| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12767
   |
Posted - 2013.01.21 17:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
Simple: because the existence of non-consensual PvP means that there is no need for consensual PvP. The mechanics for the former means you can have the latter at any time you want already.
To use Malc's new favourite word: consensual PvP is a wedge proposal GÇö you ask for a single unnecessary thing to be added, and then for the unnecessary:ness to expand to include some other portion that seems related; and then expand it further; and further; and then you suggest that, hey, doesn't this really cover all the bases? So why do we need this antiquated non-consensual system?
The core problem is that all suggestion for consensual fights rest on the presumption that engaging in one would lock you out of all other combat, and that simply cannot happen in EVE GÇö there can be no safe havens. As a result, any such system becomes meaningless: why agree to a fight when all the PvP is still non-consensual? Why have an arena for two teams, when nothing can be allowed to restrict others to enter that arena and interfere at will?
Vote Malcanis for CSM8. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12767
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 17:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bane Necran wrote:I doubt people are going to start having duels instead of wars. Or duels instead of gatecamps.  I'm not talking about behaviour GÇö I'm talking about mechanics.
All mechanics for consensual combat are encapsulated within the mechanics of non-consensual combat, and no consensual combat can ever be allowed to exist outside the real of non-consensual engagements.
Thus, consensual mechanics are either unnecessary or game-breaking. Either way, there's no point in or need to add them.
Vote Malcanis for CSM8. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12767
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 17:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
Bane Necran wrote:The point is more PvP, which even someone who isn't heavy into PvP like myself agrees is good for the game. GǪand the follow-up point is that the game already fully allows for it. If they aren't doing it now, they're not going to do it later when everything is still the same.
Yes, they might engage in some if it is implemented in a way that breaks the game, but that would not be good for the game regardless.
Vote Malcanis for CSM8. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12767
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 17:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:I agree with this. Nothing should be introduced that prevents someone from "crashing your party".
If you have an arena, or tournament tools, then I should be able to actually crash your contest.
The tools to have arena style tournaments would be fine, but not if it also comes with mechanics that prevent others from being douches and interupting it.
Arenas all day long as far as I'm concerned, but I better be able to witness it in person, and be able to crash it if I choose.
Otherwise it doesn't really have any business in EVE. GǪand at that point, it has very little to do with arenas, and rather revolves around the Gǣbetting officeGǥ, presumably some expansion or generalisation of the bounty and war report systems.
Vote Malcanis for CSM8. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12770
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 20:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
Aza Ebanu wrote:You must be blind or something. A duel is consensual PVP without a sec hit where you and another player can duel without the interruption of another player. GǪand thus has no place in EVE.
If you want to duel another player, you can go ahead and do so. If you want to disconnect from the rest of the game, I suggest logging out, because that's all you're going to get. Well, that or Sisi, which is over thataway GåÆ
Vote Malcanis for CSM8. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12773
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 21:35:00 -
[6] - Quote
Bane Necran wrote:And the exact same CONCORD protection that currently exists would presumably also be active when people are fighting 1v1 in some kind of 'arena' system. I'm not sure where people got the idea they'd get special protection. Mainly from the people who think that duelling inherently means non-intervention from outside parties for whatever reason.
They think GÇ£duelGÇ¥ and believe that they should be given the same kind of duelling instances lesser games offer.
Vote Malcanis for CSM8. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12784
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 17:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:How something like this extends to 7+ pages is beyond me. Did anyone even read the dev post about this? All they are doing is adding a mechanic for what used to be can flipping to get a fight. How is that so controversial? It's not.
The controversial part is that people still think there should be some form of consensual-only fighting, and since this new old feature doesn't provide it, they're trying to frame it as one anyway so they can then argue that adding instanced combat wouldn't make any difference.
Vote Malcanis for CSM8. |
| |
|