January 18th, 2012 at 1:21AM

Blog Banter: Consensual PvP?

PREAMBLE.

This month’s Blog Banter comes from Drackarn of Sand, Cider and Spaceships as coordinated by Seismic Stan of Freebooted.

“A quick view of the EVE Online forums can always find someone complaining about being suicide ganked, whining about some scam they fell for or other such tears. With the Goons’ Ice Interdiction claiming a vast amount of mining ships there were calls for an “opt out of PvP” option. 

Should this happen? Should people be able to opt-out of PvP in EVE Online? Should CONCORD prevent crime rather than just handing out justice after the event? Or do the hi-sec population already have too much protection from the scum and villainy that inhabits the game?”

POSTAMBLE!

In all the MMOs I’ve played, I’ve never put much time into PvP. Sure, it’s more “thrilling” than PvE because human AI will always best computer AI (sorry Skynet), but for the most part leveling and advancing in those games was always tied into the PvE content. If I was playing an MMO for long enough, something about that game’s PvE sparked my interest to a degree where I was ok with the tedium of the content to resist PvP because I valued advancement over conquest.

In EVE, there is no place for completely consensual PvP.

Let me say that again.

There is no place for completely consensual PvP in EVE Online.

I say that not because I think there should be some arbitrary and ironclad adherence to the setting. Sure, the harsh space metaphor for human existence is quite well developed and makes for an IP that spurs the imagination of any true sci fi enthusiast (thanks Tony and crew). Heck, carrying that justification paradigm into personal gameplay is fitting and somewhat compelling. “I lost my ship because life is hard”. “I shot you because you need to learn that things are inherently unfair”.

Non-consensual PvP heightens your sense of danger via impending loss. That’s a very satiating gaming experience that is so rarely found outside EVE Online. Maybe at some chess grandmaster tournament or something. Pulse pounding. The sweats.

However, the reason I would never change PvP rules to be “consensual” is based on something deeper than the probability of personal “loss”.  

I argue for non-consensual PvP because it breeds human trust.

With the “EVE level” of impending loss on the line, players are inherently drawn to other players. More specifically they are drawn to “other players they can trust”. Their investment in the game universe and all its parts, being heightened because of “danger”, demands a greater level of investment protection. The relationships that players build and interactions they have are always overlayed with some level of emotion—whether that’s trust, anger, fear, camaraderie, humor or something else. Those that play EVE, think about it… think about the voice chats and text chats with fleet members or with enemies. Think about them in and out of game. It’s just different. Why? Because non-consensual PvP introduces that one kernel of struggle, for lack of a better word, into every situation.

And that makes all the difference.

Shared experiences create history. They become a narrative that thrusts participants into a specific, memorable place and time and they provide us a larger context for our own existence.

Hundreds of thousands of threads of co-created memories have mixed into a grand history of the single-shard EVE universe. Individual decisions, no matter how small, have all been woven together in the context of cause/effect and win/loss of EVE, create a compelling, shared story that is at once intimately familiar and unretractably shared. 

So, for me, consensual PvP always ends up creating an environment of safety. That bubble, no matter how molecularly thin, means that the battles within are shielded from the need to rely on your fellow pilot for a shared cause. Without consequence there is no risk. Without risk there is no reliance.

Freezing others out of PvP means denying yourself the content that makes EVE more compelling than any game out there: full player participation.

*Again, these are the sole thoughts of me, not necessarily representative of CCP.

January 16th, 2012 at 1:51AM

Help stop SOPA/PIPA - a plea from a gaming professional

Greetings.
My name is Ned. I’m a games industry professional typing to you from the comfort of my home office.
In this, the first post of a new blog effort related to gaming, I aim to express my individual opinion on two pieces of legislation in consideration by the United States Congress.
Some of you who read this may have heard of the Stop Online Piracy Act, also known as “SOPA”, which the United States Congress is debating alongside related legislation called the Protect IP Act, or PIPA. SOPA‘s stated intention is to give media owners far-reaching tools to act against those who infringe their copyright.
This includes many industries from movies to music and from publishing to video games.
But exactly how far-reaching would the effects of the legislation be? 
Here’s a short list of things that it could completely end. Completely end.
• Live streaming of games
• Shared player-made videos
• Voice chat
• Text chat
• Sharing of screenshots
• Game forums
• Gaming media as we know it
And this is just a taste of what could happen solely in the world of online gaming.
 
The implications are far worse for social media sites and the internet itself. 
And this is not being alarmist. It’s actually possible, if not even probable, should SOPA and PIPA pass.
But, how in the world?

Under SOPA, copyright holders will be allowed to seek court orders against “infringing” websites and companies and the companies that provide services for them. 
And then the partners of those websites and companies.  
And their clients.  
And their advertising networks and payment facilitators. 
And search engines themselves. 
Even the simple act of linking to copyright material is considered infringement.
That would mean that game companies, as content creators, could theoretically get a court injunction on any website they don’t like that features their media.
 
You make a humorous video with a game company’s stuff? Say goodbye to your site. 
You remix some awesome in-game track? Goodbye. 
You post game media anywhere? The maker could theoretically go after the place that hosted it.
You link a music video you enjoyed in in-game chat? The company would be encouraged, by SOPA, to automatically censor it.

DANG.
Companies across the board would be encouraged to do so by the mere existence of such misguided laws. That could possibly compromise EVE Online (the game my company makes) and well as games like it, as soon as copyright holders seek to shut down the forums or complain that copyrighted music is being streamed in voice chat.
Equally, your social media site of choice could almost instantaneously become devoid of videos and links and so much more.
Online conversation of media could grind to a halt.

While I agree that stopping illegal piracy is important, VERY IMPORTANT, the Stop Online Piracy Act is not the way to do it.
SOPA is misguided. 
SOPA is nuking from orbit.
SOPA is just so dumb.
SOPA is legislation that, at its very base level, is contrary to human interaction. Human interaction is what my employer, as a game publisher, thrives on. We design whole universes around it.
 
The entire internet is built around human interaction.
Also, SOPA does so little to curb actual piracy. It shows a fundamentally flawed understanding of media content, business and the internet itself and provides terrifying legal weapons to those that are championing that flawed understanding.
It would deliver a massive blow to the best part of the internet—the facilitation of sharing ideas between people through the power of media. Allowing SOPA to pass could potentially revert humanity itself to a darker, more insular age.
I am not even kidding.

Media thrives on people sharing it, whether the US Congress realizes it or not. As a media creator, I believe that to be inherently true.
 
SOPA interferes with the advancement of ideas, and therefore with knowledge itself. It is counterproductive to the worldwide online community. It is counterproductive to artistry, to communication and to the gaming industry. 
This post is a plea to keep sharing ideas. To educate fans of gaming and fans of media worldwide about this myopic legislation, which has the potential to actually take human dialogue back a step.
I know the internet is partially inhabited by horrible, illegal things. But it’s also a place that fosters understanding, common ground and friendship. With the far-reaching SOPA and PIPA legislation in place, the good parts of the internet will suffer alongside the illegal side. 
I am not OK with it, and luckily I am not alone in opposing this.
There are other gaming professionals, sites and very well-known businesses you use every single day that have also voiced opposition to this legislation.
So, If you live in the United States, please join me in contacting your local Congressional representatives and voicing your opposition to SOPA and PIPA. Make it a point to talk to your gaming friends and your family about it too. And if you live outside the US, use social media and forums to challenge people, businesses and politicians about SOPA. 
I feel absolutely confident that gamers will help make this world a better place. I feel confident that reason will overcome this terrible, damaging approach to fighting piracy, which would do vastly more harm than good. But the right outcome will not happen without action. I hope you will share this post and make your voice heard.
As idealistic and naïve as it sounds—it’s true. It will work.

25 notes #gaming#business#laws