Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shin Dahn
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 22:20:00 -
[1]
Overall Premise
Allow a system for players to pvp, solo or in group. Ship and ISK loss is part of the action. The reward for participants is the ability to choose fights in high-sec.
This can be a hot issue. The simple argument is that if you want pvp go find it in 0.0 or low-sc. Join a pvp corp. Or challenge someone in local in High-Sec.
Why an Arena: An Arena implantation can allow players to learn pvp which benefits fleets, gangs and pvp corps. Causal players can find casual pvp vs the time it takes to organize a fleet, roaming gang or other wise.
Another advantage is helping the market û more ship losses means more sales and increased need for supply. This affects the economic chain.
Implementation
Create a non-instanced solar-system that allows for consensual pvp. Use the Alliance Tournament rule set with some modification.
All participants can expect that if they loose, they loose their ship. Allow players to be able to warp within the system but not jump out. Jumping would cause the loss of the ship and the forfeiture of any match.
Do not allow for the creation of bookmarks in the system. Players can warp but only to existing destinations.
The system security should be set to .5. This allows players with marginal standings to enter the system and participate.
The system(s) should be located away from major hubs and even located in the midst low-sec. Adding travel to the risk. This can stimulate traffic into low-sec.
Putting it together.
A player enters the PVP Arena System. He docks at station. He sets himself up in a cue. The cues can vary û solo fights vs. group fights. Limitations can be placed on ship types (cruiser vs cruiser for example) or limited player numbers (maybe a range players in a fight so you can have lopsided groupings?).
Players pay an ISK fee to participate on a match. The larger the ship type the larger the fee. The fee is not refundable and lost. Winners do not gain the fee back.
Player gets awarded a sigil for PVP once a match is established with another player(s). Player leaves the station and warps to a spawned arena pvp beacon. The sigil in the player cargo has several affects:
It allows the play to fly to the designated pvp beacon / location It prevents them from being concorded when engaging the selected opponent. Players cannot join or invite other players to gang. If the player is already in a gang with other members not without a sigil for the set fight, the player with the sigil is removed from the gang. The spawned pvp beacon is visible to all players in the system.
Betting and viewing
Other players should be allowed to observe and bet on matches. Betting pools can be done at stations. Observers can warp to a beacon and watch the action. Players with bets on a particular match should have the option to warp to the combatants in the system (with a limited distance).
Players can only bet against other players (not an NPC entity). So betting requires other participants.
Existing system destinations
Stations Asteroid Fields (low yield) Arena PVP beacons Arena PVP complex and bunkers
Players use the system to pvp and learn to pvp in different environs.
Players attempting to interfere (aggressing, shooting or even targeting) combatants should be concorded. This includes non-participants using remote rep.
|
Shin Dahn
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 22:23:00 -
[2]
Gain and Loss
With all things EVE there should be a gain and a loss.
Gain:
Winning a fight by destroying the other players ships, players should be rewarded with a small percentage of ISK based on the total amount of winning bets. If their where no bets, the play does not get any isk.
Winning players would get a kill-mail. The kill mail will include an indication that the opposing ship was destroyed in an arena system.
Players betting on matches gain what ever the betting pool allocates.
Loss:
Participating players that loose, loose their ship.
Participants should take a standings hit for pvping in an Arena system match. The standing hit should be small but overtime should have a cumulative affect. This is a consequence as being part of a less then desirable activity, as viewed by the more lawful large empires.
Podding
Participants should be allowed to POD. Podding another player should carry the same standings penalty awarded to players who pod others in high and low sec.
Bottom line
Appeal to casual players Would help stimulate the economy Would allow players to test ship types and gang strategies. Will encourage PVP not detract. The more experienced a player is at pvp the more likely they will fly out to low and null sec. Encourages player interaction û through betting and direct competition. Potential for establishing new professions û professional gladiators, bookees, etcà Allows players to utilize realistic pvp mechanics û will need to equip warp scrams and webifiers fro example.
Arguments against
My guess is that FW was established as the compromise to an Arena pvp system. FW provides goals and allows player to have direct interaction with other players. My guess is that the devs rejected an arena system with the following in mind:
It goes against the sandbox premise of EVE It has the potential to detract from PVP in low and null sec. It would require the creation of different game mechanics within a system The servers might have more stress if s system is flooded with pvpers in an arena. (Though given the size of fleet fights or the number of people in Jita, this seems less relevant. ) Players will become dependant on pvp in an arena and not venture into low and null sec.
There is a desire and need in EVE (for some) for this kind of system. With all things gaming, players always move on and never remain static in a system (ok, maybe not everyone). Players that feel more confident in their pvp skills and have a better understanding of ship loss (or the experience of loosing your ship) are better equipped to experience different aspects of the EVE universe. Plus, this would be fun.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 23:26:00 -
[3]
I have no objection to this system, but I'm not sure what it does that can't be done with existing tools. This sounds exactly like several player-run tournaments that already exist successfully. How much coder time would this take, and what would we get for it? I expect you'll do better just building support tools that can be used for more than just arenas, and letting players admin this sort of thing themselves.
|
Shin Dahn
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 23:30:00 -
[4]
Client run > player run
Having to depend on players to (a) run a tournament and (b) implement detracts from the purpose. Having the client run the system allows for it to be available on demand.
|
FU22
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 00:53:00 -
[5]
At one of the fanfests CCP spoke about a simulated arena like you are mentioning and that they already have deigns in the works.
I'm guessing the horrible lag in 0.0 fights and the balancing of other things that got broken is their higher concern at the moment though
Originally by: Millie Clode Dear santa, for christmas I would like an endless supply of noobs to march across my screen so I can pretend I'm playing duck hunt
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |