Maybe he’s an idiot 90% of the time, I dont know, all I know is that in that one particular exchange with him saying that High-Sec, and a ‘safe space’ IS necessary in EVE to facilitate new players learning the game. Versus the opposing view of “EVE should be a lawless space where anybody can shoot anybody else without restriction” … I favor his argument that some sort of safe space is required for new players and thus the long-term growth of the game.
When you boil it down to “safe zone areas” or “no safe zone areas at all”, the later will kill a game extremely fast.
Really? tell me to “calm down miner”? lmao, that is another attempt at trolling… guess I’m the only one with a logical head here able to discuss facts and different points of view without resorting to assumptions I know nothing about…
But sure, go ahead and defend the guy that posted the pilot’s name I was referencing in my post, as if me referencing it somehow makes me a fool.
If players want “safe” zones for newbies to learn in, then so be it. But only new characters who are 30 days old or less can be in those systems, nothing can be brought into those systems from the outside, and nothing can be sent to the outside world from those systems. No ISK can be sent to other toons that aren’t new players or outside of the “safe” zone. Everything seeded on the market by NPC’s in those systems, that way it won’t affect the actual game market.
Um… the 100’s of PvP only MMO games that have tried to exist only to have veteran gankers kill noobs to such a degree that no more noobs will play the game… leaving the vets in a slowly dieing game by themselves…
I’ve played MMO’s since Ultima Online, DAOC, Lineage, and pretty much every one since then, including EVE since 2003… I’ve seen it happen tons of times and I dont feel like doing your homework for you if you dont believe it’s a thing that happens.
beginning to think Nicolai Serkanner and Ramona McCandless are the same person
I dont know what you guys are even on about… All I’m saying is the High-Sec helps benefit EVE more than it hurts it because it helps new players learn the game… No idea why something so obvious is so controversial.
I dont know who Bolas is, but, hell, if he’s able to discuss different points of view without resorting to calling people trolls or sock puppets then he sounds alright to me.
Destiny, if you truly want to have a conversation about this and the history of open PvP games I would be more than happy, but you have to actually want to have a discussion.
Lineage 2 was an open world PvP game that had griefers and ended up not being as successful as it could have been because of it. They tried to curtail it a bit by having a ‘criminal’ system but it didnt stop the gankers from making noobs quit. Noobs would literally hit a wall where they couldn’t progress because gankers would camp the zones and quests.
Shadowbane in 2003 was an awesome open PvP game. Players were allowed to own cities and capitals and most of the property and cities in Shadowbane were player owned. In effect, Shadowbane’s war status was decided by the players rather than the game company. It was awesome. Unfortunately it had problems with ganker clans that drove out the influx of new players. Leaving a dwindling number of veteran players to fight among themselves until the game died.
Perhaps most recently, and controversially, is Amazon’s New World… They had a completely open PvP system where noobs would be camped and killed almost right out of the gate, dropping ALL of their loot, items, equipment, everything. And new players HATED it. Now, I personally think they went WAYYYY too far in response to this by essentially removing PvP altogether except during ‘instanced seiges’ where 2 Clans specify a time to fight. That is going wayy too far to cater to carebears.
So, just to be clear, I actually loved Shadowbane’s sandbox PvP, but I’m objective enough to look at it and see that it isnt a way to keep a game sustainable.
Instead I think the best balance is something like what Dark Age of Camelot did. Where you have PvE zones for leveling and questing, but they also had “RvR” zones that were contested where you were open to attack. Players had incentive to go level up in the RvR zones because the exp was like 3x as good as leveling in the PvE zones. So you had a risk-reward choice to make based on personal preference.
This is basically what EVE has with High-sec and then low and null sec, and I think it works out best for everybody in the long run.
See, therein lies the issue. You are trying to establish causation when there isn’t necessarily any to be had. Case in point:
That sounds like a game design issue, as opposed to the effects of open-world PvP. An open-world game can’t be linear. Players should have a variety of places to go to to progress in the game, instead of just one. For example, Stranglethorn Vale was notorious as a PvP hot spot in WoW. But players didn’t have to go there to progress - they could select from 2-4 different zones in which to do quests. Additionaly, NPC scaling according to player levels is a game mechanic that could give high-level players something to worry about, making them unable to focus entirely on PvP.
EVE has its own version of these limitations, in the form of criminal/suspect flags, the ability for allies to join wars, etc, and just the vastness of the universe in general. It is an impossibility for someone to “camp noobs” in EVE without a whole host of consequences. Carebears keep clamoring for the removal of open-world PvP in EVE under the pretense that new players are suffering. How are they suffering? You can’t just kill someone without dying to CONCORD, and new players provide no value to do so from a financial perspective. It just doesn’t happen. They get killed sometimes, sure (when they make mistakes like going suspect, for example). But the whole “getting camped and griefed into oblivion” thing just doesn’t happen.
And yet here you are, incessantly whining on the forums about how CCP needs to turn highsec into a 100% safe farming area where you can do all the menial PvE tasks you want and nobody can stop you from passively watching your wallet numbers go up. And what is CCP doing? Completely ignoring you and your fellow farmer trash. So who is the real minority here?
No, that’s not what it is saying. Darlo wants highsec to be 100% safe with no PvP at all allowed so that it can sit mindlessly in a belt/mission and farm 23/7 without any possible chance of loss. It is useless farmer trash that will not be satisfied until it is rewarded with the effortless wealth that it feels entitled to, even if that wealth is paid for with the utter destruction of the EVE economy.
I completely agree in Lineage’s case it was largely a game design issue because the world was largely linear.
But not so with Shadowbane or New World… Players could be killed without restriction and without ‘opting-in’ like players are able to do in WoW’s STV or DAOC’s RvR zones, where players had other zones to go to if they wanted. All I’m saying is it’s important for the growth of a PvP oriented game to ease players into the PvP and let THEM decide when they want to make that jump to better rewards. Forcing brand new players to, 100% of the time and without any alternative, face down long-time players without giving them the chance to learn the game leads to new players quitting, then eventually there isnt much for the veterans to do.
It is an impossibility for someone to “camp noobs” in EVE without a whole host of consequences.
Agreed
Carebears keep clamoring for the removal of open-world PvP in EVE under the pretense that new players are suffering. How are they suffering? You can’t just kill someone without dying to CONCORD, and new players provide no value to do so from a financial perspective. It just doesn’t happen. They get killed sometimes, sure (when they make mistakes like going suspect, for example). But the whole “getting camped and griefed into oblivion” thing just doesn’t happen.
Again, completely agreed. I think EVE has an almost perfect balance. I’ve never once called for the removal of open world PvP in EVE. EVE does give new players the safe space (high-sec) necessary to learn the game before venturing into the more lucrative low and null-sec areas. This is exactly how it should be. Give new players a safe space to learn but make the rewards for staying there low, so that they are incentivized to go into the more dangerous areas.
This is exactly like what I was saying with DAOC; that they have PvE zones, and open PvP zones… and the PvP zones gave about 3x more exp for leveling in them for taking on that risk of getting ganked.
The only point I was trying to make out of all these posts in this thread is that we NEED that high-sec, safe area, in EVE to allow players to learn the game. We cant remove High-sec without seriously cutting down on new player retention… Somebody (dont even remember who at this point) was essentially saying that high-sec should be removed, and I was just responding that High-Sec is important if we want to keep new players coming into the game and keep EVE alive.
Having fully open-world PvP with no safe areas or restrictions (Shadowbane or (old) New World) might sound fun, but it leads to a game with a very low recruitment of new players. EVE has it about right.
From the ONE post I read of his, it didnt sound like he was campaigning for the complete removal of PvP within High-sec. It only sounded like he was saying that high-sec is necessary to allow new players a space to learn the game before they go to low/null.
If you forum regulars know this guy from other threads and that it his stance, then I dont agree with it.
My only point throughout this entire thread is that we cannot simply “remove high-sec and let everybody fight for themselves from Day 1” as it would drive too many new players away.
