With the Stargate Trailblazers event starting today, we are putting an event-specific gameplay policy in place that all players participating are expected to follow. For discussion about the event itself, please check the main event thread. Thanks!
GAMEPLAY POLICY:
Players may not take actions that are intended to deny other players the ability to complete the empire mining expeditions sites unless those actions involve direct pvp combat.
Regular PVP where you attempt to engage and destroy other playerâs ships is allowed whether that be in lowsec or nullsec, or through wardecs or suicide ganking in highsec. This policy is intended to prevent players using the special aspects of the empire mining expedition sites (including but not limited to the site population cap, limited timer, and friendly NPCs) to prevent other players from being able to complete the sites.
For example: entering a site to kill another player, bubbling the outside of the site in nullsec to catch players entering, camping any location where there is a reasonable expectation of PVP is all examples of allowed activities. Entering the sites and then flying far away from the entry point to prevent other players from being able to enter, systematically starting all the timers in a system without engaging with the content, and shooting the friendly orcas to prevent players from turning in the ore are all examples of disallowed activities.
Too hard to just surround the site with a gas cloud of death ? Can we get this for ESS so ships either go into the ess or get blown up 100km off the gate or bank nodes? Nano Kitey ESS meta stinks.
Perhaps CCP forgot than anything in this game is PvP, be it market pvp or forcing krabs into dock. By denying people entry to the mining site i am being engaged in a PvP activity, not letting other people profit from a certain activity, and forcing them to fight me, or cope with not being able to go into the site. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
The term, âsandbox gameâ, means that the player has no set objective within the game and can do whatever they want within it. By setting rules like this⌠Very much a sandbox game. Thank you CCP, Very cool!
So the sites are gated and you canât warp around in the sites and CCP has to come up with special rules because they canât code the event properly. Good to know that the special rules plague of Arenas now also spreads to normal space.
And what is this? There is a numbers limit how many chars can enter a site? So if I bring enough alts, no one can interfere with me via PVP because they canât get behind the gate in the first place? Is this âallowedâ behavior, too?
Good to see that this event is going to be just as much a failure as the Invasion event. Great job.
This simply feels like there was some reason (time/resource/effort) where you wanted something to pan out in a certain way but couldnât implement that from a gameplay perspective. And instead decided to impose an obscure rule for a specific event.
Could you define âdirect pvp combatâ within the context of EVE?
Example:
I understand shooting a ship is direct pvp combat. Is camping a site with your buddies to scare players off âdirect pvp combatâ or would that be âindirect pvp combatâ because there is no shooting involved in scaring players away?
So would it be illegal to form up a fleet that scares players away before they can shoot them?
Just what is the line we shouldnât cross where direct pvp become indirect pvp?
P.S.: I find these rules very vague. And I also think rules like these should have no place in a competitive sandbox where players are encouraged to be creative. Rules like these essentially say âstop being creative, just play as we intended or we ban youâ.
âwe made some new content, but we didnât carry out any QA, so here are some rules because we realised too late itâs broken af and we donât have time to fix itâ
On another note, does this mean these activities are offences that will result in a ban or suspension, or are they just discouraged without punishment b/c of mistakes made when designing the sites?
