| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
ArmyOfMe
The Athiest Syndicate
Advocated Destruction
   |
Posted - 2009.06.19 22:38:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: Helgur
Saying this wont hurt real pvp in eve is so naive and proves just how little thought have gone into this idea.
i think your overestimating how many ppl actually have the guts to risk their ships in a 1vs1.
and if there is as many ppl as you fear that wants it then they have to want it for a reason right? |
Helgur
Steel Soldier's
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 22:47:00 -
[92]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
Originally by: Helgur
and if there is as many ppl as you fear that wants it then they have to want it for a reason right?
Yes they want it because it is an easy ticket to PvP without the risk of loosing much, if any at all. The fundations of this game is based on risk vs profit, a holy idea imo that this idea neatly ****s with. Thats why this idea is bad.
This game is a niche MMO that differs in so many aspects from other mainstream MMO games, and this mechanic is the biggest aspects of this. If you want to play a game that is not such there are many other alternatives for you. |
kongking wang
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 23:14:00 -
[93]
look at it this way. how many pvp at the moment. this would make everyone in eve a pvper. more pvpers means more people willing to go low sec to fight. more in low sec means more profitable pvp in low sec. if the risk reward was the same for arenas then sure it would make low sec pvp die. this is why it has been suggested that there be no loss in arena.
no loss means more people willing to give it a go. this then gives them the confidence to try out low sec. they go low sec and die, or win. low sec pvp wins from more players and high sec carebares win for having the chance to see if its worth the risk.
if the arena has ship loss in it then that instantly makes the arena more profitable than low sec due to no risk of retaliation and getting not only bets but loot too. no loot means you only win a bet and bragging rights.
also the whole point in low sec pvp is the frill of the kill and taking the guys money or spoiling his day. arena allows some of these features whilst not replacing them all.
its totally unreasonable to restrict pvp only to those who have the skills to do it. afterall isnt eve supposed to be a pvp game.
im starting to think all those low sec pvp'ers are scared of these carebares realising they are good at pvp and then going low sec in huge fleets of the best kit and wiping them out.
|
Helgur
Steel Soldier's
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 23:19:00 -
[94]
Edited by: Helgur on 19/06/2009 23:20:58
Originally by: kongking wang
im starting to think all those low sec pvp'ers are scared of these carebares realising they are good at pvp and then going low sec in huge fleets of the best kit and wiping them out.
I was thinking about giving you a well thought through answer on your post untill I read the last paragraph (quoted) and realised you where just trolling.
|
Ironnight
Caldari
x13
KrautbreaK
|
Posted - 2009.06.20 00:35:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth
Ok now I get where you're coming from, but with respect, I still think you're getting the wrong end of the stick, and calling the devs names when they've stated something contrary to what you're alleging is neither fair nor cool.
When they were experimenting with arenas and couldn't get the game to acknowledge a ship as destroyed but not as a real ship, it was, as I understand it, with intent as a simulator. A virtual set of ships, in a virtual simulator, inside the virtual world of EVE, perhaps as part of Ambulation. No money in, no money out, no real ships, etc. Now how this might have gone, who knows, but I would argue that if it was just a test area to try out ships, to have a few friends or enemies join in and try out a fit, then it should have no impact on the game. Why? We already have that virtual simulator that doesn't affect the 'real world' of EVE - aka the test server.
Now perhaps everyone is confusing terminology because it's not exactly well defined, but when someone says arena to me, I see the Colosseum, deathmatches, arranged tournaments, glorious duels, and other such stuff. In other words, real ships, real people, real death & loss, but in a controlled manner as a spectacle. After all, why did the Romans have real fights when they could have had play-acted ones? The real ones have a real sense of loss, a real sense of urgency & panic, and thus a person in such a situation behaves very differently.
I've never played WoW or equivalents and so perhaps arenas have some specific meaning in those areas, but as far as I'm concerned, the ability to run & control a location, as a player or player corp, where you can stage fights, player-run tournaments, settle duels without buggering about with can-flipping, and have such cool things as organised spectating, betting, and so on, maybe the ability to charge each participant and reward the winner.... it all sounds like fun, a good addition to the game, and will hardly kill off 'real PvP'.
If it somehow does, then real PvP has some serious questions to answer. I for one believe that nothing is quite like a gang stalking the corridors of low-sec, not entirely sure who else is out there doing the same, and that 8 vs 8 in some tournament isn't going to replace that feeling any time soon.
I am too old too not say what I mean, granted I could be nice, but the idea is so bad that I am shocked that they even considered it, so I let them know.
From my viewpoint it looks like they just said screw it, we will change the pvp dynamics completely and too hell with the consequences.
They're like 'oh **** son, its a trap *Doomsday* |
Allen Ramses
Caldari
Typo Corp
|
Posted - 2009.06.20 05:43:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Allen Ramses on 20/06/2009 05:42:57
People say "go to test server" in response to arenas. So tell me, how is running drills, duels, ****waving contests, and controlled combat scenarios different in an arena than the test server? Neither would provide risk, neither would provide reward. By that logic, the test server should be removed, because it's proof that it's killing PvP in EVE.
____________________
CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006. |
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2009.06.20 06:19:00 -
[97]
I think the only way to prevent people from sticking around arenas instead of engaging in world pvp is if there was some sort of limit mechanic in how many matches you could engage in within X amount of time.
IE if done similarly with RP agents (in that you can only do RP missions for them once a day) in that a player could only do say 5 arena matches a week they may be more inclined to hold onto those matches for when they are bored as opposed to making that the only form of pvp they engage in.
Certainly arenas offer a known place where players can meet for combat but it needs to be carefully done so as not to unbalance regular pvp engagements.
On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod! |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.06.20 08:25:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Jacob Mei
I think the only way to prevent people from sticking around arenas instead of engaging in world pvp is if there was some sort of limit mechanic in how many matches you could engage in within X amount of time.
IE if done similarly with RP agents (in that you can only do RP missions for them once a day) in that a player could only do say 5 arena matches a week they may be more inclined to hold onto those matches for when they are bored as opposed to making that the only form of pvp they engage in.
Certainly arenas offer a known place where players can meet for combat but it needs to be carefully done so as not to unbalance regular pvp engagements.
whats prevented them from doing the same thing right now?
you can log on to sisi and get into a fight with no risk in eve right now.
This would only mean you didn't have to download sisi to have a risk free fight.
Also risk free fights with no rewards are boring, that's why we don't all pvp on sisi all day.
you want to loot your kill, you want to know you made him cry.
after pvping on sisi for about 1-2 hours, you get bored and want real pvp.
|
NereSky
Gallente
The Good old Days
|
Posted - 2009.06.20 12:03:00 -
[99]
Errrr no
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1101997 |
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2009.06.20 14:57:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Jacob Mei on 20/06/2009 15:01:34
Originally by: MotherMoon
Originally by: Jacob Mei
I think the only way to prevent people from sticking around arenas instead of engaging in world pvp is if there was some sort of limit mechanic in how many matches you could engage in within X amount of time.
IE if done similarly with RP agents (in that you can only do RP missions for them once a day) in that a player could only do say 5 arena matches a week they may be more inclined to hold onto those matches for when they are bored as opposed to making that the only form of pvp they engage in.
Certainly arenas offer a known place where players can meet for combat but it needs to be carefully done so as not to unbalance regular pvp engagements.
whats prevented them from doing the same thing right now?
you can log on to sisi and get into a fight with no risk in eve right now.
This would only mean you didn't have to download sisi to have a risk free fight.
Also risk free fights with no rewards are boring, that's why we don't all pvp on sisi all day.
you want to loot your kill, you want to know you made him cry.
after pvping on sisi for about 1-2 hours, you get bored and want real pvp.
I never mentioned free or safe fights though (I should have clearified though). In my opinion arenas should function as designated gathering points where players not engaged in wardecs can meet and bash each others heads in with their ships and claim the wrecks and rewards. Alot of players, myself included, have little time to deticate to a wardec these days but still have a combat tooth if you will. Instead of having to wait for some poor noob in low sec to come by id rather fight an opponent who can fight back. Because my login times are random these days an arena would be the perfect solution for me, but only if it stays in the spirit of the game.
As I said above arenas, if implimented, should be done so carefully so as not to fundimentally change how pvp is done in the game, but for those smoes like myself who just dont have the time for a full blown war, an arena would certainly be a welcome opperatunity to get our pvp fix. |
|
|
Helgur
Steel Soldier's
|
Posted - 2009.06.20 15:38:00 -
[101]
Edited by: Helgur on 20/06/2009 15:44:44
Edited by: Helgur on 20/06/2009 15:38:51
Originally by: Allen Ramses
Edited by: Allen Ramses on 20/06/2009 05:42:57
People say "go to test server" in response to arenas. So tell me, how is running drills, duels, ****waving contests, and controlled combat scenarios different in an arena than the test server? Neither would provide risk, neither would provide reward. By that logic, the test server should be removed, because it's proof that it's killing PvP in EVE.
If people are comparing the test server to a arena function on tranquillity, they really haven't thought things through. Which is kind of annoying, because it doesn't take much brainpower to figure out why people don't go to the test server en masse and pvp:
1. Its a test server with a test client. Its not meant primarily for playing EVE but testing new features
2. Large download
3. Few players on the test server
4. Its not as straight forward to install and play as the main client
Edit: and, er, 5. If it had a lot of players it would lag as hell |
Freya Marada
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.06.20 23:01:00 -
[102]
6. Mirrors aren't that frequently thus your skills and assets aren't up to date on the test server.
As I see most players are biased about arena PvP because they had negative expierience in some other games.
But I'm still not convinced that combat simulation is going to ruin PvP in low or nullsec. Non consensual PvP didn't ruin consensual PvP in other games like Lineage 2. Arenas there haven't been instanced but been free for all. There has been still a lot of consensual PvP where you lost EXP (hours of exp grinding in analogy to farm ISK to repay any PvP loss) just because consensual PvP mattered something in that game.
Combat simulation might lower the interest in joining 0.0 Corps for some players, but combat simulation will bring a lot of new players to EVE, players that might not chose to stay in highsec.
Arenas might have ruined PvP in WoW, but that game hasn't been a consensual PvP game and never will be, it has always been an Everquest clone where you farm and raid to get better equipment.
|
Allen Ramses
Caldari
Typo Corp
|
Posted - 2009.06.20 23:50:00 -
[103]
Well, perhaps the idea of a dueling arena is not a good one, but a controlled environment certainly is. The way I see it, they are giving us a chance for pilots to operate under specific conditions, something that sisi is obviously not intended for.
Would the anti-arena guys concede to the idea that a controlled environment for sport and training purposes will not affect PvP?
Would the pro-arena guys concede to the idea that a controlled environment using real assets will certainly affect PvP?
Eve should not now, nor should it ever have a battlegrounds type system, but it is long overdue for a training room.
____________________
CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006. |
Helgur
Steel Soldier's
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 03:02:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Allen Ramses
Would the anti-arena guys concede to the idea that a controlled environment for sport and training purposes will not affect PvP?
As long as the "controlled environment" is not in any way a substitute for "real" pvp I would concede to that, yes. What kind of mechanics that would need to be implemented in this arena then, is up for someone else to figure out as I can't see what these would be in the spur of the moment.
|
Mos7Wan7ed
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 03:20:00 -
[105]
arena's that are setup for consentual pvp that players could beton has already been talked about and something ccp has plans on doing.
Originally by: LoneLeader
So, sitting here, boored, and started thinking.
What if ccp made small "arena's"
In highsec or w/e , where people could go pvp without loosing their ships?
Rules?
Max 5 battleships per team
Max 10 BC per team
max 15 cruiser per team
max 20 frigs per team .
Just an example.
Yeh, you get teh idea.
maby some Modes, like 2v2, 5v5 , Cruisers only, Frigs only, mix?
I think more people would pvp, more people would actually STAY in eve, as they wouldnt have to grind for weeks to get a new ship if they loose a fight -.-
Wouldn't have a rea° effect on the lowsec/nullsec pvp, as in nullsec you fight for your alliance/corp's space, and the "arena"
would be more for fun, maby pvp training.
Just an idea =)
|
Freya Marada
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 12:16:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Helgur
As long as the "controlled environment" is not in any way a substitute for "real" pvp I would concede to that, yes. What kind of mechanics that would need to be implemented in this arena then, is up for someone else to figure out as I can't see what these would be in the spur of the moment.
Maybe some item restrictions:
- only meta level 1 to 5 modules and nothing above
- only Tech1 and Tech2 ships, no faction ships (no officer fitted Nightmare!)
- only sub capital ships
|
Lochmar Fiendhiem
Caldari
International Multi-Player Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 14:57:00 -
[107]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Edited by: CCP Chronotis on 06/06/2009 21:57:26
Arenas are definitely a cool concept and something we explored during Apocrypha. Probably the biggest reason we liked it was the often difficult conundrum of the time it takes to find a good fight and the play time most of us are fortunate to get (a couple of hours a night is the most typical play session for most of us are lucky to get) combined with the death penalty factor can make finding a good fight take forever.
Even at the highest level of play in null sec with a pre-arranged op or CTA, the amount of logistics required by each pilot can be quite time consuming still even with a good alliance where you are bridged into the fight very fast for example.
The tournament for example has shown that there is quite an appetite and great appeal behind matchplay and if we can find a way that allows players to participate where they only have a quick hour available and can fight in a balanced scenario, even where they risk their ship purely for the sake of e-peen only, it would be a welcome addition for many, especially if you could spectate and bet on the sides.
The question or fear of many even stated by a few here is that this would be perhaps more fun than the open-pvp game if we had an automated tournament system and people would not be tempted into open-pvp. I personally don't believe it to be a huge issue but there was definitely similar debates internally on the subject and was a concern for us. Nothing can really replace the epic feel, strategy and high stakes for the large fleet battles.
Arenas is something that sits pretty high in our wishlist and one day we will have another stab at it.
key factors for this to work;
-you bring your own equipment, you lose your own equipment. there has to be a consequence (and loot for the winner).
-Make it autonomous, so it can always procede forward without dev/gm help.
-allow players to place bets at given ratios for winner/loser that is npc controlled.
-1v1, 2v2, 3v3, etc etc up to 25v25 for any given battle based on weightclass (ship hull type)
and ther are dozen more points to bring up regarding this |
Helgur
Steel Soldier's
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 17:14:00 -
[108]
Edited by: Helgur on 21/06/2009 17:14:01
Originally by: Freya Marada
Maybe some item restrictions:
- only meta level 1 to 5 modules and nothing above
- only Tech1 and Tech2 ships, no faction ships (no officer fitted Nightmare!)
- only sub capital ships
Then it would be like 95% of the PvP you find in lowsec. I say Meta 1 to 4 and only tech 1 ships and I could concede with this arena idea. |
Macmuelli
Gallente
Meltd0wn
Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 17:26:00 -
[109]
Edited by: Macmuelli on 21/06/2009 17:31:22
Starting fee, + own equipment, limited to frigates to start.
Earning Points. + enough Points + starting fee = next class ( cruisers ) etc...
Teampoints if u start up in teams. = enough Points next round
( u can create a team , with every Player who have the same points then u, at least within your leaque)
Include loosing points and relegate matches.
Only one will survive no remies.
Npc ecm/ + weaponturrets within the arena starting action if the fight is boring and will not have a winner. + random action on targets.
Ps: This post makes me smile.
NO Arena Without Loosing what u have risk.
|
Freya Marada
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 17:46:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Macmuelli
Edited by: Macmuelli on 21/06/2009 17:31:22
Starting fee, + own equipment, limited to frigates to start.
Earning Points. + enough Points + starting fee = next class ( cruisers ) etc...
Teampoints if u start up in teams. = enough Points next round
( u can create a team , with every Player who have the same points then u, at least within your leaque)
Include loosing points and relegate matches.
Only one will survive no remies.
Npc ecm/ + weaponturrets within the arena starting action if the fight is boring and will not have a winner. + random action on targets.
Ps: This post makes me smile.
NO Arena Without Loosing what u have risk.
Mechanics like this "will" definitely drag players away from low or nullsec PvP. In my option there must be no reward no arena points no victory points, just simply nothing. If there is going to be a ranking system then the PvP player base might split up.
|
|
|
Macmuelli
Gallente
Meltd0wn
Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 17:53:00 -
[111]
Edited by: Macmuelli on 21/06/2009 17:55:30
No.
Because in 0.0 u got all the high end stuff needed for tech II, which is needed to protect your own area.
Players are allways envy if u own so much dysprosium/promethium that u have an incoming of 100 + bn each month.
Pvp around this will allways happen.
Dont forget the officer stuff.
An Arena without an reward = senseless feature.
Rank list + and salvage the battlefield
+ a percantage bonus if players bet on u.
eve since 2003 |
Freya Marada
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 18:01:00 -
[112]
Edited by: Freya Marada on 21/06/2009 18:02:21
Originally by: Macmuelli
Edited by: Macmuelli on 21/06/2009 17:55:30
No.
Because in 0.0 u got all the high end stuff needed for tech II, which is needed to protect your own area.
Players are allways envy if u own so much dysprosium/promethium that u have an incoming of 100 + bn each month.
Pvp around this will allways happen.
Dont forget the officer stuff.
An Arena without an reward = senseless feature.
Rank list + and salvage the battlefield
+ a percantage bonus if players bet on u.
Ranklist is a scale for e-p*nis length. If there is a ranklist there will be player who pvp just for the sake of their e-p*nis measured in their arena rank. This is a sufficient substitute for PvP in low or nullsec for a lot of players. I don't think this would be a good idea for combat simulation. |
Macmuelli
Gallente
Meltd0wn
Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 18:07:00 -
[113]
The reason , why there "heads" are smoking, when think about , if its worth to add or not.
I dont share your Position. ^^ |
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 18:18:00 -
[114]
What kind of "arena" do we already have?
- Sisi:
consensual and non-consensual, loss means nothing (and after some tests of my fitting I get bored)
- Canbaiting in front of hubs:
consensual, loss means something (not many want to take part from what I can see, idk)
- FW:
somewhat consensual, loss means something (some people take part and blobbing occurs to achieve something)
From what I can see.. lossless combat is already available on Sisi and 1v1 (with exceptions) is available in highsec via Canbait.
Every other PvP need can be stilled via FW or in low/null/wardecs (hadn't there even been some corps in perma war for just this purpose in high sec?).
Anyways.. I can't really see where a feature like Arenas would be needed. All people who want to test, can so on Sisi. All people who want to fight 1v1 with losses can so, even in Highsec.. if your opponent wasn't honoring the rules, don't fight him in future.
All the ones from Low/Null who are in fear of an "arena"-feature.. what do you think will happen? All people who already go to low/null do this for a reason. If some of them might be 1v1 PvP searchers.. well, they could even do this now in high sec, but they don't. I guess the 'hunt' and possibility to find a target that is minor to you is what makes them come to low.. not the search for a set up 1v1 fight against some target. Nothing will change that.. not even an arena. |
Vaneshi SnowCrash
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 18:55:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Blane Xero
Chrono, The server rejected the code first time round; Take that as a stern hint. Please.
Actually the database code couldn't handle virtual objects, same as it can't currently deal with multiple pilots flying a single ship.
Of course, the burning issue isn't so much arena's as it is "not loosing stuff". I see no real reason why arena's where stuff goes boom, actual real stuff not fake virtual stuff I mean, can't work and work rather well.
|
Qarthy
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 21:41:00 -
[116]
OH DEAR GOD NO!!!!
Please don't turn this game in to a festering pile of crap because you want to put a useless lame ass arena in to it.
No game that has ever introduced this idea has done well. The Devs start balancing the game around the arena and turn the open world warfare in to a stinking pile.
LoneLeader you need to have every ship you own blown up for even posting this idea. It goes against everything that Eve stands for. Part of what makes this game so good is there is real loss and real risk (not so much now as 5 years ago). This would just water down the game to WoWesk levels even more. So no thanks. If you want arenas so bad, WoW is that way ---->
|
Uronksur Suth
Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 22:01:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Qarthy
OH DEAR GOD NO!!!!
Please don't turn this game in to a festering pile of crap because you want to put a useless lame ass arena in to it.
No game that has ever introduced this idea has done well. The Devs start balancing the game around the arena and turn the open world warfare in to a stinking pile.
LoneLeader you need to have every ship you own blown up for even posting this idea. It goes against everything that Eve stands for. Part of what makes this game so good is there is real loss and real risk (not so much now as 5 years ago). This would just water down the game to WoWesk levels even more. So no thanks. If you want arenas so bad, WoW is that way ---->
What she said. Please understand the absolute absurdity of an "Arena" in outer space. There's no reason to make EVE more like WoW.
|
Joe Starbreaker
The Fighting Republicans
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 23:04:00 -
[118]
There is an actual star system called "Arena", I think in Derelik lowsec. Go there and fight people, nobody's stopping you. |
Caelum Dominus
Invicta.
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 23:22:00 -
[119]
www.eve-arena.com |
Helgur
Steel Soldier's
|
Posted - 2009.06.22 02:45:00 -
[120]
Edited by: Helgur on 22/06/2009 02:45:40
Originally by: Qarthy
LoneLeader you need to have every ship you own blown up for even posting this idea.
I support this notion. Everyone that is against Arenas should wardec LoneLeader and LoneLeader's corp and anyone in the future that speak positive and publicly about this idea  |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |