First of all, I appreciate your response.
Let me acknowledge that my original statement that “Predator/Prey relationships should exist in games…” is going to be inherently controversial because there is a “should” in there. It means that my argument will take us down moral paths which are notoriously hard to navigate when we operate on different moral frameworks. Therefore I’l only be arguing from my framework when I say things like this, and an important thing to understand about my framework is that I believe that all humans deserve the same amount of respect from eachother at baseline, their actions affect other people in positive and negative ways, and nobody is immune from consequences of their actions.
The system I’m describing, one where Predator/Prey relationships can exist after consent, does and can exist. Tag is a form of consensual predator prey. Hide and seek is a form of consensual predator/prey. The only difference is that we both agree on the rules of HIde and Seek and we both agree on the rules of Tag. When we don’t, and instead of tapping your victim on the shoulder and yelling “tag, your it!” you push them down into a puddle, people get into fights. I was not suggesting that consensual predator/prey behavior SHOULD exist in EVE, I was only saying that IF predator/prey gameplay exists in eve, that it should be consensual. If we both agree that it should be consensual, then the next step is thinking of a design where it could be consensual.
Would there be any instance in which you would choose not to have the PvP toggle in the “safe” position?
personally? Totally depends on if there is some reward in it for me or if the act of being pursued is fun in and of itself, as it is in games like hide and seek. But your proposed pvp toggle solution has some challenges to it that i’m not sure would achieve either of our desired goals. I’m sure we could think of something better if we share the same end goals.
Except this doesn’t actually happen. This “vocal” population you’re talking about is a small minority at this point (numbering fewer than 50 unique individuals), and their “begging” amounts to making some desperate, losing arguments whenever new piracy nerfs are announced, which is often.
CCP IS keeping hisec ganking alive. My corps’ three primary systems are overun by multiaccounted bumpers and gankers that prevent almost any mining, fleet or otherwise. Extortion, threats, guilt-by-association justification of destroying and podding your venture when you step out. I bet its similar for OP. But what i’m referring to is the response to speaking up about how WRONG this is. Every time I see a post complaining about the balance on this forum, on discord, or in channels on eve, unless I’m talking with a few specific players I know about, I see a reaction from vocal individuals who laugh at the idea that consent to being prey is missing, and put the blame on victims for having very negative experiences in this game. I didn’t actually mention how many people habitually return player grievances with more griefing, because I don’t know, but I know the culture is pervasive. Just looking at how many likes on posts by gankers there are relative to likes of posts calling out CCP’s disastrous approach to consent, one can tell who has the louder voice here and who doesn’t.
The reason why CCP is keeping ganking (and other piracy) gameplay intact in some anemic, terminally-enfeebled state has nothing to do with being convinced by the select few still willing to put up with the astronomical costs and restrictions to engage in it. It’s purely a matter of economics for CCP, in terms of both the game and their own financial statements.
I believe you that it’s state might be less intense than before, although I never actually saw “before”. The fact that you use terms like “anemic”, “terminally-enfeebled” etc suggest you consider it a moral failing of CCP to make it harder to grief players. We will not agree on this. It’s right in the word: “Griefing”, causes grief for people, and I will never be on board with that. Lest you think I mean that I am anti-competition, I’ll refer you to my original comments where I said I lose at many games and that’s just part of competition.
Mortal Kombat is a player vs player game where choices and timing of moves influences whether you end up decapitating your opponent in the end or if you are decapitated yourself. My head is off 95% of the time because I suck at that. I love that game, and Havoc shouldn’t change a thing. I know what I’m getting into because the rules are the same for both players and effort is made to balance the capabilities of all characters.
Eve is NOT marketed as a hide-and-seek game. Or a predator/prey game. It is marketed as “Experience space exploration, immense PvP and PvE battles, multiple professions and activities, as well as a thriving player economy. The ever-expanding sandbox of EVE allows you to choose your own unique space adventure from countless options.”
You must see where I’m going with this. Does CCP REALLY allow players to choose mining as a profession if when I get in my venture to mine the moons my corp has drills for or any belts or ore anomalies in my system i’m ganked by multiboxing accounts? REALLY? If the only way to safely mine is to leave my corp alltogether? WHat about hauling? None of the new player experiences actually train choosers of these professions how to survive the player threat, how to survive multiboxing gankers and gankers with bumping alts. The ads AND new player experience are misleading, and that is why “leaving dock” or “playing eve” does NOT imply consent to have your ship, be it cheap or expensive, destroyed by other players.