Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jenna Jerveszi
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:13:00 -
[1]
If the "game" of Eve is the portion that includes the basic gameplay of collecting resources, building ships, and blowing ships up, then we can think of the meta-game as that portion of Eve where you can accomplish many of the same things while circumventing the "game" portion. Over-simplifying, of course.
CCP has stated that this is all cricket - there is nothing wrong with the meta-game, and it is in fact part of the Eve experience.
This is all well and good, at least in theory. But here is the problem with things like the BoB disbanding or the IRC theft.
The game of Eve, for 99.99% of the experience, is all about the "game" part. And CCP puts a lot of work into striking a proper balance with that, based primarily around risk and reward. If someone from Goon figured out a way to destroy 25 cap ships in combat with a assault frigate (some loophole in the game mechanics, for example) then certainly CCP would "fix" that balance issue. In fact, they spend an incredible amount of time trying to balance out even very small balance issues.
Within the "game", if you want to go destroy an alliance or smash a cap fleet, you have to risk something nominally equivalent to do so - to kill a battleship, you have to risk something. If Goon decides they want to wipe out the IRC cap fleet, they have to risk their own fleets in the process, and they have to decide if that risk is worth the potential rewards.
But this completely breaks down with the meta-game. There is no risk, just incredible rewards. It might be a long shot, but there is no reason not to take it. This isn't even an assault frigate taking out a cap - this is nothing capturing the work of hundreds of other players, with zero potential downside.
Furthermore, while CCP says it is ok, they don't actually manage the balance in this part of the game. They say that this is part of the Eve experience, yet they do not at all work at making sure that has any kind of balance or reasonable risk for return - indeed, they largely ignore it, while at the same time encouraging it.
So what does it all matter? What difference does playing the "game" make when it can all be made irrelevant by the meta-game at a tiny fraction of the effort, time, and energy? It is a short-cut to the game.
I don't know what the solution is - but I do think CCP needs to start looking at managing this part of their game if in fact they want this to be part of the experience. They cannot simply say that it is part of Eve, while washing their hands of actually structuring it so it fits into the rest of the experience.
|
Lothros Andastar
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:17:00 -
[2]
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Big Al
The Aftermath
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:20:00 -
[3]
You mad?
|
Ethaet
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:20:00 -
[4]
7/10 -------------------------------------------------------------- Seriously, we need some kind of separation between the post and signature. There you go. Now that wasn't so hard |
Jenna Jerveszi
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:20:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Big Al You mad?
Perhaps, perhaps not. Doesn't really matter, does it?
|
Stabby McKnife
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:24:00 -
[6]
EVE has a built in web browser, and the corp descriptions have URL-fields. I'm fairly certain CCP intended things to be more or less as they are.
|
CyberGh0st
Minmatar Ara Veritas
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:44:00 -
[7]
I think it is pretty clear to any party not involved that the way BoB got disbanded and then lost sovereignty is just not the way it should be working.
I mean infiltrating and spying is meta game, and I can understand that. But 1 director being able to disband an alliance, while he is not supposed to be able to do that ( because he can't do /disband alliance or something similar ) is just wrong. Only the CEO has this ability, so circumventing this by kicking the corps 1 by 1 seems borderline exploiting to me.
But even the CEO should not have this power, there should be some sort of voting system.
I'll use some RL example here to show how absurd this trick is : The EU is lead by a different country every 6 months, so if the President of this country suddenly feels that the EU should be disbanded and snaps his fingers and voila, the EU got disbanded ... and as a side effect, all borders of EU countries would vanish and defenses would collapse ... Like all the other countries would go along with immediate disbanding of the EU ...
It just doesn't work that way, and it feels completely unfair that it works like this in EVE online. I always found it interesting how the war between the large alliances went, but when BoB got disbanded in this bordeline exploiting way, I was suddenly alot less interested to take part in 0.0 empire building ( at some point I wanted to try and take part in this ).
Years of hard work flushed down the toilet because of a loophole in corp/alliance structure ...
I just don't get how CCP allows this and even worse, still hasnt fixed the way this works currently.
Cyberwiz aka CyberGh0st aka Mentakh Active @ EvE Online Favorites : DAoC-SI/SWG Pre CU-NGE/Ryzom Retired @ WoW/LOTRO/WAR/Planetside/Entropia/UO/Lineage/GW/EQ/Jumpgate/Dofus/AoC |
Cromzor
Caldari Darkstorm Command Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:45:00 -
[8]
Sorry to bring bad news but...
1) Espionage/Meta-gaming is probably more balanced than any other part of this game. Everyone is 100% exactly as capable as everyone else since game mechanics have nothing to do with it.
2) Risk is identical to any other part of this game. You risk time. It takes time to build ships, train skills, forge an empire. Espionage also takes time. Weather you plant and nurture a spy or create a culture that attracts defectors, both take time.
The solution is to realize that isk is irrelavent. It is the resolve of your pilots thats important. Winning battles is not important. Fight enough and the enemy will tire of battle and quit. The suicide rifter goons understand this. Beat them at their own game, cultural victory.
|
CyberGh0st
Minmatar Ara Veritas
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:54:00 -
[9]
Edited by: CyberGh0st on 26/03/2009 19:55:53
Originally by: Cromzor Sorry to bring bad news but...
1) Espionage/Meta-gaming is probably more balanced than any other part of this game. Everyone is 100% exactly as capable as everyone else since game mechanics have nothing to do with it.
2) Risk is identical to any other part of this game. You risk time. It takes time to build ships, train skills, forge an empire. Espionage also takes time. Weather you plant and nurture a spy or create a culture that attracts defectors, both take time.
The solution is to realize that isk is irrelavent. It is the resolve of your pilots thats important. Winning battles is not important. Fight enough and the enemy will tire of battle and quit. The suicide rifter goons understand this. Beat them at their own game, cultural victory.
I completely agree with you, however, these crazy loopholes allowing a simple director of 1 corp to disband an alliance and thus remove their sovereignty should be fixed.
Oh and sure ISK is irrelevant, it is about the time invested, risk vs reward. The risk and effort of finding a director that is unpleased with his alliance is not comparable to the work one puts into creating a 0.0 empire ... imho
Cyberwiz aka CyberGh0st aka Mentakh Active @ EvE Online Favorites : DAoC-SI/SWG Pre CU-NGE/Ryzom Retired @ WoW/LOTRO/WAR/Planetside/Entropia/UO/Lineage/GW/EQ/Jumpgate/Dofus/AoC |
Julia Steaz
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:58:00 -
[10]
Wait a second. Isn't the sale of ISK also meta-gaming? Using money, an outside resource, to acquire a game resource. And it seems that CCP does not support the sale/purchasing of ISK - at least without them in the middle.
So really CCP does not support meta-gaming.
|
|
Julia Steaz
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:01:00 -
[11]
Can you explain to me why disbanding an alliance means the alliance no longer exists?
What is keep the corps from creating a new alliance? From my understanding, the only thing missing will be this one corp.
|
Euriti
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:02:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Julia Steaz Wait a second. Isn't the sale of ISK also meta-gaming? Using money, an outside resource, to acquire a game resource. And it seems that CCP does not support the sale/purchasing of ISK - at least without them in the middle.
So really CCP does not support meta-gaming.
You got that wrong. They don't support a certain kind of meta-gaming (RMT in this case). If you are trying to outlaw meta gaming because you feel that you can push RMT under the meta-gaming umbrella then you won't accomplish anything.
|
CyberGh0st
Minmatar Ara Veritas
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:12:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Julia Steaz Can you explain to me why disbanding an alliance means the alliance no longer exists?
What is keep the corps from creating a new alliance? From my understanding, the only thing missing will be this one corp.
Euhm, not sure if I completely understand you but I'll try to explain with the little knowledge I have :
An alliance is governed by the executioner corp, this corp is lead by a CEO, thus this CEO is basically the big boss of the alliance, he can invite new corps to the alliance, kick corps or disband the alliance. In this executioner corp there can also be directors. And while these directors can not directly disband the alliance ( because they are not supposed to ), they can get the same result by kicking all the member corps 1 by 1.
Now in itself disbanding this alliance would not be bad, just reform the alliance with the corps and members that want to get back into the alliance ( as ex-BoB did with Kenzoku ). If it was not for the fact that sovereignty can only be held by alliances. The alliance was disbanded thus high level sovereignty was instantly lost, which shut down stuff like cyno fields and whatever, making the towers vulnerable to attack by Goonswarm and NC.
Again, this kind of stuff seriously tempered my enthousiasm about 0.0 empire building and warfare.
Cyberwiz aka CyberGh0st aka Mentakh Active @ EvE Online Favorites : DAoC-SI/SWG Pre CU-NGE/Ryzom Retired @ WoW/LOTRO/WAR/Planetside/Entropia/UO/Lineage/GW/EQ/Jumpgate/Dofus/AoC |
Julia Steaz
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:18:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Julia Steaz on 26/03/2009 20:18:55 Oh wow, so the Goons must have pwned Bob - with their defenses down and all.
I guess BOB can consider this karma for destroying our alliance in Venal a few years back. The New Venal Alliance, where art thou nowdays?
|
Jared D'Uroth
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:24:00 -
[15]
Originally by: CyberGh0st
Originally by: Julia Steaz Can you explain to me why disbanding an alliance means the alliance no longer exists?
What is keep the corps from creating a new alliance? From my understanding, the only thing missing will be this one corp.
Euhm, not sure if I completely understand you but I'll try to explain with the little knowledge I have :
An alliance is governed by the executioner corp, this corp is lead by a CEO, thus this CEO is basically the big boss of the alliance, he can invite new corps to the alliance, kick corps or disband the alliance. In this executioner corp there can also be directors. And while these directors can not directly disband the alliance ( because they are not supposed to ), they can get the same result by kicking all the member corps 1 by 1.
Now in itself disbanding this alliance would not be bad, just reform the alliance with the corps and members that want to get back into the alliance ( as ex-BoB did with Kenzoku ). If it was not for the fact that sovereignty can only be held by alliances. The alliance was disbanded thus high level sovereignty was instantly lost, which shut down stuff like cyno fields and whatever, making the towers vulnerable to attack by Goonswarm and NC.
Again, this kind of stuff seriously tempered my enthousiasm about 0.0 empire building and warfare.
Just be careful who you trust. This is one of the things that makes eve NOT safe and it should remain so.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:32:00 -
[16]
Originally by: CyberGh0st I think it is pretty clear to any party not involved that the way BoB got disbanded and then lost sovereignty is just not the way it should be working.
Not really. Or well, I'm sure you think so, but that's not even remotely accurate. Quote: Again, this kind of stuff seriously tempered my enthousiasm about 0.0 empire building and warfare.
Funny that. I know a lot of people — in and out of EVE — who have the exact opposite reaction: this is what makes EVE stand out from the grey morass of MMOs. It's what gives it character and makes it enticing. It's what makes EVE worth playing. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in =v=… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Dedalus77
Junkyard Dogs Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:37:00 -
[17]
I love that no one ever talks about how it was BOB's own stupidity that brought this on them. They gave a guy director roles in the executor corp who probably should not have had them judging from how disgruntled he appeared.
And I'm sorry, but everyone who has ever posted a sell order or a buy order on this forum, or gotten advice on a ship fitting or running a mission or anything else is engaging in meta-gaming. Seriously people, if anyone other than Goon had perpetrated this no one would be whining about it.
|
Ginako
Southern Cross Empire
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:38:00 -
[18]
I personally didn't like the means by which the big bad super giant BoB was taken down. After all these years it seemed so... anticlimactic. Kinda thought they'd go down with the ship and lots of pretty explosions but unfortunately EVE superpowers almost always are taken out from the inside.
And this is how things work in EVE. It may create drama, bitterness, and hurt feelings but at the end of the day its still "working as intended". The worst one could slap GOON with is going about BoB's end in an unsportsmanlike or dishonorable way but of course I'm sure they get those words thrown at them like beads at mardi gras.
|
Doctor Penguin
Amarr Shadow Command Tenth Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:46:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Doctor Penguin on 26/03/2009 20:46:55 Just to clarify:
GS did it about 10 minutes before downtime and wardecced the individual corporations so they could not form an alliance.
CCP are remaining silent on the issue because any possible pro-BOB stance gets them flamed by every last saddo on the forum.
Nobody can seriously still be friendly to GS in their own minds. ________________________________________________
http://eve.drome.nl/CaodCleaner/ Help make CAOD readable. |
Apoctasy
The Carebear Stare
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 21:09:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Lothros Andastar BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this tbh
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |