A ‘lopsided’ fight is still PVP. There are players competing against each other, that makes it PVP. Even if the competition one side puts up is extremely lacking, it’s still competition. For the record, it is entirely within your own power, entirely, to not be in that kind of situation ever. This game allows for all kinds of PVP, including the kind where you cannot fight back, but it also gives you plenty of tools to not be in that situation in the first place. If there is only one player involved, as you put it, then the other one he is killing is only not involved by virtue of choice. This game’s design facilitates that choice, as it does many other choices, but it’s still a choice a player makes to be such an easy target.
Like I said, imbalances are OK, but there is no reason to go stupid extreme in either direction. That is just plain and simple bad design from the ground up.
The don’t go to extremes in any direction ‘by design’. The game is designed so that you have a lot of tools and control over what direction it goes. You just have to be smart. Believe it or not, you have a incredible degree of control over what does and doesn’t get to shoot at you.
Which “point” did I ignore?
Please point out where I’ve done that.
Strictly speaking, the result of PVP is overwhelmingly loss. Somebody may sometimes come out ahead, but that virtually never outweighs the overall loss. It is only when you start to consider the actions in the paradigm of “game” that a “winner” can be declared. Mostly, PVP is not a “game”. It’s just a process.
They aren’t called victory boards or defeat boards. They’re called KILLboards. They mostly just list things that were destroyed and details about the destruction. I’m not sure destroying something is much of a victory, though, in and of itself. You kind of need to define a game for which those are the victory conditions.
See, now I’m starting to think you’re just trying really hard not to get it. I shouldn’t have to explain this, no one should, because it’s pretty obvious to even a halfwit, but apparently, you don’t qualify…
In a 1v1 in PVP, there is a win, and there is a loss. In any competition, you cannot have a loss without a win. Somebody has to win for somebody to lose. A ‘game’ is just one form of competition, which can actually consist of many smaller competitions.The killboards ARE full of PVP wins and losses. A kill IS a victory. You are being intentionally obtuse at this point. Just because you don’t win EVE, doesn’t mean you can’t win the competitions that take place within it.
You don’t have to like it, and you can deny it all you want, but it seems like such a silly thing to deny, because the fact that you can win PVP competitions is as obvious and undeniable as the fact that the sun produces heat and light.
EDIT: So it seems this post has been hit by flagging. It looks like all you have to do on these forums is get enough people to flag a post to get it hidden. Don’t like what someone is saying and have no legit argument against it? Spam brigade!
I have to admit, threads like this would be infinitely less common is there was just a single other option in the mmo genre for a space game with a more pve oriented design. Since such a game has not and may never exist at this rate, pve players are forced into eve in order to get a space mmo experience. Hence these threads pop up.
1 Like
that’s a good idea! Why not introduce monthly fees a corp could pay to Concord to be Wardec immune for example. Lets make it not too cheap and not to prohibitive, like wardec fees that everyone can afford!
I’ve been in plenty of 1v1 PVP scenarios. I was in one in Jita a day or two ago. Nobody lost their ship. So, who won?
Why are you assuming PVP is competitive?
Okay, but why are you assuming games are competitive. Just because everyone knows the rules, that doesn’t mean all parties have a significant likelihood of achieving victory. I really don’t understand the point of this statement. Are you trying to say that PVP in EVE constitutes one of those smaller competitions?
Even if you lose your ship and capsule and they are worth more than the ship/capsule that you killed? Even if it took 12 hours to kill a 20 million ISK frigate?
There is typically more than one component to a game’s victory conditions. Some examples would be a time component, spacial component (the game field), a rule compliance component, a score component, etc. The victory condition is usually not something so simple as “Get the ball over there.” or “Take that piece off the board.” You have to do it by a prescribed process, at a place and time. That’s what makes it a “game”, letalone competitive.
I’ll try to make this simple: if I’m in a baseball game, standing at the plate with my bat, and I knock a pitch into play and out of the park, that’s a part of the game. (Although, I don’t win the game for doing that single act.) But, if I am in a baseball game, standing at the plate with my bat, and I run out to the mound and beat the pitcher to death, that’s PVP, but that’s not a “game”. Now, I could do that and declare victory, but did I win?
How do you know what’s obvious to a halfwit? Are you one?
3 Likes
It’s like I said, you can’t have a winner if there is no loser, and vice versa. If nobody won, then nobody lost. You have not refuted the fact that you can win PVP, sorry, not in your first line, and not in any of the others. The killboards prove you, quite simply, wrong.
Elite: Dangerous. I play it almost daily.
I like the idea of making 1.0 systems immune to wardec however there are few issues.
Corporations doesn’t live in single system and you as wardeccer don’t know where they live. The war is going to be declared anyway. So it won’t be immunity to wardec ut rather immunity to war pvp in given sectors.
And that doesn’t solve much as the biggest problem are mercs like vendetta, pirat and marmites (who are most likely funding these operations via botting too) are just wardeccing randomly and wait in bottleneck systems for free kills.
And there might be legal confict between 2 corps in same sector too. Especially when this gets implemented, the 1.0 will become crowded easily. If one corp wants resources for themselves they should be able to wardec other corp.
So there must be an exception and thats allowing the war if the attacker has a structure in the 1.0 system.
Still raises the question: Why?
As I outlined in my previous post, would even rookie Corps want to hang in 1.0 systems?
(Especially if Citadel stats are reduced there, as was in his proposal)
And if they can be wardecced as per usual, if they have a structure there (in your post), that means nothing changed.
Sure, but the problem is that you are trying to arbitrarily declare the person who killed a ship " the winner" without regard to any particular conditions of “game” that that person may or may not have fulfilled. And, if nobody won and nobody lost, then was there PVP or competition or game at all?
I never said you couldn’t win at PVP. What I said is that beating the other players with your bat doesn’t make you a winner . . . well, unless you can define a game where that is the victory condition and get other people to agree to play it.
It’s like if a hunter said he "played’ hunting with a deer and “won” the “competition” by shooting it dead.
4 Likes
Remiel, if a player manages to escape a ship combat situation, he has won by denying the aggressor their goal and achieving their own goal.
The hunter loses.
The prey wins.
2 Likes
Jeasus lads, this is a lot of mouthing about over war.
Two clicks is all and you’re free to blow raspberrys in local, warfree.
Thee if you happen to be in space at the time.
No amount of meulilng or bemoaning will convince me they’re a problem for anyone that hasn’t decided to engage with them,
If not initially then by decision to remain in that corp.
4 Likes
They refuse to accept they have to defend themselves and their assets.
I dunno where they get the idea they shouldnt have to into their heads.
Its like playing an FPS and refusing to shoot anyone, and getting angry when they are shot. Makes no sense, but they still persist thinking this.
Maybe its the Minecraft generation.
I think previous generations lacked the spirit to speak up when faced with an unfair situation. Look at the world they created.
I wasnt in EVE since it began, but I was in UO.
The history of this forum shows that previous generations (X and earlier) embraced the risk/loss aspect wholeheartedly. Or atleast EVE player base did.
Then why are they whining?
If they don’t like the words they’re reading on the forums, why don’t they go play EVE? No one is making them participate. They seem to have a sense that their opinion is entitled to be the consensus.
The game has changed. The game will change. Opinions of the game and the changes it has gone through and will go through will vary. Can they not adapt? And if they cannot, why is that anyone’s problem but their own?
Sorry when has VMG ever been accused of botting? Get your facts right before throwing out such garage.
1 Like