[ilk]

After giving it some thought I'm actually OK with protected areas for pansies. It wouldn't really bother me if faction station areas were off limits for non-consensual PvP - so long as the rewards for operating (mining/trading) in those areas are suitably miniscule compared to the rewards for those who risk attack.

I can understand hard-line opposition to any PvP-switch (especially when one of them is my Squad Leader ) but I don't really see the problem with allowing cowardly drones to pootle about the station sectors (and maybe some suitably small distance from them) without risk of interaction - their money will help keep the game alive for those of us who want bloodshed.

[netburnr]

So no more station sector battles? No more speed docking? No more tube camping?

no thanks.

I am one of those "few" people who will continue to be avidly vocal about this. Hell even the honor guard switch is too much imho. I want it to be the wild west. I want it to be scary, stressful, exciting, unknown. I want people's reputation to mean something, I dont wan't people to be able to hide from their actions, I don't want some carebear environment.

That said, I learned to live with the civ/hg tags, and I still can live with it, but implementing entire areas or sectors that are completely safe just doesn't sit well with me.

I can also see TRI Enforcers being used to help protect "civvies" when someone attacks them, that makes sense, and fits with the RP. But having an entire sector that is somehow magically safe, does not.

[Eraser55]

netburn hit it.. Its magic. And as a true Scifi fan, I dont like "magic" interrupting my scifi mind.

I dont know how they will implement this safe zone or whatever.. But lets say its with some Uber NPC. If that is the case then anyone who is attacked would recive assistance by one Uber NPC. BUT, If I bring 30 people and want to kill one guy in safe zone, both he and the UBER npc will be dead(unless those 30people are NOOBS from EVE looking for autoattack button) .. That I can handle.. not the other way around.. UBER npc kills 30 fighters in few secs..

anyway.. cant wait to kill uber npcs..

[netburnr]

Stations sectors already had the defense drones, which could even give some of the best pilots a hard time due to their small size and mass and fast speeds. Again like you said, if a wing or squad of people were there, it was possible (and quite easy because of poor AI) to take down the defense droid, but it at least distracted the attacker and would give the civ some chance to speed dock or run. I liked that idea and would gladly accept an "enforcer" in all other sectors, as it adds depth and realism the TRI concept.

[daslog]

Originally Posted by Liet

If space becomes safe, and people have the option of hiding behind tags/invulnerability, I won't be playing. Players need to be accountable for their actions and forced to play the political game.

IMO,

The evidence stacks up as follows:

1) In several interviews, ND has hinted at some form of protection for players that don't want to PvP.
2) For the most part,The MMO's in the market with optional PvP Zones have done very well financially, while the "hardcore" full on PvP games haven't.
3) ND has carefully sidestepped the questions raised on this board about PvP.

I'd say some form of PvP switch/Safe Zones will be in.

[netburnr]

Oh well, guess I'll have to find someone other than Liet to grief me

Hopefully the next interview that comes out will clear this up a little bit.

[Tritian]

not to disappoint WB, i'll chime in on this subject. =)

There is evidence that the author of this article is an idiot. The article itself is said to be an 'interview' yet there is no standard Q&A type interviewing going on. I suspect that these people emailed Hermann for an interview. At this point, Hermann's email client recognized several keywords and dispatched the automated 'this is our game' description form reply. The author then gutted the information, quoted, and after a brief processing time, extrapolated the missing information.

At that point, he laid out his collection of deductions and assumptions, with a sprinkling of quotes, into this summary of a 'what if an interview happened' article.

It's frustrating to see any information regarding safe zones or pvp switches in Jumpgate Evolution. However, I will reserve my verbal thrashings until we have more reliable information, straight from the horses mouth.

[Jump]

Originally Posted by Tritian

not to disappoint WB, i'll chime in on this subject. =)

There is evidence that the author of this article is an idiot. The article itself is said to be an 'interview' yet there is no standard Q&A type interviewing going on. I suspect that these people emailed Hermann for an interview. At this point, Hermann's email client recognized several keywords and dispatched the automated 'this is our game' description form reply. The author then gutted the information, quoted, and after a brief processing time, extrapolated the missing information.

At that point, he laid out his collection of deductions and assumptions, with a sprinkling of quotes, into this summary of a 'what if an interview happened' article.

It's frustrating to see any information regarding safe zones or pvp switches in Jumpgate Evolution. However, I will reserve my verbal thrashings until we have more reliable information, straight from the horses mouth.

As I said, the author is basically trying to pump up their membership and move up a few positions in Google for the keywords Jumpgate Evolution.

All that aside, I think it's a bit pessimistic to think NetDevil has given up on PVP.

[Jump]

See, this article is now on the front page of the search results and it even bumped off wikipedia which Google unfairly inflates. So if you are wondering why I took the keywords out of Erasers original link you know why.

[Wild_Bill]

Thanks Tritian! I knew I could count on you and Liet. :=)

Just for the late comers, I am no more in favor of an "absolute safe zone" than anyone here. Areas that are safer or more heavily defended make sense game-wise and RP wise. Even the old wild west didn't want folks randomly shooting up the place "just because I want to". It should always be possible to give someone a pod ride as long as a) you're good enough to do it and b) willing to pay the price for your actions. ilk is exactly right IMO with the low danger/low profit theme but it must be balanced with a high reward/high risk, as well as moderate risk/moderate profits.

There will be people coming to Jumpgate Evolution that truly have no desire for PvP, and won't tolerate being forced into the "victim role play", just as there will be folks flocking for the combat, some of whom will want to kill everyone they can regardless of that other pilot's ability to fight back. I think there will also be a middle ground that want a mixture of PvP and PvE and not really satisfied with either pure PvP or the hauling/mining/producing scenario 24/7/365 . I just hope ND produces some of the middle ground for folks like me.

Unlike Jump and some of the rest of you, I am not savy with all the nuances of bulletin boards, fan sites, etc. I took what I saw at face value and may have drawn the wrong conclusions. Regardless of what is said or not, until we can actually get our hands on it and mangle it in our unesteemable way nothing said means anything real. Let us play with it, alpha, beta or retail and then we can make decisions regarding stay and play or walk away (gosh I hate simple rhymes!).

[netburnr]

I <3 Bill, his posts are very inspirational and well thought out.

You can come out of hiding now Scortch

[Jump]

Scorch is out of town this week so he is not likely to reply soon(tm). I did however, forward all of your concerns regarding this artic