Absolutely right…
3 Likes
HS ganking is built on artificial sector mechanics/rules.
Those are not a result of player activity, but of CCP design.
No. CCP designed the physics which allows for things like bumping and ganking, but it is not at all clear that CCP set up such a design with freighter ganking in mind. You are showing you still don’t quite grasp the concept of emergence.
4 Likes
The whole game is build on artificial mechanics and arbitrary rules.
The point is that it is very unlikely CCP designed those rules to produce the current freighter ganking meta. Sure, they intentionally made capital ships slow, and intentionally build CONCORD to protect people that do or do not engage in specific behaviours, and chose bumping as part of the physics mechanics of the game, but how it works today as a culmination of many player decisions and thus an emergent situation.
That doesn’t mean CCP use their godlike veto powers to change things they don’t think make for good game play, but such heavy handed meddling in the sandbox is kinda against the ethos of a sandbox game like Eve, and honestly usually doesn’t work or creates other problems as players change their behaviour and new emergent game play evolves.
5 Likes
You dont know that it wasnt designed exactly with that in mind.
Nonetheless, HS ganking is built on artificial rules/mechanics.
If AG opportunities to interact with gankers are improved, this naturally will result in more player based emergent content, rather than the current gankers vs AI CONCORD setup.
1 Like
Since the same physics applies to every ship, it is unlikely they had that in mind.
So the f— what, that is true for the whole game.
No. Emergent order is not forced from the top down. Emergent order…it emerges via the interaction of the constituent parts (the players). Trying to force it via Dev fiat is not going to give you emergent order, but a top down command and control outcome.
Edit: I know you have some sort of bizarre pathological thing about my posts now, but look at Black Pedro’s post. He is saying the same thing.
2 Likes
You want content don’t you or is really that you only want the right type of content that benefits you?
The suggestion adds another layer of content to hisec, if you can’t live with that then that is your issue.
I am very aware of how to move stuff through hisec, I do it a lot and no successful ganks on me so far, however at the end point we get to the only option being to dock up and log off, never a good state of affairs for any game… And I have been in that situation a few times…
Isn’t that what we all want to some degree? We each like to do things in the game. Some like to mine, some like to do station trading, some like various forms of shooting other players.
I thought you got rid of your freighter…so Isn’t Ima…correct? That you can move stuff in HS without having to use a freighter all the time and thus avoid the problems associated with freighters?
1 Like
No, its not true of the whole game.
CONCORD only intervenes in HS.
Emergent order cannot be forced from any direction.
Its merely a representation of order re-aligning in a different system.
1 Like
It is still an artificial mechanic created by CCP.
I did, but there are things that you can only move with a freighter sadly…, which meant that I had to get one again, thankfully that type of activity is rare for me.
That was my point all along. Glad you finally see that.
HS ganking is built on the artificial CONCORD mechanic, which exists only in HS, by CCPs design.
Instead of ganking being mitigated by player action in HS, it is mitigated by an artificial police.
Basically, its PvE, rather than PvP.
The arguments for improving AGs means to engage gankers would provide more space for PLAYER BASED emergent content, rather than AI based (CONCORD), top-down forced content.
3 Likes
So…this does not mean CCP designed for freighter ganking, and given that CONCORD response applies to all forms of illegal HS aggression it is quite dubious.
No, it can very well be mitigated by player actions. If you can use a DST…use that vs. a freighter. If a blockade runner can get the job done, use that. Or consider a JF. Also, tank your freighter. Use a scout. Don’t put too much cargo value.
No. It is a foolish and imprudent player having the downside effects of his imprudence and foolishness being imposed on him by other players. The NPCs are just a mere nuisance.
Not necessarily. That kind of play has to emerge–i.e. come about “naturally”–not be forced from the top down.
I am going to recast an argument by somebody else regarding this concept…
I want to argue that the “order” of the EVE game play emerges only from the process of interaction among the participating players. The “order” is, itself, defined as the outcome of the process that generates it. The “it,” the various forms of game playe we observe, does not, and cannot, exist independently of the game play process. Absent this process, there is and can be no “order.”
In other words, emergence cannot be forced from above.
1 Like
Is CONCORD a restriction/order forced from above?
I think we’re just stuck on the words here; perhaps I can help.
CCP creates the environment in which gameplay can take place. Naturally, in setting up that environment there’s a good deal of discussion around rule sets and around balance. I expect some of the staff are tasked with playing devil’s advocate, on a what-could-possibly-go-wrong? basis.
During that process, it’s inevitable that they will in fact identify potential emergent gameplay features, but they will leave it to us to figure them out and implement them. They are still emergent, because they are not scripted, as such.
To the extent that CCP have foreseen an initiative (by the gankers; miners and haulers seem to lag behind where emergent gameplay is concerned), and deliberately scripted to encourage it, the process could be described as top-down.
However, as we all know, this appears but rarely to be the case, or we’d not have arguments about the legality and validity of certain methods. I believe that CCP themselves are quite often astonished by the inventiveness of miners gankers in overcoming attempts to tone-down or thwart our behaviour.
You can argue that we’re ‘old-hat’ (my term), as does Dracvlad, and those who agree with him, but I believe that we’re some of EVE’s best and most effective innovators.
Emergent gameplay isn’t just about dodging around limitations; its very existence is part of the character of EVE itself. If only we gankers could encourage others in Highsec to follow our example!
1 Like
I don’t think I could possibly argue with that sentence at all, I don’t think anyone could.
3 Likes
Why do you resist mechanics changes that would enable AG player based intervention/content, rather than AI/NPC based via CONCORD?
Using this logic you might mark any in-game activity as “emergent”. For example: mining using mining barges. “Mining as mechanics existed before adding barges. And barges were created for mining. But how it works today…”.
For real example of “emergent activity” i would use cyno-dropping using prospect ship. Ship created for ninja mining used for attacking other players? Nice one!
Nah. Using a mining barge for mining is pretty much intended. Sure, “emergent” probably is a spectrum ranging from something the developers though would be a possible outcome, to completely unexpected and unintended, but not everything can usefully be called emergent.
Using a Prospect as cyno-bait is lightly emergent (as I am sure the devs considered it while designing the ship given such a use is so obvious) but less so than bump-tackling. There is no way someone sat down and designed the physics engine, capital ships, and the CONCORD mechanics at the same time with freighter ganking in mind. The bump-tackle meta was an emergent process that was not designed by the developers and rather is a result of both iterative changes to the game, and unexpected player behaviour.
1 Like
Hi Salvos, if I can contribute to a discussion on the forums by pointing out weaknesses or other problems in a suggestion, then I will most certainly do so.
I agree with @Black_Pedro that there are aspects of Highsec game play which definitely need to be addressed. Until CCP gets 'round to doing something about them, we can only come here and give our views.
Part of the problem (for me) occurs when a comment starts off from the position either that Highsec isn’t safe enough, or that suicide-ganking and gankers are too powerful. That’s because, instead of using readily available counters to our activities, many of the posters seem instead to believe that counters should be hard-coded into the game by CCP, lifting the burden of effort from the anti-gankers.
I’m not aware of that most of my comrades are busy making impassioned pleas to CCP to lower barge or freighter EHP, or to buff Catalyst sub-warp speed or DPS. In fact, I can no longer solo-gank many Retrievers as a result of recent changes, and pickings are decidedly slim…! Yet, I don’t complain. I look at what I have, and open the spreadsheet once more. I hit-up old pals and see what we might accomplish as a team. No histrionics here on the forums.
Do I resist mechanics changes which might empower ag? That doesn’t sound like me. No; I enjoy much more the exploration of possible outcomes, because I know (as should you) that if ganking becomes too weak, or ag too powerful, ganking will simply cease to exist, whereas mining and hauling will not disappear because of the activities of a few scallywags.
2 Likes