These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Emergent Gamplay, EVE, and Choice
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Spikeflach
Perkone
Caldari State
#61 - 2012-05-30 07:32:56 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Those making an economical point about Hulkageddon should give a look at the price of Hulks.

It's sinking. 280 million and still going down.

Just sharing this for your information, dudes.


Supply and demand, less people mining, less hulks being popped, so price goes down.

Or you can look at plex prices, they are going down too it looks like. Less people buying plex off the market, so lower prices. Maybe less people renewing accounts?
pussnheels
Viziam
#62 - 2012-05-30 07:38:11 UTC
Minmatar Freedom wrote:
I wrote this up after reading this article
http://www.evenews24.com/2012/05/29/goonswarm-federation-sponsors-emergent-gameplay/

Emergent gameplay, at it's most basic form, is evolution driven by player interaction with the game world. Hulkageddon and it's extension are carried out under the banner of the concept of emergent gameplay; EVE evolves with the community. Trying to dig the deepest hole in the sandbox and seeing what happens is certainly nothing to sneer at, especially when the builders of the sandbox are standing by with explicit instructions to do whatever you want, within reason.

However, I would submit that the mantle of emergent gameplay is being taken up without really understanding what it means. Hulkageddon is a noteworthy delve into creating ripples in the pond but actions like extending it indefinitely are pushing things beyond the label of emergent gameplay. It starts creeping into the realm of forcibly changing the culture of a community; "play the game our way or we'll drive you out." This isn't helped with the event being sponsored by a monolithic player presence in the game where opting out of the experience is not a viable choice.

This risks pushing the EVE universe into a state where it is no longer EVE. Not dead but not entirely alive either. It risks creating a landscape in the game where events like Hulkageddon or Burn Jita can no longer happen because the player base is no longer able to support it, the player overlords find it deleterious to their economic interests, or the creators decide that too much sand has been spilled outside the sandbox.


a minority of player driven , mostly the 'I must win ' generation, of kids who got tired of WoW and now found a game where they can pvp without any risks of losing a ship to someone who is better than them
in the long run it will be EVE that loses if this is allowed to continue , it will drive away a large number of customers who can not play anymore without being griefed and when they are gone , the griefers will find themselves without targets and a economy that is completely wrecked , you really think they will fight each other , no they will not they are basicly more carebears than the targets they hunt now , and will leave aswell, so what is left 0.0 sec right with their markets in high sec gone and nothing to really fight about how long will they last

Sad to see this game being ruined by a bunch of short sighted white trash teenagers but it isn't the end of the world

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
Josef Djugashvilis
#63 - 2012-05-30 07:59:49 UTC
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
When people throw around terms like "sandbox" or "emergent gameplay", they usually only look at it from a single perspective.

For example, we can't limit a ganker's ability to gank, because this is sandbox and if ganker wants to gank, that is his prerogative and suicide ganking is an emergent gameplay.

Problem is, you also have to look at it from the miner's viewpoint. A miner wants to mine, and he doesn't want to PvP. That is his prerogative in a sandbox game. However, when a 30 mil ship can take out a 300 mil ship, something's rotten in the state of EVE. Only one faction gets attention (gankers), and the other side is told to HTFU.

Which is fine, I suppose. Except what happens when the miners/industrialists/whatever, basically what is coined "carebear" quit the game? Well, economy will collapse, for one. Secondary effect will be "PvPers" themselves quitting out of boredom - no carebears to kill, and too cowardly to take on actual PvPers. And actual PvPers will quit due to all of the above. In short order, you have one very empty server cluster.

So, as much as I am in support of "freeform sandbox" and "emergent gameplay" and all that jazz, I think a developer would have to be mighty careless to cater to just one side of the equation and hoping it will somehow balance itself.

On a personal note, I can't even imagine why someone in their right mind would ever even consider mining in EVE. It is such a horribly flawed mechanic I can't even call it "game design". And alienating people who are already doing unfun, boring and largely unrewarding activity in a game where economy depends largely on them? Not good.


Complaining about folk engaging in pvp in Eve is like complaining about folk drinking in a bar.

This is not a signature.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#64 - 2012-05-30 08:13:13 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Misanth wrote:
We don't "need" new players (altho it might be nice to have more), but we need to teach new players how this game has consequences. One of them, is that others gameplay might be forced upon you, like it or not.


The game has consequences and is a sandbox only as long as the long term sandbox stays neutral.

As of now it's possible for 1 entity to take enough valuable "battle objectives" (moons) to basically ransom the whole game to do their whims and for as long as they want.
They create their own consequences (like i.e.: you must join 0.0 or else...), they indeed create game content but that game content exclusively suits them, the resulting sandbox suits them with no alternative.

Short of missing to pay rent nobody will displace them anytime soon.

There will be no respite, no "well I don't like their imposed sandbox but I know somebody else will replace them in 3 months and then I'll have a sandbox I like more".

Basically it's not playing "a" sandbox but "their" sandbox for a very, very long time.

Why pay for somebody else's sandbox, including disliked rules imposed on you?

Had EvE been newer, fresher and with enough willing guys to form an opposing force, it could be possible to try change The New Order. But most players with leadership quit, it's just individual or small groups, they won't reach a critical mass to try contest the new EvE owners. Even if they did, they don't have the infinite ISK coming from moons and they will be crushed.

The Butterfly effect is a fallacity: it would only work in an open universe. EvE is too small, there are not infinite opportunities here.




And I think the root cause ultimately is that none of the resources in this game ever go away. Even our whole planet has only so much iron ore, but it would never be able to produce 1000s of titans, for example. Infinite resources, whether it's high sec roids or nullsec moons, will be what created this.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Minmatar Freedom
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#65 - 2012-05-30 08:59:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Minmatar Freedom
Haulie Berry wrote:

[Citation needed]. Seriously, there's no indication of that at all. You're just making things up at this point.

Am I? Can you extrapolate the effects of an entire sector of a game being closed down that was at one point an integral part of gameplay? You don't see that that may thin the player base?

Quote:
would not be an open world is if nobody COULD do that. If you don't like it? Fight back. You have that choice. What you seem to want is the ability to be able to do whatever you want AND be free from any possibility of interference by other players. Too ******* bad, that, because it's not going to happen.

That's a very nice speech, Braveheart, but the reality of the logistics outweighs the Hollywood image of the peasants all rising as one and defeating the oppressive warlords who have asserted control over the lands the peasants once freely roamed.

You have an alliance of several thousand individuals who have, effectively, unlimited funds and a wealth of experience in PVP and warfare versus....what? Even if you could summon and arm ten thousand miners, who would command them? Who would organize them? What happens when the first battle happens and you've got several thousand people in ships they dont know how to use? And the Goons et al, do you really think they're going to sit back and let this happen? They would do nothing?

It would be a stand-up fight, to be sure, but in the end would serve no purpose other than giving a few thousand kills to the Goons and their blues.



pussnheels wrote:

a minority of player driven , mostly the 'I must win ' generation, of kids who got tired of WoW and now found a game where they can pvp without any risks of losing a ship to someone who is better than them
in the long run it will be EVE that loses if this is allowed to continue , it will drive away a large number of customers who can not play anymore without being griefed and when they are gone , the griefers will find themselves without targets and a economy that is completely wrecked , you really think they will fight each other , no they will not they are basicly more carebears than the targets they hunt now , and will leave aswell, so what is left 0.0 sec right with their markets in high sec gone and nothing to really fight about how long will they last

Sad to see this game being ruined by a bunch of short sighted white trash teenagers but it isn't the end of the world

You take the same tack that the sponsors of an unlimited Hulkageddon do. You attempt to define the game in terms you find pleasing and dismiss those who disagree. Fun is defined by that measure and that measure only, anyone who wants to do anything else is not following the prescribed guidelines for enjoying themselves.

No one (that I know of) is suggesting that PVP be removed or even scaled back. Even events like Burn Jita and Hulkageddon make EVE so much more fun than your standard scripted events and "festivals." But when we talk about effectively forcing a large part of the playerbase to conform to one playstyle because that is the only playstyle deemed "authentic" by those holding the most power, I take exception.

Variety is part of what makes EVE as fun as it is. Turning the game into a grind/mine-fest or into a constant PVP environment sounds nightmarish either way you slice it. I would hate to see EVE become all one thing or all the other.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#66 - 2012-05-30 09:02:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Minmatar Freedom wrote:
You have an alliance of several thousand individuals who have, effectively, unlimited funds and a wealth of experience in PVP and warfare versus....what? Even if you could summon and arm ten thousand miners, who would command them? Who would organize them? What happens when the first battle happens and you've got several thousand people in ships they dont know how to use? And the Goons et al, do you really think they're going to sit back and let this happen? They would do nothing?

It would be a stand-up fight, to be sure, but in the end would serve no purpose other than giving a few thousand kills to the Goons and their blues.

I would be quite disappointed if you jumped in, warped to the next gate, got caught on a drag bubble and lost 1000 people to a bomber fleet.

Please, don't be as bad as some of the other nullsec groups. Send a scout and be careful about grouping up. Of course, check local while we still have it in nullsec Lol

That said, I'm sure BOAT would happily call out primaries 10,000 times over until the last of you is blown up, but please, all that clicking would be horrible. And do make sure your clone is up to date and you are willing to lose implants as newbees in thrashers will probably try to clean up your pods.

They might also collect the frozen corpses. A real I was there moment. Then take the lot to Jita (in a NPC corp alt of course) with an industrial and gank it with thrashers to get an AMAZING killmail. And pick up the dropped corpses, load them in another indy and gank that - a few times over.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#67 - 2012-05-30 09:06:28 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Or the miners could adapt and start fitting a tank.
Please go fly a Hulk, fit the best tank you can and then let me know where you are mining. I will bring a T1 fit Tornado and **** all over you. All the while having my alt on standby to turn an even larger profit by scooping your loot. Fit a tank... Lol
2,000 DPS out of a T1 Tornado? Impressive.
Goran Konjich
Krompany
#68 - 2012-05-30 09:25:36 UTC
somewhere in the reply apocalipse someone said : "Why pay for somebody else's sandbox, including disliked rules imposed on you?"

THIS.

I'm a diplomat. Sometimes i throw 425mm wide briefcases at enemy. Such is EVE.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#69 - 2012-05-30 09:54:21 UTC
W0z3R wrote:
It's not a sand box if CCP steps in and tells us how to play either. Buff hulks and /or turn concord into the United Nations instead of the League of Nations.

But keep it a sandbox please......

I support suicide ganking agaisnt players (in game of course.)


Concord is significantly more powerful than the UN. It actually shoots things.

If it were as powerful as the UN, it would sound the alarm and the Caldari Militia (regardless of the region of HS) would come blow you up.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2012-05-30 10:18:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Xython
Zoe Athame wrote:
Minmatar Freedom wrote:
Gabriel Kaile wrote:
I like Goons Online.

I doubt you would. I doubt even Mittens himself would.

It's hard to rebel against The Man when you ARE The Man.


Why don't people realize that there are many non-goons who still support what they're doing?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_Dissonance

Basically, they can't. Their minds believe two conflicting, impossible conditions at the same time, and in order to cope with this they have to find some "out". Ignoring non-Goons is the easiest way to do so. You see a LOT of this in Politics and Religion, especially in Talk Radio in the US. (Often by the same people, actually.)

There's all kinds of it going on, but some quick ones:

Idea 1: Highsec is Perfectly Safe
Conflicting Idea 2: I died in Highsec.
Dissonant Conclusion: The person doing so cheated somehow.
Dissonant Conclusion: Highsec is not safe enough.
Missed Conclusion: I should have adjusted my play style to be more safe.
Missed Conclusion: Highsec is not actually safe.

Idea 1: I, as a highsec miner / mission runner / etc, love EVE
Conflicting Idea 2: Goons and other PVPers disagree with me. Violently.
Dissonant Conclusion: Goons must hate EVE.
Missed Conclusion: I only love a small subset of EVE.
Missed Conclusion: I actually do not enjoy EVE.

Idea 1: Only Goons disagree with highsec players because they are Goons and Goons hate (and want to destroy) EVE.
Conflicting Idea 2: This other, non Goon, also disagrees with me.
Dissonant Conclusion: This other person does not exist / is a Goon sockpuppet.
Missed Conclusion: Other people disagree with me.

Idea 1: Only Goons will vote for Goons in the CSM Election.
Conflicting Idea 2: The Mittani got 10,000 votes, which is far more than players in the CFC.
Dissonant Conclusion: The Goons (or CCP) cheated somehow.
Missed Conclusion: The Mittani received votes from outside of Goonswarm.

You'll note that most of the missed conclusions are logical falsehoods of one of the two conflicting ideas. Basically, from my understanding of the phenomena, that's how it works: They're supposed to realize that one of their ideas isn't quite right, or not true in all situations, or what have you -- but mentally that's difficult to do unless you recognize what is going on and let it go.