Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reyd Karris]

Only thing meaningful are the people, and you can interact with people in a myriad ways that are more constructive and fun than EVE.

Interesting points, but I think some clarification is in order.

"Meaningful gameplay" is one of those industry phrases that look good on an investor handout and sounds really good in press releases. What it really means, is making a feature of the game that is actually used. Adding "meaningful gameplay" to walking in stations would mean adding features that can't be accessed in a player's "ship". That's the context of meaningful here.

I am having a very hard time buying that an instanced battleground scenario captures the feeling of EVE (the sandbox). Also, it does not require a higher degree in software development to be able to see that where EVE avatars technology is today (the part that has been shown at least) and what it would require in man-hours to realize this proposed game concept is in the thousands. The only surprising part is that CCP did not conclude this almost immediately.

They've got the groundwork started. It's called DUST 514. The thing about the whole "sandbox" concept is that the players make of it what they will, within the confines of the sandbox. Also a slightly out of context discussion, as what they are doing is providing some new tools to add to the sandbox; I for one look would look forward to pillaging ruins and abandoned stations. It would add to my RP, my gaming experience, and make use of skills I utilize in other games that I play.

I understand that it may not exactly be your cup of tea, but for those who do enjoy it, well... I for one can wait, and get my interactions elsewhere while I wait.

 

[Myyona]

Things without persistance in the world gives me very little sense of immersion, and as such, does not make me feel like IC.

The ability to name containers and anchor them in space allows for more persistant interactive gameplay than these battlegrounds ever will provide (assuming, of course, that they magically appear and disappear like mission/exploration sites and not stay in place).

[NISYN Aelisha]

My personal minimum for such sites is that they, as with other out of station areas of eve, act as a focus for competition, conflict and/or cooperation.  If it is only one of these in isolation or even 2 out of 3, I do not feel that they add much to the tapestry of eve. 

I can get behind dust battlefields as they encourage macro competition over planetary resources, immediate conflict and cooperation not only with your team mates but also orbital assets.  If EVA game play doesn't allow for lower-powered but still tense and skills  based acts of violence against other capsuleers, as well as cooperation in the face of that and possibly greater threats within the environment, then it isn't EVE imo.

Persistence is not required physically, but it is required in the minds of those who experience such game play - without the usual give and take in EVE and the chance to get caught with your pants down while looting some frozen starship tomb, what point is there to it other than 'need cash, do rote activity'? 

TL;DR, It is my opinion that immediate cooperation and conflict require persistent competition (ownership of 'good places to go' be it spawn quality or quantity - or even market importance of rare, hard fought for goods) to meet the minimum requirements of being considered a 'toy in the sandbox'.  Persistence of location is not required so long as, for the duration of an encounter, it is available to more than just those for find it first.