PvP in EVE is consentual.
Whenever you undock you consent to PvP.

You understand this is like entering a vegetarian restaurant and ordring an hamburger, right? And insisting "why not? meat is better".

beside, this is not about non consensual PvP, is about accepting a game model developing from open interactions among players (competitive/conflictual interactions or not). Open PvP is a mere consequence of this setting, negating it means negating the interaction model as well.

The kind of game based on this are also the only one able to develop a meaningfull crafting, market, industry, trading. Is not a coincidence, there are a reasons.

Why do so many people think that's a bad thing?

Exactly do not fly what you cannot afford to Lose, High Sec included. I think a change to the duel system would be welcomed.

CCP Please flag both parties as outlaws for fighting in concorde controlled space, concorde should not allow school boy squabbles to go unpunished.

But through planning ahead and picking your fights to make sure you're going to win, things become very controlled and lack risk.

Drop a yellow can in front of someone 5 hours old and Label it 'Goodies'. That certainly maximizes your chances.

Also there is that same rhetoric again. Just a question: Can you expand on the statement, "Whenever you undock you consent to PvP?" So far as I can figure by my own understanding of "consent" the only people in highsec who are really living up to it are bait ships with suspect flags.

I, for one, would be a lot happier with consensual PvP being formalized. Let the 1%ers go out and blow each other up. I can't see a downside. You serve no real purpose in the game, and you definitely don't have an impact on the economy, no matter what you think.

Throughout the history of this game, PvP has mostly revolved around attacking people who are unprepared for PvP, or simply outnumbering your opponent.

Throughout the history of this game, PvP has mostly revolved around attacking people who are unprepared for PvP, or simply outnumbering your opponent. You make sure you're going to win before you even engage, and there is little risk involved if you plan ahead. This is what your average EVE PvP player has grown accustomed to, and some are quite good at it.

Reading the negative comments on the so-called 'arena' system, you hear a lot of people saying it's more suited to carebears or something, but what could be more hardcore than a 1v1 fight between two ships fitted for PvP, with no friends to save either of them? You are on an even footing with your opponent, and only your personal ability and intelligence can save you.

Why do so many people think that's a bad thing?

Eve is a cold dark place where you are never truly safe. CCP designed it this way, they wanted a safer area for people to train in but allowed enough mechanics for violence to occur wherever you are.

Thats why there is a time delay for Concorde punishment that increases as the security of a system decreases.

If CCP wanted people to be completely safe in certain areas they would of implemented the same anti-PvP method employed by most other MMO's that want safe PvE areas, and that is nobody can attack you unless you specifically flag yourself as open to PvP.

This is not the case in eve and is not the intention. For instance someone could attack you in high sec for annoying them on the forums whilst no PvP or duel flags are in place, Concorde would destroy them but if they can kill you first they are quite welcome to do so and apart for the Concorde action nothing further would happen. However CCP may frown upon someone who repeatedly attacked you in this manner at every opportunity but that would be verging on harassment.

So if there are mechanics that enable PvP avoidance how can logging in or undocking be considered consent for combat? Dwelling in highsec is one of those means, so unless you are giving up your eligibility for concord retaliation it doesn't seem you are giving consent to aggressors.

What impact do you think you have on the economy

Whats there to be afraid of? It just turns everything boring. Without threat, there is no excitement.

Wishing to fight someone in an honorable fashion is NOT being a carebear. Not wanting to fight period and stay docked up when challenged is lol

Oh, I have a very small impact on the economy. See, I'm one of the ones who produces things for ship construction and POS refueling. I know it is a pretty weird thing to do, but I enjoy it a lot more than blowing things up.

Cool. And don't you see as if your gameplay is viable and you can enjoy building things is just because someone else blow those things up and need to rebuy?

Is not abstract theory, has be experimented:

In Ultima Online (another game known for his open brutal PvP setting and in deepth crafting system and player driven economy) at some point they decided to make everyone happy to split the game world in two:

Trammel (only consensual PvP) and Fellucca (open PvP)

This totally destroyed the game economy, most of the players found more convenient to stay in the "consensual PvP" world also if the open PvP one was far more ritch as resources. Soon everyone farmed safe till becoming dirti ritch, had everything and there was no more need of crafting, the igame economy collapsed under the inflaction and the game died fast.

Isn't so.
High-sec do not prevent anyone to attack. Concord mechanics simply sanction "illegal" aggression, do not prevent it.
Open PvP in EVE is enabled everywhere in the same identical way. What can change are the possible effects/ consequences of it (security status, cocncord intervention and so on).

The only mechanics preventing direct PvP engagment is, indeed, docking. This is where the say "when you undock you consent" come from.

Cool. And don't you see as if your gameplay is viable and you can enjoy building things is just because someone else blow those things up and need to rebuy?

Is not abstract theory, has be experimented:

In Ultima Online (another game known for his open brutal PvP setting and in deepth crafting system and player driven economy) at some point they decided to make everyone happy to split the game world in two:

Trammel (only consensual PvP) and Fellucca (open PvP)

This totally destroyed the game economy, most of the players found more convenient to stay in the "consensual PvP" world also if the open PvP one was far more ritch as resources. Soon everyone farmed safe till becoming dirti ritch, had everything and there was no more need of crafting, the igame economy collapsed under the inflaction and the game died fast.

They are not consenting tothe engagement directly, rather consenting to the possibility. I hole this has helped you understand EVE better. :)

WoW is that way -------------->

non-consensual pvp has always been a part of EVE.

nerfing the sandbox aspect of EVE by making PvP consensual would remove the one thing that makes EVE different.

For me, WOW is NO WAY.

Just because something has been done a particular way for a thousand years, doesn't mean it was ever the right way to do it.

So go out and run over your neighbor's kid. That should keep you amused for a few minutes.

You can already have a consensual fight if you want, just ask someone for an arranged 1v1. If they honor it great, you got your consensual PvP, if they dont honor it, welcome to EVE where people can and will stab you in the back.

But look at it another way. What good are they? If we weren't here, they wouldn't be either.

[quote=Sura Sadiva]
And there are such means (warp stabs/interdiction nullification/high agility ships/situational awareness/etc) that do not include docking. Using highsec consequences as a deterrent is one such means. They do not guarantee success so they are not prevention. But they are used as avoidance. So how is someone who is using any of the above or others I may have omitted consenting people engaging them when they are actively working to avoid that engagement?