|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
13
   |
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
Being caught out by not doing proper research and not being aware of a particular game mechanic is one thing. Whether or not that game mechanic is sensible is another thing entirely.
I don't disagree with any of the comments about the lack of care taken regarding the amount of risk involved in this case, but I also don't disagree with the OP's opinion that this game mechanic is ridiculous. The concept that people should be able to attack each other without consequence just because they are in the same corp, club, guild or whatever defies all logic. Why should this be required in order for players to engage in consensual combat?
If you want a private conversation with another player, you send an invite and they either accept or reject. If you want to fleet up with another player, you send an invite and they either accept or reject. If you want to trade in station, you send an invite and they either accept or reject.
Anyone seeing a pattern here?
Why not a similar system for consensual combat without CONCORD intervention? Then anyone could duel with anyone else, regardless of allegiance - surely an even better situation? |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 09:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
J'Poll wrote:How about: NO
Go back to WoW with consensual PvP talks please. If people do a bit of research they learn game mechanics. If they then do research on the corp they join they are pretty much safe. Never played WoW in my life, nor any other MMO apart from this one. I'm not a gamer as such, I'm a sci-fi fan and the only other online game I've played is Homeworld 2 Complex.
Back to the point. Why shouldn't any two players be able to fight each other without interference if that's what they want to do?
Chiana Moro wrote:This is not WoW.
EVE is built on non-consensual pvp, if don't like that - go play another game.
Where exactly did I advocate the general removal of non-consensual PvP? What I suggested was a limited measure to make it impossible to force onto corpmates, given that the ability to engage in consenual PvP is the only reason given here for the game mechanic that allows that to happen. |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 09:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sugar Kyle wrote:Because then I'd be able to tell my corp mates no. What fun is that? Ah, I see. To you, something is only "fun" if the other party is unwilling.
I think I get the picture. |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 10:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
Sin Pew wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:I support the addition of a Duel system. The can flipping option is just a mess. How about just leaving high-sec? You can duel all you want in the numerous empty low-sec systems.
Er . . . because that would make you vulnerable to non-consensual PvP, which isn't the object? |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 10:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
J'Poll wrote:Oraac Ensor wrote:Back to the point. Why shouldn't any two players be able to fight each other without interference if that's what they want to do? Ever heard of arranged 1v1 using the can flipping mechanics.
Of course, but I agree with this:Steve Ronuken wrote:The can flipping option is just a mess.
|
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 10:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sin Pew wrote:First, leaving high-sec means you consent to PvP, there's warning dialogs you have to acknowledge before entering low-sec and further on, null-sec. Of course. Why are you pointing that out? Why else would I have said that it's not an option if you're only consenting to combat with one specific opponent?
Sin Pew wrote:Second, undocking itself is consenting to PvP, heck even logging on is. The general PvP risk you accept by playing EVE isn't free of CONCORD intervenion except as governed by system sec level. What we're discussing here is consensual PvP without external interference.
I grant that SiSi is an option, but it's a bit of a contrivance just for a casual scrap with another player. |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
Sin Pew wrote:I say all PvP is consensual. Then you are wrong.
Accepting the risk of something isn't the same as consenting to it.
Every time I leave my home I accept the risk of being mugged. Every time I cross the road I accept the risk of being killed by some lunatic driver. That doesn't mean I consent to those things.
J'Poll wrote:How would a pop up asking you if you want to fight player "x" yes or no prevent them from using off grid boosts or warping in buddies that pull aggression using the game mechanics (repping drones, ECCM etc.). Obviously, by making the immunity from CONCORD applicable only to the two consenting parties. |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:09:00 -
[8] - Quote
I'm pretty sure that shooting a fleet member gets you CONCORDed unless you're also in the same corp. |
|
|
| |
|