When pvpers constantly whine about this game being a sandbox and then constantly whine about it being only pvp it is hard to keep track what the whine meta is.
They introduce Abyss and people are whining that it interferes with the “sandbox” because they want to kill people inside the instances and aren’t content with the easy gank when they exit.
Now someone is whining that it is only a pvp game because it was in-visioned that way 15 years ago by a bunch of people that don’t even own it anymore.
So it’s not really semantics. It is either 100% pvp or it isn’t. It is either a sandbox or it isn’t. It can’t be both 100% pvp game and a sandbox game.
But if no one ever enters local and you never sell any of the loot on the market is it PvP?
Or does it become PvP once that annoying other enters local or when you try to get best deal on the market for you loot?
So is really PvP from the start in this case, or is it really just PvE with the potential to become PvP at the pop of a covert cyno? You know, on a bad day.
Trying to paint things so broadly is the same thing others have done in other games that feature “open world PvP”. Many games or server types that cater more towards PvP often have non-consensual PvP in the world, supported by a flagging system. This is the case with EVE - you have no protection from non-consensual attacks similar to server types that cater more towards PvE.
It’s a sandbox; it has non-consensual PvP, it has PvE, the player can choose to set themselves a goal or objective or not, and follow through with it.
If you have to ask you just admitted that you don’t understand the concept of EVE, PVE and PVP. And thus disqualified yourself from discussing the subject.
No where does it state any definitive commitment by CCP to change the status quo. Only things that article states is what most of us already knew about, and most of us that play this game for many years also knew about this for many years.
So all you have there is a confirmation by CCP that we were right. Acknowledgement backed up by hard data. It does not state that CCP is in process of changing things.
Change may or may not come, I hope it does, and going by logic if CCP wants to survive financially they have to make changes and adapt, but your statement is somewhat incorrect as it implies they already comitted to changes while they have not.
Also, there are a few other giant elephants in the room that contribute to bad gameplay as well. As pointed out by others, cap proliferation and powercreep, cap vs sub cap imbalalance just for starters. These also need to be addressed.
So the founding vision of EVE is meaningless? The people who made it made is specifically to be the way it is, and YOU and the rest of us started playing it with this fact in place.
“The founders had two passions which they wanted to join,” explained Richardsson. “The sci-fi feel and vastness of space from Elite and the social interaction of massively multiplayer and player vs. player gaming from Ultima Online . I should also add that they were quite active PvPers in UO and this is the main reason for our emphasis on PvP . We feel that the emotions involved with losing something of value is just as important as gaining something of value, it makes a very immersive experience. There have to be lows to make the highs more enjoyable. PvP allows us to achieve that.”
If you didn’t like it, and don’t like it’s style and idea of PVP, why play it, why stay with it? Why not play one of the hundreds of other games that restrict PVP more?
I never get an answer to those questions, mainly i think because the people who complain about pvp never asked themselves those questions anyway. They just picked up a video game and expected it to conform to their wishes, like they probably do with the rest of the world…
You decided to play a game made by pvprs for pvprs and then got mad at all the pvp.
But you know why. It’s the way it is because the the game engine couldn’t do what they actually wanted EVE to be. And by the time they could do it, it was too late. The game was populated by a small group of very vocal nullbears that wanted nothing but wireframe PVP and nothing else.
I well remember the null whining when Trinity came out and how it ruined the game.
Still as disingenuous as ever, I see. Stick to reddit.
A carebear friendly solution, if the wars are really a big problem:
If you are in a NPC corp, nobody can do anything to you except suicide gank. And for PVE in hisec, there is essentially no limitation on activities if you are in a NPC corp - except for setting up structures. So, it would make sense to have structures the only conflict driver.
So: you don’t wardec a corp, but a particular structure. The owning corp is drawn out to the war because of that - and is a valid target just in the system with the target structure during time when structure is vulnerable (so the war is really just about structure - the structure isn’t unrelated to war). When the structure is destroyed, the war ends. Then a corp in war that cannot (or is unwilling to) fight back would simply give up structures and carry on instead of being docked and stop playing (and paying).
Cost to wardec a structure would be related to the cost to set up the structure - say 1/5 of the structure base cost (note that due to service modules and whatnot, removal would be relatively even cheaper).
Now, for the space junk such as cans or mobile depots, shooting them = suspect. 1 minute of shooting at 500 DPS damage cap to reach reinforced (30k damage), 1 hour timer, another 1 minute of shooting and the thingy is removed.
If you really want change I suggest you speak less, listen more and let the adults do the talking. Reading the first and last line of a book doesn’t qualify as comprehending. It also says a lot about your attitude towards the game and probably explains why you’ve been a target of wardecs.
The main difference is that I don’t couple this to the wardec system.
I think a real change comes in two parts that don’t necessarily have to touch the wardec mechanic itself:
More tools for both sides. Tools for the hunter to find targets and tools for the hunted to hide and cover their tracks. Maybe something like watchlists combined with locators, but bound to a wardec or contract and the ability for the hunted to influence or distort the results.
A extended contract system which I described a possible version in the linked thread. This should be as free form as possible to allow it’s use outside of wardecs as well and should use as much metrics as possible hopefully in a way that doesn’t make this into a intel tool (maybe with massive delay or something, based on the metrics used).
In the end the goal should be to make this into an interesting game mechanic again and not the trade lane camp fest it currently is. To just nerf it more and more and cut it even more pieces of it out will never make this a healthy play stile anymore, but I fear that is what we will see in the end, a ugly quick-fix with the intent to force a certain behavior or remove one.
