LOL. I appreciate your insults which is your version of input it appears.
Have a splendid day
No, thatâs just honesty, and not bothering to hide my scorn for someone who makes nonsense claims about how information canât be gleaned from the MER, and then cops an attitude when someone points out how it can.
Yeah in real life this is the case, in this game it does the exact opposite! You would think you guys would know that considering you also tell people ships are like ammo, well guess what, when ammo is scarce I shoot less! Seriously this shouldnât have to be explained to CCP over and over.
1 Like
The point they are missing is that, in real life, resource-poor countries will sometimes make a bid to gain additional resources by violence. Problem is that it usually ends badly for the resource-poor state (eg ask the Japanese how WW2 worked out for them) because, guess what, they were resource poor. In fact, the only reasons why scarcity leads to conflict tend to be: the aggressor has excessive self confidence (aka stupidity); the defender is perceived to be suddenly weakened by another factor; or the aggressor feels its lack of resources pose an existential threat and so what does it have to lose? None of these translate well into Eve. I do not see how I can ever face an existential threat in game, but if I somehow did, I would probably just quit. Because it is just a GAME.
4 Likes
Youâre missing the biggest contributor over the centuries: technological imbalance. Europe needs resources. Europeâs got guns. The Americas donât have guns. Africa doesnât have guns. The subcontinent doesnât have gunsâŚ
Similarly, industrialized WWII Japan had more access to modern tech than mostly-agrarian China. Logistical chains from Europe and Australia were stretched much farther for western powers to try to defend China and Indochina than Japanâs lines were.
See the trend there? Technological innovation and capability overcomes a lack of native resources when thereâs a poorer, less-capable defender sitting on resources theyâre not exploiting. EVEâs problem⌠is there arenât any of those folks not exploiting the resources theyâve got⌠because weâre already past the colonialism stage.
2 Likes
I am not missing it, just that, as you say, it is irrelevant in the context of Eve. And in the circumstances you quote, it was arguably not a scarcity of resource that led to conflict, more a desire to acquire yet more resource. Which is not the same thing.
Ironically, itâs only irrelevant if itâs accounted for. If, for example, the devs are looking at WWII, then resource scarcity looks like it drove a significant and hard-fought war⌠but really, the driving factor was opportunity, and the lack of industrial base across Asia (both China and the early-war USSR)⌠well, then remembering the technological imbalance becomes critical.
I think everyoneâs focussing too much on why entities wonât go to war. Sunk costs into infrastructure are the number one reason why a nullsec entity wonât go to war other than random fights. Donât mess with your neighbors infrastructure and they are less likely to mess with your infrastructure. Small scale conflict drivers for profit are a potential resource more than ratter thievery. What if you could attack planets and steal PI or attack athanors and steal moon minerals or hunt npc freighters for blue loot or attack not defended npc citadels for blue loots.
Maybe thatâs how itâs been for Se7erence, but for us, itâs mostly the inconvenience having to deal with sov warfare and the fact that attacking without a supercapital force is a loss, and moving the supercapital force to an attack posture means leaving the home front exposed. Itâs all about the supers, not about any sunk cost nonsense on the structures.
Because moon siphons caused such massive wars, right? (Hint: they didnât.)
Having a supercap force staged somewhere is a sunk operational cost that discourages moving the fleet since it takes so many manhours and certain infrastructure to move safely. Rebuilding infrastructure that takes 30 days to mature is a large sunk cost.
Moon siphons took too long to use and maybe stealing moon minerals is not a good option. ESS fights prove that the 5-6.5 min lol time is about right for a fun theft/defense. A carrot to fight other than lol gank or that dude said mean in local would be nice.
Moving the fleet is easy. Having the fleet in two places at once, less so.
ESS fights donât actually do anything to promote wars. They donât promote more conflict than the initial small gang roam did in the first place. When the reserve banks are available, smart groups will lock them down as needed (and it can be done), and people attempting to rob the valuable ones⌠will just die, achieving nothing.
The kind of carrot youâre talking about⌠itâs ephemera. Itâs nothing. It wonât drive any kind of significant destruction⌠cuz itâs already there, and destruction numbers keep dropping.
4 Likes
Yeah iâm not proposing ideas that would drive a war, I think increasing activity would be enough and increasing drama and friction might be able to start the spark of wars. If an alliance wants to plant their feet in a space then thatâs what they should do and thats where they can have their space and their industry to whatever they see fit. Once that happens then pvp needs to be encouraged somehow other than for lols like now. honestly pve in its current form takes too long and is meant as a proper time sink, and the hunter is supposed to find fun hunting pve ships but its a net loss game for the hunter since pve ships drop nothing normally and anything big enough to be juicy has a built in defense either hitpoint tank or a invulnerable cycle. If highsec is being encouraged to raid nullsec for ESS isk why canât they also be encouraged to raid nullsec deadzones for other kinds of loot.
the amazing thing about the forums is that dozens of us speak as if we represent the whole of EVE. yet, we are a fraction of the subscriber base. The CSM theoretically should represent the player base, but in reality represents power blocs that could muster the votes. And, CCP leaves them out of the loop lest they gain advantage from inside knowledge. The DEV team isnt made up of avid players trying to shape a game they have lived. They are code specialists and designers trying to connect lore and history to their own vision. although the forums would still reek of entitlement and sarcasm at anything the CCP team put out there, it would help immensely for us to understand the plan and not just be victims of the mechanics tested on live systems. vague statements only breed distrust.
2 Likes
Not on a scale that matters. We had that scenario, remember? We had it for years. What happens in that situation is small groups like provibloc bear the brunt of everyoneâs boredom while the big blocs continue their arms races aimed at one another. We keep stockpiling. We amass more and more supercapitals, and we donât lose them.
Because weâll only lose them in numbers enough to matter if thereâs a reason to risk them in numbers enough to matter. And as long as we donât lose them, ainât nobody new gonna make a dent in anything unless we let them. I donât mean Goons, I mean the blocs. Legacy, PanFam, Imperium, FRT⌠any of us can shut down a new version of Brave trying to break into the landscape.
Carriers and supercarriers die easily to bombers, long before anyone can save them.
The CSM does represent the playerbase. Even Olmeca had to admit last year that CSM members try to listen to concerns outside their groups, and bring those concerns to CCP, and that they were all actively focusing on âwhatâs best for the game overall, not just my stuff?â.
As for speaking âas if we represent the whole of EVEâ, I donât represent the whole of EVE. I represent me. But Iâve seen a lot of the game, from a lot of perspectives, over a long time, and I can remember how things were set up and how CCP claimed they were intended⌠and CCP has demonstrated that they do not remember this. When Dirk Stetille and I interviewed Rattati last year, we spoke to him about institutional memory and previous changes. We had to explain to him why CCP removed industry teams, when he brought that up as an example of things the rest of CCP couldnât tell him.
Meanwhile, Aryth, the mega-rich guy whose machinations forced the removal, was on the CSM. But nobody at CCP asked the CSM about past attempts and missteps.
2 Likes
No he canât, those are âfeel good wordsâ.
If they cared about risk free resources they would not be nerfing cloaks to protect botters.
They are just making â â â â up that sounds good.
2 Likes
I do believe the CSM members do try to see the game as a whole, but when i have attended sessions at fanfest the most common comment was that they really didnt know what CCP was planning and therefore were largely in a reactive mode. I had an interesting encounter with two CCP devs tthat were fascinated that i am blind, yet i play EVE. Part of that conversation was about PI and how unnecessarily tedious it was. Neither of them had ever even tried setting up a planet. It wasnt until Hillmar tried it that suddenly it got a revamp to reduce Keystrokes by almost half. I still feel the biggest issue is a disconnect between people that actually play ( not managers of alliances and people busy with leadiership roles) and the development team. This is not unique to CCP, I saw it in the business world as a project manager for years. Users always saying âwhy did you do this, we didnt ask for this:â
The last time we were asked to take a survey, the questions were designed to walk us down a path towards the vision, not simple collection of data about game functions. Perhaps 2020 should start with asking the right people the right questions.
5 Likes
Iâd agree, but Iâm a smartass, and itâs a little late for 2020 to start with anything. 
Are we talking about ganking in HS? Because it sounds like this is. How odd to hear a goon talk against it when goons have been suicide gankingâs greatest advocate. Mini-luv, burn jita, ice interdiction, hulkgeddon V just to name a few.
A) Iâm not speaking against suicide-ganking, Iâm describing the current conditions.
B) Goonswarm has a long history of telling CCP right up front âIf you do this, here is how we will abuse this mechanic. We will do this because if we do not, we will place ourselves at a disadvantage against our enemies, and we will not do that to ourselves. So we will do this, if you let us. Please do not let us do this, because we should not be able to do this.â
And then CCP goes ahead and ignores us, and ends up having to walk back trollceptors, and Rorquals, and a dozen other mechanics they didnât think through thoroughly enough.
4 Likes
Yup, I remember the great insurance âfraudâ and the profits the Goons made blowing up their own ships. They could have wrecked EVEâs economy really quickly, but brought it to the devs attention instead. Every smart player and dev realizes that we need one another for the game to grow and thrive.
3 Likes