| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
    |
Posted - 2008.08.13 01:45:00 -
[1]
Aweseme Capsuleers Deserve Cooler
I'm going to attempt to tie back all of the contributions to ideas for better sov and get the concepts that are definitely working more organized. I will leave some room to add links to other threads as the concept is far too large to manage in one thread.
Please amend to this list any concepts that are missing and try to point out concepts that are not fundamentally sound.
The root of all these problems is that POS's were conceived to address too many things and, in order to balance with their many roles, have become a huge pile of middle-ground solutions that have too many side-effects like POS spam, blob warfare, and overall boring 0.0 structures.
Layered 0.0 Warfare for Fleet and Small/Mid-Size Gang Objectives
- Sovereignty structures should be few and should function as legitimate devices of contesting system ownership.
- Objectives that are to represent the final word in who owns a system must balance for timezones.
- Objectives with higher vulnerability should have the cost of defeat represented by amount of time spent in the defeat condition. More fuel use, less mining performed, and lower security (and inherent loss of economic activity). This balances for timezones since no loss or victory is total or instantaneous.
Fighting the Passive/Stay-at-Home Alliance
- All passive income streams must be vulnerable to disruption. Cost of this disruption is limited mainly to lost production that won't resume without player action.
- Logistics load of maintaining sov structures and the potential for decreasing that load through mechanisms of additional vulnerability should be increased.
- Structures that grant advantages to 0.0 powers' ability to maintain their territory and bypass non-sov threats should be vulnerable to non-sov threats.
Making Sovereignty More Meaningful
- Separation of logistics (POS) and structures controlling sovereignty. Planetary Defense Platforms for a less numerous and more consistent basis of 0.0 sov.
- Separation of residents from owners of system. New facilities for renters and carebears with mechanisms of benefiting the sovereign.
- These structures will also serve as the basis of 0.0 non-sov residence.
- More long-term routes of investment in infrastructure that are based on direct involvement. (Think of POS Flogging the Dead Horse and Starbase Logistics is Needlessly Soul Destroying threads in context of these changes)
Better Sov Contesting Combat
- POS's were meant to act as fight brokers that determine when a sov-contest will occur. This has the undesirable side-effect of guaranteeing fleet combat in which there is almost never a partial victory or loss.
- Moar should be Moar, but less should be less.
- Replacement fight broker must demand constant involvement across several grids simultaneously to change combat dynamics.
- Desired goal is increased headroom for tactics and good coordination leadership to allow outnumbered attackers and defenders routes to levy their toll beyond what they can in head-on fleet combat.
- Secondary goal is to reduce lag, increase headroom for larger battles, and reduce lag's impact on effectiveness of superior tactics.
 |
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 03:16:00 -
[2]
Nice work. I linked this in the OP of my Assembly Hall proposal as a good summary of our think tank.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 04:35:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 13/08/2008 03:28:13
Nice work. I linked this in the OP of my Assembly Hall proposal as a good summary of our think tank.
Just watch that the small-mid size gang involvement is in a support role rather than the main spearhead of an operation.
They shouldn't be the main spearhead, they should be skirmishers. Scout around, give everybody time to bring the heavy hitters to bear, inflict some damage, run away when it comes time for beating down, harass where you think you're not getting yourself killed, and then if there's any scraps of the enemy force for you to face after you win, they go mop them up. The same role as light cavalry, slingers, and all the other quick, light units that got sent out ahead of the real army in pre-modern warfare. Interceptors are functionally close to horse archers as-is(they don't hurt too much without huge mass, but there's bugger all a slower force can do about them), goals for small gangs should be in the same sort of vein.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 04:52:00 -
[4]
Edited by: NanDe YaNen on 13/08/2008 04:52:50
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 13/08/2008 03:28:13
Nice work. I linked this in the OP of my Assembly Hall proposal as a good summary of our think tank.
Just watch that the small-mid size gang involvement is in a support role rather than the main spearhead of an operation.
They shouldn't be the main spearhead, they should be skirmishers. Scout around, give everybody time to bring the heavy hitters to bear, inflict some damage, run away when it comes time for beating down, harass where you think you're not getting yourself killed, and then if there's any scraps of the enemy force for you to face after you win, they go mop them up. The same role as light cavalry, slingers, and all the other quick, light units that got sent out ahead of the real army in pre-modern warfare. Interceptors are functionally close to horse archers as-is(they don't hurt too much without huge mass, but there's bugger all a slower force can do about them), goals for small gangs should be in the same sort of vein.
Any replies to topics of what small gangs should accomplish should be filed in this dedicated thread.
Regardless of what anyone feels, CCP is probably going to make some changes. It's up to us to come up with good changes and ensure we're not left with Pile of Shit v2.0.Linkage
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 19:52:00 -
[5]
This is a great summary of base principles. I think the goal is to achieve the most elegant solution that incorporates these in the minimum number of changes to the current mechanics.
|
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 18:56:00 -
[6]
Edited by: NanDe YaNen on 17/08/2008 18:57:54
The organization of main proposals will be absolutely critical to prevent balking at the complexity. After a lot of thought, I think we should organize a proposal around these three main headings:
Less Tedious Starbase Logistics
Less fueling. Moar Ships! Shift the empire building burden away from mindless tasks of un-funner-ness like setting up POS's towards fun things like PvP and industry (*power to the 0.0 carebears..cough*)
More Granularity for Warfare
Economic aspects, warfare at the non-sov level, better 0.0 income with higher exposure to disruption. Overall boost to 0.0 profit. Issues of what happens to the POS since it's no longer going to be a sov tool.
Better Tools of Sovereignty
Planetary based structures that are a VAST improvement as fight brokers for huge fleet sov-changing battles. Multi-grid fights. Link to Toman's Q&A post or a copy of it amended to the end of the proposal. Accompanying ship changes for Titans etc.
If the final draft for proposal is too long, we can make a short summary version and then amend the details in other posts while linking to the appropriatel sub-post.
|
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 03:59:00 -
[7]
I brainstormed a quick draft for a founding ideology of a set of proposals that will be aimed at the issues of boring POS warfare, boring POS management, and lack of significance to 0.0 sovereigns compared to the empires.
And there were MMO's
Grinding is a way of life. All shiny gear, bling, and toys will require xyz amount of time to acquire. "Balance" will dictate that things you actually want will require masochistic devotion. Let us emulate the ideal of a never dull, open-ended game through placing pots of gold at ever farther rainbows and hope nobody notices.
And then there was Eve
Grinding!? NO! Skills will advance steadily with diminishing returns. New players and old players will be separated by mere 5% increments. ISK will flow like a river. Instead of the carrot-sticking fear of player enjoyment, Eve will be recycled as many times as tritanium can be reprocessed from the wrecked hulls of our opponents.
And then the Devs F&@^!d Up
Let there be POS's. To control their spam and limit the infinite empire, we will infuse them with the time-honored MMO mechanic of grinding. Masochism will be a metric of alliance contribution. DED hate mail will let no player escape the MMO rite of insanity.
What Went Wrong?
- Positive game control mechanics rely on the natural influence of the existence of opponents to act as limiting factors that will keep the game fresh and challenging. You can get that shiny T2 gear, but ownership is transient in a PvP rich world.
- Negative game control mechanics rely on making the road to level 70 long and arduous out of the tacit understanding that creep would outpace development of new content if that content (carrot) wasn't kept out of reach with a long enough stick. These mechanics are only necessary where assets accumulate because of a lack of entropy.
- Eve devs, afraid of scope creep and imbalance of 0.0 against empire, instead of implementing the proper positive mechanics via player driven interaction, decided to make the game do it for us via the negative mechanics of POS grinding such as fuel. This is also why cargo is limited. This is also why Asteroids are tiny.
Give Eve Back to Us!
- More independence of 0.0 empires. Why limit cool 0.0 entities like Sansha's Nation to game fiction? Why are robotics parts so hard to produce?
- More production in 0.0 with additional balance via PvP mechanics. More ships and more pew-pew. (This is where I'm going with that planetary production platform idea.)
- No stupid-ass reasons to go to Jita. Region specific isotopes? Moon mineral distribution? These were dreamed up as mechanics of limiting the strength of 0.0 entities and creating more markets. All it does is require yet more grinding to maintain whiney towers and makes the deep-nullsec life a pain. Our opponents can do that in far more interesting ways.
Whacha think? On target with where POS's went south? Can scope creep really self-manage itself via entropy (ships blowing each other up and the natural progression towards ships becoming wrecks)?
What does CCP think about this analysis?
---------------------------------------
Originally by: Red Raider
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
|
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 15:35:00 -
[8]
Just two notes from breezing over this list. IMO...
Passive income streams are already capable of being disrupted. There's nothing to change here. Perhaps there could be more variety or dynamism in how those streams occur, (no details as it's deep) but suggesting that passive income streams can't be disrupted today is an outright fallacy.
The solution to 0.0 being boring is not to increase the logistical payload and thus make it... MORE BORING. It takes 8 hours to online a deathstar. That's just ridiculous. CCP's first attempt at minimizing the scale of empires was to increase logistical burden and all this will accomplish is even more of a degree of difference between the haves and have-nots as well as making more people hate eve and burn out.
Jump bridges and such are already vulnerable to non-sov threats. Hell you don't even need a capfleet. So... perhaps I'm not understanding what you're hinting at there.
I agree implicitly with the statement regarding making sov meaningful and have been working on an entire proposal surrounding that as I believe it to be a core problem. I'll have it done soon (tm).
Skipping back to the top... I don't get this insinuation that small/medium gang warfare doesn't occur in 0.0 and has no objective. It's an outright fallacy that keeps being repeated. Ask Unnat whether small gang warfare or income disruption happens. Ask ex-RISE. Ask BRUCE. It is possible and we do it all the time. The game can't play itself for you.
re: the last bit. Artificial barriers on fleets will never work. The guy with more ships will always have an advantage. Creating make believe objectives for small groups to accomplish is factional warfare. You have that now, go play it.
|
Scagga Laebetrovo
Evil Bastards
Pirate Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 16:23:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Scagga Laebetrovo on 19/09/2008 16:23:05
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Just two notes from breezing over this list. IMO...
Passive income streams are already capable of being disrupted. There's nothing to change here. Perhaps there could be more variety or dynamism in how those streams occur, (no details as it's deep) but suggesting that passive income streams can't be disrupted today is an outright fallacy
A relevant question: Is it not true that the passive income gained by datacore farming cannot be disrupted?
Perhaps it ought to be changed to demand player involvement for their production? Edit: Read: 'continuous player involvement'
|
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 17:20:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
Edited by: Scagga Laebetrovo on 19/09/2008 16:23:05
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Just two notes from breezing over this list. IMO...
Passive income streams are already capable of being disrupted. There's nothing to change here. Perhaps there could be more variety or dynamism in how those streams occur, (no details as it's deep) but suggesting that passive income streams can't be disrupted today is an outright fallacy
A relevant question: Is it not true that the passive income gained by datacore farming cannot be disrupted?
Perhaps it ought to be changed to demand player involvement for their production? Edit: Read: 'continuous player involvement'
This is about 0.0. There are no agents in 0.0 and therefore no datacore farming. I will agree with you that empire is a joke and that things such as datacore farming could be disruptable, but it would be completely off-target.
Originally by: Iroku Mata
Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
|
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 17:54:00 -
[11]
@Darius
Some of the proposal points at the top are pretty out of date. We can take the phrase "small gang" out of discussion from here on. That discussion is going anywhere. I agree with all your points. I'm after something a little different at this stage, reflecting all the discussion that's come and gone.
I'm particularly for decreasing the logistical burden in the sense that grinding POS setup and fueling was not a good mechanic to limit the expanse of 0.0 empires. This is a negative mechanic, like what WoW would use to prevent scope creep when everyone gets their own sword of a thousand truths or whatever. Making players grind is never the answer.
Positive mechanics, as I described in previous post, are the way to go for balancing the decreased logistics load. i.e. POS's set themselves up over a period of 8 hours (satisfying the can't-instaspam-towers condition) but add more mechanics of PvP. PvP exposure should form the basis of POS cost mechanics, not grinding BS.
Industry plays a vital role in how well an alliance can fund PvP, so industry still plays a very vital role in how much PvP exposure an alliance can support. This is the mechanism of industry involvement in the war effort. Mining ice and similar activities are a disaster in my opinion when it comes to the "fun index" of Eve.
I'll keep an eye out for your proposals and try to contribute some healthy discussion.
In a very short summary of the relationships I'm pushing for currently:
- Current mechanics dictate that the aggregate amount of grinding (or renting) an alliance can perform dictates their non-PvP cost overhead. Move towards using more PvP (fun) mechanics and less grinding (boring) mechanics.
- Mechanics that are in place to limit maximum size of the haves in fact make it harder for the have-nots. Shift start-up costs from initial investments (boring) to subsequent PvP overhead (fun), allowing nascent alliances faster acceleration and easier entry onto the playing field, where incumbent alliances, while having less BS to put up with, are already exposed to PvP overhead.
On a final note, when CCP decided on a way to prevent the 0.0 alliances from taking over the rest of the game, they missed the ball pretty badly. 0.0 having a lot more income and cool toys than empire can't make 0.0 incumbents disproportionately rich compared to empire as long as mechanics of entropy are working. i.e. even if you can build ten carriers per month in 0.0 but could only afford to buy one carrier if living from empire income, the fact remains that the ten 0.0 carriers have to be used for something whereas the empire wealth can just sit in the hanger.
All that is needed to maintain balance between 0.0 and empire is working PvP entropy in 0.0. As long as 0.0 wealth has to be used to defend 0.0 income, 0.0 power will not accumulate in excess.
---------------------------------------
Originally by: Red Raider
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
|
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 18:13:00 -
[12]
Just thought of a very quick and accurate analogy for describing the difference between positive mechanics and negative mechanics. Skip to the end or read my thought process for kicks:
Negative mechanics are where players race to throw time and money into a giant rabbit hole.
Positive mechanics are where players race to build mountains of shiny things.
While both allow a comparison of relative uberness, you have nothing left from the rabbit hole but have the entire stack of shiny things at the end of the day.
The paradox for devs of all MMO's is that people will stop playing if they win. Negative mechanics try to delay the onset of winning. Positive mechanics paradoxically would operate such that players can do nothing but win.
Entropy is the solution. With PvP entropy, there is a sink that operates through mechanisms of fun to keep the game recycling its own content.
Resultant Analogy:
Negative mechanics keep the game fresh by using an appropriately long stick and a heralded carrot. All players race each other on a treadmill to nowhere and the only allusion to success is when one's treadmill is set to a higher speed, but still going nowhere.
Positive mechanics keep the game fresh by giving the players lots of carrots. Players eat the carrots and are happy, but then must obtain more carrots. Some will have lots of carrots from time to time, but other players will come and eat their carrots. Nowhere in this mechanic do you find a f&!&%@*g treadmill.
---------------------------------------
Originally by: Red Raider
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
|
Scagga Laebetrovo
Evil Bastards
Pirate Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 18:18:00 -
[13]
MMOs are a form of mind control! (semi-serious)
|
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 18:24:00 -
[14]
Originally by: NanDe YaNen
Mechanics that are in place to limit maximum size of the haves in fact make it harder for the have-nots. Shift start-up costs from initial investments (boring) to subsequent PvP overhead (fun), allowing nascent alliances faster acceleration and easier entry onto the playing field, where incumbent alliances, while having less BS to put up with, are already exposed to PvP overhead.[/list]
On a final note, when CCP decided on a way to prevent the 0.0 alliances from taking over the rest of the game, they missed the ball pretty badly. 0.0 having a lot more income and cool toys than empire can't make 0.0 incumbents disproportionately rich compared to empire as long as mechanics of entropy are working. i.e. even if you can build ten carriers per month in 0.0 but could only afford to buy one carrier if living from empire income, the fact remains that the ten 0.0 carriers have to be used for something whereas the empire wealth can just sit in the hanger.
All that is needed to maintain balance between 0.0 and empire is working PvP entropy in 0.0. As long as 0.0 wealth has to be used to defend 0.0 income, 0.0 power will not accumulate in excess.
On this I disagree with you in a number of ways. There is a great deal of imbalance regarding wealth between empire and 0.0 but that's because the risk vs. reward equation is tilted, and continues to be greater skewed, towards the empire side. I would posit that the reason for so little variety in 0.0 is that the rewards aren't there. There's simply barely enough money to be made to continue funding conquest and nothing more. At the end of that you're left with? A merit badge. A space on a map that can only serve to feed itself.
Sure you can get officer spawns, but you can't run missions. Your playstyle choices are actually less than those of an empire dweller and the profits are higher only when comparing apples to apples. It's actually in the long term more profitable to run missions in high-sec with absolutely 0 risk.
There shouldn't be balance. What's more difficult and riskier should produce a higher return and it should be higher on a scale that makes it worth doing. I believe this is why 0.0 is so sparsely populated.
Originally by: Iroku Mata
Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 18:54:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
On this I disagree with you in a number of ways. There is a great deal of imbalance regarding wealth between empire and 0.0 but that's because the risk vs. reward equation is tilted, and continues to be greater skewed, towards the empire side. I would posit that the reason for so little variety in 0.0 is that the rewards aren't there. There's simply barely enough money to be made to continue funding conquest and nothing more. At the end of that you're left with? A merit badge. A space on a map that can only serve to feed itself.
Sure you can get officer spawns, but you can't run missions. Your playstyle choices are actually less than those of an empire dweller and the profits are higher only when comparing apples to apples. It's actually in the long term more profitable to run missions in high-sec with absolutely 0 risk.
There shouldn't be balance. What's more difficult and riskier should produce a higher return and it should be higher on a scale that makes it worth doing. I believe this is why 0.0 is so sparsely populated.
Agreed. I think we're on the same page more than you think, but that I'm at too much of a conceptual stage for it to be obvious.
Big general for instance:
self-assembling structures for 0.0 that are raw material generators. Fueled by materials from those, self-assembling production facilities with capability to build NPC fuel etc and other crap that was before only available through empire. Using components built by those and shipped to self-assembling research structures, advanced final products can be built.
Go with the kind of modular stuff proposed in the "POS Flogging the hoarse" thread. Have lots of really customized installations developing favorite modules and ships. Sprinkle billboards and such at stargates with alliance driven content. Granted the alliance logo submission process is a horrible indicator of how good something like this would go.... But yeah, player styled space would be a nice touch.
Brainstorming up some stuff. I'll post up later.
---------------------------------------
Originally by: Red Raider
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
|
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 19:37:00 -
[16]
I remember a guy I went to highschool with who fervently maintained that there is honor in counter-strike
Hmmm....hate to play breakdancer's advocate （笑） but it's hard to imagine owning 0.0 ever becoming rewarding in any real since considering it's all a damned video game. I can't seem to figure out a way to do it. Any implementation would require not only the suspension of disbelief, but a soul-driven assertion that there is significance in what is accomplished in eve. As breakdancer, I know such assertions can only exist where, rather than a derived impetus, the choice is a spontaneous function of natural senses.
Attempting to force the connection in Eve would probably lead one instead to observe no reward and keep coming back to the game over and over with the aim of willing such meaning into existence. For the real world, this works pretty effectively, but it's doubtful such a phenomenon can occur in a video game.
0.0 is wrong place to search for meaning. As a natural consequence of non-deterministic volition, the only value in Eve is derived from playing and having fun. There lies the basis for what can be sold through CCP's universe.
---------------------------------------
Originally by: Red Raider
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
|
Problematic one
Minmatar
The Doctorates
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 04:46:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Problematic one on 29/09/2008 04:46:41
Originally by: NanDe YaNen
Hmmm....hate to play breakdancer's advocate （笑） but it's hard to imagine owning 0.0 ever becoming rewarding in any real since considering it's all a damned video game. I can't seem to figure out a way to do it. Any implementation would require not only the suspension of disbelief, but a soul-driven assertion that there is significance in what is accomplished in eve. As breakdancer, I know such assertions can only exist where, rather than a derived impetus, the choice is a spontaneous function of natural senses.
Attempting to force the connection in Eve would probably lead one instead to observe no reward and keep coming back to the game over and over with the aim of willing such meaning into existence. For the real world, this works pretty effectively, but it's doubtful such a phenomenon can occur in a video game.
0.0 is wrong place to search for meaning. As a natural consequence of non-deterministic volition, the only value in Eve is derived from playing and having fun. There lies the basis for what can be sold through CCP's universe.
Essentially, you're trying to justify the intrinsic value of 0.0 ownership, while separating the extrinsic value. Selling rights to isk farmers, and forum registration fees which are connected with corporate membership would seem to be fairly extrinsic. As are trips to Iceland, and getting mentioned in Forbes articles. :Darius: The fact is, humorous quips aside, there's plenty of extrinsic value to be seized, I think it's just myopic to (wait for it) not think outside the sandbox. 
|
lordmix
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 05:01:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Problematic one
Essentially, you're trying to justify the intrinsic value of 0.0 ownership, while separating the extrinsic value. Selling rights to isk farmers, and forum registration fees which are connected with corporate membership would seem to be fairly extrinsic. As are trips to Iceland, and getting mentioned in Forbes articles. :Darius: The fact is, humorous quips aside, there's plenty of extrinsic value to be seized, I think it's just myopic to (wait for it) not think outside the sandbox.
Not one of those things you mentioned has anything to do with 0.0 ownership, aside from renting to ISK farmers, which as I'm sure many can attest, is a very risky proposition for your alliance. Those extrinsic items shouldn't be looked at as a replacement for a fun and rewarding gameplay experience. Nobody really sets out wanting to achieve those things. They are pleasant surprises.
Looking at the makeup of the council, being a 0.0 participant would appear to actually hurt your chances.
-------
Your signature is too big. The size limits for signature graphics are 120 pixels by 400 pixels, and no more than 24,000 bytes (not kbytes) - Karass Sayfo
|
Lia Gaeren
Caldari
Pole Dancing Vixens
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 07:24:00 -
[19]
Originally by: lordmix
Looking at the makeup of the council, being a 0.0 participant would appear to actually hurt your chances.
Wasn't there a survey that CCP did where they found that well over half the EVE subscribers never left Empire? If that is the case (and I don't know if that's an actual fact or just an internet stat) then the spread is actually not too far from the actual in-game split of where people spend their time. Indeed, given that I don't think any of the current council are exclusively high sec, It may even be weighted in low/nil/neg sec's favour!
But as I said, that's based on a stat of which I know neither the accuracy nor the origin.
|
sharp90
Amarr
Space Oddysey
Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.09.30 07:00:00 -
[20]
Oh i thought you were talking about ACDC the rock band :( |
|
Blastil
|
Posted - 2008.09.30 07:31:00 -
[21]
Needed-
Separation of industrial aspects of stations from military aspects of stations. it should be possible for example to wage warfare on someone's economy without attacking a pos. as it stands, you can only smash down the door of a manufacturing pos, and then wait for the blob fight in a few hours. Surgical strikes should be capable of blowing up important structures like moon miners, reprocessors, and reactors. You can't defend all the targets of opportunity in a good system. Most 'home systems' have 3-5 poses at the least. One is a death star, the other is a cyno bridge, and the others are all industrial, and moon miners. Making industry into smaller, bite-sized chunks will not only make the economy more interesting (smaller corps could then get into specialized industry), but also make for more targets that can't ALL be defended. The losses would be pretty menial (100 mil or less) While it won't end the viabilyt of blobs to kill them, it would certainly enable smaller gangs to do the work, rather than a blob...
|
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.10.03 19:35:00 -
[22]
Edited by: NanDe YaNen on 03/10/2008 19:36:21
After standing back and looking forward towards a future where no capsuleer is left behind ( ) I find it necessary to point out a disconcerting characteristic of MMO's.
First, are MMO's designed to bring out the inner adventurer or to attract the adventurous? In the latter case, one could argue that no MMO player is truly adventurous, having resorted to an online escape to satiate their needs. However, the key is that the content of MMO's is not otherwise sensible in the real world.
Second, who has the most to gain from the widespread proliferation of MMO's? While the immediate benefactor is CCP, Blizzard etc, there is something much, much more sinister going on. Millions of people who would, without the available source (MMO's), naturally discover new modes of life in the real world, are instead slave to the "dumb terminals" known as "the client."
Ask yourself, who could possibly want to pour such a huge source of raw human potential into a sink such as an MMO? Who has the most to gain from the added stability of keeping so much flow potential hidden in the singularity formed by MMO's and MMO players (Eve and capsuleers)?
The answer is world domination. In order to establish more predictable targets of control, it's necessary to remove or pre-occupy entities with a high propensity for discovering life outside the control structures. Yes, overlord powers are seeking to assimilate the adventurous of the world and morph them into a more benign slobbering, dorito-munching catastrophe known collectively as "nerds."
MMO's are the work of **** Cheney.
Companies such as CCP and Blizzard have been established in order to attract adventurous elements of society and remove them from circulation, thus dropping the total value of the world so that the dollar will rise and the US can finance its way out of the massive debt crisis it's currently facing. It's been one giant plan all along.
The key to the functioning of Eve in this role is to ensure that capsuleers never fight other capsuleers directly. Force them into roles where they must out-mine one another and fuel the most towers. If capsuleers ever came into contact on a regular basis, they would have fun, and this would reverse the flow of soul-destruction, leading to a new generation of capsuleers who were bright and cheery and liked hello kitty.
This is the evil that must be stopped. Eve is a massive computer system trying to download our souls. Even CCP employees have been duped. It's all a giant conspiracy and the only way out of it is to make the game pure fun. |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |