Translation: CCP make the bad guys stop or eve will purgatory!

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.

Not at all. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we stop things like Hulkageddon or Burn Jita (some of us make a lot of money from that ).

What I AM stating is that we need to recognize when the boundary between emergent gameplay and actually destructive gameplay has been crossed and we're toeing that line. Care needs to be taken at this point to ensure we have a strong and diverse player-base that doesn't just amount to Goon Online.

The whole point of "Emergent Gameplay" is that it has an impact.

If you want events to happen, but don't want repercussions, I urge you to go check out WoW. I believe the Midsummer Fire Festival is coming up soon.

I like Goons Online.

And the more threads like this I see, so do I.

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?

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

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

Minmatar Freedom, the new stupid.

As mining is for the most part where noobs begin their Eve life...

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.

However, when a 30 mil ship can take out a 300 mil ship, something's rotten in the state of EVE.

I wrote this up after reading this article
http://www.evenews24.com/2012/05/29/goonswarm-federation-sponsors-emergent-gameplay/

Simply ask and you shall receive:


1. What about this do you perceive to be a problem for the game?

Well for me personally. I have a pretty high pressure job. Some times I just want to set down and veg a bit. Mining
hauling etc, is pretty relaxing for me. I actually enjoy it, I have been on a bit of a break from the blobs in 0.0, I'm heading back out in the next few weeks. Ok now, when I'm vegging, I get the bang bang bang, booom. then the Ha Ha Ha Haaa. Got you. Kinda spoils it for me. Know what I mean. Well I'm pretty certain this lot will never concede this simple point.

The question is this:

You used a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing.

Try again. This time, try to cover all of the following:

1. What about this do you perceive to be a problem for the game?

2. Why do you think it is a problem for the game?

3. What would you see done about it?

4. How would that benefit the game?

What you just described is a personal problem, though - a problem for *you*. Not a problem for the game.

Let me sum up how it will go.

- CCP by default do not give a crap. They don't even do it when it matters (i.e. releasing lolUI).

- Nothing will be done. The huge majority of the playerbase will not know nor care about this stuff.

- ***If*** anything will happen that hurts CCP's wallets for enough time, then they will forget about the high sandbox proclaims and just nerf it with a mammoth bat.

As a side note, the idea of "sandbox" is self-defeating in this instance. Eventually one group holds sway and begins filling in the corners of the sandbox they dislike and shrinks the sandbox to a size and shape they find favorable. Freedom limits itself in time, the idea of a true "sandbox" is impossible, for those who protest that this should be allowed to happen because of the sandbox nature of the game; there's only so much sand.

The main problem here seems to be that you fundamentally don't understand what "sandbox" means. Well, that, and you have a predilection toward nonsensical rhetoric (e.g., "freedom limits itself in time" - I'm sure that sounded very pithy in your head but it''s utterly meaningless tripe).

Another player stopping you from doing something does not make the game less of a "sandbox". On the contrary, that's the whole point of it BEING a sandbox. The ONLY way to adversely affect what makes it a "sandbox" is very policy or mechanics changes that limit what players can do. Players can't do a damn thing to harm the sandbox from inside of it.

As mining is for the most part where noobs begin their Eve life, I hope that they do not get impacted too extremely. The last thing anyone wants is new players quitting after only been playing for a month or so. Unless you really hate Eve and want it to fail that is.

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.

Or the miners could adapt and start fitting a tank.

I don't know if I can make myself more clear, perhaps using smaller words?

You have it almost entirely, you're just missing one important piece. The sandbox CAN limit itself without intervention from those who make the policies or mechanics. One group of people inside the sandbox becomes powerful enough that it starts reshaping the sandbox to a form they see most fitting, thereby limiting the "freedom" of other people.

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.

Noone is forced to use the modules that uses the moon minerals, 'nuff said.

A new rising alliance would not care about using (or not) such modules. They would not be able to compete in the economy war that after months or years of attrition could let them win.

Or the miners could adapt and start fitting a tank.

A new rising alliance would not care about using (or not) such modules. They would not be able to compete in the economy war that after months or years of attrition could let them win.

Plus, doing a 500 vs 500 fight where one side has T1 fit ships and the other T2 + command ships + proper logistics.... imbalance could happen.

A new rising alliance would not care about using (or not) such modules. They would not be able to compete in the economy war that after months or years of attrition could let them win.

Plus, doing a 500 vs 500 fight where one side has T1 fit ships and the other T2 + command ships + proper logistics.... imbalance could happen.

I love these responses.
Sadly some will actually fall for this and tank there mining ship only to find out it did absolutely nothing,
Unless the ganker is a complete fail.

IF people would just be aware and watch local then the number of ganks would go down.
However people still mine in systems where you have to scroll local so the gankers will continue to feast.
I can't really say I feel sorry for the miners that do get ganked when they don't pay attention.
However at the same time ganking a miner because someone else tells you too, now that is just as funny and pathetic as well.
Little bees is very so true, off to die at the whim of another person, and really only for their amusement at that.
I have to give Goonies credit they do know how to meta game, and get the puppies to do there job for them.

But carry on, I admit the whole thing amuses me too as I watch to see how it ends.

The problem wasn't a matter of clarity, the problem was a lack of any meaningful substance. Classic appeal to emotion, wholly bereft of any factual basis in reality.

...yeah, as I was saying, you fundamentally don't understand what "sandbox" means in this context. You might not even be capable of it.

Players limiting other players does not adversely affect "the sandbox" at all. The ability to do that is, in fact, a fundamental necessity for the sandbox to exist. Players limit the freedom of other players CONSTANTLY in EvE. There is no qualitative difference between Hulkageddon Forever and, say, a particularly rich marketeer using their wealth to corner a market, or one guy in a rifter mission busting a carebear. The only difference is quantitative - a matter of scale.

The fact that it is technically possible to accumulate enough power to have a major impact on the game world is hugely important to the nature of a sandbox game. It's also a major marketing point of Eve - pretty much every trailer they've produced, ever, has somehow incorporated this theme.

So, what, do you think they should slap an asterisk on that? What should it say?

You can dislike my choice of words all you wish, it doesn't change their degree of accuracy.

That is precisely my point. We are approaching a scale that will be truly limiting and that wont sort itself out in time.

The difference between cornering a market and setting up a situation where an entire sector of the game feels forced into a playstyle they may not have chosen is that market manipulations and other similar activities will, in the end, balance out and things will settle down. Adopting a "play our way or we'll force you out" rule then enforcing it with lethal force is not an open world and it pushes people away from EVE because it is no longer a sandbox game. It's a sandbox for one group of people and the rest of the players have to live by their rules or they don't play.

They weren't accurate. That's the problem. It was fluffly, bullshit rhetoric.

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

My point; stupid people want **** for free. If I can't fly t2, I will fly t1 like the early days. Like, when t2 production was monopolized (remember 150mil Cap Recharger II's? Remember 150mil Cov Ops Cloaking Device? Remember Absolutions? etc). And if I want to try to take space or moons from 9k+ people, then quite obviously they won't just roll over and let you have it.

There is more ways to play this game than one. But yah, it seems most don't understand that simple thing.

Translation: CCP make the bad guys stop or eve will purgatory!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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.)

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