Round Table: PvP Cargo

[N00berWaffles]

Originally Posted by Georgiana Jennings PvE/econ players don't run risk; instead they put in alot of effort. PvPers don't put in much effort but we run risks. It's two fundamentally different ways of obtaining rewards, and there's no satisfactory way of mixing them...for the vast majority of both groups, having to do the other's activity will be a horrible chore, so overall both groups will be less happy.

Very well said.

The place where we all mix is RvR, which is why I'm worried about flagging bundles, because bundles give the econ-only player a way to contibute. Let people play the game they want to play, at some point the econ player may want to try out their new ship against a real challenge, and the pvp player may want to use all that stuff they collected to build something, but let them do it at their own pace.

Oh, and I agree with CJFlint that there should probably be an announcement about the roundtables on the loader, to get more opinions.

[Wigbold]

1. Do you think PvP cargo is a desirable modification to the game or not and why?
If you make unrest bundles the one and only PvP cargo and you make them tradable again, it will bring a positive effect for RvR.

But it is necessary to put a kind of lock on unrest bundles stored in warehouses or harboured ships of the port in question. Otherwise there will be storage wars and this favours the bigger nations. The attacking side bring the needed unrest supplys days before the attack into town and use them when needed.

To make tradable unrest bundles PvP cargo would give both RvR sides the option to do something against their shipping. This would enrich RvR but does not hinder the rest of the economy.

You should know what you do, when you smuggle unrest supplys into a town under attack. Traders will have the option to choose between a failfitted fast hauler like a bermuda mastercraft or choose a big hauler and get a good escort. Or the outsource it to low level players, letting the smuggling to them and binding them early to RvR.

It will bring a slower raise of unrest because casual unrest bundle supplier will use the failfitted ships. The pros will sail in with a big hauler and an escort and this will bring more pvp to the bored players, which are attacking the port.

2. What kind of cargo do you think should be PvP cargo if the idea was implemented and why?

Unrest bundles and unrest bundles alone. But it is necessary to make them tradeable again. Otherwise you would mostly see failfitted ships. Most econ players are not that much in PvP.

You think they can simple use an escort and choose a big hauler? They could do it, but the fight for the escort would be a 5vs6. A pro would use his Mont Blanc and would be a efficient member of his escort fleet. But most econ players were no big help for their escorting fleet lacking the needed expierence and skillspec to do so.

Any other PvP goods are a tabu. You don't want to be PvP flagged because you had captured a specific cargo in a fleeting. It would be a nice additional source for MoVs for opensea hunters and very frustating for the victims.

To make specific goods like LSB or ship deeds PvP goods would only anoy econ players and hinder the game econonmy. Especialy the econmy of smaller nations. Ship deeds would be transported in completely uncatchable ships. LSBs would only see the open sea for seconds. Some nations, like spain for example, would simply outsource their shipbuilding. Why should you care about shipping PvP flagged cargo when you could give a british or french shipbuilder the needed resources and some cash for the effort?

3. How would you address the issues presented by those on the opposite side of the discussion?

Some people say, this is a PvP game and the most dangerous thing to a PvP game is making the players bored.

I think this game has a strong PvP component but it's not everything. This game has more aspects. Econ players are a minority but they are the minority which keeps the economy running. When they are handicaped too much, they will leave. So this PvP cargo thing SHOULD be a matter of choice. When you limit it to tradeable unrest supplys, the econ player has a choice. He can even help his nation and low level players without risking his beloved courone mc. Low level players would have a new activity field: Smuggling in unrest supplys in fast ships. For a typical econ player it is no problem to supply a new player with a fast ship for smuggling his unrest supplies. So it would integrate low level players very early into RvR.


Some people consider LSBs or precious ship deeds for PvP goods.

I think this would be a very bad idea. As a first reaction you will loose a good percentage of econ players. You can argue if 10% will leave or 50% will leave the game but some will go. Some will switch to other fields of interest. The game will not loose them but their ship building capabilities would be lost. The rest will simply find ways arround this 'problem'. So the game will loose players and the smaller nations shipbuilding capabilities but it will gain nothing.

[Nestcrow]

Originally Posted by Georgiana Jennings However, for the vast majority of both groups, having to do the other's activity will be a horrible chore, so overall both groups will be less happy.

I don't know what makes you think that there are only two kind of players, risk averse ecoers and risk liking PvPers?
You can't tell me the level 50 guys that have 24 wins and wins mulplied by level = 320 are taking risk. Why should there not also be econ focussed players that like risks, unless of course they all leave this game for EVE?

As long as there are some willing to do high risk cargo hauls, everyone who doesn't want to do them for whatever reason can just pay them. I have to pay people for goods I can't make myself but need for my production, as it is, and I paid people for doing hauls that were inconvenient for me - it's all just a question of price and reliability, really. In the end it's about balancing the number of required high risk hauls, and the risk so that they get done regularily without forcing the "customers" of them to pay unreasonable prices (and also to avoid having an easymode way for pirates to become rich).

That said, I'm not sure if Temmypos idea of permanent red isn't simply better, but it might have very similar problems.

[Fodderboy]

The time has come to close this round table so that we may move on to our next subject. We’ve learned a lot about players’ perceptions regarding items of value in RvR, risk-reward in transportation and a general sense of players’ views regarding PvP prevalence in the game economy. This information is always helpful for the design team and myself as it provides an interesting counter balance to the suggestions often submitted by players via support tickets that may not be aware of and/or do not participate in discussions of this nature on the forums.

I think we can say that there is general agreement all around that this concept is not well suited for the game economy in general. Its application is very limited to purely RvR items such as Unrest Bundles. The concept seems to have more strength when applied to items currently not in game that are specifically designed for this purpose and only then if the rewards are great enough to justify the risk. To determine what is acceptable reward really depends on the context of its application - which really is probably best suited to another more detailed round table at a later date should the decision be made to revisit this concept.

As always I want to thank everyone for their participation in this discussion. Please look for the next round table discussion to start in the next two or three days on the Careers Board.