CCP Greyscale moves on to explain his work on sentry guns. Sentry guns will now shoot anyone with a criminal flag, suspect or otherwise. Sentry guns will also start with smaller amounts of damage, and ramp up with time. Ideal tuning will be to where triage carriers will die at around 4 1/2 minutes. This way, if you want to use triage carriers in lowsec on gates you can, but you must commit to the cycle for a length of time before starting your reps, if you want to deactivate triage before the sentry guns kill you and jump out. CCP Greyscale also points out that another goal is to make it so that the first couple of hits won't kill an interceptor immediately, enabling a quick tackle, and then a warp out.

Aleks remarks that this would be great for enabling more frigate use in lowsec piracy.

Aleks asks when all of these changes will be released, and when there will be dev blogs released for this information.

CCP Masterplan explains that this is where everything is at in the design process, that they're looking forward to working more on this as the Inferno stuff dies down.

CCP Soundwave: "It is looking like a December release."

Aleks and CCP Greyscale briefly discuss community response to these changes, Greyscale acknowledges that the changes to "suspect" flagging would upset some players, particularly can-flippers.

Aleks pointed out that the one real concern is that removing can-flipping means removing the one way for a legitimate 1 vs. 1 to occur in high sec.

CCP Greyscale proposes instead that there be a flag fleet-to-fleet option that would allow free fighting to occur.

Aleks supported this possibility.

CCP Greyscale explains that it would enable two fleets to enter a temporary state of wardec, that would function exactly like a concord-sanctioned wardec from a mechanical standpoint, it would simply last for 15 minutes or whatever the agreed-upon time would be.

Two step jokes that there should be a "dueling glove" item (purchasable by Aurum) that you could drop in a can and if looted it would prompt such a flagging.

I don't even like the concept of being able to go "test" on SiSi with no risk. I hate that, I've never done it and never will. Fighting and "testing" should be happening on TQ. I know a lot of people disagree with me, but half the people who try to "school you" on what "Risk" is in EVE, usually test on SiSi for everything they do... Risk, what?

If you read the whole minutes. It goes into detail about the thoughts of "arena" fighting.
A: you still lose ships
B: Supports player organized events and betting with the flagging support
C: Don't have to wander around for a hour looking for someone to blob jump or for a group to challenge you.
D: Don't need sisi for instant gratification pvp.
E: Wont stop people who want to own space or break enemy infrastructure.

Wouldn't be bad if all of the above was true, and there was a way to watch fights and establish brackets for tournaments, with prizes coming from entry fees or somesuch.

Basically, if it was all player-run with the infrastructure in-game to avoid scams, it would be pretty awesome.

Wouldn't be bad if all of the above was true, and there was a way to watch fights and establish brackets for tournaments, with prizes coming from entry fees or somesuch.

Basically, if it was all player-run with the infrastructure in-game to avoid scams, it would be pretty awesome.

I just hope it doesn't turn into if you're not max skill with a Sleipnir with Complex Invulns and a Crystal Set go home sort of thing.

If you read the whole minutes. It goes into detail about the thoughts of "arena" fighting.
A: you still lose ships
B: Supports player organized events and betting with the flagging support
C: Don't have to wander around for a hour looking for someone to blob jump or for a group to challenge you.
D: Don't need sisi for instant gratification pvp.
E: Wont stop people who want to own space or break enemy infrastructure.

Call it 'Arena PvP' call it 'concord sanctioned comabt' I don't think its compatible with the sandbox and with the idea of galaxy wide combat.

It will end up detracting from 'real' pvp out in space, with all the thrill and depression associated with tracking and hunting prey, going behind enemy lines etc.

It cheapens the experience, and panders to the instant gratification crowd that we dont really want to encourage.

I don't think its compatible with the sandbox.

can't wait for arenas. Here is how I see them. You set up objects in space one on the left and one on the right. This creates the field of battle and protects the ships inside.

This stops players from gaming the match with little to no effort. 2 teams go in, one team comes out. OR timer untill the deathshield goes down.

But here is why it's not breaing the sandbox. You can blow up the arena from the outside. You can hot drop in and take out the arena and then kill all of the yummy tasty ships inside.

Arena should be low sec only as they are illegal.





As far as set up PvP taking away from eve, that is a direct insult to my alliance. we do set up fights all of the time. Liek last week we had an atatck fleet and a defence fleet and we fought over a single Super carrier. It was awesome. The rule was if anyone outside showed up we would turn and fight them as a group.

Now here is the catch, adding in a system where we could set up an object in space to set limits and trap everyone inside is AWESOME, and i WANT IT. Plus how cool would it be for a final match to be interrupted and the fleets inside stop fighting each other while a fleet outside bashing in the shields. Once the shields are down they get to fight the 2 fleets inside. think of the panic, think of the fun, think of the sandbox.

Arena idea is something that will see the biggest exodus in history of EVE if it ever becomes live on TQ. Fundamental gameplay changer. Incarna will be a joke comparing to that. If you want to kill the game beyond recovery be my guest and do that. Because you will not recover from that type of exodus.

Sentry guns in lowsec is something to look much more into in link with more changes to low. As for example removing local. So if someone wants to mine in the belts there or pvp then he have to find the target and target have chances to hide and run. Anything at all but not only sentry guns because only sentry guns will make lowsec a desert with no population at all.

If you read the whole minutes. It goes into detail about the thoughts of "arena" fighting.
A: you still lose ships
B: Supports player organized events and betting with the flagging support
C: Don't have to wander around for a hour looking for someone to blob jump or for a group to challenge you.
D: Don't need sisi for instant gratification pvp.
E: Wont stop people who want to own space or break enemy infrastructure.

Arena idea is something that will see the biggest exodus in history of EVE if it ever becomes live on TQ. Fundamental gameplay changer. Incarna will be a joke comparing to that. If you want to kill the game beyond recovery be my guest and do that. Because you will not recover from that type of exodus.

Sentry guns in lowsec is something to look much more into in link with more changes to low. As for example removing local. So if someone wants to mine in the belts there or pvp then he have to find the target and target have chances to hide and run. Anything at all but not only sentry guns because only sentry guns will make lowsec a desert with no population at all.

Quite possibly the most uninformed, speculative and over reactive post I have seen in Eve in quite sometime. Pretty much everything you said is not only a poorly constructed opinion but completetly out of touch with the game as a whole. Its almost like you and I are a playing a completetly different game.


First thing is first. Arena fighting doesn't have anything to do with any sort of fundemental shift in game mechanics. We already have this, its just that people have to work around the mechanic. Its been around for years and no one has ever complained. Why is it that when something has a work around its fine, but when they give you a mechanic that does the same thing somehow the world is ending. Its simple a way for players to fight in consentual PvP without having to circle jerk around with War Dec mechanics, criminal flagging and all the other crap. Eve is practically designed to ensure that if two people actually want to fight they have to jump through a ton of hoops to do so. This would allow for War Game Training, Tournaments, Social "lets see what you guys have" fights... Its a great system.

The problem with Sentry guns is that at present time, with the right fit they are no threat at all to criminals and hence they are useless in the purpose for which they are intended, detering crime. I like piracy and I want pirates to exist, it creates a dynamic to the game that keeps my heart rate up and thats what I want. Unfortunatly the only people getting this dynamic benefits are people entering pirate traps. Being a pirate in low sec is about the most boring thing you can do in this game short of mining, its mind numbing and it dumbs down the entire game, I barely lasted two days of being a pirate before I started falling asleep at the bloody keyboard on a nightly bases... in short, pirates are board as **** in this game because it takes zero talent, effort or imagination to be one. All you need is a **** load of time to waste, a proper fit and a gate to sit on. They need to spice it up and make it more interesting. Give pirates some tactics to use.

In the same token they need to give people motivation and reason to risk going into low sec for profit, which unfortunatly isn't the case right now for the most part.

Eve is practically designed to ensure that if two people actually want to fight they have to jump through a ton of hoops to do so.

You Sir are an Idiot without comparison.
Quite possibly the most uninformed, speculative and over reactive post I have seen in Eve in quite sometime.

Yeah I don't think you guys are getting it.

Sitting on a gate, waiting for some random hauler to fly through it is not PVP... its a gank. No one sitting on a low sec get is "looking for PvP", they are looking for easy kills. Its boring as ****.

Going through a wormhole to fight is a work around which is my point. You CAN already do arena PvP, you just have no mechanic for it so people find work arounds...If you want consentual PvP you can War Dec each other, join the same corp, go to a wormhole and fight... all work arounds. Why would having an item that simply lets you fight be a problem?

The point of gate guns is not to reduce PvP but to add a dynamic element for those who have and advantage in a fight to contend with, aka people on the gate waiting and prepared for someone coming through (range, fittings, fleet makeup etc..).

The biggest wine of pirates today is that there is not enough activity (fights) in low sec. Well not **** sherlock, anyone with any brains knows to scout out gates before going through to low sec and if its camped, you don't go in, so by sitting on a gate pirates elimenate the possibility of the one thing they are after (killing someone).

Hence as a whole the entire profession of low sec piracy is a hunt for stupid and unprepared people, not a search for PvP.

With some minor changes to the mechanics in low sec (giving people a profitable reason to go there, giving them some sort of edge when walking into a camp) would increase the amount of people ready to take the risk. This game is founded (or is supposed to be founded) on the idea of risk vs. reward. In low sec, it has failed miserably to achieve this.

Yeah I don't think you guys are getting it.

Sitting on a gate, waiting for some random hauler to fly through it is not PVP... its a gank. No one sitting on a low sec get is "looking for PvP", they are looking for easy kills. Its boring as ****.

Going through a wormhole to fight is a work around which is my point. You CAN already do arena PvP, you just have no mechanic for it so people find work arounds...If you want consentual PvP you can War Dec each other, join the same corp, go to a wormhole and fight... all work arounds. Why would having an item that simply lets you fight be a problem?

The point of gate guns is not to reduce PvP but to add a dynamic element for those who have and advantage in a fight to contend with, aka people on the gate waiting and prepared for someone coming through (range, fittings, fleet makeup etc..).

The biggest wine of pirates today is that there is not enough activity (fights) in low sec. Well not **** sherlock, anyone with any brains knows to scout out gates before going through to low sec and if its camped, you don't go in, so by sitting on a gate pirates elimenate the possibility of the one thing they are after (killing someone).

Hence as a whole the entire profession of low sec piracy is a hunt for stupid and unprepared people, not a search for PvP.

With some minor changes to the mechanics in low sec (giving people a profitable reason to go there, giving them some sort of edge when walking into a camp) would increase the amount of people ready to take the risk. This game is founded (or is supposed to be founded) on the idea of risk vs. reward. In low sec, it has failed miserably to achieve this.

Whole post show that you live in High Sec and know nothing at all about Wormholes and very little about Lowsec. I don't think you will get intelligent replies to your post because it is not possible to keep intelligent conversation with person who does not know what he talks about. My best suggestion to you would be to get more information on topics you try to talk about. May be try living there for starters.

Yeah I don't think you guys are getting it.

Sitting on a gate, waiting for some random hauler to fly through it is not PVP... its a gank. No one sitting on a low sec get is "looking for PvP", they are looking for easy kills. Its boring as ****.

Going through a wormhole to fight is a work around which is my point. You CAN already do arena PvP, you just have no mechanic for it so people find work arounds...If you want consentual PvP you can War Dec each other, join the same corp, go to a wormhole and fight... all work arounds. Why would having an item that simply lets you fight be a problem?

The point of gate guns is not to reduce PvP but to add a dynamic element for those who have and advantage in a fight to contend with, aka people on the gate waiting and prepared for someone coming through (range, fittings, fleet makeup etc..).

The biggest wine of pirates today is that there is not enough activity (fights) in low sec. Well not **** sherlock, anyone with any brains knows to scout out gates before going through to low sec and if its camped, you don't go in, so by sitting on a gate pirates elimenate the possibility of the one thing they are after (killing someone).

Hence as a whole the entire profession of low sec piracy is a hunt for stupid and unprepared people, not a search for PvP.

With some minor changes to the mechanics in low sec (giving people a profitable reason to go there, giving them some sort of edge when walking into a camp) would increase the amount of people ready to take the risk. This game is founded (or is supposed to be founded) on the idea of risk vs. reward. In low sec, it has failed miserably to achieve this.

^ They risk boredom, and the reward is ganking a hauler or some random person.

Thats all Im trying to point out. Its a gank fest, CCP is making it a bit harder for pirates, opening up some potential opertunities for people to crawl out of high sec and into low sec. Not sure exactly what aspect of potentially more people coming into low sec (more targets) would be bad for pirates?

Thats all Im trying to point out. Its a gank fest, CCP is making it a bit harder for pirates, opening up some potential opertunities for people to crawl out of high sec and into low sec. Not sure exactly what aspect of potentially more people coming into low sec (more targets) would be bad for pirates?

The changes to gate guns means that the campers can use instalock frigs and can catch everything plus the changes will ecorage more blobs due to the time constraints on killing things. In short, going to lowsec will go from dangerous to down right deadly while pvp will nosedive at the same time.

I think most people are pissed, since gates are the only narrow path in low sec, if you don't catch them there, it will be harder to catch up to them later, since the universe is wide open.

Again your making my point ... aka pirate response "CCP is making it harder". Of course they are, its too easy right now. Thats the whole point.

So far you have called me a noob and insulted me with vague reference but provided zero actual information, so if Im a high sec noob how about you enlighten me.

I think this whole thing boils down to "Oh no... no more easy kills... how unfair".

^True that does sound good, just that CCP greyscale scared everyone with his timetables for death. Or his death time tables, if we wanted to add political commentary into this.

Well his post was somewhat vague, and I'm kind of assuming some of this will be clarified, but conceptually I understand what they are trying to acomplish.

Make it harder for the pirates, open up opertunities for people trying to get it, hence more traffic, more potential interaction and more potential fights.

I don't know I may be off, but it just makes sense to me.

Look...I am going to break it down for You and will talk slow so you can follow. If you force the predator out of the system, the prey (in this case You) will spawn in an uncontrolled manner...until the system rebalances itself and reduces the prey (in this case someone that gets bored and unsubs) by a plague.

The gun changes *might* allow for frigate pilots skilled in the art of the bounce to engage more often at gates, which could be a good thing. However, it'll change gate camping drastically for most ships in low sec, save the tornado ( and other ships set for sniping ) which can safely camp outside the range of sentry guns.

The idea of Arenas, to me, is counter to everything eve-like. -- Eve is supposed to be such that you can pvp with anyone, anywhere, anytime, provided you are willing to accept the consquences for the area that you are in at the time. Setting up arenas is counter to that, but also sounds like a great excuse to later on start putting hard limits on when and where you can pvp. -- don't like this idea at all.

Well there is two things to this and I do understand what your saying but..

First, insta locking or not makes no difference to an industrial/mining ships. It only makes a difference to ships actually capable of a fight and as such I don't see how being locked would make a difference to someone capable of fighting.

The difference is that the guy going through the gate gets some help from the sentries giving them the edge if they can hold out in the fight. Hence someone trying to get a hauler into low sec with a few of his buddies can break up a camp with a lesser fleet.

This provides a challenge to pirates and creates a possibility to people trying to get into low sec.

Every game that has added arena pvp has killled the pvp elsewhere in the game. Needless to say I am very worried over this.

This may be just me, but I didnt see any reference to "Arenas" in the minutes, only a way to do what we already do can flipping to allow consensual PVP easier.

It's not like they're putting down separate no-risk areas for this, it's just can flipping without the can. You'll still be in the same space as everyone else.

This may be just me, but I didnt see any reference to "Arenas" in the minutes, only a way to do what we already do (can flipping to allow consensual PVP) easier.

It's not like they're putting down separate no-risk areas for this, it's just can flipping without the can. You'll still be in the same space as everyone else.

"Arenas" in game and you will see how. Consensual PVP already as easy as possible without dumbing it down to ameba level. EVE is unique game. Trying to make it appealing to "wider" population aka dumbing it down and making kitties wont do any good. There is more then enough by far superior games that appeal to wide population that died quickly exactly of the reason. EVE is not 100 euro banknote for everyone to like it. Trying to make it so will result in 100 pesos banknote and people will hurry to replace it.

Gate sentries worry me by far less then Arenas idea.

What's factually different between consensually flipping a can vs clicking "wardec this guy for 15 minutes"?

Yes I noticed how since they introduced can flipping to engage 1 v 1 the game completely died. NGE? Trammel? Nothing compares to this abomination!







Oh wait.

SWG arenas hit and pvp everywhere else aside from space ended. Same with WoW and the many clones it spawned. Why spend your time looking for fights when you can push buttan get blap?

We already have "Arenas"

Its called sisi (test server).

People don't use it as much as they should because mirroring is so infrequent.

Rather than screwing about with Eve why don't you just mirror TQ to sisi once a week? That way people who like to "duel" can log on there and "fight to hull" or whatever the hell they do.

Damn glad I'm reducing the number of accounts I run, looks like CCP have lost the plot again.

If you read the whole minutes. It goes into detail about the thoughts of "arena" fighting.
A: you still lose ships
B: Supports player organized events and betting with the flagging support
C: Don't have to wander around for a hour looking for someone to blob jump or for a group to challenge you.
D: Don't need sisi for instant gratification pvp.
E: Wont stop people who want to own space or break enemy infrastructure.

I love rvb but your arena fights are way different from the ones that they are suggesting even in rvb ffa's there is the off chance that one of your 3rd party will come by and crash it, or a fellow rvber will pop you on the way over. On top of that the arena that you have created is a wonderful player creation that can be destroyed by another group of players (theoretically mate). It is not a invulnerability button for the unexpected. As far as sitting around waiting for an op being boring its called solo even if you suck its still pvp and its still fun. The destroyable sheild would be neato but dreaming it and doing it are two different things

Best way to promote PvP, solo-, small as well as big scale, is to change player mentality.

* Killboard padding. Am not saying killboards per se is bad, in fact I like them myself. It's fun to see statistics, getting a sort of 'condensed' battlereport etc. But alot of people do care an awful lot about their killboard stats, and so do alot of corps recruiting (which adds to players being scared to die).

Yet more blob support and a kick in the arse to soloers. pathetically out of touch.

All the sentences were very to the point, and this one I want to talk about it.

I played 3 PvP MMOs that literally lost most of their PvP once they introduced mods similar to kill boards. They look nice and really give that "e-peen" feeling but they make all the less than super skilled never try again.

Other games made great efforts exactly to avoid having those kinds of "in the face" measurements. The latest of course would be Guild Wars 2, where you won't even be able to know what cross server guild you faced, exactly to avoid this kind of PvP avoidance.

And anyone trying to "duel" on SiSi knows how good that works.

"LF 1v1 at frigate beacon"
*player #1 warps and is greeted by 7 ships that instapop him*

"Want to test my fit, meet at XYZ"
*player #2 warps to XYZ and is greeted by 17 ships that instapop him*

"SiSi specific rules: No podding or non-consensual PvP"
*players #3 and #4 kills and pods random players travelling around, just for fun, after all, they only get a SiSi-ban until the next mirror anyway.. so who cares.

Sry to break it you, but red verus blue Allready does arena fights.

So I guess we killed eve. Oh well it was fun while it lasted.

Woe on us if we let the free sandbox game also allow for consensual PvP!


Do you need a specific reason more than "for fun and tears" to go out and gank anybody? Same applies to those willing to engage into "consensual" PvP. I call it consensual not because excludes unconsensual PvP to happen but because it's not the usual "take it well deep into the **BEEP** kind of PvP we are accustomed to see in hi sec.

Do they get their little stinky instance? No.
Do they face the *consequences* and lose their ships? Yes.
Will that enormously boost PvP in the PvP

you counter your own point. If we can already do it, then there is no need for a change. save the programming hours for crap that matters.

Aye well perhaps if you weren't in the FFA systems you wouldn't get ganked to ****?

Unless I've totally lost the plot as to what "duel" means it is CONSENSUAL PvP so you can do it wherever the hell you want on sisi.

Instancing PvP may appeal to you, it doesn't to me.

Back in 2004 there were no alliances but corporations were grouping up into alliances on their own. Thus ccp created the alliance system to help those players in game, despite alliances already forming and existing.

By your logic, alliances should not have been added the game. How does that make you feel.

Thank god arenas have nothing to do with instances or consensual pvp! thanks for you vote to add arenas! : D your support is welcomed.

currently you can do arena combat in eve, but one side can just warp off. With an arena bubble both sides are locked in until everyone is podded and dead. including people who don't want to fight in the arena.

Every game that has added arena pvp has killled the pvp elsewhere in the game. Needless to say I am very worried over this.

The second arenas are added to the game is the second I cancel my accounts.

Making arenas will not allow for people to be deceptive about agreed upon "consensual fights" --- This is a big change to how it has been since 2003. Alliances didn't change how people fought, it merely provided some tools to help organizational leadership and logistics ( although not near enough tools by far, but there is talk more may be in the works, finally ). So it's apples and oranges, really.

pvp arenas is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard since I started playing and wardecs is not like a arena. What do you think new players would pick, a completely safe way to pvp in high sec or go to low/0.0 where they can die at any point.

Aye well perhaps if you weren't in the FFA systems you wouldn't get ganked to ****?

Unless I've totally lost the plot as to what "duel" means it is CONSENSUAL PvP so you can do it wherever the hell you want on sisi.

Instancing PvP may appeal to you, it doesn't to me.

It sounds like the idea of the gate gun changes is to prevent what happens in systems like Rancer and Amamake and pretty much nowhere else in the game. Hopefully it won't end up that way and since those potential ideas were discussed they've thought about it and thrown away that post-it note.

then it's time to quit because red versus blue already does this and anyone can join. Adding a mechanic to include boundary violations to blow up ship is all that would change.

As far as set up PvP taking away from eve, that is a direct insult to my alliance. we do set up fights all of the time.

I like RvB, but it has mock fighting, not real fighting.

I like RvB, but it has mock fighting, not real fighting.

then it's time to quit because red versus blue already does this and anyone can join. Adding a mechanic to include boundary violations to blow up ship is all that would change.

Horrible argument. RvB is just as cluttered with spies and isk/SP discrepances as the rest of EVE is. It's nothing but exactly the same thing as FW or blob alliance warfare, except, it is open in highsec as well. It's not an "arena". It's just a mechanic allowing for PvP in a certain environment.

So you can't get spies to betray their teams or pay off traitors to turn their guns on their own or screw up on purpose, or have alts, friends join other teams pickup groups, or just go in alone and betray people. You can't War Dec people in Corps who beat you or gank people and hold grudges. Lots of stuff they could do to keep folks paranoid.

I like the Alliance Tournament System CCP made and would not mind having it around in game to play. Along with all the ways you can game it.

CCP Greyscale proposes instead that there be a flag fleet-to-fleet option that would allow free fighting to occur.

Aleks supported this possibility.

CCP Greyscale explains that it would enable two fleets to enter a temporary state of wardec, that would function exactly like a concord-sanctioned wardec from a mechanical standpoint, it would simply last for 15 minutes or whatever the agreed-upon time would be.

Two step jokes that there should be a "dueling glove" item (purchasable by Aurum) that you could drop in a can and if looted it would prompt such a flagging.

Curious. Last time I saw an RVB battle their ships seemed to blow up just like every other ship.

"no ecm"

"t1 cruisers only!"

"don't shoot the FC"

"4 guys in gang chat x up and change from frigate to cruiser"

"no ecm"

"t1 cruisers only!"

"don't shoot the FC"

"4 guys in gang chat x up and change from frigate to cruiser"

I have my alt in RVB, you can get a fight really fast and you can get on a lot of killmails, but the fights there lack any sort of tension that comes with a real fight in low/0.0.

RiS, that's the point. We and the csm are being asked how they should work. no one wants wow arenas. I think the problem is they are using a word that strikes fear. And it is justified.

The only thing i want as an arena combat allaince member is a bubble that kills you if you try to leave. This would be useful outside of arena combat as you could drop them at POS fights and such. trap the attackers inside your grid, force combat, no running. Unless you have backup kill the shield from outside. But the nice part is the defense would be locked in too.

There are no deatails, we get to ask for what we want. And I want a way kill people who get scared and try to run.

p.s.(that's how the alliance tournament works, and they said they want it to work that way)

whats not the same about it. how does perventing people from running away break eve. Please enlighten me.

because it doesn't address the problem of people being able to run away too easily.


if people are running away too easily, then that should be fixed. for everyone. everywhere.