Wednesday, August 19, 2015

In Which I Mix My Parables

During our soundboard about structures for a moment we wandered into the topic of small groups attacking larger groups. For a moment I thought of the well worn example of David and Goliath. However, I didn't like it. It did not feel particularly creative. Also, as I spun the topic around I saw that the analogy didn't fit. David after all killed Goliath against the odds and I wasn't thinking about the simple formula of small group taking out larger as if it is a divine right.

My thoughts revolved around the small groups having the ability to bite chunks out of the large ones. To use the strengths of small numbers to make an impact. During my time in Molden Heath this often happened. I enjoyed it more than I enjoyed fighting draws with familiar locals. It was often frightening. I regularly had to take a deep breath and tell myself that not even the loss of every ship in my hangar would make me back down.

Defiance has an appeal to me that few other things do. I don't want to own space. I'm not competitive by nature. I'm not territorial. Insulting me in local tends to leave me puzzled. Do they mean it? It doesn't even make any sense. But it is defiance that keeps me running. It may be screaming into the darkness or whistling into the wind but it is an aspect of Eve that I very much enjoy.

Of course, I've kind of said that my favorite way to play is to be a torn in someones side for the sake of being there. It is why David and Goliath miss the mark. The goal is not to topple and replace and then maintain the throne. For many that means content and it brings content as well as tangible goal points. But, in this game of dreams and created pathways there is just a daily life to enjoy.

My thoughts have wandered away from its birth spot in the discussion of how smaller groups take out larger structures, or at least have an opportunity to attack them. That is an opportunity that is decreased depending on how structures have programmable vulnerability windows.

The question was raised, should the little guy be able to take out the bigger group? I don't think the game should be set up to be David and Goliath. I do want to continue being able to take that bleeding hunk out of the big guys calf.

I don't know why. It is just how I like to play. I don't desire to be the best or most notorious. I have no draw to kill boards or fame. I just want to putter through space, defend myself when I need to and attack if i want to. In many ways I enjoy not having a reason other than not having a reason.

I'm pretty sure when i first sketched this out I had a different thought in my mind. Ah well. Self discovery is useful.




13 comments:

  1. I exist. That very existence thwarts you. You alone will not define success. I will not be extinguished.

    Wonderful word . . . Defiance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Considering that all EVE's "Davids" just want to grow up to be the "Goliath" I think it fits perfectly. I have yet to see anyone who shouts out I am "David" aspiring to anything new or different. They all just wind up getting absorbed into the status quo and at best just become another cog in the machine and at the worst (most cases) failscade into history. So the question remains why do you want to take that *insert the hearts desire here* away from the one who already owns it? If you succeed it will be way more work than you ever thought it would be and then it will be way more work keeping it than you ever thought it would be, seems like a pointless goal to me. I have found that I continue to enjoy EVE for the contacts I make the, the people I fly with, and once again as Turamarth always says "Flying in Space" omg that and so much more that.
    Sly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sly,

      Did you not read the post? In this post Sugar explores in wonderful detail exactly how it is she doesn’t aspire to be David precisely because she isn’t motivated to defeat and replace Goliath. Responding that ‘David vs Goliath’ is great fit for those people actually claiming David status is a vacuous ‘It applies when it applies’ statement.

      Sugar’s lived existence, and yours too it would seem, stand in stark contrast to the supposedly sweeping applicability of ‘David vs Goliath’. This doesn’t mean ‘David vs Goliath’ is always wrong, it merely means ‘David vs Goliath’ is not always right.

      Delete
  3. The sounding board missed the mark in that it approached the citadel feature as if it existed only as a means to put your stuff at risk. For a lot of people evictions are not the central feature of the game and they dont want it to be. Those interests were not heard which is rather curious. Nobody said, but I just want to login to do something else and would prefer to not lose all my stuff. I think the average wormhole resident needs more asset safety not less as they really just want to do their roaming, pve, industry, exploring or whatever else and the losing everything is, a blow which will take them off plan for months. The giant groups will form non-invasion pacts with other giant groups to secure their own asset safety but that is not an option for the small. If we want the space and by extension the game to thrive we need to put in place protections for the small rather than vulnerabilities. The citadel system seems like it will offer less protection than the current system as the hit point walls which currently exist make sieging unattractive and the entosis system does away with that. We have a new variation on malcanis law, what was proposed as good for small groups is clearly going to work out to the overwhelming advantage of the large.

    Also, it was never asked why it is important that a nullsecercwho leaves the game for 3 weeks to go on vacation or whatever comes back to still have his stuff albiet in a different location and with a fee, butvthe wormholer should lose everything. I think if examined deeply it would be found that thecsame asset safety is needed for all the same reasons. That voice was not heard either.

    For me, I just want to roam space from my secret wormhole lair and I need the feature to protect my and my teams stuff so that can be what we do. An eviction would not just deny the ability to do that for the weekend, it would take that away for months as the isk would have to be ground out, ships repurchased and moved one at a time and infrastructure rebuilt. I want to have hangers filled with many ships to pick from for the sake of variety yet the lack of safety encourages a minimalist selection. The focus of the discussion missed the mark in so many ways.

    - Kynric

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree. It sounds an awful lot like you're looking for the safety of a station with the benefits of wormhole space, and that just isn't how w-space works.

      If you currently live in a POS, you already have the risk that people want with the citadel system. In my opinion, in addition to wormholes having regular risk, all citadels should have risk. Having some magical fairy some and save all your stuff when your citadel is blown to pieces makes zero sense.

      I do think however that it shouldn't be as simple as a single frigate showing up and blowing up your multi-million dollar citadel. You gain passive defense from the fact that your POS defends itself and it requires a relatively large commitment to take down, plus a reinforcement timer that would require the attackers to stick around for 36 more hours.

      This has been a point of contention and I think CCP (and the CSM) need to think about this carefully. Should a single interceptor be able to take down a whole citadel? I'm a strong believer in the fact that citadels should defend themselves automatically, requiring the attackers to commit in order to carry through with the attack.

      I had an alt living in a low class wormhole and the large tower with all of its defenses provided enough of a deterrent to prevent people from trying to remove my tower. It is possible, however, that someone could have done it while I was away on vacation and there's nothing I could have done to stop it. This is the downside to playing by yourself, but I don't have a problem with it. I considered all my assets lost when I brought them in.

      Delete
    2. To Kynric.

      At the risk of seeming insincere, those who turn up, take part. As a person who turned up, I took part. If you want your voice to be heard directly by CCP devs, you have to be in the room. Now, it could be that your timezone wasn't favoured by the timing of the soundboard, and in that case I'm sorry.

      However, if not, please don't leave leading comments that imply malice or negligence on the part of the Attendees. This sound board was a gigantic success, and saying that it wasn't disregards the hard work of Sugar, Corbexx and Mike in making it so.

      Yes, it has gone down as a 'wormhole' soundboard, and there were a significant majority of wormholers there. But I did my part for kspace. Mike is perhaps arranging a highsec citadel roundtable, so if you have comments on kspace, ask if that is happening.

      I leave thoughts on the philosophy or ethics of wormhole space to those who live there. I'll only say that CCP doesn't intent to cause drastic mechanics changes to wormhole space, and judging by CCP Nullabor 's comments, would intact prefer if wormhole space was basically unchanged.

      Rob K.

      Delete
    3. I work during the day and was unable to attend the sound board. It is not anyones fault who attended or not but it should be part of the lens theough which the discussion was observed that only one play style or type of wormhole resident was represented.

      While the intent may be to not change things the entosis system is in fact a huge change. Currently the large hp buffer which isultiplies by the number of towers forces a significant extended comottment on the attacker. The entosis does not as multiple towers can be entossised simultaneously in a way that they can not curently be simultaneously reinforced due to the lower manpower (just one pilot needed) to entosis. The current hp walls make for a commitment that keeps the activity at bay on a way that the new system will not.

      In the past I participated in many system evictions as aember corp in Talocan and then later as mercs. I van tell you from experience that those evictions were not the epic content that we remember or telll stories about. In nearly every case the attacker brought far more than enough to assure that the defender had no chance at all. If the attacker was unable to organize that the attack simply did not happen. Yes as mercs we could and did break sieges but it was often hollow victory for those we protected as they would simply be evicted a few weeks later after we were gone. All in all it is bad game play that gets in the way of doing good things in game. I want space filled with ships to shoot and people to feel safe enough to live in a dangerous environment where fights can happen. Evictions deplete the pond we would be smart to be stocking.

      I want to feel like I can keep an extra vargyr or golem around even though it rarely gets used rather than feeling I need to leave it in station to reduce the risk. Chances are those that want focus on evictions want to see that stuff also if only to gank it but they wont because the mechanoc makes it foolish to keep excess expensive ships in the hanger. I want to logout at the end of the night without spending 10 minutes scooping ships and supplies to be logged out and I want to login without needing to unpack before I can start playing the game. Asset safety could grow a vibrant busy space or the lack of it a barren emptiness. We need the citadels to support a happy day to day life where people feel safe enough to yolo rather than defaulting to risk averse behavior. It is one thing to yolo a ship, quite another to yolo all of them. We really do need people to live in the space and the current proposal will discourage that as the proposed risk is much greater than will be experienced in other places within the game.

      - Kynric

      Delete
    4. "...secret wormhole lair and I need the feature to protect my and my teams stuff so that can be what we do.

      Can't have the ISK and open PVP of hole's without risk my friend. Don't wanna risk that backup Golem? DOn't jump the hole with it... it's really that simple.

      "Do not anchor what you cannot afford to lose."

      Delete
    5. I am not in wormholes for isk. Tske all the sleepers from wormholes for all I care they are tge least interesting facet. I want to risk the golem I am flying but do not want to also risk ships I am not flying. The point is when the risk is high it results in less being put at risk. We are focusing so much on taking stuff in towers that it will result in less stuff to shoot flying in space. I want people to have fat hangers full of ships to shoot.

      I cantvtell you how often someone asks for a 3v3 in t1 frigs or battlecruisers or some other random comp only to hear either from my or the other pilots that they do not have the ships. So its that or nothing and we get nothing. Make tge hanger safe so they will be more likely to have the ships. If we treasure the flying ships in space way more than invading, and I think most do, we should encourage a system that promotes it.

      We need a macro view. The choices we make regarding invasions which is a tiny part of the big picture, are resulting in a less interesting day to day life.

      Quite often in invasions the othercsidecwont risk putting a pilot at risk for pew because tgat pilot is needed to logoff the valuables. This will be no different. You want the pilot to fight but he wont because he will have to pick between a probable loss (you would not have invadedif the othercside would likely win) and keeping a ship full of stuff. If the fight is valued then we need to make the valuables safe so the pilot will yolo. Otherwise the stuff logs off and neither a fight nor loot is had. Against a smart foe you will only get the large volume/low value stuff and the actual structures so why not concede that in the interest of a fight as well as a thriving environment with more people and ships in it.

      - Kynric

      Delete
  4. I work during the day and was unable to attend the sound board. It is not anyones fault who attended or not but it should be part of the lens theough which the discussion was observed that only one play style or type of wormhole resident was represented.

    While the intent may be to not change things the entosis system is in fact a huge change. Currently the large hp buffer which isultiplies by the number of towers forces a significant extended comottment on the attacker. The entosis does not as multiple towers can be entossised simultaneously in a way that they can not curently be simultaneously reinforced due to the lower manpower (just one pilot needed) to entosis. The current hp walls make for a commitment that keeps the activity at bay on a way that the new system will not.

    In the past I participated in many system evictions as aember corp in Talocan and then later as mercs. I van tell you from experience that those evictions were not the epic content that we remember or telll stories about. In nearly every case the attacker brought far more than enough to assure that the defender had no chance at all. If the attacker was unable to organize that the attack simply did not happen. Yes as mercs we could and did break sieges but it was often hollow victory for those we protected as they would simply be evicted a few weeks later after we were gone. All in all it is bad game play that gets in the way of doing good things in game. I want space filled with ships to shoot and people to feel safe enough to live in a dangerous environment where fights can happen. Evictions deplete the pond we would be smart to be stocking.

    I want to feel like I can keep an extra vargyr or golem around even though it rarely gets used rather than feeling I need to leave it in station to reduce the risk. Chances are those that want focus on evictions want to see that stuff also if only to gank it but they wont because the mechanoc makes it foolish to keep excess expensive ships in the hanger. I want to logout at the end of the night without spending 10 minutes scooping ships and supplies to be logged out and I want to login without needing to unpack before I can start playing the game. Asset safety could grow a vibrant busy space or the lack of it a barren emptiness. We need the citadels to support a happy day to day life where people feel safe enough to yolo rather than defaulting to risk averse behavior. It is one thing to yolo a ship, quite another to yolo all of them. We really do need people to live in the space and the current proposal will discourage that as the proposed risk is much greater than will be experienced in other places within the game.

    - Kynric

    ReplyDelete
  5. I only see one thing that needs to get adjusted, and that's interbus's travel times. The lengthy delay could mean someone not logging in for a week after a loss... This same thing happens during wardecs and we've all heard stories of people just not coming back.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Come back to Molden Heath, Tso's will take you. Small gang warfare and gf's all around. No trash in local and we have the best Chicken in Space.

    V/R,
    Kaphine

    ReplyDelete
  7. David had God on his side. Wait, maybe that's what we need. A God release. Only he can help the proverbial little guy.

    ReplyDelete