
 

I`m sorry but PVP has to be forced on as many people as possible due to EVE not having equipment decay and obsolescence. That includes you. If you make a safe place where to make money there is no longer a way to lose in this game (it already takes gargantuan effort to do badly, you literally have to be a ******).

Ciar Meara
Amarr
Virtus Vindice
Posted - 2011.08.03 11:45:00 - [40]
 

no

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.08.03 13:08:00 - [41]
 

My corp has never had trouble with wardecs in highsec. Neither has our industry wing, in fact. Know why that is? Because unlike the whining WoW player of an OP we're not stupid and know how to actually deal with a wardec on the rare occasion it comes (and yes, it's possible to reduce the chance you get attacked in the first place).

Velicitia
Gallente
Open Designs
Posted - 2011.08.03 15:08:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Chaos2341
EVE is not build for PVP only! And the marked is not dependent from the War or the PVP! How is thinking that the marked ist depending from PVP isn't
a real EVE-Player because the Request from the marked items depends the marked and not more!


So, let's say all pewpew stops right now today...
what happens next week, when everyone has whatever ship they want? oh, that's right... the market for ships dries up.

What happens when the only ammo expended is by missioners, who simply have the BPO for what they use? oh, that's right... the market for ammo dries up

We can go on and on here... but eventually the point is that the ENTIRE GODDAMN PLAYER-DRIVEN ECONOMY IS GONE.

Originally by: Chaos2341
So CCP must be change the War-dec-Sys on High-Sec and have to force it out for all the Time or to reduce it of 0.5 & 0.6 only! Otherwise many players would left EVE and this can be mor then 40% of all Players!


Absolutely not, no. There are inherent risks (wardec) to the immense benefits (POS, camaraderie, low/no tax, etc) being in a player-run corporation entails. Yeah, being on the receiving end of a wardec from a corp who will do nothing but **** you up is no fun... but there are ways to avoid being an easy mark.

Not to mention that getting the BPOs for crap-fit T1 frigs doesn't cost much... then the only costs are time, and the pittance of ISK needed for the highends.

Let's assume a Kessie... (note, I don't fly caldari, nor do I have EFT here... I *think* with relevant L4 skills, the ship is fittable)

Quote:

[Kestrel]
Ballistic Control System I
[empty low]

Magnetic Scattering Amplifier I
Invulnerability Field I
[empty mid]

Standard Missile Launcher I, Sabretooth Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher I, Sabretooth Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher I, Sabretooth Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher I, Sabretooth Light Missile



OK, so Investment costs to be able to build this (eve central median price across all regions):
Kestrel - 2,025,000 ISK
BCS - 450,000 ISK
Mag Scattering Amp - 170,000 ISK
Invul Field I - 675,000 ISK
Std Missile Launcher - 54,000 ISK
Missile - 162,000 (or so, 4 BPOs in total)

Total outlay = 4,022,000 ISK for BPOs
Build cost, sans ammo = 286,158 ISK (average mineral price from the Forge... maybe yesterday's data, assuming ME20 BPO... ME0 BPO makes it about 350k)

So, for say 12-15 million ISK, you can EASILY outfit a corporation of ~10 people with 3-4 (trash) fitted kessies each, with as much ammo as they're gonna need.

OFC, this is assuming that you're buying EVERYTHING. If you're mining for the lowends, you've only got to spend about 15k ISK on highends per ship... and the "overage" you get from the lowends (assuming perfect refine, etc) is approx 20k ISK. So you still "profit" 5k isk for every one of these you build...

NOTE -- mins you mine aren't free. I'm just negating their cost, and assuming you're paying in time rather than ISK.

Originally by: Chaos2341
EVE don't have the Right to become a real only PVP Game! EVE must be more a PVE Game and PVP can go to low-sec - thes are my last words about it!


According to (IIRC) one of the devs ... EVE == Everyone Vs. Everyone. It's all-PVP all the time. Sure, not all of it is "blow up the other guy", but it's all PVP.

jitabug2
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:08:00 - [43]
 

Thanks to the OPs amazing post and by the looks of things total stupidity of posting with his main i think im going to have to war deck his corp

HELLBOUNDMAN
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:23:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: HELLBOUNDMAN on 03/08/2011 17:27:13
Originally by: Velicitia

So, let's say all pewpew stops right now today...
what happens next week, when everyone has whatever ship they want? oh, that's right... the market for ships dries up.

What happens when the only ammo expended is by missioners, who simply have the BPO for what they use? oh, that's right... the market for ammo dries up

We can go on and on here... but eventually the point is that the ENTIRE GODDAMN PLAYER-DRIVEN ECONOMY IS GONE.



Eve is not a pvp based game. I'm tired of hearing that.

However, the game relies on pvp for the market.

So yes pvp is part of eve, but it isn't the main part of eve.

If you were to base the game off of what is needed by all players, then the game is market based and that's the main point of eve.

Now, as far as War-decs

If you look at my earlier comment about making the price of war-deccing more costly and setting peramitters in order to win the war, I feel it would fix the war-dec system to be too costly to abuse.

1) Make a first time war-dec cost 1 billion isk.
2) The aggressing corp/alliance has to set a goal for themselves such as taking sov or doing a certain isk amount of destruction.
3) Both corps have the option to take as many systems as they want and can attack their alternate warring corp anywhere at any time and do as much destruction as they want. The only thing that matters at ending the war is the deccer to complete their self-challenge.
4) If the defender wants to forfeit they must give up the system/s targetted by the aggressor. If it's a damage done dec, then they have to pay concord a certain amount of isk based off the amount left. Say, 25-50% out of the amount remaining.
5) Over the length of the war, the cost of the war dec is reduced each time it recures and the amount dropped is placed onto the decced corp/alliance until both corps meet at 500mil isk. If the war continues from there, it begins to reduce down until both corps are paying just 50 mil. The reason why the aggressed corp would start paying is because as the war continues with no winner, they're showing that they're just as willing to fight as the aggressor.
6) If the attacker wins the war, then the price of their next war dec against the defender starts where the last one ended. If the attackers lose, then they're stuck paying more to war dec again, but the defending team has the option to wardec at the cost that was remaining when the last war ended. So basically, whoever wins pays payless to wardec the other.
7) The aggresser also has the option to forfeit the war if they feel it's not going their way, but if they do forfeit then not only do they have to pay full price to wardec again, but they would have to pay another 1billion to wardec again. So essentially, if they forfeit once, they start at 2 billion for the next wardec they put on the defender of the first war. If they forfeit a third time in a row the price is 3 billion. The price continues to go up to a max of 5 billion. This is the only way for the aggressor to lose. Even if the defender wipes them completely out and takes sov of all their systems, the war doesn't end until the attacker forfeits, or completes their challenge.
8) Everyday that of war goes by where the attacker doesn't take something or destroy something of the defender's, then it it will raise the cost of the wardec to continue on the following week for the attacker.

All these rules are to force the warring corps to actually fight it out as much as possible.

It's also meant to keep griefer corps from war deccing without a true purpose that's worth paying for.

This makes war a meaningful act that matters.

P.S. to take sov of a system from another corp/alliance you must war dec them. You can set as many systems as you want in the goal of a single wardec, or as much isk loss incured as you see fit. Anything destroyed of the other corp's stuff counts. Pos's, ships, secure contrainers. Whatever

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.03 17:35:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN
Eve is not a pvp based game.
…aside from the fat that with two exceptions, everything you do in the game is PvP.

(The two exceptions being pushing the "Request mission" button and pushing the "Complete mission" button.)

Chaos2341
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:14:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN
Eve is not a pvp based game.
…aside from the fat that with two exceptions, everything you do in the game is PvP.

(The two exceptions being pushing the "Request mission" button and pushing the "Complete mission" button.)


That's false because runing a Mission is PvE because You don't attack a Player!

HELLBOUNDMAN
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:18:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: HELLBOUNDMAN on 03/08/2011 18:20:26
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN
Eve is not a pvp based game.
…aside from the fat that with two exceptions, everything you do in the game is PvP.

(The two exceptions being pushing the "Request mission" button and pushing the "Complete mission" button.)


WRONG

Everything I do is pve. However, doing anything in eve leaves me susceptible to pvp.

But, that doesn't mean that pvp is the primary purpose of eve. If I mine I'm susceptible to pve through belt rats, but that doesn't make pve the primary focus of eve.

I still say the primary focus of eve is the market, and everything revolves around that.

Pve relies on items created by manufactures from the items collected by missioners and miners

Miners rely on item created in the same manner.

manufactures rely on the items brought by miners and missioners to make the items for mining, missioning, and pvp.

Pvp relies on item made by manufactures.

The profits of both missioners and miners relies on people getting blown up in pvp.

Without missioners there is no cheap items for manufacturers to buy, forcing them to buy them from npcs at set prices increasing the price of everything.

Without miners there wouldn't be cheap purchases of ore, forcing manufacturers to buy ores from npcs at set prices again, increasing the price of everything.

Without pvp'ers everyone has a ship, so missioners don't make money from salvage/loot cause no one is buying it.

Without manufacturers players are forced to buy ships and fittings at static high prices from npc sales.

Basically what I'm saying here is that if you take out any of these 4 portions of eve, the game becomes computer controlled, instead of player driven.

So again, when you describe eve you can't describe it as a pvp centric game because it's centric to all play styles.

So if you're going to give it a centric title, then it would be Player Controlled Market Centric.
This is because the player controlled market is the alpha and omega in eve. Everything starts and ends in the market.

Velicitia
Gallente
Open Designs
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:41:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Chaos2341
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN
Eve is not a pvp based game.
…aside from the fat that with two exceptions, everything you do in the game is PvP.

(The two exceptions being pushing the "Request mission" button and pushing the "Complete mission" button.)


That's false because runing a Mission is PvE because You don't attack a Player!


Learn English my friend...

To make it simple for you.

The only exceptions to EVE being PvP are a player clicking on "request mission" and "complete mission" includes everything between clicking those two buttons.

However, Tippia, I would also add the following purchases off the market


  • NPC Seeded Skillbooks

  • NPC Seeded BPOs

  • NPC Seeded trade commodities (livestock, carbon, etc)



Granted they can all *lead* to PVP, but they are not inherently PVP. Much like that guy clicking on "request mission" and then having a loot thief and/or salvager* show up.


*IB4 the flames -- SALVAGING ANOTHER PERSON'S MISSION IS NOT, NOR WILL IT EVER BE, STEALING.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:49:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 03/08/2011 18:50:40
Originally by: Chaos2341
That's false because runing a Mission is PvE because You don't attack a Player!
You run missions. For this, you get LP. LP is monetised in competition with other players who will try to make sure they get the money, not you. PvP.
You also get loot, which can be stolen by other players and thus rob you of your rewards — PvP. And even if you manage to get the loot, you have to get it onto the market… PvP.
For some missions, your mission objectives can be stolen and ransomed — PvP.

Just because you don't attack other players does not mean you're not engaged in some pretty fierce PvP against them.
Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN
Everything I do is pve.
…all of which is done in competition with other players who can and will come after you because you have stuff they want or because you undercut their profits. You PvP every single second you are logged in — those two button clicks are your only non-PvP actions because no-one can interrupt those two clicks. Everything else is up for grabs.

The game is 100% PvP, and those two clicks are just the exceptions that prove the rule.


@ Velicitia: Yeah, maybe… but even with those, every time you pick up one of those buy/sell orders, you modify the price and availability for other players, making it worse for them, so even there, it's iffy. Granted, this happens more with trade goods than with the other two, but that's mainly because of the one-shot/low-volume status of books and blueprints.

Velicitia
Gallente
Open Designs
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:12:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN

WRONG

Everything I do is pve. However, doing anything in eve leaves me susceptible to pvp.



WRONG... because...

Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN
If I mine I'm ...



... taking resources from another player who may have wanted to mine them. Thus PVP. Perhaps I should dec you for taking my resources?

PVP is simply "Player vs. Player" interaction, regardless of if that's making someone explode... or getting ore before them... or getting something to market for 25% cheaper than the other guy.

Granted, everyone thinks of "PvP" in the 'make the other guy explode' sense. Given a relaxed enough CEO, I could probably convince him that I (a miner/industrialist) am just as valid a recruit to his "all-pvp, all the time" corporation as the other guy next to me with 20m SP in gunnery. Obviously, this wouldn't end up being "fun" for me ( might as well be in an NPC corp, since I don't "fit in" per se).

Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN

Pve relies on items created by manufactures from the items collected by missioners and miners


a PVE pilot (read:missioner) only needs a miner or manufacturer in the event of their ship exploding... and for "good" missioners, that nearly never happens... so honestly, they probably only need themselves.

Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN

Miners rely on item created in the same manner.


TBH, all of my mining supplies are made by yours truly. I rely on PvPers to keep their alliances safe so I can get moongoo. Then I use said supplies to PvP with other miners (albeit without the exploding ships) to see who can get the most minerals the fastest.

Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN

manufactures rely on the items brought by miners and missioners to make the items for mining, missioning, and pvp.

I rely on myself, and other PVPers (read:miners) for materials, as well as combat pilots to make sure that their nullsec sov holding T2 moongoo producing alliances stay that way...

Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN

Pvp relies on item made by manufactures.


Indeed.

Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN

The profits of both missioners and miners relies on people getting blown up in pvp.


um... little shaky here. Missioners wouldn't lose out very much without PVP. They'd just move from "run mission, salvage/loot, turn in" to "run mission, turn in"

Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN

Without missioners there is no cheap items for manufacturers to buy, forcing them to buy them from npcs at set prices increasing the price of everything.


TBH, this would only affect rigs.

Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN

Without miners there wouldn't be cheap purchases of ore, forcing manufacturers to buy ores from npcs at set prices again, increasing the price of everything.


there is zero NPC seeded ore on the market.

Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN

Without pvp'ers everyone has a ship, so missioners don't make money from salvage/loot cause no one is buying it.


they still make money from the mission rewards...
Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN

Without manufacturers players are forced to buy ships and fittings at static high prices from npc sales.
didn't we discuss this above?

Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN

So again, when you describe eve you can't describe it as a pvp centric game because it's centric to all play styles.

So if you're going to give it a centric title, then it would be Player Controlled Market Centric.
This is because the player controlled market is the alpha and omega in eve. Everything starts and ends in the market.


Except that I don't need a missioner in order to manufacture things. Ratting the belts, or salvage from pewpew could supply the market with enough parts for rigs (they'll just be really expensive/rare, since rather than sell on the open market, they'll be kept in-corp/alliance).

Yes, the market is common to your four "demographics", but 3 of those four also share "PvP" (mission runner being the outlier here). Fact of the matter is though, without PVP, the market *WILL* grind to a halt.

(holy wall of text, batman!?

Velicitia
Gallente
Open Designs
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:18:00 - [51]
 

Edited by: Velicitia on 03/08/2011 19:18:32
Originally by: Tippia

@ Velicitia: Yeah, maybe… but even with those, every time you pick up one of those buy/sell orders, you modify the price and availability for other players, making it worse for them, so even there, it's iffy. Granted, this happens more with trade goods than with the other two, but that's mainly because of the one-shot/low-volume status of books and blueprints.


IIRC, the costs only change if something is bought out (e.g. I bought up all the "Gallente Frigate" books from a CAS station or something). However, I do agree that it walks the line between "is PVP" and "is not PVP".

Totally forgot about the LP aspect of mission running though :) (yeah, I run a lot of missionsLaughingRolling Eyes). However, I don't think running the mission itself is PVP, but rather that the rewards for running the mission can then be used in PVP.

But at this point, we're just arguing semantics Very Happy

HELLBOUNDMAN
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:50:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Tippia
You PvP every single second you are logged in — those two button clicks are your only non-PvP actions because no-one can interrupt those two clicks. Everything else is up for grabs.



Lol, you are making a really hard push to make eve completely pvp.

It is not complete pvp, and it doesn't revolve around pvp.
I could cut pvp and make missions more likely to pop players ships, and boom, we're back where we are but without all the douches that don't know how to pvp, so they pop carebears as if it's some kind of challenge.

However, like I said in the same comment you quoted was that I'm at risk of pvp every time I leave a station.

Just because I'm at risk of pvp doesn't mean I'm pvp'ing.

Other than the occasional suicide ganks, most players have the option of excepting pvp combat.

Here are they way you accept pvp combat.

1) Steal from another player
2) Attack a player who stole from you, or attacked you.
3) go into low, null, or wormhole space
4) War dec another corp
5) You are war decced and leave the station during the war dec.

Those 5 listed are the ways of accepting pvp combat.

Like I said, the only way you can get involved in pvp without making an action is through suicide ganks in high sec.
This isn't pvp for the attacked player. This is simply trying to survive until concord gets there, or it's the simple loss of a ship through a means other than what you were doing.
I would actually consider suicide ganking PVTT. Player versus Timed Target, because you're simply trying to destroy something, that probably isn't going to do anything to you, and doing it before you get destroyed by npcs.

If the game were pvp I wouldn't have the choice accepting pvp through one of the 5 actions and people would be blowing me up with no repercussions. Essentially, it would be full null sec.

Originally by: Tippia
You run missions. For this, you get LP. LP is monetised in competition with other players who will try to make sure they get the money, not you. PvP.

no no no.. This is currency provided by npcs to buy items provided by npcs to run missions provided by npcs. However, you can put them on the market if you want.Which you might be able to consider pvp, but with a much weaker form of the title, and i'm surprised you'd stoop low to use it as a pvp suggestion, because there are no real losses in this manner. You still get paid, just maybe less.
Originally by: Tippia
You also get loot, which can be stolen by other players and thus rob you of your rewards — PvP. And even if you manage to get the loot, you have to get it onto the market… PvP.

This is not at all pvp. First of all the loot and salvage are typically worth less than the bounties, which is why a lot of players try to burn through missions without salvaging.
However, that not why it isn't pvp. It isn't pvp because taking something laying on the ground doesn't constitute as player vs player. Now, by taking another players items you've accepted the terms of pvp and are leaving up to the other player to accept the terms as well. If they don't accept and let the aggression timer burn off, then guess what. No pvp for the sad panda that can't do real pvp against actual pvp players.

Originally by: Tippia
Just because you don't attack other players does not mean you're not engaged in some pretty fierce PvP against them.

Marketing could be considered pvp, but you're stretching for excuses if you include this.

Marketing exist if real life and in the same manners.
MMA fighting exist in real life and works in the same manners as eve pvp.

If you find someone who would consider both of these to be one in the same, then their either a philosopher trying to explain how things are connected, someone in marketing trying to make themselves sound better, a fighter trying to tell ppl he's not a bad person for hitting other people because certain things are similar, or you're someone trying to make up an excuse why one of these should or shouldn't exist.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:13:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 03/08/2011 20:19:48
Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN
It is not complete pvp, and it doesn't revolve around pvp.
Sure it is, and yes it does, because without it, the game wouldn't exist in its current for. It would be something completely different. It would also largely be pointless and we could all just go play X3.
Quote:
Just because I'm at risk of pvp doesn't mean I'm pvp'ing.
You're not "at risk of PvP" — you are PvPing. Constantly.
Quote:
Here are they way you accept pvp combat.
…you kind of missed the whole point of what I was saying, didn't you? Read it again.
Quote:
If the game were pvp I wouldn't have the choice accepting pvp through one of the 5 actions and people would be blowing me up with no repercussions. Essentially, it would be full null sec.
Funny thing that. Non-consensual PvP is non-consensual. You have no choice in the matter.
Quote:
no no no.
Actually, yes. LP as a reward is PvP-centric due to the market interaction required to get anything out of it.
Quote:
This is not at all pvp. First of all the loot and salvage are typically worth less than the bounties, which is why a lot of players try to burn through missions without salvaging.
Just because you give up on the contest doesn't mean the contest doesn't exist. Loot is open to PvP, and salvaging is all PvP (it's not even part of the mission rewards).
Quote:
It isn't pvp because taking something laying on the ground doesn't constitute as player vs player.
Of course it does. You took it, so now the other guy can't have it. You robbed him of an earning opportunity — you competed with him (player vs. player) for the stuff and won.
Quote:
Marketing could be considered pvp
Trading not just could be considered PvP. It is PvP, full stop. No stretching required.


But I must applaud you on being able to wear such huge blinders to the very obvious nature of the game without having your neck snap from the weight of them (or, alternatively, I have to pity you for being so ignorant about even the most basic workings fo the game).

At any rate, the game is thoroughly PvP-centric since everything is about competition between players, and since everything you do is a PvP act against others, they should (and, indeed, do) have the ability to PvP you right back. Moreover, they have several options available to them as far as how they want this PvP to happen, and if they pick a method or an that you are weak in (to counter the fact that you just beat them in some other area), then that's just good game design: provide options and choices to the player.

And finally, highsec is in no way meant to be free of PvP (unsurprisingly since PvP is everywhere), and it's not even a place that's meant to be free of combat — highsec is simply a place where unilateral aggression comes at a cost. That is all there is to it. The "higher" security comes from the assumption that most people are not willing to pay this cost and will therefore not engage in aggressive acts all willy-nilly. It largely works because highsec is largely safe.

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:15:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN
It is not complete pvp, and it doesn't revolve around pvp.
If you are competing against another player, then it is PvP.

Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN
Here are they way you accept pvp combat.
He never mention just combat PvP, and PvP is not strictly related to combat only.

PvP = Player verses player.

Velicitia
Gallente
Open Designs
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:17:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Velicitia on 03/08/2011 20:20:15
Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN

Here are they way you accept pvp combat.

1) Undock from station




FYP Laughing

TBH, I never would have expected to be agreeing with some of the people who I'm agreeing with in this thread.


HELLBOUNDMAN
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:19:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Velicitia

... taking resources from another player who may have wanted to mine them. Thus PVP. Perhaps I should dec you for taking my resources?

Again, while this can be considered pvp, but this is a desperate stretch. We all know what exactly everyone means by pvp. We all mean combat. If we don't mean combat, we don't say pvp.

You're trying to find alternate forms to consider pvp instead of looking at pvp in it's traditional form which is player vs player combat.


As far as the whole 4 play style relying on each other. You seemed to have looked at is as players relying on each other.

A single player can be missioner, miner, manufacturer, and pvp'er. In doing so you wouldn't have to rely on anyone for anything, as long as you don't count security for low/null/worm mining, ratting, and missioning.

That doesn't change the fact they all rely on one another in order to keep market prices down on items and the revenue from selling items up.

Pvp is the only pure consumer part of eve. Sure, they can salvage enemy wrecks, but most of the time the only reason pvp'ers touch another player's wreck is to see if any good loot didn't get blown up.

You're making an attempt at stretching to gaming definition of pvp to include marketing, mining, looting, and salvaging.

Your attempt at thinking outside the box isn't a good thing in this situation.

pvp is combat, stop trying to say eve is a pure pvp game because of player marketing, asteroids, and salvage.

Saying that marketing in the same category as pvp combat is like a child saying they can watch anime **** cause it's a cartoon just like sponge bob.
just because they're both cartoons doesn't mean they're the same.

Same with eve pvp, just because marketing is player on player interaction doesn't mean that it's the same thing as pvp combat.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:23:00 - [57]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 03/08/2011 20:25:37
Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN
Again, while this can be considered pvp, but this is a desperate stretch.
…and again, it is not something that "can be considered pvp", but something that is PvP, without a shadow of a doubt — no stretching whatsoever.

You compete with other players over resources, player vs. player.
Quote:
We all know what exactly everyone means by pvp. We all mean combat.
No. This is your assumption, and it's a false one at that. Whenever you hear the phrase "EVE is PvP-centric" it means exactly what is being said here: that everything in EVE is subject to player vs. player competition and conflict, and combat is just one of the myriad of ways in which this conflict can manifest itself.

Just because you have a deeply flawed and highly myopic view of what the game is and what a term stands for, doesn't change the fundamental design of the game and what it opens up to.
Quote:
Saying that marketing in the same category as pvp combat is
…quite sensible, since proper trading can inflict pretty darn huge monetary damages on the opponent.

Velicitia
Gallente
Open Designs
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:25:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Velicitia on 03/08/2011 20:26:01
Originally by: HELLBOUNDMAN
Originally by: Velicitia

... taking resources from another player who may have wanted to mine them. Thus PVP. Perhaps I should dec you for taking my resources?

Again, while this can be considered pvp, but this is a desperate stretch. We all know what exactly everyone means by pvp. We all mean combat. If we don't mean combat, we don't say pvp.

You're trying to find alternate forms to consider pvp instead of looking at pvp in it's traditional form which is player vs player combat.


As far as the whole 4 play style relying on each other. You seemed to have looked at is as players relying on each other.

A single player can be missioner, miner, manufacturer, and pvp'er. In doing so you wouldn't have to rely on anyone for anything, as long as you don't count security for low/null/worm mining, ratting, and missioning.

That doesn't change the fact they all rely on one another in order to keep market prices down on items and the revenue from selling items up.

Pvp is the only pure consumer part of eve. Sure, they can salvage enemy wrecks, but most of the time the only reason pvp'ers touch another player's wreck is to see if any good loot didn't get blown up.

You're making an attempt at stretching to gaming definition of pvp to include marketing, mining, looting, and salvaging.

Your attempt at thinking outside the box isn't a good thing in this situation.

pvp is combat, stop trying to say eve is a pure pvp game because of player marketing, asteroids, and salvage.

Saying that marketing in the same category as pvp combat is like a child saying they can watch anime **** cause it's a cartoon just like sponge bob.
just because they're both cartoons doesn't mean they're the same.

Same with eve pvp, just because marketing is player on player interaction doesn't mean that it's the same thing as pvp combat.



Here's the rub on the whole "eve is PVP" and "pvp means 'pvp combat'" thing -- MOST games have NPC markets, and NPCs seed everything, and the only PVP is in "PVP servers" or "PVP arenas". EVE is the only game I'm aware of that has "all PVP, all the time", whereas the only PVP actions you can take in the other games are in the "combat areas".


so, drop the "in every other game" or "in the traditional sense" ideas about PVP... because EVE isn't "every other game" or "traditional" (we just need CCP to realize this again)

edit -- dammit Tippia, stop posting so fast!

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:27:00 - [59]
 


Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:29:00 - [60]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 03/08/2011 20:30:59
Originally by: Velicitia
edit -- dammit Tippia, stop posting so fast!
Don't worry. You actually explained it better than I did, and spotted the key flaw in what he's saying, which I missed: that, yes, in other games, PvP will have a specific meaning because it is contrasted against all the (protected-mode) NPC stuff that goes on.

EVE is not other games, and it does not have any of that NPC stuff or the protections, so in a sense, the terminology is much “purer” in EVE than in those more limited games.

Here, PvP means what it actually means — player vs. player — not some very narrow and circumscribed subset of player interaction that exists in sharp contrast to other “normal” activities.


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