Dynamic PvP/PvE Mode - A Player-Driven Solution!

Good day, Capsuleers!
EVE Online, at its core, is a sandbox where players have incredible freedom. However, the current system can often feel restrictive, particularly regarding PvP. Many players enjoy the thrill of combat, while others prefer to focus on industry, exploration, or other PvE activities. This thread proposes a new system: Dynamic PvP/PvE Mode. This system aims to provide players with greater control over their gameplay experience by allowing them to choose their desired level of PvP engagement.

The Concept:

  • Player Choice: Players would have the option to toggle between PvP and PvE modes within the game’s settings. This would be a persistent setting, allowing for consistent gameplay preferences.
  • PvP Mode: In PvP mode, players would experience the traditional EVE Online experience. All PvP actions would be permitted, and players would be subject to all normal risks, including ganking, combat, and the potential for ship loss.
  • PvE Mode: In PvE mode, players would experience a reduced risk of unsolicited PvP encounters. This could include:
    • Limited Targeting: Players in PvE mode would have restrictions on targeting other players. They might be unable to target players who are not also in PvE mode, or their targeting range against players in PvP mode could be significantly reduced.
    • Reduced Aggression Range: The aggression range for players in PvE mode would be significantly reduced, minimizing the risk of unintended engagements.
    • Damage Mitigation: Players in PvE mode would receive significantly reduced damage from players in PvP mode, providing a safety net against unexpected attacks. This could be implemented through damage reduction mechanics or by increasing the effective hitpoints of ships in PvE mode.
    • Safe Zones: Designated areas within space could be designated as “PvE zones” where players in PvE mode would be completely invulnerable to attack from players in PvP mode. These zones could include high-security space, designated mining belts, or specific regions.

Potential Benefits:

  • Increased Player Choice: Players could choose the gameplay style that best suits their preferences, whether it’s the thrill of high-stakes combat or the peaceful pursuit of industry and exploration.
  • Reduced Frustration: PvE players would be less likely to experience unexpected and disruptive PvP encounters, allowing them to focus on their chosen activities without constant fear of being ganked.
  • Increased Player Engagement: By reducing the risk of unwanted PvP, the system could encourage more players to engage in PvE activities, such as mining, exploration, and mission running, ultimately enriching the overall gameplay experience.
  • Enhanced Roleplaying Opportunities: PvE mode could facilitate more immersive roleplaying experiences by creating safe havens for specific activities and allowing players to develop unique characters and storylines without the constant threat of PvP.

Potential Challenges:

  • Implementation Complexity: Implementing such a system would require significant development effort from CCP Games.
  • Potential for Abuse: Players could potentially exploit the system by switching between modes to gain an unfair advantage, such as switching to PvE mode to escape combat or to gain an advantage in PvP situations.
  • Impact on Gameplay Balance: The system could potentially impact the game’s overall balance and the dynamics of PvP. For example, a significant influx of players into PvE mode could reduce the overall player population available for PvP encounters.
  • Community Acceptance: The concept of a “PvE mode” might not be universally accepted by all players, particularly those who enjoy the current risk and reward system of EVE Online.

Discussion:

This is just a concept, and there are many details to be considered and refined. I’m eager to hear your thoughts and feedback on this proposal.

  • What are your concerns about this proposed system?
  • How can we mitigate potential abuse and maintain gameplay balance?
  • What alternative solutions or modifications would you suggest?
  • Would you be more likely to engage in PvE activities if a system like this were implemented?

I believe that a well-designed and carefully implemented Dynamic PvP/PvE Mode could significantly enhance the EVE Online experience for a wide range of players. Let’s discuss and refine this idea together!

2 Likes

@Akolja-Oenris_Frael This is one of the-- No, this is the best idea I have ever read in my entire life. And the way you present it is simply incredible and well formatted. Well done!

I have no concern about it.

Ban multiboxers.

None. The proposal is complete as I read it.

Definitely. I would even start mining in Hisec again.

You forgot to add some things.

1/10 of the resources harvested.
1/10 of the isk earned through missions
1/10 of any sales made on open market goes to your wallet.

Low sec, WH space, Null sec would be locked out

Without risk, there is no reward…

2 Likes

My idea is quite complete as is. But thank you very much for trying to help.

@Thork_DeLaroche Thank you, sir.

1 Like

Anytime, miss!

Besides this being hard against the core existence of the game…

PvE mode should definitely mean

Restriction from utilizing Gates or filaments to LS, NS, Jspace, and Pochven

10 times the duration cycle for mining lasers,

Disallowment of anything that causes waste(wast is a PvP mechanic)

No access to the General Market(the player market is Player vs Player, ie PvP)
in short inability to interact with sell or buy orders created by players.

Concord is a PvP mechanic, so assistance from Concord is nullified as such a player has chosen to become an NPC.

Since some of the abyssal stuff causes suspect timers, then no access to Abyssals, as the crimewatch system is a PvP mechanic.

Upwell are a PvP aspect, so no access to any Upwell or ability to even anchor one.

PoS towers are a PvP aspect, no access for them either.

Contract system is a PvP aspect, so no ability to create or access contracts.

ISK and LP are a projection of power in a PvP world, so no ISK or LP from mission running.

Jeez, are you sure you are playing EvE @Akolja-Oenris_Frael cause this sounds more and more like a different game?

Gonna have to go with a hard no, this idea is garbage.

1 Like

This is still way too high and would be exploited like crazy by bots and multiboxers.

As to op eve is at its core a pvp game one centered around the impacts players have on each other. Your idea is antithetical to this

2 Likes

Thank you for your opinions, @Max_Deveron and @Lugh_Crow-Slave but I don’t agree with you.

Good point.

So basically 0/10 resource gathering
0/10 isk generation on missions. And let’s cap the apex at level 2, and restrict anything higher.
Locking the market and contracts out so no market generated isk.

I don’t agree with that, but thanks for your opinion.
My idea stands as it is.

You can disagree all you want. It won’t change the fact that your idea is a terrible one.

You can give your opinion all you want, my idea stands.

Not really,

It’s been dismantled by quite a few people.

It doesn’t stand, nor will it ever be implemented.

your idea is a bot lover idea…

Even you should be able to concede at this point that anything done in perfect safety must never be allowed to intefere with the general player base and game, and most definitely never ever be able touch or influence the PLEX market.

And if you do, then you must concede that anything done in this perfect idea of yours must then be contained in a place it can not escape, or rewrds must be removed from such players.

1 Like

Yes, really.

No, it’s been criticized, but not dismantled because it still stands.

We’ll see, but it isn’t up to anyone in this thread.

Thank you for your opinion.

Nope

The logical inconsistencies against the core values of the game have been shown. This is more than criticism. It’s the dismantling of your core idea and the argument around it.

Nice try tho.

A few more classes in logic would do you wonders.

:wink:

1 Like

Change of heart

Thank you for your opinion, it’s dully noted.

Thank you.

Exactly