[Ratneck]

Originally Posted by Bingofuel

NYC isn't a game you play, and I have serious doubts about any part of this planet being regulated.

My consern is with player retention. Hystoricly games that support unconsented PvP either die out or have low population after 3-6 months of opperation. The vast majority of gamers will quit a game where thy have to be worried about being shot at by player and non players all the time.

If you want to Pvp go where it's allowed and leave the civs alone.

NYC isn't a game you play, that is true. NYC is a community. A community with crime, an economy, people driving around for different reasons... I don't think it has to be a game to be juxtaposed to Jumpgate, if the two were the same in every way it would be pointless to compare them. A car tire and an orange are both circles, but I wouldn't eat a car tire. That doesn't invalidate a comparison for the purpose of looking at things that are circles.

Jumpgate and NYC are both communities. That is the context I am comparing them. What is the point of playing a game with other players if you can't compete with them? This game is about flying around and shooting stuff. It's not about building stuff, it's not about claiming space, it's not about collecting loot, it's not an MMORPG! They say it right on the Jumpgate home page: "It's not an MMORPG - it's an MMO space flight and combat game.".

What would the point of this game be if you couldn't shoot at other players? Shooting AI drones? Then why bother playing an MMO?

Civs should get protection, but not protection from getting killed. I could see having roaming AI police forces.....but not insta-gank AI. If death hurts so much, put the Civ back at their faction station with their ship still together and all their cargo when they're killed. But don't say we can't shoot at them because they're civ! Increase the penalty for doing it, make it harsh, make it so you can't go in their space without their police force coming for you if they see you. Don't take the option away. What if I'm mining and you dump 3 C6's on me.....what if you do it over and over as you go through the sector? You're using them as a weapon on me, isn't that PvP?? Why shouldn't I be able to shoot you down for it if I'm willing to take the penalty and bounty?

[vorlon31]

I am with Bingofuel. PVP in reg space should be purely consensual. History and the actions of twitweed mentalists has told us this fact time and time again.

However, the manner that the consent can be given should be varied and great thought be put into how mission selection generates flags for certain pvp opportunities.

The free for all, anywhere, at all times pvp model is simply not the most successful, instead there should be an approach that lends many branches to the pvp tree and that in turn will generate interest and sustain captured imaginations. I believe.

[Taeryn]

Nope.

[project3wc]

No.

regulated space should be somewhat like Eve's High Sec space. you can still get shot, but then a sht ton of AI ships will warp to your location and try to kill whoever shot you. ( most of the time within seconds ).

we have a new AI, why not put it to good use. you shoow someone in reg space, you get chased around and shot at by the "defenders" or whatever theyre calling it now.

[ELPIRATA]

PVP in reg space should be purely consensual

See, the PvE in you shows up. PvP in faction space is never consensual. The enemy comes looking for a fight and they do not need consent to make it, otherwise 5 QH come to Oct space and I basically say, "Sorry Gent30, go home, Im not in the mood to fight". Between PvPers if 2 folks find you and u dont want to fight, you better be ready to run and flee or whatever because they wont back down, they dont have to and they shouldnt. They are the enemy and you're the target.

Now, a civ... they should be able to hit you, how fast and how big the AI comes after you after the initial attack... that's up to them. If there are 2000 folks online, I doubt we'd have 700 oct carebears doing their thing expecting not to be bothered by the enemy, why have factions at all?

Have then the enemy as one or 2 AI factions and all the rest are a happy family.

Helloooo?

ELP

[GrimGriz]

For me, it ultimately depends on how WoW-like the game itself is. If being a higher level than another player makes you able to rip other players of lower level without regard to their skill, regulated space should be consentual pvp only.

For example, if Rollio can level up to 50, and then go into reg space and rip 74 level 26 people without really coming close to exploding......safe zone would be the only way to go.

[netburnr]

Originally Posted by Bingofuel

The vast majority of gamers will quit a game where thy have to be worried about being shot at by player and non players all the time.

If you want to Pvp go where it's allowed and leave the civs alone.

First, go download Firefox (there is a link at the bottom of the forums for the firefox JSR toolbar, use Jump's link so the site makes a dollar. You NEED the built in spell check.

Now onto the quote....

What kind of lame ass "gamer" quits a game when they get shot? Whats the point of playing a game then? Why doesn't that person stick with Crossword puzzles and Solitaire? Ohh thats right, because games like that get boring after awhile! Jumpgate Evolution HAS TO HAVE the excitement that Jumpgate Classic has, or the same thing will happen, people will quit out of BOREDOM. Not because "some lame guy killed me and made me loose 200k which will take me all of one cargo run to get back"

Seriously.

Originally Posted by Ratneck

A car tire and an orange are both circles, but I wouldn't eat a car tire. That doesn't invalidate a comparison for the purpose of looking at things that are circles.

Ha, Laughed out loud at that one

Originally Posted by Ratneck

What would the point of this game be if you couldn't shoot at other players? Shooting AI drones? Then why bother playing an MMO?

Civs should get protection, but not protection from getting killed. I could see having roaming AI police forces.....but not insta-gank AI. If death hurts so much, put the Civ back at their faction station with their ship still together and all their cargo when they're killed. But don't say we can't shoot at them because they're civ! Increase the penalty for doing it, make it harsh, make it so you can't go in their space without their police force coming for you if they see you. Don't take the option away. What if I'm mining and you dump 3 C6's on me.....what if you do it over and over as you go through the sector? You're using them as a weapon on me, isn't that PvP?? Why shouldn't I be able to shoot you down for it if I'm willing to take the penalty and bounty?

P-E-R-F-E-C-T example of a justified Civ Rip. Some lame Mofo using the games tag system to "hide" from his actions. The thing is, some of us were willing to do all the extra work of getting rid of our bounty to teach the person to stop messing with us. Some times it worked, some times the person would come back and do it again, and once again you would have to civrip them.

Making someone invincible will only cause them to act a fool.

[Smegit]

Voted No with a big "N".

However I'm not certain the ND people talking the talk have the same idea of what regulated space means. It may not in this context mean "non-faction" space. If may simply be an area where PvP cannot take place. If thats just the area round the stations then its more palletable, still not right mind.

Smeg

[Lordopic]

Originally Posted by Ratneck

What would the point of this game be if you couldn't shoot at other players? Shooting AI drones? Then why bother playing an MMO?

Just to point out that shooting other players isnt the only way to interact with other people in a MMO, but that is a whole diff kettle of fish.

[KEA]

I just tried Vendetta Online, just to see what it was about. The first thing that happened to me when I jumped into a new sector? I was killed, sent back to the original station and re-kitted with what I had. I thought to myself, well that sucked.... Goodbye. I have not tried it again and I probably wont.

If the first thing that happened to me when I played Jumpgate was I was killed by another player, I would have quit it as well, instead I was talked to by other players and shown how things work. Once I was ready to try my hand at PVP, I went mil and did some fighting. At that point, I knew what I was getting into, invested in the game and did not mind getting killed.

Depending on how it is set up, safe zones will prevent what happened to me in Vendetta from happening to new Jumpgate Evolution players, and then maybe space will, eventually, have plenty of people that are willing to risk getting killed.

Just my 2c.

KEA

[Algore]

I'm not a fan of safe zones, but not knowing what level of protection a safe zone would give makes me want to reserve judgement for fear of looking foolish at a later date. There hasn't really been enough information released for me to have a definitive opinion.
That being said I've always seen carebears as future recruits. All the current OV came from squads I would have considered to be more soft centered than hard centered
As there have been less trading squads in Jumpgate I have noticed a clear difference in recruiting. People join a busy squad, they either like it or move on. From a PvP pov I tended to recruited bored traders/fluxers who wanted to try PvP. Honest, non polluted PvP noobs. A blank canvas if you will.
The apparent lack of protection, by game mechanics or player governed for these groups has reduced the number of trading squads. This directly reduced the pool of possible new pilots to PvP. I'm not saying make any area of space totally safe, but if retaining them with some sort of greater levels of safety means we avoid the current bastardisation of squads made from 2nd accounts this may be a bonus.
I guess there is an angle for every opinion in Jumpgate. But if retaining players creates more PvP. Or more importantly more people continue long enough to try it before leaving due to lack of protection, then surely this is something we must consider.

Regards
Al