| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
d4refiner
   |
Posted - 2011.05.07 00:44:00 -
[1]
Premise:
Given that the statement "conflict makes the game interesting" is true, the idea that attempting to use economics as a primary means to generate conflict is fallacious. The study of real world conflict is the domain of political science, which may gain information from the study of economics, but economics is rarely the big picture.
Real World Political Landscape:
In the modern real world there are very very few territorial wars. Territorial wars in the modern world tend to be called "border skirmishes" and are usually over a tiny percentage of the overall territory of a nation. Even over the past 100 years large scale territorial wars tended to leave most of the indigenous populations and infrastructure intact indicating that the wars are not to colonize a territory. Even the inherent natural value of the territory is rarely a motivator for territorial wars. Real world conflicts are usually driven by ideology (political, religious, cultural, or other human reasons.) Yes, some conflicts are to acquire a resource, though in the modern world acquiring the resource is a result of assisting the local inhabitants to achieve their ideological agendas.
Problems with game mechanics:
1) A stable government is the ideal state for it's citizens.
2) A civil war within a government (alliance) would result in a loss of all infrastructure.
3) All inhabitants of an area are property of it's government rather than being tied to the space itself regardless of government.
Problems with the anomaly nerf:
The anomaly nerf was based on the false premise that territory, because of it's value, is why wars are fought. In the real world the natural value (i.e. truesec) has nothing to do with the developed value. Consider Dubai: a country who's developed value is based primarily on trade but has very little natural wealth especially compared to it's less successful but better "truesec" neighbors. The same can be seen in other countries all over the world. Consider Alaska, an area with huge natural value, low developmental value, and no record of international conflict in the entirety of human history (with a single minor exception.)
Alternate solution to "identical space is boring" problem:
Instead of tying the ceiling of the maximum developed value to a system's natural value (which simply does not exist in the real world) a better solution would be to mirror the real world by having the cost of the developed value higher based on the natural value. A -0.01 system should require twice the effort to maintain the same index levels as a -1.0, but should still have similar developmental maximums.
Alternative conflict drivers:
Mainly, address the problems as outlined with game mechanics. Make ihubs and outposts a corp level asset and the upgrades effective independent of what alliance holds sov. Complete development of the treaties system that was previously abandoned. Make alliance-level decisions so they cannot be made unilaterally (a single person should not be able to instantly disband a 3,000 person alliance, corp and alliance funds should be more secure from theft, etc.) Make the strategic upgrades require effort to maintain, not just time (thus a ability to maintain a single jump bridge would be a valuable human asset, not a simple money asset, so the powers that be would fight for the favor of the people who actually want to live there.)
Mandate to CCP:
Hire a political scientist to help with game design. An economist is only a partial solution.
Conclusion:
I am not a political scientist by training. But I can see that EVE is not yet real. The expertise of a political scientist (i.e. someone smarter than me) can help make EVE real.
|
Amber Accelerando
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 00:48:00 -
[2]
You are so misguided - all War is about money - without exception, wake up FFS.
|
Iggy Stooge
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 01:15:00 -
[3]
My favorite part was where you said 'Even over the past 100 years large scale territorial wars tended to leave most of the indigenous populations and infrastructure intact', that was pretty funny.
|
Arnakoz
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 01:19:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Arnakoz on 07/05/2011 01:19:41
 Originally by: Amber Accelerando
You are so misguided - all War is about money - without exception, wake up FFS.
this.
edit: though i still agree that the nerf was a bad and misguided idea. just not for the reasons you've stated...
|
d4refiner
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 02:17:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Iggy Stooge
My favorite part was where you said 'Even over the past 100 years large scale territorial wars tended to leave most of the indigenous populations and infrastructure intact', that was pretty funny.
Name a single war in the past 100 where the primary purpose was to both remove the indigenous populations and acquire the natural resources of the territory.
Yes, there are war refugees. Yes there are ethnic cleansings. Yes there are wars to acquire territory. Yes, there is collateral damage. But attacking a country for oil resources is problematic if you destroy it's ability to produce oil. Large scale wars to kill the people and rule the dirt are usually ideological wars, usually tied to racism and ethnic conflict. So-called "total war" is a total myth.
Regardless of whether or not the statement is 100% true all the time (which no statement can be) the nature of EVE is that the game tries to fight human nature. Game mechanics discourage conflict when humans want conflict. The things I've talked about would allow conflict to happen in the same ways it happens in the real world, the ways humans would make it happen on their own even without moon goo rewards.
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar
The Python Cartel.
The Defenders of Pen Island
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 02:26:00 -
[6]
Originally by: d4refiner
Originally by: Iggy Stooge
My favorite part was where you said 'Even over the past 100 years large scale territorial wars tended to leave most of the indigenous populations and infrastructure intact', that was pretty funny.
Name a single war in the past 100 where the primary purpose was to both remove the indigenous populations and acquire the natural resources of the territory.
I seem to remember a country around the end of the 1930s that was trying to end a certain race of people and took over most of Europe, I think they were led by a guy with a bowl cut and a weird little mustache.
The name of the guy and the following conflict escapes me though 
Originally by: Jada Maroo
Many legitimate news stories over the past few years would not have been brought to the forefront if not for Fox News.
|
d4refiner
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 02:49:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny
Originally by: d4refiner
Originally by: Iggy Stooge
My favorite part was where you said 'Even over the past 100 years large scale territorial wars tended to leave most of the indigenous populations and infrastructure intact', that was pretty funny.
Name a single war in the past 100 where the primary purpose was to both remove the indigenous populations and acquire the natural resources of the territory.
I seem to remember a country around the end of the 1930s that was trying to end a certain race of people and took over most of Europe, I think they were led by a guy with a bowl cut and a weird little mustache.
The name of the guy and the following conflict escapes me though
He not only did not aim to remove the indigenous populations (French people kept on living in France) but the roads, factories, houses, farms, and everything else all stayed mostly intact. In fact, the infrastructures were upgraded and are still fully functional today (autobahn ftw.) Such a situation is impossible in EVE because invasion = eviction. Eviction = scorched earth (any infrastructure upgrades are automatically destroyed.)
|
Mortania
Minmatar
No Compromise
Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 04:24:00 -
[8]
Originally by: d4refiner
Name a single war in the past 100 where the primary purpose was to both remove the indigenous populations and acquire the natural resources of the territory.
Bosnia
Rwanda
Darfur
I did have to go back almost 20 years to get those 3.
|
Aiwha
Caldari
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 04:38:00 -
[9]
NC alt thread detected.
I can't heal stupid
|
d4refiner
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 04:46:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Mortania
Originally by: d4refiner
Name a single war in the past 100 where the primary purpose was to both remove the indigenous populations and acquire the natural resources of the territory.
Bosnia
Rwanda
Darfur
I did have to go back almost 20 years to get those 3.
I thought of those. As far as I was aware, those were all ethnic cleansings and not strategic wars to acquire resources. As far as I understand, in all 3 cases they were more of a 'civil war' type of conflict (very impractical in EVE.) And even assuming I'm wrong on actual motivations for those wars, the fact that right now the only possibility in EVE is a slash and burn, total war, ethnic cleansing type of war, with little room or motivation for a "conquer the people" type of war that is much more common in the real world.
Well, let's throw a question out there... would an incentive and a better mechanic for a 'conquer the people, not the territory' style of warfare be more fun? Would it mean more or less conflict in 0.0? How would the long-term nature of any specific conflict be different if you "won" the people who live in the space you conquered?
|
|
|
Officer Icecream Truck
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 05:24:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Aiwha
NC alt thread detected.
They need something to do while they wait to die in TVN.
|
Sticky Nikki
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 05:25:00 -
[12]
null
|
Spurty
Caldari
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 05:41:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Spurty on 07/05/2011 05:43:01
Disagreeing with you.
Way too early to make such statements.
Review again in18months
If in 18 months;
- there exists naps across 2/3 of the map
- no more wars are fought, the aggressor can walk right in and take sovereignty
- numbers of titans and super caps increasing far faster than they are being lost
- no one can afford to pvp any more in anything bigger than a rifter
Then and only then can you draw any conclusions (social, economic or political).
All I see now is people knowing they suddenly have to travel somewhere and fight (sod me, really? Please check again) for access to juicy anomalies crying because they neither wish to travel and especially don't want to fight.
Just leave the game please. It's more fun without you at this time.
Fizzt!
|
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 05:48:00 -
[14]
NC tears, de+li+cious!
|
Kiandoshia
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 06:04:00 -
[15]
Originally by: d4refiner
Originally by: Iggy Stooge
My favorite part was where you said 'Even over the past 100 years large scale territorial wars tended to leave most of the indigenous populations and infrastructure intact', that was pretty funny.
Name a single war in the past 100 where the primary purpose was to both remove the indigenous populations and acquire the natural resources of the territory.
The beginning of the Second World War was such a war even though it was sold as a revenge act.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 06:06:00 -
[16]
War are economic. Has been since the 16th century when the last monarchies decided that spending millions to avenge one slight or another was inefficient.
Wars are economic. They are often sold as great ideological struggles to the public, goes down easier than "my buddy from the club needs a government contract" (exaggerated for effect).
Hell, even the great wars to halt communist expansion (Korea/Vietnam) were largely attempts of area denial, to secure trade routes and various naval/air bases in the area.
Keep sipping the Kool-aid. Does wonders for the complexion, or so I hear.
PS: Removal of the indigenous population makes no sense as you need a work force, even the barbarian Mongol horde knew that.
The only times it has been done/used as a tactic was in NA by the fledgling US (Spanish genocide of Inca/Aztec was 'accidental', gotta love the pox and VD).
|
Sofa Raddis
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 06:10:00 -
[17]
Starting your thread with such a claim is no way to get people on topic.
More often than not, cultural, religious and ideological reasoning are a smokescreen to cover the underlying economic motives
in order to legitimize the conflict to the populace and fighting forces, it also serves as a galvanizer.
It's initiated by the ones who see through the smoke and fought by the ones who don't. You could make a claim that the
sources of this retoric are profiteers, but the truth everyone is, they just don't want to know.
Yes I haz edumacation.
|
sappy mcsap
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 06:10:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Amber Accelerando
You are so misguided - all War is about money - without exception, wake up FFS.
not in eve it isn't
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 06:10:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 07/05/2011 06:10:48
War are economic. Has been since the 16th century when the last monarchies decided that spending millions to avenge one slight or another was inefficient.
Wars are economic. They are often sold as great ideological struggles to the public, goes down easier than "my buddy from the club needs a government contract" (exaggerated for effect).
Hell, even the great wars to halt communist expansion (Korea/Vietnam) were largely attempts of area denial, to secure trade routes and various naval/air bases in the area.
Keep sipping the Kool-aid. Does wonders for the complexion, or so I hear.
PS: Removal of the indigenous population makes no sense as you need a work force, even the barbarian Mongol horde knew that.
The only times it has been done/used as a tactic was in NA by the fledgling US (Spanish genocide of Inca/Aztec was 'accidental', gotta love the pox and VD).
Originally by: Kiandoshia
The beginning of the Second World War was such a war even though it was sold as a revenge act.
'Lebensraum'. Pure expansion, a way to get out of the Versailles treaty and eliminating the effects of economic crash in '29. The whole genocidal maniac bit didn't come until the latter half of the war ...
|
sappy mcsap
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 06:19:00 -
[20]
protip: Nobody cares about how it's done IRL as compared to eve. It's not a good comparison/analogy/parallel.
|
|
|
Sofa Raddis
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 06:24:00 -
[21]
But very funny.
|
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 08:50:00 -
[22]
Originally by: d4refiner
He not only did not aim to remove the indigenous populations (French people kept on living in France) but the roads, factories, houses, farms, and everything else all stayed mostly intact. In fact, the infrastructures were upgraded and are still fully functional today (autobahn ftw.) Such a situation is impossible in EVE because invasion = eviction. Eviction = scorched earth (any infrastructure upgrades are automatically destroyed.)
|
knobber Jobbler
Executive Intervention
Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 08:57:00 -
[23]
Originally by: d4refiner
Originally by: Iggy Stooge
My favorite part was where you said 'Even over the past 100 years large scale territorial wars tended to leave most of the indigenous populations and infrastructure intact', that was pretty funny.
Name a single war in the past 100 where the primary purpose was to both remove the indigenous populations and acquire the natural resources of the territory.
The German attack on the ussr. ****** stated from 1926 that Germans needed more living space and slavs were nothing more than animals to be worked to death and replaced by Germans. He later went on to actually force there removal by extermination or starvation. Read his rather famous book. It's dry and tedious but ******'s war in the east was all about resources and living space. Large areas of Poland also suffered this same fate.
Japan also forced migration in some areas and the whole reason they went to war was control of resources which the white man had control over. One of there goals was to create a economic area they controlled.
You could also argue darfur was all about resources and forcing the local population out by starvation and civil war.
|
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 08:59:00 -
[24]
RL analogies with Eve are always a good idea.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar
Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax
Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Legio Geminatus
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 09:31:00 -
[25]
@OP: This is what your post looks like to me
Title: making the game interesting = nerf because I can't cope and I get pushed around by those who can
Body: lots and lots of babble about how I'm right and you're presumably wrong and I know what I'm talking about because I can quote facts that are so far withdrawn from the topic that I can use them to control the discussion since only I know how to interpret them into the meaning I'm trying to get across and I can then make people feel stupid for not understanding this stuff that nobody really understands and also I used a lot more periods than this in the text but my thinking was still a big run-on sentence.
List: My opinion that I state as fact:
1.) vague term that's probably true but kinda goes without saying and has no relevance but to subconsciously slander my opponent (whoever that is) Fox News-style.
2.) claim that the occurrence of a vague and only partially defined state in ANY form will always result in an absolute outcome.
3.) debatable, but see item #1.
Body paragraph 3:
Relating a flawed opinion of in-game stuff to a flawed understanding of real world stuff; clearly demonstrating a lack of awareness of Dubai's natural resources, such as underground oil, location perfect for shipping and defense, and probably other things that [Reaver Glitterstim] does not know about. Also pointing out that a particular underdeveloped place with high natural resources (oil) is untouched by war, forgetting stuff like location and sovereignty holder and stuff like that.
My solution to the non-existant problem that I perceive to exist through my limited and close-minded view:
>> List good idea that would also work, though not as well. I don't understand why this wouldn't work as well because I don't understand the monetary systems of nullsec space.
Alternative CONFLICT DRIVERS:
Do carebear stuff and make it harder to yarr. Make stuff cost money to maintain. (sure? honestly, [Reaver Glitterstim] does not have an answer to that point...)
MANDATE to CCP, cause I'm TELLING you guys what to do, I'm not asking!!
Since my flawed, close-minded, uneducated view clashes with your view, you obviously don't have a single political scientist working with you.
--
P.S., Reaver Glitterstim here. I wanted to throw in something else for CCP. You guys obviously don't have any astrophysicists working on your team because your star systems...accurate as they are...well how can I say this. Look, I'll just tell it to you straight. Your planets are static and your stars are rendered to bright. There, I said it. Got some work to do before this game breaks out and becomes a real universe!
--
Thousand Papercuts Project |
Grimpak
Gallente
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 11:19:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Mag's
RL analogies with Eve are always a good idea.
---
Quote:
The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
Burnharder
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 11:32:00 -
[27]
Originally by: d4refiner
He not only did not aim to remove the indigenous populations (French people kept on living in France) but the roads, factories, houses, farms, and everything else all stayed mostly intact. In fact, the infrastructures were upgraded and are still fully functional today (autobahn ftw.) Such a situation is impossible in EVE because invasion = eviction. Eviction = scorched earth (any infrastructure upgrades are automatically destroyed.)
How ignorant is it possible for one person to be? German hegemony in the West, "living space" in the East - that involved erasing cities, culture and most of the inhabitants; the remainder being used as slave labour. One of his final acts was to issue an order that all infrastructure across Germany be destroyed (that Speer managed to countermand).
|
Barry Buttplug
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 11:34:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Amber Accelerando
You are so misguided - all War is about money - without exception, wake up FFS.
confirming some wars are about power, not all peene is made up of dollarrs... some is made up of jealousy, some war is made up of foolish dim witted americans, some wars are full of eugenics obsessed moustache speed freaks... some wars is even made up of nothing.... in fact that primarily the case....
and then there's religious wars, wars out of misguided dreams of world peace through explosive people and suitcases... although 75% of these and 100% of these in the west are made up of things form he prior list....
now, go to bed and don't get up until I say, as you are clearly not educated enough to be able to get away with speaking... IO have forth wifff,assumed all responsibility for you... this is legislation drawn up by myself, as u have no say in the EU becasue the queen gave away (yes the queen the queen did...of england) all your powers and rights to some1 like me to meddle with as I see fit.. all my committee agrees too... u are my serf now.. if u dont like it.. start a war.. u big ***** dandy... <-- example of the next war
stupid troll.. never talk again
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 12:01:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Ghoest on 07/05/2011 12:06:16
Edited by: Ghoest on 07/05/2011 12:05:28
Originally by: d4refiner
Name a single war in the past 100 where the primary purpose was to both remove the indigenous populations and acquire the natural resources of the territory.
the dirt are usually ideological wars, usually tied to racism and ethnic conflict. So-called "total war" is a total myth.
Are you really this clueless with respect to history?
Look at the the Japanses did in the Pacific. Their original motivations in that war was a resource grab of rubber production and oil(they didnt have vulcanization.) But they also tried to build an Empires and destroy positions they enemies could operate from.
It was the definition of total war. They were very destructive and and killed a large number of citizens - Korea and China are still resentful 70 years later.
EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Sofa Raddis
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 13:25:00 -
[30]
Originally by: d4refiner
He not only did not aim to remove the indigenous populations (French people kept on living in France) but the roads, factories, houses, farms, and everything else all stayed mostly intact. In fact, the infrastructures were upgraded and are still fully functional today (autobahn ftw.) Such a situation is impossible in EVE because invasion = eviction. Eviction = scorched earth (any infrastructure upgrades are automatically destroyed.)
This kind of ignorance makes me want to laugh and\or pull a whitman. I know it does exists, but still I wonder.
Troll? In that case I give it a 10!
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |