Proving Grounds Gameplay Policy Update

[Zhalyd_Lyehin]

@Doorio_Uanif_Tzash

So I guess a response to your question would be that yes, CCP have put limits on things if they were too disruptive to gameplay.

They have put no limit on bumping or anything. You can still bump a target for as long as you want if you put a little effort into it, for instance, with noob ships. Just because it it requires effort does not mean it is a limitation.

[Xeux]

Well, you’d better not bump the guys trying to get into the arenas.

[Doorio_Uanif_Tzash]

Now you’re talking about adding another mechanic to reset the warp timer. That’s adding another layer in to it. Not exactly what was being referenced. I don’t see that happening very often anyways. Most players either ■■■■ or get off the pot.
Completely consequence free indefinite bumping is no longer a thing though.

[Gaius_Mileghere]

reminds me of the exchange in Aliens:

Hudson: “Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?”
Vasquez: “No. Have you?”

[Daichi_Yamato]

This feature delivered as expected didn’t it?

Not content with instanced gameplay, now the sandbox has to conform to arena rules.

Pat yourselves on the back!

[MB_ThePhotographer]

@CCP_Convict

hurting my feelings

Welcome to the forums!

I just want to say thanks/kiss a$$ for even for even replying here. I know it sucks to be torn apart every time you post, but it always gives me a little bit of hope for the game when a Dev posts. Taking it on the chin for CCP makes me feel like at least some Dev’s still care. Yeah everyone, bust my butt only if you are older (in game) than I and remember the amount of contact we had back then. It was better than now…

As far as the Proving Grounds, I can see the attraction for some ppl. I have no interest. Farming it seems to defeat the purpose, but EVE’s best feature is the ability to screw up the game by the player base.

I’m no more happy with a lot of things in EVE than anyone else, but piling on Convict does no one any good if he stops posting/sharing as much info as he can. Or maybe even listening to reasonable voices? Meh…

[Cypr3ss_Deteis]

@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.

@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?

Given the first quote, it sure sounds like it would be unconstructive for your friends to kill everyone who isn’t… that would certainly impact the fun and progress of other players using the feature… of course if you just wanted to FFA between friends you could do that, there’s no need to queue into a separate instance for that.

@Solstice_Projekt

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

And again, as it would certainly impact the fun & progress of other players using the feature, I believe that yes, it too would be considered unconstructive.

@Black_Pedro

Of course not.

Wait, you think that this would be constructive to their attempt at an instanced XvX FFA?

@Black_Pedro

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.

So much this!

@Tipa_Riot

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

Oh and this too!

It’s just a big ‘wtf, seriously?’ from me.

Regards,
Cypr3ss.

[Daichi_Yamato]

Non-consensual pvp isn’t allowed on sisi.

Just sayin…

[Litsea_Reticulata]

@Solstice_Projekt

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

There has been forever in rookie systems.

@Solstice_Projekt

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.

Many of these are punishable activities, some of them will lead to bans, like ganking in the starter systems.

@Solstice_Projekt

Wardeccing a corporation and shooting down their structure … unconstructive.

This is not usually a punishable activity.

@Solstice_Projekt

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

Agreed. Unconstructive behaviour should be punished more widely and more frequently, so that rather being the exception, it becomes the norm. In the very least it might change the mindset from “Abuse the mechanic until forced to stop” to “Recognise a mechanic is broken and refuse to exploit it”.

@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…

Better yet, take it all away and start the event over.

@Solstice_Projekt

Sure, why not take everything from everyone who ever did something which rulsets have changed later on.

Please, no doubt those who lost billions of ISK lost to the old margin trading scams would like it back.

@CCP_Convict

First of all you’re being a bit mean and you’re hurting my feelings.

Where were you when James 314 started using RP for an excuse to behave the same way?

@CCP_Convict

If anything the second scenario would be a gift to an unskilled player since they’d get a free kill.

So 1 unfit ship is worth the same as 1 well fit ship? Sounds like this is part of the problem.

@Kezrai_Charzai

Not very workable, as anyone who wants to do this will just say “I was engaging in regular PvP”.

Maybe people who want to do the event should be given a toggle that makes them immune to PvP while queued, but locks them in space so they can’t do anything else?

@Brisc_Rubal

That would be an ex post facto application of the rules. There was nothing in the original Proving Grounds posts and explanation that banned this kind of behavior, so coming in after the fact and banning it would not be fair.

What is the incentive for those who play fair, to do so, when those who do not, still gain from it?

@Brisc_Rubal

Everybody recognizes that Cable’s win has a pretty significant asterisk next to it, and going forward that kind of thing is not going to fly, and those who engage in that behavior will be dealt with appropriately.

Whilst this may be the case, it does not help much to address the perceived lack of integrity of the event and the possibility that the next ‘season’ outcome is not likewise tainted by accusations of rule-bending.

@Dracvlad

I just hope that CCP records certain metrics and works from that when someone petitions it, it works both ways.

Indeed.

@Brisc_Rubal

I think point 2 can encompass both the alts as well as the friends issue if they want it to. The spirit of the rule is clearly to ensure that people are facing real opponents who are trying to win.

Perhaps putting people in some kind of ranked queue, so that its less likely that alts in n00b ships will end up in an arena with a 10 billion ISK ship with a 1000:1 K/D Ratio.

@GrapeDr1nk

Exactly, Its like when people want to keep a freighter around, if it logs off while bumping them suicide something small into it to keep it around until they get the right amount of dudes to shoot it. Is that now harassment?

If it is not, it should be. The warp changes should prevent a bump longer than 3 minutes.

@Zhalyd_Lyehin

Guess what CCP allows? Attacking freighters with noob ships so that they do not despawn after they log of while being bumped. Is CCP going to disallow that as well now? It’s the exact same thing. Just an example of how clueless you and CCP are.

Bumping is not as bad as it used to be, though it would not hurt if CCP put some work on this when they are not busy with creating stream ready content factories.

@Daichi_Yamato

Non-consensual pvp isn’t allowed on sisi.

If only TQ had a rule where players had to go yellow safety to lock up non NPC targets outside of a fleet, it would make a lot of the problems for the Arena go away.

[Makshima_Shogo]

Thank’s CCP for bringing back the honor to arena pvp.

To those that say how is CCP going to enforce it, they don’t really have to imo the biggest problem was from those that only did it because there was no chance of repercussions, those few that will still do it anyways are a small % that will eventually loose their accounts for it.

It’s like putting your foot into a bear trap and it doesn’t go off, only the stupid will keep doing it thinking it won’t go off the next time.

[Siegfried_Tahl]

@CCP_Convict @Brisc_Rubal

There’s a great GDC talk from 2019 by Riot Games’ Alex Jaffe Cursed Problems in Game Design

I think the idea of Proving Grounds as a fair competition in a sandbox environment would classify as a cursed problem by definition from the talk. Those things are incompatible with no direct solution.

I’d suggest to make a personal lobby abyssal room, with dockable structure for every participant. They’d seed their ships and modules beforehand, and start each round from there. One way only, with no k-space exit, with only proving grounds gate. Still feels too themepark/instanced alien to core EVE game though.

But IMO that’s better than expecting players to just behave, with fuzzy framework, and vague rules, of what is bannable and inappropriate.

[Solstice_Projekt]

*sigh* … live and let live, I guess.

But wow, these guys are delusional disney princes.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@CCP_Convict

we respect the sandbox nature of EVE Online

Then get rid of this terrible arena mechanic. It is completely opposed to the concept of the sandbox to have instanced arenas separate from the rest of the game where “fairness” is enforced by arbitrary rules and the normal “anything goes” attitude is discarded. EVE is supposed to be an unforgiving universe where lying, cheating, betrayal, etc, are the default state of things. Rigged matches, delaying an opponent, etc, absolutely should be part of the game just like they are outside of the instances.

The literal best ever, most skilled PvPer in the history of EVE Online could be queuing for match, get aggro’d by someone in a rookie ship and have to go dock up for 15 minutes.

If they can’t cope with a single player in a rookie ship attacking them then they aren’t the god of PvP that you claim they are.

Neither of these scenarios have anything to do whatsoever with protecting low skilled players and that should be completely apparent.

But it absolutely does.

Banning flagging coddles low-skill players who can’t figure out how to evade the attack. Instead of having to use PvP skill to evade they just complain to a GM and get their enemy banned.

Banning match rigging coddles low-skill players who can’t figure out how to play the metagame properly and/or follow some scrub concept of “fair fights” instead of ruthlessly doing what is necessary to win.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Merin_Ryskin

If they can’t cope with a single player in a rookie ship attacking them then they aren’t the god of PvP that you claim they are.

It’s nothing to do with can’t cope. You can’t enter the proving grounds with a PvP timer in order to stop it being an escape from PvP mechanism. So by giving someone a 15 minute timer with a rookie ship you can eliminate all chance they will be your enemy. And there is literally nothing that they can do about that. There is no option that means they don’t get the timer.
I mean, I’m not in favour of the proving grounds or 90% of the stuff the Abyss has brought us even, but at least know the mechanics before you trash talk.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Brisc_Rubal

Everybody recognizes that Cable’s win has a pretty significant asterisk next to it, and going forward that kind of thing is not going to fly, and those who engage in that behavior will be dealt with appropriately.

Every single event in EVE should have an asterisk next to it because there should always be accusations of cheating. And dishonorable actions should be punished by in-game actions, not by whining to CCP until they enforce some warped idea of “honorable PvP” on everyone whether they like it or not.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Nevyn_Auscent

And there is literally nothing that they can do about that.

No, there are many things they can do about it. The rookie ship still has to get within range of the target and activate an offensive module and this can be prevented by in-game means. It should be 100% legal to “cheat” and knock out an enemy you don’t want to face if you’re able to catch them in a vulnerable spot.

[Chan_aar]

@CCP_Convict

You (CCP) could make this a lot easier on yourselves. Just stop with the crazy rewards for these proving ground things.

The complaints are only because of the value of the win. Just remove the rewards and make then all about the epeen.

[Cypr3ss_Deteis]

@Nevyn_Auscent

And there is literally nothing that they can do about that.

Maybe not the first time it happens… but after that they can be set red to make identifying the offending pilot easier, you can move systems, if the player were to think about it I’m sure there is a lot that can be done to avoid it… starting to sound a lot like the ECM ‘fixes’ that were introduced… an emerging pattern of the direction the game is now taking.

Regards,
Cypr3ss.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

but after that they can be set red to make identifying the offending pilot easier,

And then they make a new alpha alt because skills are irrelevant and run a single locator agent on you.

Come on, when the answer is ‘go somewhere else’ there isn’t really a lot that can be done. And moving is a lot harder than just moving a single ship, because losses are to be expected. It’s an entire operation that has to be moved every time someone uses a brand new alt with a civilian gun.

[Cypr3ss_Deteis]

@Nevyn_Auscent

Come on, when the answer is ‘go somewhere else’ there isn’t really a lot that can be done.

Lol, ok then, it must just all be too hard hey Plus I hear there’s this thing in the EULA where it defines ‘harassment’, which I’m fairly sure would also cover your ‘new alpha alt’ case as well as following someone around after they’ve attempted to avoid the offending party… but who knows

Regards,
Cypr3ss.