Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ekalami
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 15:33:00 -
[1]
I have been thinking about the positive elements of the very non-eve ideal of making pvp quick and accessible and a good chance of a 'fair' fight (i know, a fair fight means a fight poorly chosen etc, but put that aside for just one moment plz) all at the same time.
Biased, i am, by the excitement of the eve-tv alliance tourneys, I freely admit.
Ok, the plus sides I have thought of so far:
- an upper limit on total number ships = lag free fights
- instantly accessible non-solo pvp
- with random team of opponents there is the challenge of dealing with unknown opponent setups/strategy, thereby forcing dynamic tactics on the fly
- no blobs!
- fair(er) fights as an alternative to what eve currently has, which are fine too
- Both sides of the fight would be on-grid before the fight began!
I could go on, but just think of the alliance tourneys, and you get the idea.
It wouldnt need to be the eve no-no of an instance, just a crazy low chance of detection like deadspace complexes. So as to be an instance in all but name :)
Just like in the tourneys (and perhaps the knowledge gained from the tourneys could be used to get the right balance) each ship type could have a point value, and each team is capped only by a tourney size max point value for the fleet.
The whole idea could be tied into FW, with the victor of each tourney fight gainign something faction related as well as the loots :)
If you have read this far, you are probably itching to jump in and show me the way to WoW (which i have never played), but before you do, just ask yourself one question please:
Would it be fun?
Another question of the idea might be:
Would it diminish 'normal' pvp?
If it did, id be the first to agree the whole idea is a bad one. But as of now, I cant see how it would, and so made the post.
I cant see it diminishing the alliance tourneys either, can only see it adding to it both in terms of viewers and competing teams :)
|
Hannobaal
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 16:26:00 -
[2]
If you want "pvp quick and accessible and a good chance of a 'fair' fight", why not just use the test server? You don't even have to worry about the cost of ships and modules there.
---------------
I'm not as think as you drunk I am. |
ekalami
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 18:50:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Hannobaal If you want "pvp quick and accessible and a good chance of a 'fair' fight", why not just use the test server? You don't even have to worry about the cost of ships and modules there.
I would like to point out that the 'fair' fight element, while an added bonus, is by no means one of the primary advantages of this idea. I'd say fair fights are well below lag free battles with both sides loaded on grid before the fight starts. I'd also rank fair fights below the chance to use tactics other than nano'ing without having to resort to a blob. I'd rank elimination of blobs above the fair fight element too.
But on that minor issue of fair fight, u cant get reliable group pvp with balanced/fair sides on the test server anyway, so the issue is almost irrelevant.
Anyways, without worrying test servers etc, the big question is, would you enjoy this type of pvp as an alternative?
|
Zeba
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 19:12:00 -
[4]
One of the constants in Eve is that you can pvp someone anywhere you can scan them out. This would remove that element from the game and so won't ever make it in. Would be fun if implimented correctly but it isn't really very Eveish. So to the test server boy wonder!
inappropriate signature. ~WeatherMan |
brinelan
Caldari Victory Not Vengeance Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 19:15:00 -
[5]
so you want wow battlegrounds in eve? haha.. no.
I play eve because it is the opposite of wow in just about every way. If you want a fair fight, take friends roaming in lowsec / nullsec. bashign gatecamps is fun!
My last roaming gang, we had 6 or 7 of us. One of our guys who was leaving to log for the night found a gatecamp at a 0.0 to empire gate. The isntant we jumped into system in at once, all but one ran through the gate faster then you can blink. We did get 1 kill.. the only one that didnt run like a chicken.
Had they stayed, their 3 scorpions and 4 or 5 other dps ships could have wiped our little small ship gang off the map, but they didnt.
PVP fun for all, just gotta look in the right places. --------------------------
Some days you're the bug, some days you're the windshield |
ekalami
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 19:30:00 -
[6]
Originally by: brinelan so you want wow battlegrounds in eve? haha.. no.
I believe I stated in the OP that I have never played WoW, so do not know of these 'battlegrounds' to which you refer.
I find it odd that in the rest of your post, you almost indicate that this proposal would be *instead* of normal pvp. Why would that be? If you want to go roaming in a gang looking for a 0,0 gatecamp, thats completely fine.
I am merely suggesting an alternative style which would result in lag free fun fights tied in with factional warfare. Such an alternative may open up pvp for those who can only play for an hour or two a night.
I predict that such a system would bring more people into pvp. Not only can you lower your risks by flying cheaper ships, but in doing so, you can be assured of a good fight too!
The primary reason for this idea, while it is most un-eve like, is that its practical. Eve cannot handle fleet battles of several hundred pilots. One day we are going to have to face that. Neither is eve designed to be a solo game. Eve excels when opposing gangs of limited number collide for a fight. This is what tournament style fighting offers. Nothing more, nothing less
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 21:30:00 -
[7]
You're right, it's a good idea. Go set up a tournament - hold it in the middle of highsec(ideally in CONCORD space so everybody can play without FW restrictions, assuming it works the way I think it does), can-flip for aggression, have entry fees and prizes. Assuming the rules were decent, I'd play. Actually, if you don't mind setting the setup-time entry barriers higher, put it on Singularity - that changes it from PvP-with-losses to combat gambling.
I see no need for CCP to implement it - do it yourself. If you want a better combat flag than can-stealing, push for that to get implemented, but we don't need forced instances. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Qduhaf
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 21:43:00 -
[8]
FW seems to be winding down already, took a bit longer than i thought but at least the amarr/minmatar war is significantly lacking targets.
EVE design, influence seems to be dominated by the hardcore players that think nothing of dedicating 8 hours a day and finding several fights in that time. But I'd argue that there are many more players and potential players that like the risk of EVE but would like to have system that could work with lesser time commitment and give people better PVP (ie, its not just who brings the bigger blob).
I have suggested several times and still think that Missions in FW should be PVP based, and limited in some way to numbers and types of ships as proposed by OP.
I'd propose several mechanisms put in place to make this happen:
1)Every mission needs 2 parties to make it happen (eg, 1 caldari, 1 gallente): This would not only ensure that it was PVP focused but also balance out the sides (if everyone is caldari, then there wouldnÆt be missions for them as there were no gallente sides)
2)Mission sends both parties to a contested system victory point, those victory points can not be scanned out, nor can ships/drones, etc be scanned out within them. One side is the defender, the other the attacker.
3)Each mission/side has a point structure, allowable ship types and a recommended and maximum number of allowable points. Assume that Level 1 missions are for tech 1 or 2 frigs and 4 players, level 2 are for tech 1 or 2 frigs tech 1 cruisers and tech 1 battlecruisers/battleships and 8 players, level 3 are for all ship types, 8 players and level 4 for all tech 1 and 2 battleship and below and 32 players (fleet warfare). These point structures change by mission, and arenÆt always the same on each side so no ôwinningö formulas (ie, dual guardian for the slow painful win), and each side is given an indication of what they will face based on how the points are allocated, of course instead of 4 interceptors, one side might take 8 noob ships that total out to the same points so you really wonÆt know how many or what ships you will face.
4)Winning side gets rewards, based upon 2 factors: a) total point value of their ships that entered the victory point with 0 reward if exceeded max allowed points and b) the ranks of the opposing playerÆs team. This means you would get a lot more rewards for beating top ranked players with a small group, less if you won with a large group against noobs and nothing if you blobbed the victory point.
Of course either side could camp the gates in between, etc but at least this would guarantee that the end PVP result would be what I think most new and older players regard as fun.
|
Viqtoria
Caldari Groping Hand Social Club
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 22:12:00 -
[9]
In before cretinous idiots start blathering about WoW battlegrounds...oops too late! seriously i don't get those guys, they must have played in wow battlegrounds? and know they are basically the eve equivalent of officer fit faction BS vs newbs in frigates. PvP? uhm, no. there is no comparison to be made.
Giving people the option to enter preplanned, blob free engagements would rock. Perhaps have a 'duel' system in which you can bet isk/modules on the outcome, etc. Whatever gives people fun without taking away the risk (and even adding more risk) is a good thing for eve. Unless the prospect of fair, pure skill based fights scare you, in which case you'll never make use of a duel system because you're simply too scared of losing
|
Willow Whisp
Sadist Faction
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 22:16:00 -
[10]
Originally by: ekalami I find it odd that in the rest of your post, you almost indicate that this proposal would be *instead* of normal pvp. Why would that be? If you want to go roaming in a gang looking for a 0,0 gatecamp, thats completely fine.
Question [y] [n]
Would there be a way to scan out someone who is having a "tournament fight" and surprise gank them?
If yes, then I'm all for it.
If no, and it's a protected instance, then that would be a mechanic that would work instead of normal pvp, as it would be either or.
Eve is a sandbox. that means I can go to the two guys that are having a fight inside the rope circle, jump the ropes, and beat them up, if I can get away with it. Any sort of hard limits in terms of being able to circumvent this would go against everything eve stands for. -- this is my sig. |
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 22:21:00 -
[11]
Actually, the tournament PvP is insanely boring in which even the commentators repeat how boring most of the fights are.
I think most people would think that instanced PvP per you describe would be the death of EVE, because instanced PvP is about the exsct opposite of what the developers of CCP wanted to create when they made EVE. Might as well throw in night elf rogues. --
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Viqtoria
Caldari Groping Hand Social Club
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 22:27:00 -
[12]
of course, you can't have any areas in eve, especially those which are player spawned (in the case of a random duel spot) immune to basic game mechanics like probing, way too easy to abuse.
|
Qduhaf
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 22:29:00 -
[13]
Maybe start with it being as difficult to scan down as it is today inside a mission complex, difficult but not impossible.
But really if there is a an alternative mechanism that gets people out of hig sec into low sec shouldn't that be encouraged? No one is doing that for the low sec ratting or mining, and FW for amarr/minmatar is already dying down.
I think you would find a lot of casual players that would like to get into 4 vs 4 cruiser fights. Much better than the gank or flee and blob mentatlity that exists today.
Most people I see posting on the forums about eve as a sandbox realy mean that they don't want their little gank friends to have to face a fair fight. And I really laugh in Fw when both sides are running from each other because the odds are even. Ganking or being ganked are both unsatisfying.
|
Qduhaf
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 22:47:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Vaal Erit Actually, the tournament PvP is insanely boring in which even the commentators repeat how boring most of the fights are.
I think most people would think that instanced PvP per you describe would be the death of EVE, because instanced PvP is about the exsct opposite of what the developers of CCP wanted to create when they made EVE. Might as well throw in night elf rogues.
so amny ways to tear that apart - most obvious is the standard "i don't want to think, so I will just suggest that you go back to WOW" response. Come one people grow up and think about where the game is going. It is just a childish way to look at something different that the current (and I would say boring stat of PVP).
Tournament PVP is boring because its BS based and static point systems lead to standard set ups, varying point systems so you can't predict what (or even how many) your opponents will bring will be much more dynamic.
We already have "instanced" missions, and give the numbers in rens, jita, doing those I don't think its the death of eve. I don't think it was the intention of EVE designers to make 0.0 blobby pos shooting lag fest, nor was it the intention to have level 5 missions be unused, or as I say will happen in 2 months have FW be unused either
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 23:11:00 -
[15]
yes the alliance tournament is fun they should hold more :)
|
Zeba
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 23:21:00 -
[16]
Originally by: MotherMoon yes the alliance tournament is fun they should hold more :)
Indeed. I wouldn't mind seeing alliance tournaments held 4 times a year with smaller specialized official events every couple of weeks for the smaller corps to enter. I know there has to be a few bored young adults in Iceland CCP could hire on to organize and run moar events. Just pay them minimum wage with access to discounted Bree for off hours and free Eve accounts. Bam. Loyal employees for life and your playerbase gets even moar ways to compete. Win Win.
inappropriate signature. ~WeatherMan |
Rawr Cristina
Caldari Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 23:23:00 -
[17]
No such thing as a fair fight. Not in EVE, and 1v1s on the test server can get ridiculously boring. ...
|
Zeba
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 23:27:00 -
[18]
I rather like the mosh pit attitude of ffa1 tbh.
inappropriate signature. ~WeatherMan |
Qduhaf
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 23:36:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Qduhaf on 16/07/2008 23:37:24
Originally by: Rawr Cristina No such thing as a fair fight. Not in EVE, and 1v1s on the test server can get ridiculously boring.
I agree, even with sames ships, skills are still uneven. But at least in an evenly matched ship engagement you have a fun and longer fight.
|
ekalami
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 23:38:00 -
[20]
Edited by: ekalami on 16/07/2008 23:46:18
Originally by: Rawr Cristina and 1v1s on the test server can get ridiculously boring.
Are 5v1s less boring? Please could you explain how, since I would love to know.
Or perhaps you mean 5v5 or 10v10 would be better, in which case i'd agree, and indeed embraced by this idea
Please bear in mind that this kind of tournament fight might well have implementation issues that are tricky within the eve philosophy.
The purpose of this thread was not to decide how it might be done, but whether it would be fun, whether it would attract more people into pvp, and whether it fits well with the reality of the game's limitations.
I feel it definitely ticks the 'lag free battles' box and the crucial 'anti-blob' box. For those reasons alone, I think the idea is worthy of discussion. Hell, the 'fair fight' box is almost irrelevant, just pure bertie bonus is all.
If it would 'ruin' your traditional pvp, I would like to hear how.
By the way, id hate it if this was the only way pvp was allowed. That would majorly suck. But as an addition, with a valid context, I feel would be a great addition to the game.
Faction warfare provides that context.
|
|
Qduhaf
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 23:46:00 -
[21]
Test server is boring because there is no risk nor reward.
If FW ranks were tied to PVP successes that would be enough for people to really go after them
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 00:02:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Qduhaf Test server is boring because there is no risk nor reward.
If FW ranks were tied to PVP successes that would be enough for people to really go after them
My suggestion was to wager Tranquility isk on Singularity battles. Someone sets up a user-based tournament bracket, similar in style to the Texas Hold'Em that exists now. Say you want a 2v2 duel in T1 cruisers. You propose it in channel, find an opponent, and each team pays 50 mil to the organizers. Boot SiSi, head to a market system somewhere in lowsec(this would be pre-established, so active players wouldn't have to move), warp to a planet at range, and fight. Winner gets 90 mil, organizer gets 10, and there's no loss of ships involved to make the finances not work.
This isn't snark, I actually think this is a very good idea. If someone wanted to set this up, I'd be all over it. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Ushatuhkwa Kaeshe
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 00:08:00 -
[23]
Or, you could, you know, create two corporations that would be perpetually at war with each other, and agree on set rules before you go out and shoot each other. You can even create a channel that both corps can access and set up "meetings" at...
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 00:19:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Ushatuhkwa Kaeshe Or, you could, you know, create two corporations that would be perpetually at war with each other, and agree on set rules before you go out and shoot each other. You can even create a channel that both corps can access and set up "meetings" at...
Yeah, but you have to corp-hop for that, and it interferes with your ability to play the game when you don't want to fight. I wouldn't play in Red vs Blue for that reason, but I'd gladly pop over to the test server for some consequence-free combat gambling. It's not a bad idea(though I recall hearing that it fell apart when one side got too much better than the other), but it caters to a very different crowd. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 00:29:00 -
[25]
Please not this crap again.
|
Qduhaf
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 04:20:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Esmenet Please not this crap again.
can't argue with that brilliant statement. Really if you are so opposed to system you should have at least one reason. And let me spare you the trouble of typing "go back to WOW"
|
Hieronimus Rex
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 04:58:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Hieronimus Rex on 17/07/2008 04:58:43 You could set them up yourselves within pos bubbles, so external parties couldn't interfere.
EDIT: hisec wars work too but IMO ^^ is more convenient.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |