Tuesday, July 23, 2013

PvP vs objectives

In nullsec frigroams are considered "fun" and "PvP experience" is required to join. I'm in nullsec with zero frigroams behind me and no FC ever complained on my performance in fleets. Seems, someone is wrong. Instead of pointing fingers, let me look this problem on a different perspective. Actually on the perspective on two different perspectives.

The competitive people are sorting things as "PvP" and "PvE". The decision is made on "attempting to gain dominance over other person". The objective-oriented person is sorting things as "effective" and "waste of time", based on reaching their goal or not. The two are not opposites, rather speaking in different languages. Let me give some examples:
  • Getting ISK: for a competitive person, that's a boring grind, a chore needs to be done. For an objective-oriented person it's an accomplishment which he does with involvement and effort.
  • Ganking: for a competitive person that's a dumb activity, since it only proves that a Catalyst is stronger than a mining barge, regardless of player skill. If an objective oriented person wants to climb the killboard, this is a rewarding and involving activity.
  • Frigate PvP: for a competitive person, it's an involving activity since frigates are the fastest, demanding the best player reactions. For an objective oriented person - unless he flies in alliance tournament - it's a big waste of time as the losses and gains are trivial.
  • PvP roams: a competitive person finds much fun in it, since not only he wins in PvP but does so with friends. For an objective oriented one, it's a waste of time as killing random targets have no gain.
  • Strategic operations: for both of them it's rewarding, for different reasons. For a competitive one - like a roam - it's an opportunity to dominate another group with his friends, while an objective oriented receives a direct objective: the system/station/POS ownership
The last point is important, because unlike all previous ones, they agree on it. Without it, they would be two opposing groups. However this point allows them to coexist in the same group.

However to do so, they must understand each other and it's missing now. A competitive group typically demand "PvP experience": killboard history. Since the player couldn't participate in startegic fleets in highsec, it is equal to demand him roams and small-ship PvP what he hates. This demand isn't "evil", just self-centered, assuming that if someone didn't like roams, he will surely hate large fleets, therefore he won't show up.

In an imaginary "carebear alliance" probably a stable of doctrine ships would be demanded and poor roamers would be dismissed as "he won't have the ship and won't show up in structure-only fleets". Which is similarly not true.

This is a problem for me, because I could never get the requested "PvP experience", but - unlike the PvP-ers would predict, I perform on strategic fleets without problems. I'm sure there are many-many people in highsec who could very well fit in nullsec alliances, but don't get a chance to get there due to being gated by small-ship PvP.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

The difference is easy to understand. In small gang fleets everyone is expected to know how to fly his ship - have skill. Every stupid mistake costs a large amount of firepower. In nullsec blobs you're just one of countless ships orbiting an anchor. When primary is called, just press f1. You don't have to know why you're flying that particular ship or why was that particular primary chosen. The larger the fleet, the less player skill is required and more burden goes to the fc. You can see it now in the tournament where typical null blobbers put out (usually) skilled players and everyone has to know his role. 1on1 frig fights tend to be the most demanding of all.

Anonymous said...

Are you still living in that bubble of yours, were you tell yourself that only pvp'ers are allowed to go to nullsec?
You should experience more of Null, than going back to TEST like a beaten girlfriend that's still in love with her abusing Alliance.
There are a lot of corps, in a lot of alliances, that recruit all kind of players, as long they will show op for the important Fleets.

Foo said...

@Anonymous.

Whereas the objective oriented person says : I need to bash down X, and have available ship choices A, B, C.

B has the best performance for the job; Lets make sure we have ship B before we start, and take that ship.

This applies whether you are in null with huge blobs; on in a wormhole with 5 or 6.

When you are structure bashing; the required skills are actually spotting incoming enemies; then deciding to ignore/chase/run away.

In a wormhole after bashing for hours, maintaining sufficient vigilance is a taxing role.

As an aside, when Gevlon has flown in previous fleets, he has been logistics; no killboard glory, and definitely not just F1 on a primary.

Anonymous said...

In nullsec frigroams are considered "fun" and "PvP experience" is required to join.

Some nullsec entities care about killboards, some don't.

For instance, Goons encourage their newbees to jump into frigate roams early and often, even handing out free outfitted frigates left and right. There is no "experience gate" for other forms of PvP, either. A newly minted Goon can join any op from day 1 without any experience whatsoever (and is, in fact, highly encouraged to do so).

The logic here is the one you've already explored it in one of your earlier posts. Namely, in addition to "Play to Win" and "Play for Fun" approaches, there is also "Play to Learn" - and that's how Goons approach PvP.

Every small roam and every large stratop is a source of valuable experience. Regretfully, the quickest way to earn said experience is by making lots and lots of mistakes - which is why it's better to do that early, while ships are cheap and clones are free.

Behnid Arcani said...

I disagree that Frigate PVP is a waste of time for the objective player, but only in the context of Faction Warfare.

Flying a frigate presents a relatively low ISK loss rate to LP gain.

It is, however, probably not the best place to start PVP for young pilots. The fights are too fast, and the margins for error too slim.

On a personal note, thanks for all the ISK making advice you've posted. This is one PVPer who understands the value of good market practices.

Anonymous said...

Even an objective-oriented person should realize that he needs *some* people in his fleet who are actually good at pvp - you want your FC, your bubblers, your anchors, your scouts, ... to be competent and you probably don't want them to start their learning process when stakes are high.

They need to collect relevant pvp experience in a low stakes environment and that environment is solo and small group roaming.

IMO you are also wrong with rgds to the difference small gang experience makes in large fleet fights: it does make a real difference - just not enough of a difference to justify the cost of training pilots to become good at it vs just recruiting an additional 20-30% of warm bodies to achieve the same overall result.

You may have noticed that TEST fleets always end in one of two ways - resounding success or complete failure. This is not "normal", it is a TEST thing - in other alliances you can lose a fight and still extract with two thirds of your ships intact. IMO this is directly due to the lack of pvp experience in TEST: most pilots are lacking the situational awareness, aren't comfortable with decision making, have a insufficient understanding of game mechanics, ... to actually survive without very tight leadership.

Once the primary and backup FC are dead a TEST fleet is a total write-off, even if at that point 80% of the ships are still alive and on field - whereas in "elite pvp" alliances you always have more than enough people who can take over and finish the fight, whereas in "elite pvp" alliances probably a third of the fleet members do at least have enough FC experience to somehow lead the fleet home without getting wiped out completely and whereas in "elite pvp" alliances *all* pilots have the experience and awareness to just keep doing what they are doing while looking out for their own survival even when things get hectic and the FC might go silent for a bit.

As I said above it is uneconomical for a large alliance to train pilots to become competent at pvp (a year of small gang experience times the number of pilots - prohibitive cost in man hours) when they can instead just recruit more inexperienced players, but it is foolish to deny that small gang or solo experience does make you a more valuable fleet member, even in very large fleets.

Lucas Kell said...

It's 2 completely different things you are talking about here. You don't need skill to play in a blob fleet, you just need to know your basic role. if you are a tackler, you try to catch stuff, if you are DPS, you click the primary and hit f1, if you are a logi, you click the broadcast and activate reps. Simple as that. The only thing you need to know is what the different calls mean, which is about 2 minutes of reading.
A small gang needs everyone to be dynamic. In a small gang you all have to know how to prioritise targets, likely ranges of your targets and vulnerabilities of their ship. You need to have a lot more knowledge about the game.

Your separation of competitive and objective is, for lack of a better word, dumb. You are separating based on your objectivity. The competitive person you describe has an objective, it's just not the same as yours. Most players only need as much isk as is required to allow them to continue playing and keep ships, so they don't need to get as many zeros as they can. They still have an objective, it's just not short sighted.
Ganking may get you up the killboard, but it's with meaningless kills and is of no use. Noone will be praising you saying "look at how high up on the killboard this guy is!" as it's 100% easy kills, not to mention that ganks may show as 100% efficiency, but they are in fact only 50% efficiency as every time you gank you lose your ship. Killboards don't show this though as they are unable to see concord kills.

Once again you seem to take your objectives and turn that into some kind of general rule for objective based players, but it's not. Most players are objective based, most players set themselves goals to accomplish. You simply set yourself WoW style grind goals whereas the rest of us tend to set goals that allow us to improve at EVE or to work cooperatively.

All of your posts seem to aim to do one thing. You try to show multiple sides of an issue while trying to show yours as "right" or "the best" and everyone else s as pointless and mediocre. The problem is you don't know anything about the way other people play and to be honest you don't seem to know much about EVE at all. So all it comes across as is self obsessed attempts to express superiority, but you are superior to nobody. I'd one day really like to come here and read a truly interesting post. Something without bias that really gets us thinking and has well thought out and well investigated facts. But I doubt that will happen. We will continue to get whatever half conceived thought you can put together with a dash of arrogance and no factual investigation.

Anonymous said...

Frigate roams could potentially be used to accomplish objectives if geared towards harrassing an enemy. I am unsure though if such roams exist as I am a newbie in null sec. Currently trying to see if I can implement it in my current corp to get people active (especially low skilled players) and hopefully help out our allies in war.

Pheredhel said...

I think there is one rather big problem with the observation, and that is Gevlon claiming that essentially "Only isk is objective"

This makes the examples rather bad I think, so I will try to find a better route.


First of, let's try to give a defining point of competetive and objective (and whatever else might be needed)

competetive is easy: someone who tries to be better at something than the rest. - e.G. become the "best" PvPer by one or several of the metrics

objective... well, this is not really working well as a counterpart to competetive, so let's define by the meaning for the word now "trying to fullfill and objective"

what gevlon describes as objective I'll call:

quantitative: someone whose objective is to maximize one or several values - in gevlons case that would be ISK


With those definitions out of the way, let's see where that gets us:

Competetive players want to be better - PVP is the natural domain, but there are also competetive traders "I am the richest" anyone?

Given this, Gevlons examples are rather spot on except maybe for the ganking one

Ganking is not competetive and not quantitative in the way Gevlon did it.
It had another objective. He wanted to show his point by beating the Competetive ones


Now comes the intresting question: why did I do this distinction?

Well, All of them are objective.
But so are the play for fun people:
they are actually as quantitative as Gevlon is: they want to maximise one value: fun!

Now, Gevlon doesn't count that as a valid goal, but I think it is, and that is where I think gevlon is wrong.
However, these "for fun" players are the largest group, and a vocal one. Sadly, more often then not, the most vocal representants of a group are not the smartest ones.

They "Play for fun" , loose ships and all. This is completely fine if it helps to maximise their fun.
The problem with this group arises when they run out of money:
- they go ratting and complain about the low return.
The correct move would be to go trading and try to maximiste the profit in that time, so they can have more fun. They don't

That is neither objective nor competetive: it is stupid.


Another example? the Gankers:

they want to be great on that killist... they do it inefficient, so it's not only Competetive, but a stupid way to be competetive.
(this excludes the gank for fun people, if they don't bitch about isk)


So I think the real problem is not about the kind of goal people have. but about lots of people beeing too stupid to try to get to their goal the efficient way.


Gevlon said...

@Lucas, Pheredhel: "being better in PvP" and "having fun" are not objectives as unmeasurables. "Winning AT11" is an objective, it's clear if you succeeded or not.

"Having fun" and "feeling dominant" are feelings and not measurable quantities. I mean the person you just killed in a gatecamp will probably be annoyed and not defeated, he wouldn't accept "he bested me" just "he was in better ship", which is no different from what a ganked miner would say. Maybe he is wrong and you'd won if the ships would be switched. Still, your claim that "I was better" is debated, while the my claim that "I destroyed the SBU at XX-A00 is undisputed.

Lucas Kell said...

I disagree. Whatever you set your goal as is an objective. If you set your goal as "go out, get kills, have fun" and then do that, that's objective met. It's just as measurable as killing an SBU.

Again, you fail to understand that not everyone uses the same measurements as you do. You fail to see someone "having fun" as achieving a goal or being a rewarding activity, but it is, whether you believe it or not. Ironically, the only reason you set the goals you do is because accomplishing them makes you feel good, so you are exactly the same as everyone else (but you will deny this).

Anonymous said...

@Gevlon

""Having fun" and "feeling dominant" are feelings and not measurable quantities"

And who said they have to be? If someone wants to play for fun (like most people do) and he has fun - he reached his objective. He doesn't need to come up with a formula for measuring fun to notice he indeed had fun.

" I mean the person you just killed in a gatecamp will probably be annoyed and not defeated, he wouldn't accept "he bested me" just "he was in better ship", which is no different from what a ganked miner would say."

And what is wrong with that guy thinking this? If the objective was to kill people in gatecamps - objective achieved. Plain and simple.

"Still, your claim that "I was better" is debated, while the my claim that "I destroyed the SBU at XX-A00 is undisputed."

So you did. But what was the point of you mentioning this? You wanted to show that you can destroy a SBU by being a part of a dread blob? Well, we know it's doable, we do it all the time. Does it mean you would kill someone who is not in a mining barge (and is not stupid)? Unlikely.

Arrendis said...

In nullsec frigroams are considered "fun" and "PvP experience" is required to join.

I refer you to my earlier comment about all nullsec entities not being created equal. I've never seen anyone turned away from a frigate roam. I've seen rookie ships in roams - hell, the Reaper can be fitted out to be a decent little AF, even if it's as fragile as an interceptor.

As for 'having fun' not being a measurable objective? You are completely wrong there. You can measure whether or not people are having fun - you measure it over time, with statistics. Are people coming back to do it again? Then they can be said to be 'having fun' - especially if it's something frivolous, like a roam. As for 'feeling dominant'? Sir, I scoff at thee. Nay, I laugh at thee.
Roams, frigate roams especially, are undertaken with the expectation of 'have your clone updated, you're gonna need it. I can't remember a roam where we didn't fully expect to die. Intend? Intend to die, we did not. But expect it, certainly. If you can't afford to lose it, you can't afford to fly it. And yet, we keep doing them. We whelp horribly, but we keep doing it. Why? Because of that objective you don't seem to think can be measured: we're 'having fun'. We're laughing, we're mocking one another, we're openly razzing the scout whose overview bugged so he blew up a blue destroyer. Are we 'being dominant'? Fuck no. Honestly, the alpha-male bullshit that people seem to think permeates all levels of PVP is just that - bullshit. Yes, there is some of that, but there's some of that in any population.

For the most part, people go on roams to have fun. To go and do something social with their corp/alliance/coalition buddies, have some laughs, and see things explode. Even it's us.

And if people keep coming back, then they're having fun. And that means you can use statistics to measure and quantify that which you claim is not measurable. The objective can be 'having fun'. This is a voluntary game. When anything else becomes the objective, EVE is just a job, and a pretty sucktastic one.

Now, maybe that's not the approach that the guys you fly with take. Maybe they're all 'GRRR, SRS BSNS!' and they're not laughing themselves silly on every roam, en route to every large fleet battle, when they're alarm-clocking for a 3:30am form-up.

And maybe that's why TEST's participation numbers have been cratering.

It's a game. Have fun.

Gevlon said...

"having fun" cannot be an objective, since "having fun" refers exactly to be satisfied by something. The "something" is the objective.

Proper statements are:
- I go and capture this system [and have fun when succeed]
- I go and chat with my friends [and have fun while doing it]

"I go and have fun" is missing the half part, usually because the person is unable to tell what are his unconscious goals or ashamed of them.

Anonymous said...

""having fun" cannot be an objective, since "having fun" refers exactly to be satisfied by something."

And here you have defined the objective yourself - to be satisfied by something. It doesn't really matter what that "something" is, although usually people define that too (eg. have fun by fighting people), it just comes down to that satisfaction. It's really that simple - if you feel satisfied, you have reached your objective. When I launch Eve, I don't think to myself "today I will destroy exactly 5 frigs and 2 cruisers because that is my prerequisite for fun". I think "maybe I'll go out roaming and just have fun doing whatever I find to do out there". You seem to see the world only by numbers, but the world is a much more interesting and abstract place. Like someone before me said - you really don't know much about Eve or people in general.

Arrendis said...

Nonsense. Having fun is the objective. It's the short-term objective, with the longer-term objectives being:

1)To continually form and strengthen social ties within the corp/alliance/coalition,

2)To use those social ties to maintain/improve morale,

3)To provide a reliable, mobilized, and engaged cadre of pilots that can be counted on to want to get in fleet and kick some ass - because they have a reasonable expectation of 'having fun'.

Having fun is most assuredly an objective in and of itself - and just like any other objective, it can be, and usually is, part of a larger strategy.

Look at the second of your own statements:

I go and chat with my friends [and have fun while doing it]

That could be just as easily (and likely more accurately) phrased as 'I go and chat with my friends in order to have fun.' or 'I go and have fun by chatting with my friends.'

Enjoyment of the experience is the objective. There's a lot of people I could talk to that I don't. Why? Because I don't enjoy it. My objective in that context is to enjoy the experience, not to have conversation for the sake of conversation.

We socialize because we get positive reinforcement, and as a result of positive social reinforcement, experience a situation we want to repeat and encourage. That occurrence: a positive experience we wish to repeat and encourage, is called "fun".

Seriously, look it up:

1 : what provides amusement or enjoyment; specifically : playful often boisterous action or speech [full of fun]

2 : a mood for finding or making amusement [all in fun]

3 a : amusement, enjoyment
b : derisive jest : sport, ridicule [a figure of fun]

4 : violent or excited activity or argument


The objective of roams is 'providing amusement or enjoyment' - having fun.

Arrendis said...

In fact, let me just ask you this, since you're the one asserting that 'having fun' cannot be the objective:

All activities in every MMO are ultimately meaningless in the larger scope of life. Nobody will ever go down in history for being The Mittani, or get a parade down Broadway for killing The Lich King.

So why do you game? What do you get out of all of those objectives you set and achieve? Ultimately, what's your motivation for amassing a large number in someone else's database?

Is it that feeling of accomplishment? Of satisfaction? That sense of 'yeah, that was cool'? Is that, ultimately, your objective in playing these games?

Because that's, you know... having fun.

Lucas Kell said...

I think the thing you are missing though Gevlon is that only you need a target to have fun. For most people the target is to have fun, and the means is the part that doesn't really matter.

You aren't a people person, we get that. But trying to convey what you think people are like isn't going to work, because you don't understand the way most people think.

Subscribe to the goblinish wisdom