Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Minimum Viable Product

Bringslite
@ Kitsune

Yes, debate! Setting aside whether those suggestions would be a good move or not, can GW just roll back that stuff? I have a feeling that the game was not built in a modular way.

How far back would they need to go to "turn off" those things?

What about all of the stuff (between those versions) that is ok or great? Are those easy to port into an earlier version of EE or will they have to be manually transferred?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Edam
We could discuss ad infinitum the game mechanics and the "capture the flag" style battles over holdings and bulk resources that everyone now has tens of thousands already stockpiled due to the EE11 delays

However to be honest the biggest issue with PvP is a social one.

In particular the game was marketed in a way that attracted PvE players versus PvP inclined at a ratio of about 4:1 (and yes there was always comments about it being an "open PvP sandbox" but there was way more stuff about settlement building and the XP system for character building and stuff that appealed to the more PvE inclined).

Now that would have all been fine if that ratio was maintained equally across all settlements but it was not. Eox was extraordinarily successful at recruiting PvP inclined players to the extent that they probably now have 75% of the PvP inclined players currently active in the game with the other 25% scattered all across the map.

Whist intuitively this should be a "win" for EoX it actually means they have no-one really to fight.
Kitsune
Let's not go down that rabbit-hole, please. I definitely don't want to start any arguments about what player groups are doing what with PvP.

Not chastising you, Edam. I'm just trying to prevent the thread from taking an unneccessary turn in that direction.

("that" being any player-group political discussion whatsoever)
Fanndis Goldbraid
Kitsune
Fanndis, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't EVE Online have a rather large player base (or at least exponentially larger than the current PFO player base, heh)?

But I reckon you're right about the Kickstarter. I'm certain there's a large number of accounts out there that would never have activated a subscription - even if GW delivered an exceptional final product at OE.

Yes, relatively speaking EVE does have a large "player" base. (I don't know how many players have multiple accounts active at one time, but I think it is many. I always had four. Some have 20 or more.)

I must say I heard zero in Lisa's chat that gives me confidence there will be enough of a change in the game or game mechanics to lure in new players. There might be a few curiosity seekers, but not enough to keep the game alive without substantial investments over a long period of time from an outside source. I'm here at least through September.
Edam
Fanndis Goldbraid
Yes, relatively speaking EVE does have a large "player" base. (I don't know how many players have multiple accounts active at one time, but I think it is many. I always had four. Some have 20 or more.)

EVE subscribed active accounts appear to have dropped from 500,000 last time they announced official figures 3 years ago to around 330,000 active EVE accounts now. EVE peak players online at one time has dropped from 40,000+ a few years back to more like 30,000 now.

Is not just EVE that is in a slump World of Warcraft has hit a 9 year low dropping to "just" 5.6 million subscribers.
You are a Troll
Having the Monster hexes and badlands hexes be completely open PVP jexes, TK and the shield hexes being NO pvp hexes and the player controlled hexes having PVP set by *laws* (aka - which holdings are built in the hex) I thought was an interesting idea that would like to see implemented. Would love to hear how some of the harder-core PVPers feel about the idea.
Quijenoth
You are a Troll
Having the Monster hexes and badlands hexes be completely open PVP jexes, TK and the shield hexes being NO pvp hexes and the player controlled hexes having PVP set by *laws* (aka - which holdings are built in the hex) I thought was an interesting idea that would like to see implemented. Would love to hear how some of the harder-core PVPers feel about the idea.

I'll tell you why it wont work IMHO - boarder fights. people will use and abuse the boundaries in PvP. The hard line of the on and off PVP flag will simply hamper PVP and create a griefer state as people jump across boarders long enough to drop pvp flags and inflict multiple rep hits.

One idea I have recently considered instead is to have a non-aggression buff depending on your current hex. While you are in a shield hex or defending a hex that is your territory (but currently not feuded) you receive a bonus to your resistances against attacks by other players. The strength of the bonus could be tied in with your settlement level while in controlled hexes.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
What if attacking while in the hex-enabled open PvP state applied a thirty minute cooldown on the state? A person who leaves the hex without ever attacking loses the flag immediately while anyone who attacked, or fought back, remains flagged for half an hour after leaving the hex?
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
You are a Troll
I like it. Maybe 5-10 minutes instead of 30?
Baron Malthius
Quijenoth
One idea I have recently considered instead is to have a non-aggression buff depending on your current hex. While you are in a shield hex or defending a hex that is your territory (but currently not feuded) you receive a bonus to your resistances against attacks by other players. The strength of the bonus could be tied in with your settlement level while in controlled hexes.

An interesting idea, although I think that would work better if we put feuding at the Settlement and later the Alliance level rather than company level. With the current mechanics I can easily see the problem of having two companies in a battle having no buff for protection while all the other companies in the Settlement have it. At that point you would just feud with the smallest company and have the combat characters jump to non-feuding companies. Once both sides start doing that it negates the point of having the buff in the first place.

Also, I wonder how that would work with mercenaries. It would certainly make mercenaries more beefy, and while it would give people more incentive to hire them, it does seem a bit unbalanced for the outside help to be inherently tougher than the people who hired them due to a mechanics loophole rather than through superior training and skill.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post