EVE General Discussion

Which results in both sides refusing to commit = no fights = null stagnation. why bother spending all this time developing the changes to make the bad situation slightly worse?

You misread the example. The point is the LS trip is longer, so there's absolutely no reason to pick that option over the mechanically safe option. This is the same. We have no need to add risk for less reward, we may as well just defend with damps and PVE until the end of time.


Cooperation is always preferable, that's been proven. Moreso now we can put more people in less space.

1) Yes, I misread your HS freighter example. But I dont see how your example of a pilot choosing a route through a longer LS route,rather than a HS on, made any sense or context to anything weve discussed.

My reading of it as comparison between a pilot choosing to shortcut through LS rather than a longer HS one, makes sense in this context, as it relates expediency to risk and preparation as a matter of choicee primarily, rather than game design.

2) Cooperation is not always preferable. This is categorically false. I already outlined and expressed specifically instances in which it is, and the conditions which then make it preferable. In no way, shape or form, has cooperation been "proven" preferable. A substantial part of human history alone already utterly disproves that with but a moments consideration, as does the state of human interaction right now all the way from international politics, to the simplest human interaction between two individuals.

Furthermore the mechanics and relations of cooperation are defined clearly by power (which I outlined as conditions for cooperation being preferable under specific conditions). The power dictates the terms, to which the less powerful comply, which forms the conditions of cooperation.

In EVE sov politics, cooperation, in its many forms of essentially what amounts to bluing, are all derived from that.

You agree that commitment to conflict is key to sov mechanic changes.
Yet you argue cooperation is always preferable.
Thisnis an irreconcilable paradox and two conflicting paradigms at work in your arguments.

My argument is that cooperation is a result of expediency in the face of a greater power.
If you cannot beat them, you join them.
It is not "preferable", it is merely convenient and the best they can hope for.
They would "prefer" to rip you to pieces and take from you what they want.
How powerful you are independantly in relation to that other power, dictates the terms of that cooperation.
Standard Machiavelli 101.

Following from that, the means to de-incentivize cooperation, which as you agree is resulting in lack of conflict systemically, is to asymmetrically make it more possible for smaller entities to engage, destroy and/or aquire elements of a larger entity, without the larger entity being able to deploy its full force against them in any given conflict point. There are ways to adapt to this from empire history, such as auxiliaries for Rome (in this case locally renters), and regional regiments by the British Empire. Force allocations along main routes of approach to key systems, typically situated as close to the fronts as possible.

In EVE, travel (up til jump fatigue) and maintenance of a large fleet costs nothing except patience for slower ships to align and arrive. Historically, if the British Empire or Rome could have redeployed the entirety of their force to any local insurrection without incalculable cost, attrition in transit and months of travel time (as well as therebybleaving other fronts undefended for that duration) they would never have lost. Ever. I very much think this is something to consider as model to adopt for curtailing a coalition bringing its considerable force to bear locally across their wide demesne.

You are asking CCP to create conflict. Inorder to do so, they have to provide incentives that override the cooperative choice.
Inorder to do that, they have to empower smaller entities to have opportunity to take action without the full force of the stronger entity landing ontop of them. The thing you want cannot be cut from the cake without some significant compromise on your part as to how its done. You will have to lose some autonomy and control inorder for CCP to have the slack to offer it to others for the taking.

There is a long standing premise, that the rules of EVE should apply to everyone equally, as widely as possible.
Aside from the fact this is already systemically not true due to sector rules of engagement, I think we are finally reaching the point of realization, that large (especially collosal powers) should perhaps have to deal with some additional conditions and complications that smaller ones dont.

I cant speak to the logistical and political complications of keeping an empire coherent, intact and inline except out of theory, except to say that its a tribute to the powers that be that they manage to do so. That is commendable, but perhaps also indication that current game mechanics make this too easy to do.

From a gaming mevhanic perspective, its perhaps time to start breaking apart their capacity to bring their full and insurmountable resources and force to bear without some logistics/mechanics complications.

The elephant in the room about sov politics and mechanics, has been always that "if this change is made, we can kick your ass even harder with the same system than you can ours." The way out of this is to subject the mechanics to scale discriminations. Yes, this would be nominally bad for greater powers, but yes it also would provide more CONFLICT rather than cooperation as the expedient and realistic choice, for the good of the game overall and everyone involved.

True.

And well done on taking the time to collate the figures.
I was guilty of the same as Lucas in the Erotica1 debacle.
This is the forum minigame, for better or worse.

I think its clear to everyone what Lucas function is.

But to his credit he has also been forthright by providing concrete listed points of suggestions and coherent reasoning, thereby making himself open to critique bybplacing his cards on the table. Hes been quite polite and overall the quality of discussion in this thread has been remarkable and required very little moderation.

Lets try to keep it that way.

Because you're suggesting that null players opt to play in a riskier way which takes longer and decreases their rewards. Nobody would choose that because it makes no sense.

Of course it is, because 2 people can do more than 1, 3 more than 2, etc. And it's proven by the fact that cooperative groups lead null. Even proviblock is built on cooperation. The only time we've had any noticeable damage done to us have been when other groups have cooperated and fought against us.

I agree that it should be key to sov mechanics changes. The way the current mechanics are, it's not, and cooperation is definitely a better choice under the new system. By agreeing with other sizable powers that taking sov is off limits (no invasion policies) we can all reap rewards with lower risk. I believe the mechanics should make conflict not just required to contest sov, but preferable to live in it.

To problem with that is that anything a small group can do a large group can do too. Make it too easy to contest sov and we can all do it. And regardless of how much you contest it, you can't take it without a brawl if the defenders want to keep it, and so the defenders still deploy their full force.

First off, why? Effectively you're saying "you don;t play like I do, you should be punished". Secondly, how would that prevent people from simply breaking into smaller groups and still cooperating. There's no way to stop players helping each other out short of turning it into a single player game.

Well it did make me leave 0,0 so i guess it worked in one way.

When the main goal of the changes is to make the system for fighting over sov to be entertaining for both sides, then yes, people discussing how insanely boring it is does mean they are flawed. Note that no (or I'll say "few", because while I haven't seen any, some may exist) nullsec dwellers are saying "I don't like these because they make it hard to defend my space" which would be understandable and expected from a change like this. Instead they are saying "this is so boring I'd rather avoid the mechanics as much as I can without affecting my ability to defend".

1)"Because you're suggesting that null players opt to play in a riskier way which takes longer and decreases their reward"
We already went over the argumentative flaw of putting forth an antagonist has "suggested" something they have not.

My point was that an HS freighter passing through LS for a shortcutnmakes that decision based on risk owing from time, build/skills, research on traffic vs value of cargo. Choosing a longer LS route rather than an equivalent HS route makes no sense, whereas aggressing a sov sector with sufficient force to overcome occurance of local defence makes emminent sense and is ALWAYS required in the old system and new.

2) " The only time we've had any noticeable damage done to us have been when other groups have cooperated and fought against us."

Which supports and carries my point.

That the means to and for conflict overcame the "bending of knee" in cooperation to you, in favor of cooperation with someone else so as to engage in conflict with you. The active concept here being they did not cooperate with you, but rather with another smaller wntity so as to conflict with your hegemony. The reason for their mutual cooperation, was refusal to cooperate with you, which resulted then in conflict. As I said, the impetus and terms for for cooperarion are defined by the highest power. If ypu cant beat them, you join them, or you join with others to beat them. Hence non-coperation with establisged powers is exactly which breeds the conflict you so paradoxically desire, except it happens, defacto, only if they do not cooperate with you (even though you paradoxically claim that cooperation is always preferred).

---

They engage in cooperation (due to necessities of power differential) so as to CREATE CONFLICT with you, so that they dont have to cooperate with you.

Whereas you engage in cooperation so as to AVOID CONFLICT by sublimating small entities into your hegemony.

---

This is the privilege of power.
As part of the most powerful force in the EVE universe, you have that.

If you want conflict and competition, you will have to abide to changes which hopefully will prevent anyone ever again from having to make that call. The game will change fundamentally in ways that make creating an empire untenable as it was till now, and which has culminated in suppression of sov conflict in favor of cooperation and non-aggression.

The mechanics where flawed so as to ever result in this situation.
Bacsically, "the game" was beaten. Game over and boredom results.
Yes, because of excellent play by the concerned parties, but underlying that, because the game was flawed in mechanics.

Those flaws are what need to be corrected so this never happens again except by equally extraordinary effort and success.
Those flaws are exactly what are still hampering sov mechanics.

3) "By agreeing with other sizable powers that taking sov is off limits (no invasion policies) we can all reap rewards with lower risk. I believe the mechanics should make conflict not just required to contest sov, but preferable to live in it."

True, and well said. And extremely wise and equitable in the current system.
But ironically, exactly the reason you dont have the conflict you crave.
Your ideal that "cooperation is always preferable" leads directly to less conflict.

The mechanics required to create conflict, will necessarily disagree with your "cooperation is preferable" ideal.

This is a classic case of "you cant have your cake, and eat it (too)".

4) "And regardless of how much you contest it, you can't take it without a brawl if the defenders want to keep it, and so the defenders still deploy their full force."

Yes.
And?
Whats the problem with that?

5) "Effectively you're saying "you don;t play like I do, you should be punished". Secondly, how would that prevent people from simply breaking into smaller groups and still cooperating."
A) Its not punishing people for playing as they want, its simply restricting the means of larger powers to bring their full force to bear on smaller aggressors, so as to enable feasible escalations of aggression that smaller powers can sustqin locally. You want conflict, the only way that will happen is by incentivising smaller powers to aggress. The only way to do that is by systemically/mechanically impairing larger forces fo bring their full force to bear.
B) The same constraints on fielding overwhelming force would also apply to them, in their smaller coalition. Basically we are talking here about smaller engagements, of roughly equivalent force, mostly defined and restricted hy composition rather than shear overbearing force of numbers and expense.

Im perplexed, Lucas.

Are you really just a mouthpiece for a political position assigned and designed to forestall change, or do you really want a solution (and are prepared to make compromise) inorder for that change to happen?

You want conflict, yet you claim cooperation is proven and true.
You want smaller powers to aggress, but you know its pointless once the full battle fleet arrives.
You argue that smaller entities should cooperate to aggress, yet you sublimate smaller entities readily in cooperation.

There will be no wide spread conflict, until smaller entities have the means to aggress without concern of absolutely crushing force landing ontop of them (or till powers that be resign their non-aggression pacts, which is YOUR choice, not CCPs).

If you want that conflict, you will have to compromise on current game mechanics.

Make your choice.

Either deal with boredom, the hopeless inefficiency of smaller entities to compete and subsequent sublimation by cooperation, and non-aggression pacts with your only comparable enemies, or do yourselves a favor by enabling conflict.

You are your own worst enemy in this regard.
You are the force that is preventing change that would facilitate more conflict.

Except what you guys are suggesting is that we give up what we have (less reward) to travel into enemy territory and attack their sov (more effort & risk). No sane person will make that choice, since it's dumb.

Not really, since they received very little out of it. Had they cooperated with us they'd have achieved a lot more.

Which we're fine with. If CCP want to actively drive a lack of conflict by implementing **** mechanics then I'll ride this wave all the way to the beach and watch it crush the game. To be honest, I pay with PLEX and I don't even remotely care about the continued existence of this game. It's fun to play, but if CCP want to ignore common sense and drive the game into the ground, it's no skin off my nose. It'll actually be slightly funnier if they do it while we repeatedly explain to them what the problems are.

Nothing, but then you have to ask, if this new system still means that large coalitions can bully people out of space with brute force, what's the point? They may as well have just made lowsec better instead.

Sure it is, since there's no way except though punishing an alliance for being too big that you could stop them bringing a bigger force.

And no, I'm all for change, I was even for these sov changes, but we raised all of these current problems months ago and still they release the system overly focussed on allowing trolls, far too boring to want to engage in and without a meaningful way of promoting conflict as the optimal choice.

1) "Except what you guys are suggesting is that we give up what we have (less reward) to travel into enemy territory and attack their sov (more effort & risk)"

No. Quite the opposite.

We are suggesting that becomes more feasible for smaller entity incursors into YOUR space.

2) "Not really, since they received very little out of it. Had they cooperated with us they'd have achieved a lot more.

False.

A) They achieved conflict, which apparently the greatest power in the universe is incapable of achieving for itself, instead preferring to have outlying entities bend a knee. They gave you exactly what you wanted, the coalitioned, made conflict, and got destroyed, wherafter you insult them for even having attempted it. Amazing hubris and arrogamce.

B) Again, the hypocrisy concretely demonstrated here. You claim you want conflict, but happily disparage those who provide it for not having kissed your ring instead. Your entire mentality is "join us or else", yet you cry for more conflict.

As I outlined, unless the means for competition are improved for a smaller entity, you will not get the conflict you crave.

3) " To be honest, I pay with PLEX and I don't even remotely care about the continued existence of this game. It's fun to play, but if CCP want to ignore common sense and drive the game into the ground, it's no skin off my nose. It'll actually be slightly funnier if they do it while we repeatedly explain to them what the problems are."

Its you running the game into the beach, by stonewalling necessary changes.

You want conflict, but resist every attempt to include that by empowering smaller entitites whom are exactly the population that would provide it. Mechanics based dispersal of force and asymmetric aggression is key to breaking the enormous superiority of the powers that be.

Its amazing how resolute you are against recognizing this simple reality.
Your own arguments, ideals and lobbying are exactly what is resulting in stagnation and the death of your own enjoyment.
It is the pinnacle of hubris and typical of an empire drunk with its own arrogance and power, blind to its own involvement in perpetuating its own downfall.

4) "Nothing, but then you have to ask, if this new system still means that large coalitions can bully people out of space with brute force, what's the point? They may as well have just made lowsec better instead."

Fair argument, but misdirection. LS has issues, but thats a thread full of complexity entirelybof its own.
This new system does not empower large coalitions to bully people out of space anymore than the previous.
All its done (lamentably) is made it possible to doorbell and annoy. But this is only the groundwork. The entirety of the impetus of change is not here yet, but is quite clearly delineated by the goal points in the dev blog.

5) "Sure it is, since there's no way except though punishing an alliance for being too big that you could stop them bringing a bigger force."

I think you nailed it right on the head here, but my take towards what this entails, and solutions, is different than yours.

I tried to articulate this earlier, but its a unconventional way of looking at it and takes a bit of explaining.
Ill try again along a different tack.

-What is the primary problem of large alliances?
Lack of conflict.
Paradoxically a large alliance does not need or want conflict, but some of its player constituents in the game, do.
Against overbearing force, as I explained earlier, cooperation and compliance is favorable to conflict.
Against equal or comparable force, cooperation and non-aggression are conducive to domestic growth and development.
Peace is extremely profitable in EVE. (Something to think about right there..)
A large alliance inherently has the means to enforce/offer cooperation, compliance and non-aggression.
Just the threat of (real and existing) force is sufficient to enact this policy.
But cooperation/compliance/non-aggression is boring for the combat oriented pilots within that alliance.
By enacting cooperation/compliance/non-aggression policies, you are pissing off your own combat constituency by denying them targets. CCP is not doing that (although the may be giving you, as alliance leaders, equitable cause to do so), you are.

-What is the primary problem of smaller entities?
Lack of opportunity to feasibly engage.
Against overbearing force, they run the risk of destruction first in the invasion attempt, and even if that succeeds, therafter commensurately when the large alliance pulls its **** together and lands ontop of their aquisition with righteous vengeance.
This is real risk.
This is when you didnt just **** off a bee hive to get its honey, this is when you pissed off the entire Republic of Bears by eating their porridge, sleeping in their beds and shitting on their carpet.
This side, ironically, is where the disgruntled and bored combat pilots from said large alliances above would get their full jollies and more in spades, rather than being blueballed by their own goddam leadership setting everyone around them to blue and complaining its CCPs fault.
These guys are who bring the conflict.
In order to do so, THEY need the incentive to choose conflict over cooperation.

-------------------

I'm not sure why you would think that. I quit null because of how boring it is, ISK be damned.

If you're putting making ISK over having fun and actually enjoying the game, you're wasting your time in EVE, and you're the exact problem with the game ATM.

Stop blaming CCP for you causing stagnation and a lack of content.