EVE Search - We need arena PvP at NPC stations

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

We need arena PvP at NPC stations

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.13 06:25:00 - [1] Curzon Dax had a 10 page thread on this.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.13 10:22:00 - [2] Originally by: Stitcher Edited by: Stitcher on 13/10/2007 09:36:22 Originally by: Badboris We need arena PvP at stations No we bloody well don't. EVE has always been based to some degree or another about what makes sense. There have never been magical "You cannot open fire on this person" fields. this is not WoW, GW or any one of the other hundreds of MMOs characterized by seas of corpses in front of all the major habitations. EVE is a dark and serious place. If it's pvp you're after, go find a nice low-sec belt or something... No magical field was proposed. Anyone who's not a combatant performs any sort of combat action, CONCORD (or some sort of gaming regulatory agency) politely reminds them why outside spectators don't participate. As to the "go to lowsec" argument that's bandied about every five minutes: doesn't work. Going to low sec does not guarantee combat, especially not in a short period of time. "Fair fight" argument: no one proposed fair. In fact, quite a few matchups will be patently unfair. "Consentual PvP" argument: What's inherently wrong with consentual PvP? Currently, I passively consent to PvP every time I undock from a station? Why can't two parties actively consent to PvP in a structured manner? Why can't game mechanics support this? As it stands, the system in place in game is too easy to abuse. Lennox Lewis doesn't show up with a gank squad at the prize fight; how is that unreasonable to ask for in-game? "Ruins 0.0 / lowsec" argument: If something so minor as an arena ruins 0.0 or lowsec, then it obviously wasn't very fun in the first place, was it? Did I miss any?
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.13 12:14:00 - [3] Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes You can't have both. Like warmth and cold at the same time . If you can conceeded to a battle with Bob, can Ryan and George then bust the battle? If they can't, you have effectvily remove the non-consensual warfare from Ryan and George. If they can, you have removed the consencual battle from you and Bob. Wrongo. I'm fighting Bob. (Could you have picked a more loaded name? ^_^) Ryan and George show up. Ryan starts repping Bob, and George starts shooting me. Shennanigans! Independant Gaming Authority / CONCORD proceeds to WTFPWN them. Non-consentual fun had by all. The real question would be whether or not this would invalidate the original match.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.14 09:55:00 - [4] Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Originally by: Telemicus Thrace If you don't like arena combat don't take part As said before, I have no problem with arena's. But, if you and a friend go for a fight in the Arena, then I should be allowed to suicide gank you both, if I can before concord burns my ship to pieces. That is the part that dissapears with hard-coded closed arena's. Then make them hard-coded open arenas. You should be allowed to employ every non-exploit dirty trick in the book, including suiciding. Again, the question is if that would invalidate the match or not. No one here (except Jenny Spitfire Mk2) is advocating a lossless, compartmentalized, WoW-esque arena. We're talking about an official means by which we can engage in a short-duration PvP activity in a framework that discourages blatant abuse.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.14 11:20:00 - [5] Originally by: MITSUK0 Instancing pvp Stopped reading on word 2. Not instanced. Repeat after me: NOOOOOOT INNNNSTANNNNCED. Very good. Suicide gankers. Showing up with a fleet. Alt in a repper ship. All perfectly acceptable behavior... which CONCORD / some sort of Gaming Commission promptly rewards you for by WTFPWNING you, assuming you're not a registered combatant. Try redoing that post from scratch.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.14 11:28:00 - [6] Originally by: Khes More immaterial drivel Read. One. Facking. Post. Up.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.14 11:48:00 - [7] Originally by: Khes Originally by: Amarria Black Originally by: Khes More immaterial drivel Read. One. Facking. Post. Up. So if would be like if you are in the same gang then you could fight each other where ever you want without Concord involvement? Similar. Except with a formalized ruleset and penalties for in-gang unauthorized combatants. And gambling. Lots of gambling.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.15 09:21:00 - [8] Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Why does it have to be official? The BIG lottery is not official in any way. And you want to hardcode 4 cans in every system with a beacon in the middle? Why??? And about the match being invalid, thats up to whoever setups the arena to decide. If you setup the Arena, then it's your rules. If I set it up, it will be my rules. What is wrong with players creating the content with available tools??? Are you guys so lazy or just afraid? You want it, you make it. Show me the in-game tool to make a system by which the jerk who breaks the rules is punished and in a substantial manner. With zero loss to the non-offending involved party or parties, or to their associates. And no, forum shaming doesn't count. Even better, describe these punitive actions as they relate to the following scenarios: Person A and Person B agree to a 1-v-1 duel, cruiser class ships only. Person A shows up in a Thorax. Person B shows up in a 'Geddon. Person A and Person B agree to a 1-v-1 duel, cruiser class ships only. Person A shows up in a Thorax. Person B shows up in a Stabber. So do 10 of his friends. Person A and Person B agree to a 1-v-1 duel, 10m ISK bet. Person A wins. Person B reneges on the bet. Person A and person B agree to a 1-v-1 duel to structure. Person B loses just barely and takes his revenge by destroying and looting A's ship. What good are player-made rules when there's no method of enforcement and anyone can throw them out the window on a whim?
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.15 10:06:00 - [9] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Amarria Black, excuse me, where in my post I said lossless arena? I'm not going to repost your posts from the first page of this thread, but they appear to imply a lossless arena, in that ships don't actually get exploded. I apologize if I misunderstood. Are you advocating a combat-centric arena which supports a sliding scale loss model ranging from "to armor" >>> "to the death"?
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.15 10:11:00 - [10] Originally by: Cpt Branko Drop can. Let enemy loot can. You loot his can. Go to arranged range. Lock, web, scram, ten corpmates warp in, lots of, "hurhurhur yarrr" in local, kill? FTFY.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.15 10:13:00 - [11] Originally by: Cpt Branko Hire mercs. Not lossless for victim. Fail. Originally by: Cpt Branko By the way, get out of high-sec if you want player policing. I don't want player policing. I want a robust system that precludes the need for player policing. Double fail.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.15 11:00:00 - [12] Originally by: Cpt Branko Is anything in EvE for free? Have you noticed that the only non-player policed things are e-baying (banstick) and high-sec combat (concord). Everything else is preety much player policed atm, contract scams, corp theft and so on. CCP quite obviously wants player policing. All the trust-based systems in EvE are player policed - you rely on someone's reputation and so on (and possibility of retribution) to decide wether you'll enter a deal with someone or not. When did I ever mention a trust-based system? I want a mechanics-based system. The current trust-based system is insufficient for the task at hand. When you buy 10,000 trit off the market, do you have to worry that it won't be there when you go to pick it up? No. If you go run a mission, do you have to plan for the possibility that the Blood Raiders are sick of your shennanigans and decide to send triple the forces to get rid of you once and for all? Nope. Same concept here. A mechanical answer is inherently robust and therefore encourages participation. Originally by: Cpt Branko The comments about a blob jumping in on you whenever you 1v1 makes me think you don't really PvP at all. Or choose your opponents very stupidly - I've never had a 1v1 dishonoured. Can you honestly and truthfully say that every person you've ever arranged combat with has fulfilled every single facet of the original agreement completely and totally, and with zero hesitation? If so, it's true what they say about God protecting fools and children. Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Amarria Black, you did not read and yet you could conclude I asked for lossless arena. If you had read the post, I am advocating an arena where losers would lose their ships. What is lossless about that? I read your posts when you originally posted them. I again read your posts when you specifically questioned my "lossless arena" post. From the structure of your first post, it appeared that you were advocating a non-combat team based competitive arena of some sort (race to the can?). I misunderstood. Again, I apologize. I believe we're all on the same page now.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.