Proving Grounds Gameplay Policy Update

[CCP_Convict]

Hi everyone,

It was very exciting for us to discover how players would engage with the new Proving Grounds feature introduced in the Zenith quadrant. Thanks to your enthusiastic participation we learned a lot in terms of what formats are most appealing, at what cadence we should hold events and the duration they should run for. This information is being incorporated into the Proving Grounds events for the Phoenix quadrant.

We have also heard your feedback about some metagame issues surrounding the Proving Grounds.

Unlike tightly controlled tournament matches held in an isolated and supervised environment, the Proving Grounds take place in the greater sandbox of New Eden where - just as with everything else - players are typically free to use their ingenuity or deviousness to gain the upper hand over their rivals, albeit within certain boundries of conduct.

With this in mind we have decided to bring the Proving Grounds further within those boundries somewhat in order to address the metagame issues which have been raised and could detract from players’ enjoyment of the feature or create a sense of futility.

Effective immediately, the following policies will apply to the Proving Grounds:

1. Players may not attack competitors in space with the intent of using the capsuleer logoff timer to prevent them from entering the Proving Grounds. Of course this does not apply to regular PvP where the intent is to engage someone in combat. Queuing for a match does not make you immune from having spaceship violence visited upon you.

2. Players may not spam alt accounts into the Proving Grounds in an attempt match up against themselves or their friends and obtain easy wins.

Our Player Experience Team will investigate reports of violations of these rules and have the means to identify the real owners of the accounts used for this purpose.

If you are being harassed while trying to access the Proving Grounds (eg. aggressed by a disposable rookie ship to give you a timer) or match against suspicious opponents you think may have been queueing only to provide fodder for another player (eg. unfit ships, ships immediately flying out of the arena) please report them by submitting a ticket under the category of Gameplay Support → Rules & Policies → EULA & Terms of Service.

While we respect the sandbox nature of EVE Online we have heard that certain unconstructive behaviours perpetrated by a small number of people are impacting the fun and progress of other players using this feature.

We hope you enjoyed partaking in the Proving Grounds last quarter and we are looking forward to seeing which of the upcoming events will get your blood pumping the most. Good luck seeking glorification on the leaderboards in Phoenix!

[Cable_Uta]

1st Thank you better late than never

[Iva_Stark]

How ironic…

[Solstice_Projekt]

@CCP_Convict

Players may not spam alt accounts into the Proving Grounds in an attempt match up against themselves or their friends and obtain easy wins.

Meh … shame on CCP. I understand that it was basically breaking this part of the game,
but completely banning any metagaming is excessive and unfair to the rest of the players who do this all the time.

Why should it not be allowed to show these people who’s the better one?
What if someone uses real friends to game the system? Is that still “unconstructive” ?

@CCP_Convict

While we respect the sandbox nature of EVE Online we have heard that certain unconstructive behaviours perpetrated by a small number of people are impacting the fun and progress of other players using this feature.

“unconstructive”, hm?

There should not be a precedent for protecting some weaksauce special snowflakes who can’t cut it outside of specific conditions.

Mate, do you even know what that whole line also says? It also says that suicide ganking, which is done by a small number of people who are impacting the fun and progress of other players, is being unconstructive. Ninja salvaging … unconstructive. Ganking a miner … unconstructive. Stealing a loot can … unconstructive. Stealing a mission objective … unconstructive. Wardeccing a corporation and shooting down their structure … unconstructive.

How do you define “unconstructive” in the context of EVE ONLINE when it comes to metagaming and interfering with the experience of others? This “unconstructive” definition (see what i did there) of yours can be applied to a lot of parts of the game. This whole game is built upon the idea of interfering with others and all of those, thanks to that ignorantly written line of yours, can be considered unconstructive.

No, it’s not just enough to attempt limiting it to Proving Grounds.

Way to go wording this in such a thoughtless manner.

[Suitonia]

Does this policy apply to alliance members or friends intentionally queueing into FFAs as a group with ‘house rules’ where they kill non-members first and then fight it out amongst their friends after to ensure at least one of them will win?

[Forum_Posting_Alt]

After you, KNOWINGLY, handed out billions in isk and Plex to the very people exploiting this… how about you apply this in retrospect as you did with the standings changes…

[Solstice_Projekt]

@Forum_Posting_Alt

After you, KNOWINGLY, handed out billions in isk and Plex to the very people exploiting this… how about you apply this in retrospect as you did with the standings changes…

Sure, why not take everything from everyone who ever did something which rulsets have changed later on.
Don’t be ridiculous. The standings things was apparently breaking their plans, while this breaks nothing.

Whoever gamed the Proving Grounds deserves his price money.

Anyhow, …

---

Gotta repeat it, to be sure:

What if someone uses real, actual friends to game the system?
Is that also “unconstructive” ?

I know you’re mentioning “alts”, but asking doesn’t hurt.

[Cable_Uta]

yeah no

[Forum_Posting_Alt]

@Cable_Uta

yeah no

Lol, well, doh

[Solstice_Projekt]

Oh that was you!

Grats, man!
Job well done!

[Zhalyd_Lyehin]

Special rules for special people. It is hilarious to watch how CCP has to pervert EVE basic gameplay principles to make their cute little Arenas work and to protect incompetent players. Everything is happening exactly as players predicted when this was introduced.

@CCP_Convict

While we respect the sandbox nature of EVE Online

No, you do not anymore.

@CCP_Convict

we have heard that certain unconstructive behaviours perpetrated by a small number of people

I remember a particular fight in null sec recently where CCP applied some really, really “unconstructive” behaviors to clients. Can we have a policy update against your garbage company now, too?

@CCP_Convict

Good luck seeking glorification on the leaderboards in Phoenix!

You dare calling pampering badly equipped players and packing them in cotton fluff “seeking glorification”? You are out of your mind.

[Solstice_Projekt]

@Zhalyd_Lyehin

You are out of your mind.

You need to step back a little.
Just a little.

Also … we’re agreeing on something.
That’s interesting!

[Cable_Uta]

@CCP_Convict Are you intending to release data on the activity and participation levels of the previous 9 events?

Would be really interesting to see how many “real” players actually participated in the arenas and what timezones are in trouble activitywise.

[Black_Pedro]

@Suitonia

Does this policy apply to alliance members or friends intentionally queueing into FFAs as a group with ‘house rules’ where they kill non-members first and then fight it out amongst their friends after to ensure at least one of them will win?

Of course not. And probably, if you decide to actually gank participants to take their loot, you’ll circumvent the other “rule”. Or at least CCP will be in a very awkward place declaring some players off-limits to attack… which if they do would then allow other players to abuse that protection to move cargo and so on…

This is where attempts to legislate a feature to work as intended are going to fail. It’s just going to sow confusion and create new problems. So now it’s ok to multiboxing some things but not others? And this limit massively favours large groups who want to metagame the arenas (which to be fair many things do) but that obviously isn’t the intention.

Look CCP, we get you want this thing to succeed, but you are not going to get there by piling band-aid upon band-aid of rules trying to shoehorn your arena into an open world sandbox game. If you really want to, you’ll need to remove it completely from the world. Do that, or just kill this thing, but stop confusing players with your obtuse rules to do something you aren’t willing to commit the resources to code in your game properly.

[Erwin_Madelung]

Remove all instanced garbage from the game! Just that simple. Those rules won’t work. Ganking and multiboxing are integral parts of the game. There is no clear cut if someone is violating those rules. Also you’ll have problems to legally enforce those rules through the EULA.

[Kell_Taron]

I agree that once a player is in the Proving Grounds every kind of cheating should be prevented because a ring fight is by definition a controlled environment and not a sand box. But before you enter PG you are still in the sand box area of EVE Online where everything should be fair game.

[Zhalyd_Lyehin]

@Black_Pedro

So now it’s ok to multiboxing some things but not others?

@CCP_Convict Yes, I wonder why it is still perfectly fine to bring multiple alts to FW plexes, which numerous people have complained about for years. But when people bring alts to instanced PVP, it’s suddenly not fair anymore. Makes you think.

[God_Emperor_Kane]

It starts…

[Tipa_Riot]

This is only the next logical step when introducing instanced competitive gameplay. Is this your last resort, limiting the sandbox and emergent gameplay to save this abnormality?

How can we players push you to eventually remove when we are not allowed to make it unfun and unfair for the participants?

What will be the next metagame you forbid in order to save an unbalancable feature?

[Zhalyd_Lyehin]

What has happened to “wreck their dreams?” Not allowed anymore if instanced PVP is involved?