Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
57 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
 

Prototype: Dojos

First post First post First post
Author
Pandemic Legion
#21 - 2014-09-25 11:02:35 UTC
sounds neat, will test out later.
#22 - 2014-09-25 11:03:18 UTC
can you put in a bulls-eye with Rise's face on it too shoot please?

can you tell I'm still miffed at his eagle hating ways Smile

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Gallente Federation
#23 - 2014-09-25 11:06:36 UTC
I can see this replacing highsec duels, or just being a way to mess around on Sisi, either way +1 and let the bitter vet "slippery slope" tears commence, actually it seems they've already begun since people seem to fail to understand that this ISN'T ON TQ.
Caldari State
#24 - 2014-09-25 11:08:32 UTC
CCP Veritas wrote:
Have you ever wanted a little pewpew but didn’t have the time to find a fight, or even fit a ship?


is this really the crowd you think should be rewarded?, do you really think sugar coated bullshit pvp is going to add anything to the sandbox?

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.

Steppa Musana
#25 - 2014-09-25 11:09:00 UTC
Good. Instanced combat as an option is a very good inclusion into the game.

The dueling system is a fail because of the lack of guarantee of a fair fight, a "duel" by definition is between two entities. This new feature allows this to be possible for the first time, which is a breathe of fresh air for many players.

It's funny how the naysayers never claim that the Alliance Tournament doesn't belong in EVE. Like as if that isn't the same thing, with the exception that it's organized by CCP instead of members.

If two members want to engage in combat with no chance of outside interference, that is their choice. If a third person has a problem with this, don't use the system. Why should they have the right to control how two other entities play the game? Are they affected by this? No.

The only people who are affected by this are those who are used to duel baiting and will see less action as a result. In essence, players that don't like to fight fair. That's fine, go to lowsec or nullsec and fight dirty. Don't take our option to play fair with one another away because you don't like to chance losing a ship, hence your 5 logistics alt parked in station.

+1

Hey guys.

Gallente Federation
#26 - 2014-09-25 11:09:48 UTC
So you want to make an Instance in Eve which allows two player to fight. I don't understand why this is even in development. This idea is everything that Eve isn't. Eve isn't fair, Eve isn't safe. Its one server where anyone can shoot anyone. You are basically taking one of the core values of the game and smashing it with a Theme park MMO hammer.



#27 - 2014-09-25 11:10:31 UTC
Infrequent wrote:
I can see this replacing highsec duels, or just being a way to mess around on Sisi, either way +1 and let the bitter vet "slippery slope" tears commence, actually it seems they've already begun since people seem to fail to understand that this ISN'T ON TQ.


You fail to grasp the concept of slippery slope when you say it isn't on TQ......

Is it people with your intelligence this feature will cater for i wonder?
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#28 - 2014-09-25 11:12:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve Ronuken
This isn't on TQ. However, long term, it may be. (Note the may.)

This isn't a way to get rid of non-consensual PvP. It's a way to let people have consensual fights in a place where loss is meaningful.

There's an appetite for it, after all. (See RvB, for example).



As for 'slippery slope', that's an argument that's very hard to go against. Without a time machine, to look into the future, to see if anything has changed.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

HYDRA RELOADED
#29 - 2014-09-25 11:14:06 UTC
dexington wrote:
CCP Veritas wrote:
Have you ever wanted a little pewpew but didn’t have the time to find a fight, or even fit a ship?


is this really the crowd you think should be rewarded?, do you really think sugar coated bullshit pvp is going to add anything to the sandbox?


I see this as a low entry tournament environment, and I for one can't see AT or NEO as sugar coated bullshit pvp.

Youtube Channel about Micro and Small scale PvP with commentary: Fleet Commentary by l0rd carlos

Gallente Federation
#30 - 2014-09-25 11:16:13 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Precision Zero wrote:
Where is the dislike button?


I think it starts to display once you've actually tried the feature Big smile


why try a feature that has no reason even being in a prototype stage. Eve isn't an instanced theme park mmo.
Steppa Musana
#31 - 2014-09-25 11:17:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Steppa Musana
Varesk wrote:
So you want to make an Instance in Eve which allows two player to fight. I don't understand why this is even in development. This idea is everything that Eve isn't. Eve isn't fair, Eve isn't safe. Its one server where anyone can shoot anyone. You are basically taking one of the core values of the game and smashing it with a Theme park MMO hammer.

Reminds me of the same argument Americans use whenever new laws are enacted.

"Some guy 300 years ago created a set of rules, how dare we even consider breaking those rules!"

Ideas evolve. This doesn't take away a single facet of the game, it simply adds the ability for two willing parties to engage one another without the chance of trickery.

One might argue this separates them from the EVE universe and so another person - unrelated - would not have the ability to interfere if he so pleased. This is wishful thinking. Two parties can already warp to a safe and engage in a duel, thus not allowing anyone else to realistically interfere.

All this does is removes the ability for one of the parties to use trickery in gaining an advantage. That is something they are agreeing to, which is their right.

Stop trying to force us to play by your ideas, when nothing we are doing is affecting you.

Hey guys.

C C P Alliance
#32 - 2014-09-25 11:17:18 UTC
Arline Kley wrote:
CCP Veritas wrote:
Stuff of Win and Awesome


One question: Is this limited to low/null sec or can it be deployed in high sec as well?

I didn't put any restrictions on it, but I've only tested it in null systems. You might get concorded in a match in highsec now that I think about it. Probably a bad idea to do that.

I've set up moveme to send folks to station in FD-MLJ, just join the channel "moveme" and say "moveme".

CCP Veritas - Technical Director - EVE Online

#33 - 2014-09-25 11:17:38 UTC
tournament pvp is a nice distraction once a year.
however when that kind of format is the staple of eve, i think we'll have a problem.

in wow nobody ever left the capital city; there was no reason to.
now imagine if nobody ever bothered undocking anymore because they could get pvp on demand by pressing a button.

sure you might make pvp more accessible to a few more people... but at what cost to the actual game if nobody's bothering to undock and actually *play* it?
Spaceship Bebop
#34 - 2014-09-25 11:17:43 UTC
This should be pretty epic and will lead to a whole list of player run events, gambling, debauchery, and what have you. +1 for listening to the players and +1 when this gets implemented and flushed out.

Things to already build on and consider:
-Ability to set prizes
-Ability to ban ship types
-Maximum 10 v 10 fights
-Betting
-3rd party viewing
-Allow haulers to dock at the structure and drop off ships
-Allow courier contracts to be assigned to a dojo


Now, if only we can tie SOV into this, as someone already mentioned, "gladiator style" so when there's a stalemate, i.e. big blue doughnut, things can be settled like men Shocked

Question for the aesthetics of this: is this just going to be a tiny little blip in space like the MD or MTU?
-Have you considered making this a giant superstructure of sorts that has to be built in space off a planet. I mean it is a 125km sphere radius of doom, so the thing is massive. You could have some special designs for each faction given their flavor (blood raider would have skulls and offering tables littering the structure's exterior or a corporate, modernist Caldari style structure, etc). Consider a giant ball that uses a bubble's sphere of effect to mark the grid with the structures top and bottom "generating" the sphere (will find a picture or make a quick design later)

This would allow them to be built in highsec, destroyable through a wardec, and limited to 1-2 per system. Lowsec/nullsec could have it's own style (more grandiose or run down) and be attackable at will. Allow for a few mini timers like a POS given the structure's size and the contents it would hold

--------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------

Snuffed Out
#35 - 2014-09-25 11:20:29 UTC
No, please dont make EvE a themepark..... This is against everything that EvE stands for.

We already have the duel option, AND we have RvB.

We dont need controlled environments.


Keep it on Sisi or Duality, but putting it on TQ is just a big joke.

Gallente Federation
#36 - 2014-09-25 11:21:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Varesk
Steve Ronuken wrote:


This isn't a way to get rid of non-consensual PvP. It's a way to let people have consensual fights in a place where loss is meaningful.

There's an appetite for it, after all. (See RvB, for example).




Yes it is a way to get rid of it. The two pilots end up in an instance on TQ. If you want to do this, go on the TEST server or find a SS. Eve is about risks, and this take a lot of the risk out of Eve.

Red vs. Blue is doing it right, if i come across a red dude shooting a blue dude, i can lock and shoot one or rep the other.
Caldari State
#37 - 2014-09-25 11:21:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Masao Kurata
If you ever introduce this to TQ you will literally have killed EVE. This is completely anti-sandbox, every fight on TQ except for AT has to allow any dirty tactics and third party interference. Specifically this would be the end of all station dueling and the end of most rvb activities for a start.
Destination SkillQueue
#38 - 2014-09-25 11:24:48 UTC
Infrequent wrote:
I can see this replacing highsec duels, or just being a way to mess around on Sisi, either way +1 and let the bitter vet "slippery slope" tears commence, actually it seems they've already begun since people seem to fail to understand that this ISN'T ON TQ.

If this was an idea proposed by a random EVE player, you'd have a point. It isn't though. It's a fully functioning prototype made by CCP and is clearly introduced to gauge the community response before committing to adding arenas to EVE. The things shown to lead to the decline of world PvP in other MMOs. Also CCP themselves have always stated they don't usually commit to developing new systems just for test servers, since they can't justify spending that work on few hundred testers when it could be used to improve the game for tens of thousands. I'd say there is certainly a cause for concern over this. Those concerns might not end up manifesting to real threats, but now is the time to express them.

I'd say the methods possible for outsiders to influence the arenas determine whether this is a cool addition to the game or an abomination in the sandbox that needs to be cleansed with fire. From the initial glance it seems to avoid the worst pitfalls, so I'll go into the wait-and-see -mode until the project progresses further.
#39 - 2014-09-25 11:28:30 UTC
Awesome post Veritas.

But this thread makes me very sad, for as long as I can remember these forums have been plagued by complete ******* retards
I like Duncan
#40 - 2014-09-25 11:29:04 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
If you ever introduce this to TQ you will literally have killed EVE. This is completely anti-sandbox


this is a little extreme however i agree keep it of TQ so long as it never makes it there this is a cool idea
57 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
Forum Jump