| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Le Xu
   |
Posted - 2008.03.07 19:59:00 -
[1]
IÆve been watching the tournament podcasts. TheyÆve been quite entertaining. CCP have done a good job. IÆve especially enjoyed the commentary regarding the various strategies and tactics employed by the sides in the matches.
I think it might provide CCP some insight if they were to project the same kind of format for the type of griefing pvp that commonly happens in the game. What kind of commentary would there be? How engaging would the play by play of a lopsided suicide gank of miners in high sec be?
If context independent non-consensual PvP is the cornerstone of the value proposition of EVE and makes for the heart and soul of the entertainment the game offers to current and potential customers, why is the tournament based on restricted consensual PvP? Why didnÆt any of the teams field a fleet of Hulks so we could enjoy all of the excitement of explosions without experiencing any of the unpleasant anxiety associated with an unknown outcome?
Seriously though, I understand the benefit and need for environments with unrestricted PvP. It does add an element of excitement to the game. However, there is also a need for areas of restricted PvP. CCP themselves recognized this when they created CONCORD and security ratings.
The reason is basic game design. The greater the connection that a player feels exists between any in game outcome and the decisions they make, the more engaged they will be in the game. Suicide ganking takes a large (according to the latest CCP published statistics, the vast majority) of the customer base choosing to do things in high sec space and decouples the rather significant game mechanic of system security ratings theyÆre basing decisions on from the outcomes they experience in the game. ThatÆs simply bad game design that erodes a playerÆs confidence in the fidelity of the game system theyÆre playing.
Suicide ganking is like adding numbers to the roulette wheel after the bets are placed. If CCP want absolute, unrestricted PvP, remove CONCORD altogether and make the entire Universe 0.0.
I really believe that this is just a basic game design quality issue and not nearly as nuanced as the proponents of suicide ganking would suggest. The current implementation of the insurance system is simply undermining the design intent of consequence associated with CONCORD and the security system. ThatÆs pretty much it, from my point of view. It should be fixed.
|
Le Xu
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 20:11:00 -
[2]
I guess the highly skilled hulk pilots must not have known about the tournament. Either that or I just missed the match. How'd they do?
|
Le Xu
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 20:15:00 -
[3]
Yeah, I've heard all the sayings too. High sec doesn't mean 100% safety. Only fly what you can afford to lose. CONCORD only provides consequence. Etc. Right now, it's that last one that is off with the current implementation of insurance.
|
Le Xu
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 22:37:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Le Xu on 07/03/2008 22:37:45
Thanks for the responses. Steady there, Goon.
First, I donÆt want EVE to be a tournament type game. I would hate that. lol I also like the open ended nature of the game. The only reason I used that ridiculous analogy was to illustrate the point that the actual combat that takes place in EVE, is most interesting when itÆs between evenly matched opponents. PvP combat in a non-consensual game engages the player through decision making that happens outside of the actual combat. That decision making is all about risk assessment.
A pure PvP game would have nothing influencing player combat outside of the actions of players themselves. 0.0 rules everywhere. However, CCP did not do that with EVE. They introduced CONCORD and a whole progressive security system. Why is CONCORD in the game? What is the point of having differing levels of security?
Ironically, some of the best examples that illustrate my point are some of the real life analogies that have been used to challenge it. In real life, a suicide bomber doesnÆt get to attack more than once. An insurance company assesses the risks associated with insuring when determining whether they will insure at all and at what price. You are more likely to get mugged in a dark alley than a police station. Etc.
WhatÆs broken with suicide ganking is simply that insurance is a flat risk mitigator for the ganker that undermines the progressive risk mitigation CONCORD offers the miner. Either, remove CONCORD altogether and leave insurance as it is or put insurance on the same progressive scale as system security status.
An even better system, in my opinion, that would match the dark mercenary world of EVE, would be for kill rights to be issued by CONCORD based on standings with CONCORD to everyone with the correct positive standing against any pilot breaking CONCORDÆs laws. This would give the ôcarebearsö an opportunity to respond with the same degree of force as the aggressors and take the fight back to them. It would also give players who otherwise would never get the chance, an opportunity to have some fun in some of the bigger PvP battles. This would also allow the non consensual PvP mechanic to work for the ôcarebearsö as much as it now works against them. I, for one, would have a lot more fun flying around belts hunting gankers and griefers than rats.
|
Le Xu
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 23:10:00 -
[5]
I donÆt know. IÆve never played a game that was perfect, including EVE.
From my perspective, I see a lot of posts talking about increasing levels of PvP. I see a huge amount of the Universe unused. I see people begging others to come into low sec and others saying itÆs worthless space. I see the Goons angry that people are making money in high sec and engaged in suicide ganking to force them into low sec.
IÆm not saying that EVE is a bad game or that it needs to fundamentally change. On the contrary. I believe EVE is a great game. IÆm just questioning some game mechanics and the intent. It seems to me, like some things arenÆt working exactly as intended and that there is room for improvement on the open ended PvP side.
IÆd like more PvP. I didnÆt buy EVE and donÆt pay my subscription to play the PvP equivalent of a carebear by ganking defenseless miners with insurance to cover my loss. I say let them gank, but also give kill rights to everyone with positive CONCORD standings. YouÆd get a lot more PvP. What about wanting more PvP in EVE is killing the game?
|
Le Xu
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 23:16:00 -
[6]
Thanks, Tarminic. You raise excellent points that really touch on the heart of the argument. I appreciate you taking the time in the discussion.
I agree. They should be able to execute the gank. The kill rights idea wouldn't take that away from them. It would just make the gank the opening move of a much larger PvP gambit that could involve a lot more pilots in PvP than the current system allows.
|
Le Xu
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 23:35:00 -
[7]
EVE is not full PvP. If EVE is full PvP, why not make everything 0.0?
|
Le Xu
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 23:43:00 -
[8]
I'm not arguing for 100% safe. I'm arguing for either 100% unsafe or kill rights against gankers for those who have positive CONCORD faction. If you want to gank, gank. Then get ready for more PvP when you undock.
|
Le Xu
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 23:53:00 -
[9]
It's the varying level of consequence that is out of whack with the current system since insurance pay outs are flat and decoupled from the progressive security system.
I like having consequence in the game. I think it is a vital element. The kill rights for CONCORD "allies" idea would add player made consequences that would mean more PvP.
|
Le Xu
|
Posted - 2008.03.08 00:10:00 -
[10]
Ungdall, if the solution is for the carebears to suicide back and CCP have already taken care of it and everything is working perfectly, why haven't they? Have the miners whose ships you destroyed now moved operations to low sec as you wanted? You guys put a lot of effort into your plan. Is it working?
|
Le Xu
|
Posted - 2008.03.08 00:20:00 -
[11]
Fair enough. I probably should have narrowed the point down faster. I was just addressing the issue from a variety of different perspectives and trying to emphasize why it's a good idea using current events as examples. |
Le Xu
|
Posted - 2008.03.08 16:19:00 -
[12]
Ungdal,
So, you guys are doing this just because you can. You like to annoy other players. YouÆre losing a lot of money doing it. Nothing needs to change, because the option to be a jack ass, annoy others and lose money is available to everyone else. Is that your argument? Have another drink, mate and try not to think so much. You'll hurt yourself.
CCP, instead of writing articles on mindless morons pushing other players to be mindless morons, implement the CONCORD allies kill rights idea. CONCORDÆs response to the jack ass incursion is not sufficient.
Make temporary allies out of Empire dwellers in response to each violation and allow the Empire dwellers to respond to illegal random attacks with legal random attacks. YouÆd see a lot more Empire dwellers willing to PvP when they donÆt have to do it with their pants around their ankles all the time or go broke trying to do the job CONCORD is supposed to be doing. I, for one, would love to see the real*****roaches scurry around for a change.
|
Le Xu
|
Posted - 2008.03.08 17:28:00 -
[13]
I addressed your point head on. The only fairy I see dancing is you.
First you said there was no point to your attacks. You do it just for laughs. Now there is suddenly a point to your attacks. You have a problem with people making money in Empire space with no risk. Which is it? Do you attack for no reason, just for laughs or do you have a problem with people making money in Empire space with no risk?
If you guys really have a problem with the security system, you should argue for 0.0 everywhere. Why donÆt you? You talk about managing risk, watching your back, playing smart, etc. ItÆs a load of dross. All of that is in 0.0 in spades.
|
Le Xu
|
Posted - 2008.03.08 18:50:00 -
[14]
I agree. I don't want to take out non consensual pvp. The CONCORD killrights idea would create more non consensual pvp, not less, by involving the large segment of the population that plays in Empire space.
|
Le Xu
|
Posted - 2008.03.08 19:10:00 -
[15]
Thanks,Burnharder. /salute
|
Le Xu
|
Posted - 2008.03.08 19:59:00 -
[16]
Regarding macro miners; I donÆt like them either. However, it is CCPÆs responsibility to deal with them the way every other game developer has to deal with people who violate any macroÆing rules. It is not a solution to push that on to the players to solve, especially if the player ôsolutionö takes out the baby with the bathwater. If people are exploiting game mechanics to create illegal macros, thatÆs a quality issue that lands squarely in the laps of the developers.
The problem with accepting limitations and problems with the game (like macro miners) with a ôpart of the game, deal with itö attitude is that bigger problems like lag will not get solved either and weÆll just stroll along like sheep accepting lag inducing tactics as ôstrategyö thatÆs just ôpart of the gameö too. I donÆt think we, as paying customers, should accept this kind of philosophy.
If the Goon move into Empire space is really about the macro miner problem, stop helping CCP cover up their problem. Either that, or at least get on their payroll so you donÆt look like chumps.
|
| |
|