Forums » Suggestions
If you launch while not enrolled in an event you appear back in h-5 ... if you enroll in the event, when you launch you appear in the event sector. So the event has no physical connection to "real" space.
Big thumbs up (if not this sector, then a new station elsewhere). This prevents my concern about event sectors becoming a refuge for pilots who engage outside of it and then flee back, while protecting the event itself. I think the only other twist is that no regular XP should be earned during any event: if you're sheltered from the realities of VO, you shouldn't get rewards for that playing time. You're clearly doing it for fun.
Big thumbs up (if not this sector, then a new station elsewhere). This prevents my concern about event sectors becoming a refuge for pilots who engage outside of it and then flee back, while protecting the event itself. I think the only other twist is that no regular XP should be earned during any event: if you're sheltered from the realities of VO, you shouldn't get rewards for that playing time. You're clearly doing it for fun.
Why does something like this always have to happen when the devs seem to be making real progress on something else >.<
I understand the concern but I really don't see this as a very demanding issue at the moment. I think this is an important issue to discuss, but not at this time. We've moved the NW away from griefers before and kept the location secret, let's just do it again. Maybe when VO is a little more stable we can talk about creating some sort of arena where an altered version of the game exists, but for right now we might just have to deal with the immaturity of others, as we have done time and time again. I would really rather see the devs perfecting multi-player ships than having their attention pulled towards some sad cry for attention. I think that's something we can all agree on.
I understand the concern but I really don't see this as a very demanding issue at the moment. I think this is an important issue to discuss, but not at this time. We've moved the NW away from griefers before and kept the location secret, let's just do it again. Maybe when VO is a little more stable we can talk about creating some sort of arena where an altered version of the game exists, but for right now we might just have to deal with the immaturity of others, as we have done time and time again. I would really rather see the devs perfecting multi-player ships than having their attention pulled towards some sad cry for attention. I think that's something we can all agree on.
In the real world there are terrorists. Nations expend vast efforts to develop intelligence to protect their citizens. Perhaps NW vets could serve an intelligence function and protect NW.
Methods suggested include:
1. Track offenders
2. Kill offenders
3. Move NW (ghost)
4. (New Idea) Via PM announce NW sector as the Start signal.
Methods suggested include:
1. Track offenders
2. Kill offenders
3. Move NW (ghost)
4. (New Idea) Via PM announce NW sector as the Start signal.
A arena where the swarms are desactived, but not the avallon torpedo...héhé
A arena open free with no police turrets etc..
and a nation War who is a evenement (Deneb) 2 times in a week for example but organised automatic.
The TGFT is not immortal, and we appreciated the work made by them and we says a many thanks for this. and in homage we give the name of Najhon War for this evenement
If you leave arena durante evenement, you can't come back before 30 mn
After we can made a pvp war with a prize too.. it's only a example with my bad english,my traductor is off for one month yet
Don't panic and let us reflect before acting
bataillé...
A arena open free with no police turrets etc..
and a nation War who is a evenement (Deneb) 2 times in a week for example but organised automatic.
The TGFT is not immortal, and we appreciated the work made by them and we says a many thanks for this. and in homage we give the name of Najhon War for this evenement
If you leave arena durante evenement, you can't come back before 30 mn
After we can made a pvp war with a prize too.. it's only a example with my bad english,my traductor is off for one month yet
Don't panic and let us reflect before acting
bataillé...
Pissing into the wind.
I actually agree with ghost. They're trolls, go have a manhunt. It's reasonably annoying, but basically, yeah.
Added points for my station / instance idea. Could also be used to test events / missions in game at a gamma (alpha, beta, gamma) testing level. A place where people can go to see and try proposed new content / mechanics without having to log into the test server. It widens the test base, but still is buffered from the production environment. Also since it spawns a separate instance sector, PCC could use to test things during the writing process. Without involving the greater verse, whether test or production. Small enough not to screw up the verse, but large enough for a public sandbox. Though some of the proposed functionality might exist in the test server as opposed to being available in production.
Part of the buffer idea for this instance is the idea of how to "leave". In the Nation Wars case is easy. Only way out is death, or event "completion". If a player dies they are still in the event, but in an observer status. And completion is when only one team is standing. And since you "bought" (could even adjust cost of items) your loadout in the event station before entering the event the items do not belong to the real verse.
Since you are instanced could set a rule about temporary homing.
Basically if enrolled in event you are homed at event station. Considering the only way to leave the station into "real" VO is to be not enrolled in something, canceling or finishing an enrollment resets the character to whatever state they were in before enrollment. Ship, loadout, and home.
With it spawning a new instance doesn't mean you can see the station upon exit. If a station is needed one can be in the sector but think of it more as a insta warp upon exit of the station if enrolled in the event.
Part of the buffer idea for this instance is the idea of how to "leave". In the Nation Wars case is easy. Only way out is death, or event "completion". If a player dies they are still in the event, but in an observer status. And completion is when only one team is standing. And since you "bought" (could even adjust cost of items) your loadout in the event station before entering the event the items do not belong to the real verse.
Since you are instanced could set a rule about temporary homing.
Basically if enrolled in event you are homed at event station. Considering the only way to leave the station into "real" VO is to be not enrolled in something, canceling or finishing an enrollment resets the character to whatever state they were in before enrollment. Ship, loadout, and home.
With it spawning a new instance doesn't mean you can see the station upon exit. If a station is needed one can be in the sector but think of it more as a insta warp upon exit of the station if enrolled in the event.
I think the real question here is not if the events management system is inside the VO backstory, but whether the Devs want to design in these sorts of events. At present, I'd reckon that at this stage in the development of the game, they would want to do so. The reason is simply down to money and building a playerbase.
The way games like this one survive and grow is by being really, incredibly cool and fun to play, so that the initial hundred or so players actively promote the game to the world at large. Things like "There's this really cool game, like Elite was but multiplayer, and they have this huge twice-weekly tournament thing where you get incredible amounts of money if your team wins" are the way to get peoples' interest; this gains word-of-mouth support and gains paying players for the game.
The way to lose players and get a bad name for the game is to have things like "There's this great game, where there's a weekly tournament-thing, but the fools who run it are such morons that when this griefer decided to spoil it all, they just let him".
If you've a big, successful game like Eve Online or World of Warcraft, then you can afford to let things like banking pyramid schemes, rampant corporate raiding and petty swindling of newbs take place; plenty more newbs where the last lot of victims came from. If you've a small playerbase then you don't want to permit rampant griefing and dog-in-a-manger muppetry such as the HAWK guild display, simply because it pisses off the very people who would otherwise be telling the world how incredibly cool the game is.
And so, I'm throwing this one back to the Devs for comment, evil man that I am...
The way games like this one survive and grow is by being really, incredibly cool and fun to play, so that the initial hundred or so players actively promote the game to the world at large. Things like "There's this really cool game, like Elite was but multiplayer, and they have this huge twice-weekly tournament thing where you get incredible amounts of money if your team wins" are the way to get peoples' interest; this gains word-of-mouth support and gains paying players for the game.
The way to lose players and get a bad name for the game is to have things like "There's this great game, where there's a weekly tournament-thing, but the fools who run it are such morons that when this griefer decided to spoil it all, they just let him".
If you've a big, successful game like Eve Online or World of Warcraft, then you can afford to let things like banking pyramid schemes, rampant corporate raiding and petty swindling of newbs take place; plenty more newbs where the last lot of victims came from. If you've a small playerbase then you don't want to permit rampant griefing and dog-in-a-manger muppetry such as the HAWK guild display, simply because it pisses off the very people who would otherwise be telling the world how incredibly cool the game is.
And so, I'm throwing this one back to the Devs for comment, evil man that I am...
limit the risk, limit the opportunity. the safer you make the game, the more boring it becomes. no griefers? no challenge. if you want it safe, stay in nation space. the devs have done an outstanding job of making nation space a safe place to be. they made it a priority. notorious pirates ripped the best laid plans of the devs apart and the devs built it again. they built it until the pirates cried for mercy, and then they gave no mercy. and you want to make all the galaxy that way? you want to cry over griefers and threaten to quit, then just quit, because if you got your way, i would quit. you can't be everything to everybody. the devs cut out a majority of space just for the likes of you, and now you are not content with that, and you want to squeeze me out too. the superfactions push border turrets into latos, ukari, and edras, infringing on the borders of grey, but you want it all. nice, quite, peaceful, and boring. have you considered playing a spirited game of monopoly?
We have an entire system designed for the reporting of abuse, which has seen zero usage from this recent incident. We also have guides who can be asked to voluntarily be present at player events, this has happened in the past. As I stated here, there is plenty that can be done already to maintain existing events, and I've posted extensively here to get feedback on what new methods would be most beneficial. I'm not really sure what you're driving at, Wyrm, unless you failed to read my initial post, which lays out most of the issues.
It's nice to tell us how we need to "prevent rampant griefing", but that's a very naive commentary on a game that is entirely based on non-consensual PVP. The issue is separating "what is Event Griefing" from what isn't, and doing so in a manner that both preserves the desired spirit of the game, while also not requiring such constant administrative oversight as to make forward progress unrealistic (as we spend all our time monitoring, and not developing). We've basically spent four pages discussing this fact.
You are correct that money and a playerbase are major factors here. I am not likely to get either without significant forward progress on development of the game. And by this I'm not referring to player-Events. I think Events are wonderful, and hugely benefit the community as well as helping long-term player retention, and I want to support them. But I will not do so at the expense of the forward development needed by the game, community, and developing company. There is no way I'm going to get press from "Vendetta Online hosts extra-large Nation War". But I will from "Vendetta Online has gigantic dynamic capship space battles/wars controlled by RTS interfaced admiral players and supported by extensive player-military structure".
So.. yes, money, how to spend it, how to get it, and what's best for the game. The point of this thread is to get real-world suggestions and feedback on what mechanisms we could implement to mitigate the recent Event situation the most quickly/easily/effectively. Let's have more of that.
It's nice to tell us how we need to "prevent rampant griefing", but that's a very naive commentary on a game that is entirely based on non-consensual PVP. The issue is separating "what is Event Griefing" from what isn't, and doing so in a manner that both preserves the desired spirit of the game, while also not requiring such constant administrative oversight as to make forward progress unrealistic (as we spend all our time monitoring, and not developing). We've basically spent four pages discussing this fact.
You are correct that money and a playerbase are major factors here. I am not likely to get either without significant forward progress on development of the game. And by this I'm not referring to player-Events. I think Events are wonderful, and hugely benefit the community as well as helping long-term player retention, and I want to support them. But I will not do so at the expense of the forward development needed by the game, community, and developing company. There is no way I'm going to get press from "Vendetta Online hosts extra-large Nation War". But I will from "Vendetta Online has gigantic dynamic capship space battles/wars controlled by RTS interfaced admiral players and supported by extensive player-military structure".
So.. yes, money, how to spend it, how to get it, and what's best for the game. The point of this thread is to get real-world suggestions and feedback on what mechanisms we could implement to mitigate the recent Event situation the most quickly/easily/effectively. Let's have more of that.
We just have to take matters into our own hands, people.
Let's let the community police itself. Frontier justice and all that, for God's sake the name of the game is VENDETTA!
Let's roll.
Let's let the community police itself. Frontier justice and all that, for God's sake the name of the game is VENDETTA!
Let's roll.
I think Wyrm was spot on with the posting on page 1 for this, then things spiraled into chaos and everyone got off on a tangent. The heart of what Wyrm posted was over looked. I would like to push things back on track here.
Can people comment on the following quote?
[The way to lose players and get a bad name for the game is to have things like "There's this great game, where there's a weekly tournament-thing, but the fools who run it are such morons that when this griefer decided to spoil it all, they just let him".]
Incarnate:
Most people would look at the ad of "Vendetta Online has gigantic dynamic capship space battles/wars controlled by RTS interfaced admiral players and supported by extensive player-military structure" and go uhm what's that? and look at "Vendetta Online hosts extra-large Nation War" as OH! CTF type thing. The first one bores the audience with technicalities and alienates the users while the second one involves the users and stems from the users participation.
LeberMac:
what TOOLS does the community have to 'police itself' besides mud slinging, trolling, harassing and TOS violations? The clear answer is NONE. Like one person told me the best way to handle problems like this is to "troll them into Oblivion". These are all non-productive methods and this is exactly why the VO community is not larger than it is.
From that, if the core foundation of VO is "non-consensual PvP" then the only outcome of this is player participation. Organizational management dictates the more players you have the more cases of abuse, misuse and skewing you run into. With out some base framework in place that is forward reaching and encompasses these areas of abuse/misuse the playerbase can *NOT* grow.
All that is being ask is not to nanny the game or hand holding or clean up something that happened in the past (or even recent events) but to install a framework system that will eliminate or reduce these problems.
Can people comment on the following quote?
[The way to lose players and get a bad name for the game is to have things like "There's this great game, where there's a weekly tournament-thing, but the fools who run it are such morons that when this griefer decided to spoil it all, they just let him".]
Incarnate:
Most people would look at the ad of "Vendetta Online has gigantic dynamic capship space battles/wars controlled by RTS interfaced admiral players and supported by extensive player-military structure" and go uhm what's that? and look at "Vendetta Online hosts extra-large Nation War" as OH! CTF type thing. The first one bores the audience with technicalities and alienates the users while the second one involves the users and stems from the users participation.
LeberMac:
what TOOLS does the community have to 'police itself' besides mud slinging, trolling, harassing and TOS violations? The clear answer is NONE. Like one person told me the best way to handle problems like this is to "troll them into Oblivion". These are all non-productive methods and this is exactly why the VO community is not larger than it is.
From that, if the core foundation of VO is "non-consensual PvP" then the only outcome of this is player participation. Organizational management dictates the more players you have the more cases of abuse, misuse and skewing you run into. With out some base framework in place that is forward reaching and encompasses these areas of abuse/misuse the playerbase can *NOT* grow.
All that is being ask is not to nanny the game or hand holding or clean up something that happened in the past (or even recent events) but to install a framework system that will eliminate or reduce these problems.
Wow, that makes very little sense. Even for you.
It was not clear, I'll agree with that. It looks like the quote we are asked to respond to is not in quotation marks. The other paragraphs look to be meant as responses to Leebs and Inc and were not part of what we were being asked to consider. The arguments are posed as absolutes and don't appear to invite useful debate.
I believe that the overarching issue is that people would like to be able to hold events without fear of disruption. One possible solution was postulated by the OP, but several people had concerns about artificial safety within VO.
I think Incarnate addressed the point early in this thread: (Discussing options for dealing with event interruption) "2) More/different/better in-context mechanics for achieving a similar goal without resorting to total artificiality. I don't know what this would involve.. hireable NPC guards? Capships? Only for empty sectors? There are a lot of exploit-avoidance and edge-case issues that stem from this, but it would tend to keep the galaxy "free-er" of absolutist artificial limits and restrictions."
I believe that the overarching issue is that people would like to be able to hold events without fear of disruption. One possible solution was postulated by the OP, but several people had concerns about artificial safety within VO.
I think Incarnate addressed the point early in this thread: (Discussing options for dealing with event interruption) "2) More/different/better in-context mechanics for achieving a similar goal without resorting to total artificiality. I don't know what this would involve.. hireable NPC guards? Capships? Only for empty sectors? There are a lot of exploit-avoidance and edge-case issues that stem from this, but it would tend to keep the galaxy "free-er" of absolutist artificial limits and restrictions."
now blacknet this might come as a suprise to you but people want more in a game then ctf in space.
@ incarnate
let the game evolve how you want it to. There are a lot of people here that i think hold back development by whining about not getting their way, more then anyone shooting a bunch of people in greyspace will. I would say that if the game is going to evolve into the war zone with player run armies that you seem to be pushing for, then ignore those who complain about none consensual pvp and the "rules" of war.
I think one of the reasons the community wont grow is the group of players who constantly want everyone to play their way. VO right now is almost sickening in the fact everyone does the same thing, there is no conflict or reason to even get excited to play.
@ incarnate
let the game evolve how you want it to. There are a lot of people here that i think hold back development by whining about not getting their way, more then anyone shooting a bunch of people in greyspace will. I would say that if the game is going to evolve into the war zone with player run armies that you seem to be pushing for, then ignore those who complain about none consensual pvp and the "rules" of war.
I think one of the reasons the community wont grow is the group of players who constantly want everyone to play their way. VO right now is almost sickening in the fact everyone does the same thing, there is no conflict or reason to even get excited to play.
blacknet, as for TOOLS, we have you. And I fixed part of your post for clarity; see below.
All that is being ask is not to nanny the game or hand holding or clean up something that happened in the past (or even recent events) but to install a framework system that will nanny the game.
And I think what Leber means is that, if you don't like what someone is DOING in VO--not what they're saying on the forums or the channels or over PM, but the actions they are causing their ship to take--STOP WHINING AND USE YOUR FUCKING GUNS. No need to troll them to death if you can blast them to pieces. If you can't, too bad for you.
All that is being ask is not to nanny the game or hand holding or clean up something that happened in the past (or even recent events) but to install a framework system that will nanny the game.
And I think what Leber means is that, if you don't like what someone is DOING in VO--not what they're saying on the forums or the channels or over PM, but the actions they are causing their ship to take--STOP WHINING AND USE YOUR FUCKING GUNS. No need to troll them to death if you can blast them to pieces. If you can't, too bad for you.
Jesus, can we please stop debating semantics? I keep asking things like "The point of this thread is to get real-world suggestions and feedback on what mechanisms we could implement to mitigate the recent Event situation the most quickly/easily/effectively. Let's have more of that.", and instead I keep getting garbled restatements of the "problem" from Wyrm and Moda. Seriously, people, we know what the ****ing problem is, here, I'm asking for solutions. If you don't have a specific solution to offer, or useful debate on a previously posted solution, please don't post at all.
I think that part of the problem is that we are not in complete agreement on what is the problem.
I think that the problem is that players can not adequately defend territory.
I detect that some players feel that the problem is that they should not be forced into a position of having to defend. I think there should be a place where players can have a nice safe uninterrupted event. I don't feel that place is in the heart grey.
In a more ideal situation, instead of people complaining that peytros ruined an event, they would be complaining that peytros interrupted an event, and had to be dealt with. What we are missing here is the "and" part. Instead of "and we had to smack him" or "and we had to stop him" or "and we had to hold him at bay" we have "and he ruined it". The balance is off just enough that we can't quite fit in the correct "and". The balance isn't irreparable. Much of the game is so well balanced that the unbalanced tends to stand out in contrast.
Interrupting events in grey should not be stopped. It should be balanced. The issue is not the event. The issue is the tactical variables that compromise the event. Fix the balance, let the players fix the event.
I think that the problem is that players can not adequately defend territory.
I detect that some players feel that the problem is that they should not be forced into a position of having to defend. I think there should be a place where players can have a nice safe uninterrupted event. I don't feel that place is in the heart grey.
In a more ideal situation, instead of people complaining that peytros ruined an event, they would be complaining that peytros interrupted an event, and had to be dealt with. What we are missing here is the "and" part. Instead of "and we had to smack him" or "and we had to stop him" or "and we had to hold him at bay" we have "and he ruined it". The balance is off just enough that we can't quite fit in the correct "and". The balance isn't irreparable. Much of the game is so well balanced that the unbalanced tends to stand out in contrast.
Interrupting events in grey should not be stopped. It should be balanced. The issue is not the event. The issue is the tactical variables that compromise the event. Fix the balance, let the players fix the event.
...riight. So what's the suggested freaking balance?!
There isn't one. There's no stopping someone from jumping in and firing swarms into NW participants, and there's no way to deter them because death means nothing. Most events, such as mining or trading, can be protected already, and no balance changes are necessary. Obsidian's old mining events are case in point: pirates could, but need not, play by her rules and get paid in event XP and funds for hunting the miners. Or they could break all the rules and go after miners in the station sector, and they'd get defended against and get no rewards. Both roles were fun, neither "broke" the event.
PvP tourneys like NW are arguably different, because they're supposed to happen with a set group of people and no external distractions/incoming fire. Period. Because there's no way to stop "suicide" attacks in VO, and no real deterrent to dying even multiple times in a very brief span of time, it is easy to "break" a PvP tourney event.
The two best solutions I've seen suggested are these:
1. Instanced event sector: you dock with a certain station, and opt into the event; when you undock, you launch not into the game but into an instanced sector. Event participants only, and you have to dock with the station in that sector (or die) to get back into the real game. Protecting sectors in "real" space will lead to people abusing their ability to flee to safety--so there must be a barrier between a safe zone and the rest of VO space. This approach does it, but at the cost of (I suspect) greater development resources.
2. Physically separate arena: a large sphere with one entrance pipe with a 90 degree turn, it allows the prevention of suicide attacks on PvP tourneys by allowing the entrance to be blocked and guarded by event participants. Better than the instanced sector for two reasons: one, still attackable--a guild assault could take out the entrance guards and enter the arena (arguably a liability, but I like preserving the "real life" aspects of the game more than I like assuring people 100% safety for their tourney); two, should be easier to drop into the game because no interface is required. Maybe dump a few of these into the game in various systems.
Better, Inc.?
PvP tourneys like NW are arguably different, because they're supposed to happen with a set group of people and no external distractions/incoming fire. Period. Because there's no way to stop "suicide" attacks in VO, and no real deterrent to dying even multiple times in a very brief span of time, it is easy to "break" a PvP tourney event.
The two best solutions I've seen suggested are these:
1. Instanced event sector: you dock with a certain station, and opt into the event; when you undock, you launch not into the game but into an instanced sector. Event participants only, and you have to dock with the station in that sector (or die) to get back into the real game. Protecting sectors in "real" space will lead to people abusing their ability to flee to safety--so there must be a barrier between a safe zone and the rest of VO space. This approach does it, but at the cost of (I suspect) greater development resources.
2. Physically separate arena: a large sphere with one entrance pipe with a 90 degree turn, it allows the prevention of suicide attacks on PvP tourneys by allowing the entrance to be blocked and guarded by event participants. Better than the instanced sector for two reasons: one, still attackable--a guild assault could take out the entrance guards and enter the arena (arguably a liability, but I like preserving the "real life" aspects of the game more than I like assuring people 100% safety for their tourney); two, should be easier to drop into the game because no interface is required. Maybe dump a few of these into the game in various systems.
Better, Inc.?