These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

War Declaration counter-bribe
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Achuk
Jump's Reach
#41 - 2013-06-24 22:09:52 UTC
Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:
i dont like the current wardec system, but also not your changes.
What i would like to see would be that the concord bribes are dependent on the difference on corp members. Means if u dec a smaller corp because u think they will be easy pickings u pay the difference. Other case a 1 or 2 man corp wants to grief a bigger one, they will have to pay the difference too. And if u could even calculate it from the corp kills (pvp vs pvp corp or pvp vs pve corp) over the last month would be interesting too.



So what you're effectively suggesting here with basing a cost modifier on the kill ratio between two corps would be a way to discourage highly PvP-active corps from targeting too many PvP-inactive corps through an escalating cost system, if I'm understanding correctly?

I can see the PvE-player benifit here in that it reduces the number of targets that small "griefer" corps could have active war decs against, but this misses the one of the OP's points that conflict in EVE takes many forms, and a bidding or bribe/counter-bribe system would allow characters not specialized into combat roles to have an equally viable form of "war" available to them.

I would imagine that trying to put a system in place such as you've proposed would be seen solely as victimizing successful PvP players as the better they do the more they have to pay to continue. In particular, while this could still be an isk-sink for the game in that it costs the aggressor corp more, it also loads all the cost ONLY on the aggressor - whereas the bid and bribe systems proposed earlier in the thread would also place a cost burden on the defender in exchange for giving them a more participatory role in the war-dec events.
Vankaar Raeth
Dark Fusion Fleet
#42 - 2013-06-24 23:39:29 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Why should a defender even have the option to end a war? Wars are by their very nature a unilateral action by one party, the party having war declared on it doesn't get so say 'Sorry but we're not really interested in a war today." if it did it wouldn't be a war.

Instead, it can go to Concord, and bribe them with an exuberant amount of money to have Concord veto the war decision, just like the current state of high sec between two non-warring factions. By your logic, Concord shouldn't even exist, since there should be no reason to suffer consequences of shooting at another player.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
This entire idea is specifically intended to make wars less effective as a mechanic and to deter people from wanting to declare wars by making it cost-prohibitive.

Its intention is to present the Defendants an option to end war on their terms, instead of solely relying on the Offender to make the move. This is intended to give industrial corporations a say in war declarations, with the thing they make the most; isk.

If it will deter anyone, its those without the resources to commit to a war. It would put weight into the decision of declaring war, because it would actually require preparation. In other words, it will make wars mean something more than a cheap tool to grief others. In fact, I'll go so far to say that this IS in fact meant to deter people from declaring pointless wars.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
There's no sane justification for making a mechanic worse and less useful, particularly when doing so is directly contrary to a large number of the game's fundamental principles IE that the game is of a competitive nature, that you aren't safe anywhere and that you may be subject to aggression by other players at any time.

Pure drivel. It requires time to prepare any good amount of funds to counter a war bribe, it's perfectly within reason for a corp to be unable to pay it. Suicide ganking, last I checked, is not impossible. Nor would this system prevent wars, but rather reduce the number of pointless wars.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Justifications like "Oh well there are other ways you can attack other players in highsec." and "Pleas think of the newbies" are absurd.

And justifications like "leave your corporation" or "stay in station" are equally absurd. And don't think that hiring mercs works, otherwise this system wouldn't need to be proposed.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Nobody here has proposed a way to compensate for how this mechanic would render wars functionally useless and increasing the cost of declaring war via a bidding system quite specifically benefits bigger groups with more income.

It defies the point of wars being wars. The TL;DR translation is "Let's make high sec safer for carebears and nullsec alliances". Because that's really what the game truly needs, right?

So does null security, do you want to make it easier to establish an empire? The game is a multiplayer, go figure sticking together would be beneficial.

You've severely misinterpreted the message. It's not about making high sec safer. It's about reducing the ability of War Mongerers to grief people, and to re-balance the mechanic, which currently gives Mongers all the advantages.

If you have another suggestion, I'm all ears.
serilius Despotist
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#43 - 2013-06-24 23:45:08 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Why should a defender even have the option to end a war? Wars are by their very nature a unilateral action by one party, the party having war declared on it doesn't get so say 'Sorry but we're not really interested in a war today." if it did it wouldn't be a war.

This entire idea is specifically intended to make wars less effective as a mechanic and to deter people from wanting to declare wars by making it cost-prohibitive. There's no sane justification for making a mechanic worse and less useful, particularly when doing so is directly contrary to a large number of the game's fundamental principles IE that the game is of a competitive nature, that you aren't safe anywhere and that you may be subject to aggression by other players at any time. Justifications like "Oh well there are other ways you can attack other players in highsec." and "Pleas think of the newbies" are absurd. Nobody here has proposed a way to compensate for how this mechanic would render wars functionally useless and increasing the cost of declaring war via a bidding system quite specifically benefits bigger groups with more income.

It defies the point of wars being wars. The TL;DR translation is "Let's make highsec safer for carebears and nullsec alliances". Because that's really what the game truly needs, right?



You have a point, however, war is not always about fighting and / or blowing stuff up. History is rife with examples of leaders declaring "war" on something, but not actually meaning to go out and start blowing up objects or people (war on poverty, war on drugs). If EVE is a sandbox, and we are all suppose to may our own way in the universe, why must there only be one kind of warfare? In life we see war come in many shapes and sizes, from your standard military campaigns to your political wars , to finical wars (E.G. china currency manipulation) and even information wars (cyber warfare / intelligence) .

If we are starting from the stand point that everyone is corrupt and it is just a question of price why should the likes of bribery , or anything else, be any different?

I like the bid / counter bid theory, but if that's not up your alley, how about:

-War dec's are not a 100% guaranteed that concord will take the bribe. After all, there is always a chance you screw up and try to bribe the one honest concord officer / personnel.
-If a bribe is rejected, your corp is now guilty of trying to bribe a state official and one of the following could happen:
A) Your corp and every member of your corp loses standing with empire space.
B) Instead of losing status, a few concordies are a bit pissed off and just might decided to take a shot at you if you cross them (time limit ~24 hrs), purely random.
C) You lose face with concord as a whole and can no longer issue a war declaration until you earn back your standing.
D) You alliance and all members lose faction with concord.
E) Offer is rejected and its treated as an honest mistake, no further action is taken.

As with everything in EVE, make it a skill set. Call it "Genghis Khan Certification" and have a number of skills that you must have in order to be consistently successful at it.

Say:
1 Skill to actually get access to the war dec option
1 Skill to modify how often you can declare a war
1 Skill that increases you ability to bribe
1 Skill that gives you "dirty laundry" on concord officials
etc. etc.


The probability is calculated based on some fancy algorithm that puts the skill set of the aggressors CEO against the defenders CEO (just like ship combat with two pilots fighting each other) and either accepts or rejects the war'dec. The penalties should be directly related to the skill delta between the two CEOs.

Example:
A CEO with lvl ~1 skill sets (as listed above) tries to declare war on a CEO that is ~5 , if he loses (again, this is always a chance just like in a fight), should get one of the more harsh penalties, cause after all the other CEO is better at bribing and has more "dirty laundry" than he does.


With me so far?
Restrictions and/or other thoughts
-One or two of the Skill books can be found throughout the galaxy in all sec lvls.
- The remaining skill books can ONLY be found, bought, sold and injected in Null Sec. Transportation of those skill books in low / high sec will be confiscated by any customs officer you pass.
-Any corporation that declares a war can add no new members to the roster for a period of 72 hours. This will keep people from having shell corporations that has someone with these skills from just randomly trying to declare war and if it is accepted, then all the buddies can join.


This keeps everything that the war'dec system brought, however, it gives options to corps / players on how to spend their resources and the investments they make (ISK & SP). Currently, there is no possibility of "blow back" from going around and war'decing every industrial corp you can find just because you either want to extort money or blow up big ships. This keeps all of that, but it also introduces a bit of risk on the aggressors part which is consistent with RL scenarios.


Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#44 - 2013-06-25 02:18:06 UTC
serilius Despotist wrote:
Currently, there is no possibility of "blow back" from going around and war'decing every industrial corp you can find just because you either want to extort money or blow up big ships.

Except for the enormous financial burden that declaring war on large numbers of corps places on a corporation or alliance, I personally pay on average half a billion isk per week on war declarations, other alliances pay multiple billions particularly for people for whom PVP is the only gameplay they engage in that is a non-trivial consequence. Moreover you apparently haven't noticed but there's a thing called the ally system, this is a system that has such potentially dire consequences for a corp or alliance declaring a war that corporations that aren't dedicated wardec corps don't declare war on people anymore (fun fact: people other than mercs and wardec corps used to declare war on eachother). The premise that there's no negative consequence for declaring war on whoever you want is objectively false, it's the same as people claiming there's no consequence for suicide ganking, if that was true I'd be at at war with every industrial corp in the entire game right now and I'd be ganking every NPC corp mining barge I saw. Yet for some reason I'm not doing either of those things.

The purpose of changes to war mechanics should be to make them better and to make wars useful to more people. When you propose changes to them you should approach it from the lens of something you might want to use, rather than as something you want to see rendered useless. If you haven't ever declared a war, have no interest in declaring a war and you're proposing changes to war mechanics you should read your suggestion and ask yourself "Would I be more interested in declaring a war if this idea was implemented". If the answer is no, or that you'd be less likely to declare a war then your idea is bad.

You people are intentionally trying to make wars bad, ineffective tools because you have a personal dislike for them. That is a bad way to approach game design and you should feel stupid for making suggestions from that position.
serilius Despotist
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#45 - 2013-06-25 04:12:33 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
serilius Despotist wrote:
Currently, there is no possibility of "blow back" from going around and war'decing every industrial corp you can find just because you either want to extort money or blow up big ships.

Except for the enormous financial burden that declaring war on large numbers of corps places on a corporation or alliance, I personally pay on average half a billion isk per week on war declarations, other alliances pay multiple billions particularly for people for whom PVP is the only gameplay they engage in that is a non-trivial consequence. Moreover you apparently haven't noticed but there's a thing called the ally system, this is a system that has such potentially dire consequences for a corp or alliance declaring a war that corporations that aren't dedicated wardec corps don't declare war on people anymore (fun fact: people other than mercs and wardec corps used to declare war on eachother). The premise that there's no negative consequence for declaring war on whoever you want is objectively false, it's the same as people claiming there's no consequence for suicide ganking, if that was true I'd be at at war with every industrial corp in the entire game right now and I'd be ganking every NPC corp mining barge I saw. Yet for some reason I'm not doing either of those things.

The purpose of changes to war mechanics should be to make them better and to make wars useful to more people. When you propose changes to them you should approach it from the lens of something you might want to use, rather than as something you want to see rendered useless. If you haven't ever declared a war, have no interest in declaring a war and you're proposing changes to war mechanics you should read your suggestion and ask yourself "Would I be more interested in declaring a war if this idea was implemented". If the answer is no, or that you'd be less likely to declare a war then your idea is bad.

You people are intentionally trying to make wars bad, ineffective tools because you have a personal dislike for them. That is a bad way to approach game design and you should feel stupid for making suggestions from that position.



hmm.. So to summarize:
First, when the OP talked about bribe / counter bribe you cried foul about how that would make the "Rich" invulnerable. Now, your spending BILLIONS to wage war.... so the rich should only be able to wage war, not fend it off! Got it! No way they should be able use their assets as an effective offense, pfft that is just ********. Also, it don't dislike wars, every so often a great war is needed to stir the wheels of innovation, light the fires and bring people together in solidarity and common cause. Matter of fact, I don't dislike them at all and think they should happen and be used. One of the things I love the most about eve is the fact that you are never 100 percent safe. I'm no stranger to PvP and love the fact that EVE is a sandbox choose to be really involved in PVP or not so involved, but you can't be 100 percent safe from it either. However, what I do have a problem with is people (like you) who are slamming the likes of the OP and me to an extent for making suggestions on how you can make EVE even more of sand box. Your entire complaint comes down to "I WANNA BE ABLE TO WAR'DEC ALL THE STUPID CAREBEAR INDY CORPS AND BLOW UP ALL OF THOSE BIG FANCY SHIPS!!!!!MUWWAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you need to war'dec a corp to PvP if you are in low or null sec..

So essential, you don't really want PVP, you want an "I WIN / extort "button... give me money or I'm blowing up your industry ships and I'm gonna keep war'decing you until I get a chance at blowing up your obelisk / barge/ whatever. That's what I have a problem with, I used to see it all the time in other MMOs on PvP servers . Players who really didn't have the skill set or desire to PvP decent players , who are also geared for pvp, they wanted to just go out and look for the easy / soft targets, newbies /etc. However, in your case you just want to blow up industry ships that don't shoot back and do it hi-sec space so there is little chance that someone else will come along and actually give you a fight.

...oh...but I'm the silly one.

Also, you talk about game mechanic and how if the changes we made to something would make us want to use them more. I'm not sure if the changes I proposed would make me more or less likely to war'dec a corp. Honestly, if i declared war on on a corp it wouldn't be some candy ass mining/indy corp that couldn't give me a good fight in order to try and extort a playing tax out of them, because I think i'm god of the asteroid belts. it would be to kill as many of the SOBs we could and destroy as much of their resources / ships as was possible.
However, it would definitely give me (and I'm sure a number of people) a HUGE incentive to venture out into null-sec space to try and find those skill books. I wonder how much a war'dec corp would be willing to pay in order to get a "leg-up" , or for that matter, how much that indy corp would pay to have the skill first.

Valince Olacar
Amped.
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2013-06-25 05:12:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Valince Olacar
Briefly thinking on it, Wouldn't an additional modifier work better in dictating cost for war?
If you were to compare the two corp/alliances in terms of x with the difference being the modifier.


ex: corp one has 100 members with 20mil avg sp, they declear war on corp with 50 members with avg 5mil sp -> Modifier would increase the cost due to the fact corp one vastly outskills the latter, which makes it expensive to wardec groups of newbs.

You could use another modifier but I think sp average would be fair.
(exact numbers up to ccp but the idea being it would be cheaper to pick on groups your own size/skill level)
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#47 - 2013-06-25 07:07:42 UTC
Valince Olacar wrote:
Briefly thinking on it, Wouldn't an additional modifier work better in dictating cost for war?
If you were to compare the two corp/alliances in terms of x with the difference being the modifier.


ex: corp one has 100 members with 20mil avg sp, they declear war on corp with 50 members with avg 5mil sp -> Modifier would increase the cost due to the fact corp one vastly outskills the latter, which makes it expensive to wardec groups of newbs.

You could use another modifier but I think sp average would be fair.
(exact numbers up to ccp but the idea being it would be cheaper to pick on groups your own size/skill level)


Looks at his Indy Alt, 50M SP total, 40M in S&I/PI/Trade skills, the rest to fly a Iteron V(Pre Tiericide)/Obelisk/etc , then Looks at his PvP Alt with 20M SP bread to kill. Yer SP is a Wonderful balancing mechanic, not!!
FoxFire Ayderan
#48 - 2013-06-25 08:12:15 UTC
Ha! You gotta love the one-sided thinking of Vimsy. Who actually thinks PvP is War Decing Hi-Sec carebear corps on the cheap and greifing players who aren't equipped or skilled in PvP. Though you have to wonder about War-Decing-corps who can't handle REAL PvP against other PvP capable corps. Quintessential bullies. Who said CCP is about making it easier for bullies to win? Vimsy appears to not like PvP but rather likes GvP (Griefers versus Players).


Listen to Vimsy
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
"The purpose of changes to war mechanics should be to make them better and to make wars useful to more people. When you propose changes to them you should approach it from the lens of something you might want to use... . If you haven't ever declared a war, have no interest in declaring a war and you're proposing changes to war mechanics you should read your suggestion and ask yourself "Would I be more interested in declaring a war if this idea was implemented". If the answer is no, or that you'd be less likely to declare a war then your idea is bad."


(S)he obviously thinks that changes to War Dec should ONLY consider the concerns of the aggressor. If you don't propose changes that benefit the person who wants to declar War then your idea is bad! Lol

No thought or consideration whatsoever toward the person who wants to defend from having War declared against them, and their skill set is not in combative PvP but in ISK generating PvP. S(he) likes the PvP that involves attacking easy-prey PvEers, but doesn't like PvP that involves out-bribing the CONCORD officials who secure and patrol hi-sec space.

Well Vimsy, if YOU don't like the ability for non-PvP players to be able to effectively counter your incessent War Decs, then perhaps it should be you who quits EvE (or learn to fight real PvP battles against other PvPers), rather than griefing into quitting those PvE players who enjoy the non physical combat aspects of EVE.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#49 - 2013-06-25 09:46:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
serilius Despotist wrote:
Durr

This entire post is a giant strawman argument. Just sayin'.

FoxFire Ayderan wrote:
E-uni member arguing in favor of wardecs being prohibitively expensive

Oh hey that's really unusual. I mean it's not like you guys have consistently been pushing to change war mechanics to gain a specific in-game advantage or anything.

You people are tyring to argue that it's a good idea for it to be literally impossible to declare war on someone with more money than you.

That's a terrible idea.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#50 - 2013-06-25 14:12:57 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Why should a defender even have the option to end a war? Wars are by their very nature a unilateral action by one party, the party having war declared on it doesn't get so say 'Sorry but we're not really interested in a war today." if it did it wouldn't be a war.

This entire idea is specifically intended to make wars less effective as a mechanic and to deter people from wanting to declare wars by making it cost-prohibitive. There's no sane justification for making a mechanic worse and less useful, particularly when doing so is directly contrary to a large number of the game's fundamental principles IE that the game is of a competitive nature, that you aren't safe anywhere and that you may be subject to aggression by other players at any time. Justifications like "Oh well there are other ways you can attack other players in highsec." and "Pleas think of the newbies" are absurd. Nobody here has proposed a way to compensate for how this mechanic would render wars functionally useless and increasing the cost of declaring war via a bidding system quite specifically benefits bigger groups with more income.

It defies the point of wars being wars. The TL;DR translation is "Let's make highsec safer for carebears and nullsec alliances". Because that's really what the game truly needs, right?



It's not ending aggression between the two groups, it's ending the consequence free aggression.

These groups live in High-Sec for the increased security of having Concord avenge their ships, creating a barrier to entry on serious aggression against them. When they get Wardecced, the playing field has been artificially altered as an aggressive prelude to combat. This proposal allows the defender a way of fighting back. Currently in EVE there are very few ways someone not proficient in direct ship to ship combat can defend themselves from aggression. By allowing them to use their own specialties to alter the playing field back to it's normal state they can use the environment to their own advantage. Call it Non-Consensual PVE. PvP'rs should not be allowed to avoid PvE any more than PvE pilots should be allowed to avoid PvP.

If EVE wants to be pure PVP, then they should just remove all the markets, roids, missions and any other PvE elements from the game, and we can instead play Space-Battlefield where there is nothing but direct combat, all equipment is free, and there is no consequence from dying.
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#51 - 2013-06-25 17:31:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaju Enki
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Why should a defender even have the option to end a war? Wars are by their very nature a unilateral action by one party, the party having war declared on it doesn't get so say 'Sorry but we're not really interested in a war today." if it did it wouldn't be a war.

This entire idea is specifically intended to make wars less effective as a mechanic and to deter people from wanting to declare wars by making it cost-prohibitive. There's no sane justification for making a mechanic worse and less useful, particularly when doing so is directly contrary to a large number of the game's fundamental principles IE that the game is of a competitive nature, that you aren't safe anywhere and that you may be subject to aggression by other players at any time. Justifications like "Oh well there are other ways you can attack other players in highsec." and "Pleas think of the newbies" are absurd. Nobody here has proposed a way to compensate for how this mechanic would render wars functionally useless and increasing the cost of declaring war via a bidding system quite specifically benefits bigger groups with more income.

It defies the point of wars being wars. The TL;DR translation is "Let's make highsec safer for carebears and nullsec alliances". Because that's really what the game truly needs, right?



It's not ending aggression between the two groups, it's ending the consequence free aggression.

These groups live in High-Sec for the increased security of having Concord avenge their ships, creating a barrier to entry on serious aggression against them. When they get Wardecced, the playing field has been artificially altered as an aggressive prelude to combat. This proposal allows the defender a way of fighting back. Currently in EVE there are very few ways someone not proficient in direct ship to ship combat can defend themselves from aggression. By allowing them to use their own specialties to alter the playing field back to it's normal state they can use the environment to their own advantage. Call it Non-Consensual PVE. PvP'rs should not be allowed to avoid PvE any more than PvE pilots should be allowed to avoid PvP.

If EVE wants to be pure PVP, then they should just remove all the markets, roids, missions and any other PvE elements from the game, and we can instead play Space-Battlefield where there is nothing but direct combat, all equipment is free, and there is no consequence from dying.


You are very confused about the nature of sandbox mmo-rpg games. Their is no such thing as "PvE" in this game, the only none PvP activity in EvE Online is the login launcher, and even then it can be PvP because you may have keyloggers on your computer.

The Tears Must Flow
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#52 - 2013-06-25 19:30:39 UTC
You are very confused about sandbox gameplay.

It is what you make of it, and it's not all PvP.
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2013-06-25 20:17:01 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You are very confused about sandbox gameplay.

It is what you make of it, and it's not all PvP.


no but it could turn that way, in other mmo u have pure pve areas. CONCORD only delivers vengence that means everwhere u can enter into pvp if u like or not. Even if u currently do pve content. Atleast thats what i think he tries to say.
Vankaar Raeth
Dark Fusion Fleet
#54 - 2013-06-25 20:39:24 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You are very confused about sandbox gameplay.

It is what you make of it, and it's not all PvP.

I agree with your points Mike, but I believe Vaju was merely stating that all things are PVP in EVE; the market, exploration, mining, combat; they're all competitive.

PVP is what makes EVE famous, but you don't hear non-EVE players talking about the combat that often; they talk about the politics, the scheming, the spying, and only occasionally, they'll admire the sheer size of combats. And they know, and respect, that anyone who plays in this universe is constantly in competition with others.

I don't want to remove PVP, or reduce it in anyway. Bidding by nature is competitive, so the proposed system would still be PVP, but instead of pure combat, it would involve economics.
Silent Rambo
Orion Positronics
#55 - 2013-06-25 21:44:22 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You are very confused about sandbox gameplay.
I don't want to remove PVP, or reduce it in anyway. Bidding by nature is competitive, so the proposed system would still be PVP, but instead of pure combat, it would involve economics.


This is a good point. PvP isn't just about combat. Its about the competitive nature of the game. Everything you do in EVE is to get ahead of the other guy. To have more, make more, sell more, and use the resources to have fun in whatever way you deem fit. Fighting with your wallet is basically what things indirectly boil down to in this game . Why not make it a bit more direct where it needs to be.

You really think someone would do that? Just log into EvE and tell lies?
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#56 - 2013-06-25 22:11:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaju Enki
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You are very confused about sandbox gameplay.

It is what you make of it, and it's not all PvP.


So many clueless themeparkers posting in this thread, they don't understand what a sandbox mmo-rpg is. There is no such thing as "PvE" in this game, and shootings ships is not the "PvP" part of the game. EvE is not split in half like the simplistic kindergarten themepark mmo-rpg games you play.

In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions...

The sandbox is about player interaction, interaction that affects how other players play and interact with both the game and other players. What you do not get to do in the sandbox is decide who you will not interact with. You can choose to interact with player A, even if player A would rather not interact with you. They have little say in the matter. They can make an effort to avoid you, but that in itself is an act of interaction. You have forced them to recognize you, take heed of you. This is what makes the butterfly effect possible in EvE Online.

After the login, every game system involves some form of competitive interaction. For example, despite what themeparkers believe, missions and Incursions are a sandbox feature, the players doing it affect the economy and other players can invade the "dungeon" to steal loot, ninja salvage or even gank.

To sum it up, EvE Online it's the last of it's kind, an old school sandbox mmo-rpg game, that's the secret of it's longevity and that's why EvE Online will still be played 10 years from now.

The Tears Must Flow
Achuk
Jump's Reach
#57 - 2013-06-26 00:49:23 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
What you do not get to do in the sandbox is decide who you will not interact with. You can choose to interact with player A, even if player A would rather not interact with you. They have little say in the matter. They can make an effort to avoid you, but that in itself is an act of interaction. You have forced them to recognize you, take heed of you.



Can't think of a better way to argue that making a war-dec system that allows defender participation in the interaction through the various assets they have acquired throughout the game is a good thing. Thank you, Vaju.
Vankaar Raeth
Dark Fusion Fleet
#58 - 2013-06-26 00:50:26 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You are very confused about sandbox gameplay.

It is what you make of it, and it's not all PvP.


So many clueless themeparkers posting in this thread, they don't understand what a sandbox mmo-rpg is. There is no such thing as "PvE" in this game, and shootings ships is not the "PvP" part of the game. EvE is not split in half like the simplistic kindergarten themepark mmo-rpg games you play.

In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions...

The sandbox is about player interaction, interaction that affects how other players play and interact with both the game and other players. What you do not get to do in the sandbox is decide who you will not interact with. You can choose to interact with player A, even if player A would rather not interact with you. They have little say in the matter. They can make an effort to avoid you, but that in itself is an act of interaction. You have forced them to recognize you, take heed of you. This is what makes the butterfly effect possible in EvE Online.

After the login, every game system involves some form of competitive interaction. For example, despite what themeparkers believe, missions and Incursions are a sandbox feature, the players doing it affect the economy and other players can invade the "dungeon" to steal loot, ninja salvage or even gank.

To sum it up, EvE Online it's the last of it's kind, an old school sandbox mmo-rpg game, that's the secret of it's longevity and that's why EvE Online will still be played 10 years from now.

All fair points, and it would not harm the sandbox to introduce this system. Or do you disagree?
Minera Toranen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#59 - 2013-06-26 14:51:45 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
serilius Despotist wrote:
Durr

This entire post is a giant strawman argument. Just sayin'.

FoxFire Ayderan wrote:
E-uni member arguing in favor of wardecs being prohibitively expensive

Oh hey that's really unusual. I mean it's not like you guys have consistently been pushing to change war mechanics to gain a specific in-game advantage or anything.

You people are tyring to argue that it's a good idea for it to be literally impossible to declare war on someone with more money than you.

That's a terrible idea.

Yeah, cause god forbid that people's hard earned isk could ever be spent on politicking. Hell, isn't that what War Mongers do? You yourself said you spend billions to declare war on dozens of targets. What's the purpose of those wars I wonder?

I think you're just afraid of losing the massive advantage the current system is giving you.
idk706
State War Academy
Caldari State
#60 - 2013-06-26 18:06:48 UTC
Although I'm not very active in EVE that much anymore (I really should be), I think this is a good idea.