These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The fight between PvPers and carebears really is the carebears' fault.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#221 - 2013-05-17 14:27:44 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:


Now, I know you are going to want to hide behind "Well, that's real life and this is just a game.", but that argument cuts both ways. If it's just a game, then don't blow up other peoples' internet spaceships (or mine internet space rocks or acquire internet space gold, etc.). Afterall, blowing up other peoples' internet spaceships has no meaning and no value in reality, so you lose nothing by abstaining. Right?

Or, maybe the truth is that it is actually fun to blow up other peoples' internet spaceships, but that very real "thrill of victory" comes at the very real cost of someone else's "agony of defeat". Not everyone has the same ability to cope with loss, and not everyone experiences the same amount of loss, not even from losing the exact same thing. Maybe the truth is that losers aren't the only ones who can be poor sports, and sometimes, the winners try to enhance their victory by gloating or trivializing the other person's loss while at the same time reveling in their own "gain". Despite all the big words you are using, the gist of what you are saying still seems to be, "They shouldn't be sad. It's their fault. They consented to the game. They're wrong for feeling anything about this trivial game. And, WOOHOO!!!! WE BLEW UP THEIR SPACESHIPS! YEAH! THAT WAS FUN!".



You miss the point here as I understand it (Shao Huang can speak for himself of course). No one so far has said that losses shouldn't hurt and wins shouldn't feel good. No matter what happens, it IS just a game (I call it a hobby) and if you can't stand losing, the problem isn't the game it's the player's over-sensitivity to losing.


To throw out some imaginary numbers, 1% of the OP's (and people like that) problem is the actual game, the other 99% is the OPs personality, wants/needs and weaknesses. It's like that for EVERY, even me. The difference is i recognize that and reform self before considering something to be "wrong with the game " (or, in the OPs case "wrong with the players").


Quote:

Maybe the truth is that by not undocking their ships, the carebears are actually winning, so, like a good meta-gamer, you are attacking their underlying reasons for staying docked, so that they'll do what you want them to do, which is undock their ships and feed you easy kills.


I wish i could understand the comfort people like you draw from thinking this nonsense, but the truth is I will never be able to understand. i'll simply say that you and people like you are generally wrong about PVP types but can't see it because you're trapped by your own narrow perspective.

I'm not a pro-PVP type, but I understand "play to win" and "tear extractor" guys (most PVP junkies are like that), i understand that they are at the haeart of the game, the driving force around which all other things (like my exploring activities) revolve, whereas Tarawa dislikes them because he thinks they are bullies spoiling for easy kills of non-combatants.

Every kill in EVE online (unlike in real life) is a good thing because it churns the economic cycle, so WHY it happens is unimportant.
Zaxix
State War Academy
Caldari State
#222 - 2013-05-17 15:55:44 UTC
There is no fight. There isn't even such a thing as these two groups. Almost no one fits the purist defintions of one or the other. This is just another thread in an endless stream of people talking right past each other.

Would you all please shut up and play?

Bokononist

 
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#223 - 2013-05-17 16:32:23 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
Andski wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Sure, there are some stupid mechanics, like having to change corps to get out of a war dec. it would be nice if there were a way to get out of a war dec without changing corps... but that isn't making high sec safer, since I can already change corps to get out of a war dec.... it would just make getting out of a war dec a little less of a hassle.


this is basically carebearism at its finest: you don't want your choices to bring you the slightest bit of inconvenience


Inconvenience? It doesnt get any easier to kill a miner/Indy pilot that isint trained fit or shipped for pvp.

Why is it that any time a carebare uses game mechanics to avoid pvp people scream for change while those same people can exploit broken game mechanics to gain an advantage to kill an opponent already at the disadvantage, its working as intended nothing to fix or part of the sand box?

It’s nothing but hypocrisy at its best and classic NIMBY


What broken mechanics?

Also there is a difference between ganking an untanked ship not flown by a terrible pilot and being 100% untouchable to the wardec system simply by pushing a button.
Moth Eisig
#224 - 2013-05-17 16:54:30 UTC
People who aren't playing EVE to fight other players complain because they're still too vulnerable.

People who want to spend their time shooting players that can't (effectively) shoot back complain because they're not being spoon fed enough.

Sounds like balance to me. Because the wishes of these groups are complete opposites, CCP can't move too far in either direction while maintaining EVE's dedication to rewarding effort and imposing consequences. Take away miners'/indies' defenses and ganking them requires no effort and has no consequences. That's not what EVE's about. Making it impossible to profit from ganking isn't what EVE's about either.

Because the game's so big and encompasses so many activities there will always be something for people to cry about, and it's the criers on both sides that are the real problem, not the game mechanics.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#225 - 2013-05-17 16:59:43 UTC
Moth Eisig wrote:
People who aren't playing EVE to fight other players complain because they're still too vulnerable.

People who want to spend their time shooting players that can't (effectively) shoot back complain because they're not being spoon fed enough.

Sounds like balance to me. Because the wishes of these groups are complete opposites, CCP can't move too far in either direction while maintaining EVE's dedication to rewarding effort and imposing consequences. Take away miners'/indies' defenses and ganking them requires no effort and has no consequences. That's not what EVE's about. Making it impossible to profit from ganking isn't what EVE's about either.

Because the game's so big and encompasses so many activities there will always be something for people to cry about, and it's the criers on both sides that are the real problem, not the game mechanics.


What is balanced about wardecs being broken to the point that you can invalidate it 1 second into the wardec just py pushing a button?
Moth Eisig
#226 - 2013-05-17 17:05:45 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Moth Eisig wrote:
People who aren't playing EVE to fight other players complain because they're still too vulnerable.

People who want to spend their time shooting players that can't (effectively) shoot back complain because they're not being spoon fed enough.

Sounds like balance to me. Because the wishes of these groups are complete opposites, CCP can't move too far in either direction while maintaining EVE's dedication to rewarding effort and imposing consequences. Take away miners'/indies' defenses and ganking them requires no effort and has no consequences. That's not what EVE's about. Making it impossible to profit from ganking isn't what EVE's about either.

Because the game's so big and encompasses so many activities there will always be something for people to cry about, and it's the criers on both sides that are the real problem, not the game mechanics.


What is balanced about wardecs being broken to the point that you can invalidate it 1 second into the wardec just py pushing a button?


Wardecs are just broken. Ganking miners/missioners is balanced.

You make it sound like wardecs are the only way to go shoot people.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#227 - 2013-05-17 17:07:58 UTC
Moth Eisig wrote:


Wardecs are just broken. Ganking miners/missioners is balanced.

You make it sound like wardecs are the only way to go shoot people.


Its the only legal way to shoot peopleBlink
Moth Eisig
#228 - 2013-05-17 17:08:55 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Moth Eisig wrote:


Wardecs are just broken. Ganking miners/missioners is balanced.

You make it sound like wardecs are the only way to go shoot people.


Its the only legal way to shoot peopleBlink


You mean the only way to do it in hisec without risk or consequences Blink
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#229 - 2013-05-17 17:11:01 UTC
Moth Eisig wrote:


You mean the only way to do it in hisec without risk or consequences Blink


Oh theres plenty of risk and concequence. The last corp to attack my research tower ended up getting whacked by a dickstar and flights of cheap yet deadly caracals.

I mean exatly what I say, its the only legal way.
Lady Areola Fappington
#230 - 2013-05-17 17:11:20 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Moth Eisig wrote:
People who aren't playing EVE to fight other players complain because they're still too vulnerable.

People who want to spend their time shooting players that can't (effectively) shoot back complain because they're not being spoon fed enough.

Sounds like balance to me. Because the wishes of these groups are complete opposites, CCP can't move too far in either direction while maintaining EVE's dedication to rewarding effort and imposing consequences. Take away miners'/indies' defenses and ganking them requires no effort and has no consequences. That's not what EVE's about. Making it impossible to profit from ganking isn't what EVE's about either.

Because the game's so big and encompasses so many activities there will always be something for people to cry about, and it's the criers on both sides that are the real problem, not the game mechanics.


What is balanced about wardecs being broken to the point that you can invalidate it 1 second into the wardec just py pushing a button?



I'm of a mixed opinion about the whole thing. Sure, you should be able to drop corp to dodge wars, but there should be a consequence. Perhaps an ISK fee in proportion to however much the war dec cost.


CEO's and Directors don't get to drop corp/roles though. You take the responsibility of running a corp, you take the consequences.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Ari Laveran
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#231 - 2013-05-17 17:12:32 UTC
This reminds me of a story.

Please excuse my wall of text but there is a point in here somewhere.

Historians tell of the mighty emperor Darius, who led his troops
into the steppes with the intention of subduing the Scythians and
adding their territory to his empire. The Scythians were a nomadic
people, and when they learned that Darius’ forces were to descend
upon them, they broke camp and began a slow retreat. They moved
at such a speed that though Darius’ armies could always descry
them on the horizon, they were never able to close in. For days they
fled ahead of the invaders—then weeks, months, leaving all the
food in their wake destroyed and all the water poisoned; they led the
intruding armies in circles, into the lands of neighboring peoples
who attacked them, through unbroken deserts where gaunt vultures
licked bleached bones. The proud warriors, accustomed to flaunting
their bravado in swift, dramatic clashes, were in despair. Darius sent
a message with his fastest courier, who was barely able to deliver it
to the laziest straggler of the Scythian flank: “As your ruler,” it read,
“I order you to turn and fight!”
“If you are our ruler,” came the reply, scratched carelessly into a
rock face they came upon the next day, “go weep.”
Days later, after they had given up all hope, the scouts made out
a line of Scythian horsemen charging forward across the plain. They
were waving their swords excitedly and letting out great whoops
of enthusiasm. Caught unprepared but relieved at the prospect of
doing battle at last, the warriors took up their arms—only to discern,
in confusion, that the Scythians were not charging their lines, but
somewhat to the side of them. Looking closer, they made out that
the horsemen were pursuing a rabbit. Upon this humiliation, the
soldiers threatened mutiny, and Darius was forced to turn back and
leave Scythia in defeat. Thus the Scythians entered history as the
most unconquerable of clans by refusing to do battle.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#232 - 2013-05-17 17:14:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Moth Eisig wrote:
People who aren't playing EVE to fight other players complain because they're still too vulnerable.

People who want to spend their time shooting players that can't (effectively) shoot back complain because they're not being spoon fed enough.



Why you choose to make the EXACT same mistake as the OP is kind of beyond me. Lots of people have concerns about these issues that don't want to blow anyone up. My for instance, I'm not trying to kill any of those "People who aren't playing EVE to fight other players" I'm trying to make the (EVE) worlds a better place by killing as many Red Xs in complexes as i can (it's not my fault that they keep respawning, now is it?).

But I also think that danger and consequences and destruction and social interaction HAVE to be a part of a game like this or the game stops working. Some people (like the OP) PROFIT on all the danger and consequences and destruction going on (LHA Tarawa isn't selling beans to farmers, he's selling GUNs and modules to the very PVPrs he can't stand) but feel like it's ok that the game gives them silly crutches to hide from the same consequences they are supporting.


In the last 12 months i've lost a Vindicator to an Awoxing, a Machariel in a complex (couldn't get out in time, scrammed by too many npcs), and a Rattlesnake to a Blood Raider Naval Shipyard when everyone (including our logi.....i'm starting to suspect stealth awoxxing....hmmmmm) DC'd but me lol. I HATED it. But I know it was part of the game, and good for the game if not at all great for me.

Which is the TRUE difference between the two camps. Some people really think that is something is bad for them it's bad for the game. The more rational among us understand that while something might be bad for us, it could be good for the community as a whole. The people who built my next Vindicator, Mach and 'Snake should understand they benefited from my folly.

It's not "PVPrs vs innocent friendly non-threatening carebears", it's real EVE players (some of whom are PVPrs, some liek me who are not) who accept consequences of their choices and like EVE Online for the cold harsh mistress it is vs fake EVE players who want the game to hold their hands while the profit on people who PVP (which is what EVERY miner, trader, Hauler, mission runner etc etc does).
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#233 - 2013-05-17 17:14:59 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:



I'm of a mixed opinion about the whole thing. Sure, you should be able to drop corp to dodge wars, but there should be a consequence. Perhaps an ISK fee in proportion to however much the war dec cost.


CEO's and Directors don't get to drop corp/roles though. You take the responsibility of running a corp, you take the consequences.


I said this in another thread

Quote:
I would rather see restrictions on NPC corps, things like 15-20% tax on all bounties, mineral refining, sales, manufacturing jobs, research times/cost ect. Also higher charges for station services. That way players have a very good reason to go into a player corp.

If you leave said corp when under a wardec then you are punished by having the above taxes imposed upon you for however long was left on the wardec (max time = a week). I would also have corps keep the wardec for the whole week no matter what they do. That way they cant just scrape off a wardec and make their tower invincible.
Moth Eisig
#234 - 2013-05-17 17:21:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Moth Eisig
baltec1 wrote:
Moth Eisig wrote:


You mean the only way to do it in hisec without risk or consequences Blink


Oh theres plenty of risk and concequence. The last corp to attack my research tower ended up getting whacked by a dickstar and flights of cheap yet deadly caracals.

I mean exatly what I say, its the only legal way.


The only risk comes from the people who will stick around and give a fight anyhow. The people dropping corps to avoid wardecs are the risk-free consequence-free targets.

If they're stupid (careless hauling/missioning/etc in blinged out ships) then they should and can be punished the way things work now, because no one needs a wardec to take them out profitably, but they shouldn't be punished and left defenseless just because they enjoy another playstyle. EVE punishes Stupid, not Different, that's the essence of the sandbox.

I'm sure there are plenty of corps to wardec that will give fights. People aren't complaining because they can't find legal fights; people are complaining because they can't force other players to be their personal skeet shoot targets.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#235 - 2013-05-17 17:26:38 UTC
Moth Eisig wrote:


The only risk comes from the people who will stick around and give a fight anyhow. The people dropping corps to avoid wardecs are the risk-free consequence-free targets.

If they're stupid (careless hauling/missioning/etc in blinged out ships) then they should and can be punished the way things work now, because no one needs a wardec to take them out profitably, but they shouldn't be punished and left defenseless just because they enjoy another playstyle. EVE punishes Stupid, not Different, that's the essence of the sandbox.

I'm sure there are plenty of corps to wardec that will give fights. People aren't complaining because they can't find fights, people are complaining because they can't force other players to be their personal skeet shoot targets.


We dont war dec for gud fightz or to pad killboards (have you seen our kb? its horrid) We wardec for tactical reasons, or at least, we would if it worked.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#236 - 2013-05-17 17:28:55 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
If carebears were willing to lose a 200 million ISK ship, every time they mine 1 billion ISK in ore or grind up a billion ISK in mission rewards, I think the PvPers would not be so angry with them.

The simple truth is, I am not willing to accept even that level of loss. I would rather lose 1 billion ISK in opportunity cost of not undocking rather than lose even a 50 million ISK ship. I can grind up a billion ISK a week, and if I lose a ship every 3 months, it is too much for me. Way, way too much.

I've lost 0 ships in the last 9 months.... yeah, that's just about the right amount of loss.



And, the other carebears I've played the game with (100s), are pretty much in agreement that absolutely 0 loss is pretty much the correct amount.


I get it why the PvPers are so frustrated by us. I really do.

Problem is, it is my experience, that this is NOT going to go away. ANY attempt to try to get us to accept a higher than "virtually 0" loss is simply going to result in us quitting the game. AND, based on my experience with high sec and null, and the % of players in each of these areas of space, and the play styles in each area, the carebears are a HUGE chunk of teh revenue stream.


War Dec: Industry corp gets war decced. PvPers say, come out and fight. What actually happens? No one logs in, or if they do log in, they do not undock. The players drop to NPC corps, or spin up a temp corp and switch to that. Very, very few ships actually go boom becuase of high sec war dec vs. industry corp.

Low: No one mines, and odds are, that ratter is really bait.

Null cloaky camper: Dito the above industrial corp war dec. No one undocks.

Null roaming gang in the area, upto 3 jumps out? Everyone safe's up, and stays safed up for as long as it takes for the roaming gang to leave.



The simple reality is, the carebears/nullbears are NEVER going to accept even a 10-20% loss in ships as percent of value they mine. It is fundamentally against our nature to play a game where we are easy targets for PvPers.



The cool thing about "revenue stream" is that it isn't our problem nor the Dev's problem.

It's Marketing's problem.

Soooo... if you are unwilling to participate in "pvp" you are playing the wrong game. This game IS pvp. Not just combat.

Noone is saying you have to fly a ship, but if you pretend you do not take a loss at anything you do in this game... you are only scamming.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Alatari Yassavi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#237 - 2013-05-17 17:37:16 UTC
Here's the thing, many hisec "carebears" have the big coslty ships. If we loose one we are out somtimes billions of isk. i.e. providence or cheron. along with all of what was on it. Not to mention if you get streight killed that you loose your implants, which can also be costly. So when low or null sec says "oh it is just a ship" yes it is a very exspensive ship. Especially when you are talking to folks who run in frigates and such.

Quit your bitching and fly!
Moth Eisig
#238 - 2013-05-17 17:38:09 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
snippity


I'm on your side. I run exploration fit ships in FW lo-sec while in a FW corp. I don't often initiate PvP, but I get jumped all the time, and I completely agree that that's the way it should be.

However, there is no denying that there is a lot of hypocrisy in this argument with people who want to be able to shoot miners and industrialists with no consequences for themselves. They too want the game to hold their hand and cater to their chosen activity and remove risk for them. That's what I'm against. It should be hard and involve making smart decisions for both sides.





baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#239 - 2013-05-17 17:39:47 UTC
Alatari Yassavi wrote:
Here's the thing, many hisec "carebears" have the big coslty ships. If we loose one we are out somtimes billions of isk. i.e. providence or cheron. along with all of what was on it. Not to mention if you get streight killed that you loose your implants, which can also be costly. So when low or null sec says "oh it is just a ship" yes it is a very exspensive ship. Especially when you are talking to folks who run in frigates and such.


Base hull of a titan is 65 billion. Man up.
Moth Eisig
#240 - 2013-05-17 17:40:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Moth Eisig wrote:


The only risk comes from the people who will stick around and give a fight anyhow. The people dropping corps to avoid wardecs are the risk-free consequence-free targets.

If they're stupid (careless hauling/missioning/etc in blinged out ships) then they should and can be punished the way things work now, because no one needs a wardec to take them out profitably, but they shouldn't be punished and left defenseless just because they enjoy another playstyle. EVE punishes Stupid, not Different, that's the essence of the sandbox.

I'm sure there are plenty of corps to wardec that will give fights. People aren't complaining because they can't find fights, people are complaining because they can't force other players to be their personal skeet shoot targets.


We dont war dec for gud fightz or to pad killboards (have you seen our kb? its horrid) We wardec for tactical reasons, or at least, we would if it worked.


What kind of tactical reasons? I really am curious, because it's entirely possible there's a strategic side of wardecs and wardec dodging that I'm missing.