EVE General Discussion

Good.
I remember how your group love to pile on with others.

---

There is no conflict driver to counter ennui.

Carebears and newbies are less inclined to declare war than a group that can't out grow the shallow end.

You're still missing the valid point that was made.

Drop you're own bias for a second and think about it more conceptually.

Say ABC Highsec Mining Corp is operating in direct competition to XYZ Carebears Industry Corp. Ideally, the wardec mechanic would provide an incentive for them to declare war themselves and then perhaps two relatively evenly matched Corps could enjoy some additional content as well as settle differences between them.

However, while ABC Mining bears the cost of declaring the war, Carebear Industry can accept any and all allies, including full time pvp Corps into the war at no cost.

So it ends up as a Corp paying for a war being outclassed by the opposition they end up facing, rather than the opposition they actually have a beef with, because there is no barrier to accepting allies as a defender.

The net result is, the smart way for ABC to declare war is to hire mercs, resulting in the mercs having fun and outclassing the Carebear Industry Corp.

It's kind of screwed up in that respect and is a barrier to conflict.

OP Your list is evidence of an exasperatingly poor understanding of EVE. The number ONE "conflict driver" (as you choose to put it) you have listed as number THREE. All the attendant windfall as a result of number ONE (residual consequences) comprise the list itself. Talk about having something bass-ackwards!

What is patently ridiculous is you list the most broken function in the game, the BOUNTY SYSTEM first...(now we get to hear how your carefully planned on paper post was actually just thrown up there - no priority to the order.) The bounty system is for noobs. So, now that we understand where you're coming from.

HOWEVER (<----BIG "however"), your list of solutions speaks more clearly to your lack of understanding of EVE than does your list of "conflict drivers". (I really hope we don't have to endure people grabbing up this term, using it to sound IMPORTANT, KNOWLEDGEABLE or COOL!)

-10 Flushable Post

Keep our forums CLEAN! Post substance not BS.

edit: deleted iPhone/forum fail

To the op:

Any conflict drivers the devs create as a false driver the players will figure out how not to fight over it. Case in point, moons.

no one fights over tech or other moons, because most alliances have pacts that prevent them form taking other peoples moons.

Complexs were a conflict driver in the day, ccp thought having static 10/10's in some parts of null would cause one alliance would attack another.. and this never happened.

no conflict driver can be made by a dev that will make humans fight. none. Because humans do not like to fight once they have a home. We hate change, moving, and we are generally lazy.

We fight for a few reaons:

1) to defend out home

2) because you pissed us off

3) we need something you have, but we don;t need to conqure you to get it.

of the 3, only 1 and 2 are real drivers of conflict, because the 3rd you can make agreements to avoid conflict and still make $$$. See OTEC.

now then, to the finite resources guy. this is not real life. Its a game. when you can mining a belt out in 30 min, then you can not have finate resources. why? Because one group will ravage the others, and once everythign is gone, people leave.

In the real world, if say your resource delpetes, you invent something new, or find a new source. We have bene burnign oil for well over 200 years now, and are still finding new sources for it,

The only way finite would work in eve is if it would take YEARS to strip belts and moons. because otherwise the game dies. All it would take is goons to get in mining fleets and strip every system in a matter of days, and thats the end of eve.

Finite won;t work. however, moon goo needs to become active mining, not passive, as people fight over choice bits of racks in mining and might come out to defend miners, but in general, no one gives a crap about what rocks you have in yoru fields.

As a former alliance head, i fought cause you either 1) pissed me off. 2) attacked me . 3) pissed me off.

you want conflict drivers? go **** off mittens, or elo, or any other alliance head, and see how quickly you drive conflict.

Like I wrote in the previous post, think about it conceptually.

If a small Corp wants to go to war against their direct competition (or other valid reason), irrespective of other activities they might normally conduct, they shouldn't be discouraged to do so because the mechanics are broken. There is a lot of whinging on the forum about how wardecs have no real meaning and that they should, yet that aspect of them makes it quite difficult for small non-pvp focused Corps to make use of them directly.

So ideal example or not is not the point. The underlying concept is what was being illustrated, simply because Jenshae couldn't get past her blind hatred for a highsec pvper. Go back and read Vimsy's post on the previous page. It explains it plainly enough.

I believe Concord is the root of all problems in highsec.
The mere existence of our almighty god-police makes wardecs a regrettable necessity, so people will have to subject their corps to full blown wars instead of casually shooting at single, pesky competitors once in a while.
If Concord was replaced with a 300 km "no weapon activation"-zone around npc stations (to keep them from being perma-camped) and stronger gate-guns in highsec, the transition from high to lowsec would be much more fluent and newbies would get into the reality of pvp much quicker.

True.
But since Concord and its false promises of safety are the main factor that keeps people in highsec, its removal would very likely lead to player-migrations towards lower security systems and thus reduce population density in highsec.
Nature...uh..will find a way.

But I know it will never happen- it's just a long term dream of mine

Your mistake is expecting clarity of thought from that intellectual midget.