Jump to content

Permanent Bubble? They nuts?


EntropicDuck

Recommended Posts

On 10/30/2020 at 6:58 PM, blazemonger said:

CONCORD does not in any way prevent anyone from killing someone else, hence they do not limit PVP at all . They merely come in after the fact and by then, the profits are being scooped up by  neutral companions.

This is a massive over-simplification. To suggest that Concord doesn't "limit PvP at all" because they only engage and destroy you after the fact fails to acknowledge that in EVE, random high-security (re: "safe-zone") PvP, such as the suicide ganking you are referencing, is completely different in nature and prevalence from low-security and null-security PvP. Yes, you are technically not truly safe anywhere in EVE because you can technically be destroyed by a sufficient group of people that are all willing to lose their ships to gank you and potentially be able to loot your cargo, but functionally the existence of Concord prevents the vast majority of non-sanctioned PvP in EVE's equivalent of DU's safe-zone. Anyone that has played EVE for any decent amount of time should understand this.

 

I think given DU's inspirations and design focus, drawing parallels to EVE make a lot of sense and can provide the groundwork/inspiration for discussions here, but only if we're making valid comparisons and accurate representations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think CONCORD is preventing anyone from getting blown up in high sec, I'm sorry to inform you that the person not really understanding EVE is you. CONCORD does _nothing_ to prevent anyone from attacking and killing anyone else in High-sec.. Frankly, thinking or suggesting that HS is remotely similar to safezones in DU means you really do not understand either. HS in EVE is probably the most dangerous region in EVE as you never know if and when someone may jump you because the value lost in doing so will likely be less than the value gained from your ship's loot drop (and so it's profitable to do so).

Ganking in Highsec is not a random act, it is mostly well organized and premeditated and when you get ganked running cargo, chances are you were scanned and deemed a profitable target without even knowing it by an unsuspicious neutral a jump or two back.. Let alone the religious zealots of CODE who will just enforce a mining permit or else just suicide bomb you out of your clone.. ;) 

 

EVE's equivalent of  the DU safe zone is pretty much not ever undocking and sitting in Jita doing Industry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is the existence of Concord absolutely reduces and/or limits PvP in high security space. I played EVE for upwards of 7 years and you were quantifiably safer in high-security space than in low-security or null-security space (the possible exception being the middle of no-where in null-sec). Your absolute statement that Concord doesn't "limit PvP at all" is ridiculous and almost entirely indefensible because if Concord didn't exist, then high-sec in EVE would be a complete, non-stop warzone, which it isn't and never has been. Is it safe? No, not completely. But it is, generally speaking, orders of magnitude safer than if Concord wasn't there.

 

You are right about one thing though: ganking in high-sec isn't a random act and does take a lot of organization to pull off effectively in the way you described. Of course, scanning ships for their cargo and choosing only the juiciest ones to spring your suicide gank (or suiciding ganking in general) on wouldn't be required if Concord wasn't there to blow you up. That, by definition, means Concord is having a non-zero effect, doesn't it? You have to be careful about undermining your own point for the purposes of sassing someone ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2020 at 5:03 PM, BaconofWar said:

Carebears with guns like easy targets.

You do know that carebears are people who refuse to participate in PvP, right? If you're going to use a strawman, at least do your research so you don't embarrass yourself like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, CptLoRes said:

The problem with 'carebear' is that it is a derogatory term, and forcing people to PvP is just as disrespectful if not more so.

Thats why, when you go into the PvP zone, you are giving consent for pvp.  As stated by NQ.  So no one is being forced at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CptLoRes said:

And that is totally fine. But have you noticed that while 'carebears' are generally fine with there being PvP in the game, PVP'ers are the ones loudly complaining about safe zones.

No, thats just some strawman argument.  Im a pvper. All my friends in game I associate are pvpers.  No one actually has a problem with the blue safe zone.  But its frustrating when pvp is in a bad state balance wise, and still ALL the planets are safe.  Also, do some math. Take all the tiles that reside in that blue circle.  And put them towards the total.  Thats a shit ton of tiles that will be forever safe.  What pvpers are loud about is how little thought seems to be put into pvp systems, how they work, when they will be released, etc.  So you end up with this where 100% of the content in game is in the safe zone. 

 

Also, no wonder I read about people getting burnt out in reddit threads.  There is 0 risk. You can just mine away, create mega factories, crash your ship and never lose it.  So ya after a few months of non-stop grind and ability to gain so much, even solo, people get to a point sooner where they are like...what is the point?   Imagine if people actually had to form at least the very basic of fleets, to go to an outer planet, to mine a fraction of ore they do now, and be on their toes about possible opposition.  Thats the content people are looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is arguing against how badly PvP is currently implemented. NQ even said so themselves in the initial release statement, calling it an 'early draft' or something to that effect. And all planets being safe is kinda obvious since atmospheric/planet/territory warfare hasn't been implemented yet.

 

But the moment you start talking about how PvP needs to be given special privilege with certain metals limited to PvP zones / safe zone restricted to sanctuary only etc, then you are putting PvP on a pedestal above other types of gameplay. But I am also not blind to how that would lead to interesting game play with risk vs. reward so it is not 100% cut and dry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, CptLoRes said:

Nobody is arguing against how badly PvP is currently implemented. NQ even said so themselves in the initial release statement, calling it an 'early draft' or something to that effect. And all planets being safe is kinda obvious since atmospheric/planet/territory warfare hasn't been implemented yet.

 

But the moment you start talking about how PvP needs to be given special privilege with certain metals limited to PvP zones / safe zone restricted to sanctuary only etc, then you are putting PvP on a pedestal above other types of gameplay. But I am also not blind to how that would lead to interesting game play with risk vs. reward so it is not 100% cut and dry.

I mean, im just going off the interviews from way back in alpha, where JC said "the higher tier ores would be in the pvp zone" Thats what we have been promised since before I decided to back it.  No real different than eve. You dont get the best missions/ore in highsec.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CptLoRes said:

And that is totally fine. But have you noticed that while 'carebears' are generally fine with there being PvP in the game, PVP'ers are the ones loudly complaining about safe zones.

All I see is pve'ers intimating that pvpers just want to destroy things without challenge.   Edit (Some Pve'ers are) Refusing to see any nuance, refusing to help themselves, refusing to cooperate in any burgeoning civilisation and trying to get NQ to make a different game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Anopheles said:

All I see is pve'ers intimating that pvpers just want to destroy things without challenge.   Edit (Some Pve'ers are) Refusing to see any nuance, refusing to help themselves, refusing to cooperate in any burgeoning civilisation and trying to get NQ to make a different game.

And a big thing I think people forget is....its a game. 

 

I want challenge.  If i fuck up and a pirate gets me, thats ok.  I mean NQ is doing everything they can to give you options, i mean hell, there is a whole moon/planet called "sanctuary" and even recent interviews JC basically confirmed the current blue circle isnt going away.  If you cant stand to lose a ship, a base, or competition then maybe this game isn't for you.  Been saying that for years now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Anopheles said:

All I see is pve'ers intimating that pvpers just want to destroy things without challenge.    Refusing to see any nuance, refusing to help themselves, refusing to cooperate in any burgeoning civilisation and trying to get NQ to make a different game.

I sympathize -- and sometimes wonder why PvPers still have enough patience for this game. 

 

People have talked about NQ's mountain of technical debt before, but I wonder about this a lot.

 

Even if they wanted to work on PvP exclusively for the next year straight, I wonder if they'd be able to accomplish much. How many outstanding issues would they need to fix before they can make progress on PvP features...? 

 

Even with a year, they'd probably make some really bad choices because NQ doesn't really care about game design as a discipline -- they prefer the "use JC's intuition then fix it" model. This...isn't so great for game dev. 

 

If every player on this forum (which NQ doesn't read lol) banded together to push NQ to move PvP forward, I bet it'd just be business as usual for NQ...especially if they have so much tech debt that they can't make progress on any content in general which seems to be the case. And when they do finally drop a PvP feature...? It'd probably be a buggy, poorly balanced compromise that pleases no one. 

 

I wouldn't be that surprised if PvP remains "as-is" for a long, long while because of their ever-growing technical debt. When you have a bunch of tech debt, the last thing you want to do is start touching a feature that you have no confidence about -- and its really clear that NQ has no confidence in their understanding of PvP (or hell, player interaction in general).

 

Personally, I don't think PvP will ever really "work" in DU -- it just isn't remotely thought out, even today...I'd be really shocked if NQ manages to improvise their way into a well considered well balanced version of PvP. If they do pull that off, it'll take a long, long time and a lot of painful trial and error. 

 

TLDR: I don't believe NQ has the design or technical experience to create a good PvP experience...not without a ton of iterations they can't afford. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, michaelk said:

I wouldn't be that surprised if PvP remains "as-is" for a long, long while because of their ever-growing technical debt. When you have a bunch of tech debt, the last thing you want to do is start touching a feature that you have no confidence about -- and its really clear that NQ has no confidence in their understanding of PvP (or hell, player interaction in general).

 

I could not agree with this sentiment more but I'm afraid NQ does not recognize the technical debt they have already built up nor understand how it wil impact their progress if they just bypass it and keep putting in new features or making major changes to existing ones. I think NQ underestimates how it will become increasingly difficult to address this debt as it gets buried further into the code. They keep presenting overly optimistic projections, talking about new things to come and hardly, if ever, touch on the huge pile of "things to fix" currently on the table, some of which at the core of how the game (servers) operate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...