These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Limited and Dynamic Resources in Space
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Eso Es
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2012-05-27 17:51:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Eso Es
So basically this:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:



Every war we have seen in history boils down to resources: either the protection of them, or the taking of them, or in many cases, the projected need for them and the politics, of which war is "by other means" and the resistance to it thereof.

Unlimited resources are what makes this game miss the mark over what everybody says it's supposed to be about. If missions and roids in high sec were limited, people would fight over it and there would be actual real war declarations aimed at securing resources instead of the usual 10 high SP greifers versus 3 miners BS that gives war decs a bad reputation. If tech moons can be mined flat or to such extent that it would have be left alone for a year to replenish , we would not be seeing a deserted 0.0 space ringed by gate blobs manned by renters and slaves. No these leet players who say this is all about PVP would actually be engaging in PVP with each other instead of trying to claim that gate camping is PVP.




I cannot believe this topic hasn't been brought up before (maybe it has but Im relatively new to EVE), but WOW, what an idea. Imagine if a HiSec mining corp was forced to dec another mining corp due to competition over a particular systems belts. HiSec war would suddenly make sense. Imagine a Null sec moon gets mined out, and its resources appear in another part of space. Suddenly that alliance you were somewhat friendly with has a resource that your alliance desparately wants. Maybe a backstab and some fleet ops are in order. Mission rats get defeated and move on to another area of space; you don't feel like moving all your mission gear to a new area, and are kind of peeved by that other corp farming out the available missions so quickly, declare war. Really, the possibilities over competing over limited resources are endless, and would add SOOO much to this game, and the game could finally function in the way it was meant to.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-05-27 21:32:02 UTC
Eso Es wrote:
So basically this:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:



Every war we have seen in history boils down to resources: either the protection of them, or the taking of them, or in many cases, the projected need for them and the politics, of which war is "by other means" and the resistance to it thereof.

Unlimited resources are what makes this game miss the mark over what everybody says it's supposed to be about. If missions and roids in high sec were limited, people would fight over it and there would be actual real war declarations aimed at securing resources instead of the usual 10 high SP greifers versus 3 miners BS that gives war decs a bad reputation. If tech moons can be mined flat or to such extent that it would have be left alone for a year to replenish , we would not be seeing a deserted 0.0 space ringed by gate blobs manned by renters and slaves. No these leet players who say this is all about PVP would actually be engaging in PVP with each other instead of trying to claim that gate camping is PVP.




I cannot believe this topic hasn't been brought up before (maybe it has but Im relatively new to EVE), but WOW, what an idea. Imagine if a HiSec mining corp was forced to dec another mining corp due to competition over a particular systems belts. HiSec war would suddenly make sense. Imagine a Null sec moon gets mined out, and its resources appear in another part of space. Suddenly that alliance you were somewhat friendly with has a resource that your alliance desparately wants. Maybe a backstab and some fleet ops are in order. Mission rats get defeated and move on to another area of space; you don't feel like moving all your mission gear to a new area, and are kind of peeved by that other corp farming out the available missions so quickly, declare war. Really, the possibilities over competing over limited resources are endless, and would add SOOO much to this game, and the game could finally function in the way it was meant to.


This is downright stupid.Roll

If resources are as limited as irl, wars would happen as often as irl. In other words, not often.

Resources are what sustain wars, lack of resources are what bring wars to an end. Wars don't happen when one has no resources/runs out of resources, but rather when one has more than enough resources, and thus, uses the excess to obtain yet more. Review your history, take note on when wars happen.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2012-05-28 05:09:11 UTC
sabre906 wrote:
Eso Es wrote:
So basically this:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:



Every war we have seen in history boils down to resources: either the protection of them, or the taking of them, or in many cases, the projected need for them and the politics, of which war is "by other means" and the resistance to it thereof.

Unlimited resources are what makes this game miss the mark over what everybody says it's supposed to be about. If missions and roids in high sec were limited, people would fight over it and there would be actual real war declarations aimed at securing resources instead of the usual 10 high SP greifers versus 3 miners BS that gives war decs a bad reputation. If tech moons can be mined flat or to such extent that it would have be left alone for a year to replenish , we would not be seeing a deserted 0.0 space ringed by gate blobs manned by renters and slaves. No these leet players who say this is all about PVP would actually be engaging in PVP with each other instead of trying to claim that gate camping is PVP.




I cannot believe this topic hasn't been brought up before (maybe it has but Im relatively new to EVE), but WOW, what an idea. Imagine if a HiSec mining corp was forced to dec another mining corp due to competition over a particular systems belts. HiSec war would suddenly make sense. Imagine a Null sec moon gets mined out, and its resources appear in another part of space. Suddenly that alliance you were somewhat friendly with has a resource that your alliance desparately wants. Maybe a backstab and some fleet ops are in order. Mission rats get defeated and move on to another area of space; you don't feel like moving all your mission gear to a new area, and are kind of peeved by that other corp farming out the available missions so quickly, declare war. Really, the possibilities over competing over limited resources are endless, and would add SOOO much to this game, and the game could finally function in the way it was meant to.


This is downright stupid.Roll

If resources are as limited as irl, wars would happen as often as irl. In other words, not often.

Resources are what sustain wars, lack of resources are what bring wars to an end. Wars don't happen when one has no resources/runs out of resources, but rather when one has more than enough resources, and thus, uses the excess to obtain yet more. Review your history, take note on when wars happen.

but some fo the toughest armies historically ahve also come from areas where the only reason they go to war is ebcause they have no other way tog et resources that they need.

just look at denmark, russia (most of their exapnsions historically were due to a dire need of reaching a aprticular resource, whether that is stategic, economic, or geographic), and fo course america (who always si looking for mroe oil to sell the mining righst off to a european country so that they can buy THEIR OWN OIL OFF SOMEONE ELSE)
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2012-05-28 09:34:07 UTC
Do you want to pay a billion isk for a hulk or a vagabond?

no?

Then don't remove the supply of tech.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-05-28 14:52:56 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
sabre906 wrote:
Eso Es wrote:
So basically this:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:



Every war we have seen in history boils down to resources: either the protection of them, or the taking of them, or in many cases, the projected need for them and the politics, of which war is "by other means" and the resistance to it thereof.

Unlimited resources are what makes this game miss the mark over what everybody says it's supposed to be about. If missions and roids in high sec were limited, people would fight over it and there would be actual real war declarations aimed at securing resources instead of the usual 10 high SP greifers versus 3 miners BS that gives war decs a bad reputation. If tech moons can be mined flat or to such extent that it would have be left alone for a year to replenish , we would not be seeing a deserted 0.0 space ringed by gate blobs manned by renters and slaves. No these leet players who say this is all about PVP would actually be engaging in PVP with each other instead of trying to claim that gate camping is PVP.




I cannot believe this topic hasn't been brought up before (maybe it has but Im relatively new to EVE), but WOW, what an idea. Imagine if a HiSec mining corp was forced to dec another mining corp due to competition over a particular systems belts. HiSec war would suddenly make sense. Imagine a Null sec moon gets mined out, and its resources appear in another part of space. Suddenly that alliance you were somewhat friendly with has a resource that your alliance desparately wants. Maybe a backstab and some fleet ops are in order. Mission rats get defeated and move on to another area of space; you don't feel like moving all your mission gear to a new area, and are kind of peeved by that other corp farming out the available missions so quickly, declare war. Really, the possibilities over competing over limited resources are endless, and would add SOOO much to this game, and the game could finally function in the way it was meant to.


This is downright stupid.Roll

If resources are as limited as irl, wars would happen as often as irl. In other words, not often.

Resources are what sustain wars, lack of resources are what bring wars to an end. Wars don't happen when one has no resources/runs out of resources, but rather when one has more than enough resources, and thus, uses the excess to obtain yet more. Review your history, take note on when wars happen.

but some fo the toughest armies historically ahve also come from areas where the only reason they go to war is ebcause they have no other way tog et resources that they need.

just look at denmark, russia (most of their exapnsions historically were due to a dire need of reaching a aprticular resource, whether that is stategic, economic, or geographic), and fo course america (who always si looking for mroe oil to sell the mining righst off to a european country so that they can buy THEIR OWN OIL OFF SOMEONE ELSE)


Like I said, they have more than enough resources, and use the excess to obtain more.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#6 - 2012-05-28 19:42:38 UTC
Limited resources wouldn't be a bad idea, at least putting an end to truly limitless resources like missions. However, the OP doesn't contain an actual implementable proposal, should have posted in F&I.

sabre906 wrote:
If resources are as limited as irl, wars would happen as often as irl. In other words, not often.


What? There's wars/conflicts going on all the time in the real world, and there has been since the dawn of civilization. Further more fighting over resources as the OPer stated is a major driving factor for most of these wars.