These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why isn t there any walking around stations/ships etc?

First post
Author
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2014-01-31 10:14:59 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Almost every MMO has a form of WIS and its an essential part of those MMO's like it would be with EVE if implemented properly.



Ambulation is an essential part of other MMOs because that's what the gameplay is constructed around. EVE kicked off and grew for a long time without it just fine, because the gameplay is constructed around spaceships. In simplest terms, EVE is not every other MMO. It's not even almost every other MMO. Now don't get me wrong, because you appear to be doing that frequently, I'm not actually against it, I just don't see why it's necessary, and I don't think making a new post on the forums about it once a month is doing anyone any favours. I don't want to see it rushed, I would rather it take another decade than result in another Incarna, because I don't just want it implemented properly, I want to see it implemented meaningfully, with function. EVERY other MMO with ambulation-centered gameplay, the avatar serves a purpose, a function. You're a warrior, a Jedi or Sith, or a panda or whatever, you have abilities specific to that character. In EVE, you have abilities specific to spaceships. This is stuff that has to be considered - what, if anything, will avatars be used for? If it's just for hanging out Habbo Hotel style, then no, I don't want it. EVE becomes bloatware, and bloatware gets deleted off my PC.

So now, we have to start thinking about avatar-specific abilities so that your avatar actually serves a purpose and has a meaning in the way the game functions. Then there's the lore to consider - what is a capsuleer without the safety of his pod? What happens to one when he IS stabbed in the back? Suddenly, EVE starts to become a DUST hybrid, the spaceships become less important, the expansion content becomes DLC weapons and armour, or lipstick and shoes, and EVE will BECOME Habbo Hotel. That's going to be more damaging for its subscription base than if everyone who wanted ambulation up and unsubs right now.

But, at the end of the day, if it has well thought out meaning that does not detract from the core themes of EVE, I'm all for ambulation. My real problem is with impatient console-generation gamers who want everything they demand at the stomp of a foot, and then the gaming developers like EA who actually grant it, no matter how incomplete. And that was what CCP did with Incarna, and it was a damn tragedy, but it was rectified by returning their focus to the core themes of the game and the year that Incarna came out, EVE still increased its subscription base.

If and when ambulation is done for EVE, it will either change very little other than fulfilling the desires of a part of its subscription base, or it will break it. This is why people are nervous about it, because they know this. Ambulation does not have the potential to make EVE anything more special than it already is, but it does have the potential to destroy it completely, and CCP know this as well, that's why they are taking their time with it.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2014-01-31 10:19:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Infinity Ziona wrote:
You're funny. You need to do some research on what a 'citation' is.


And this is where any semblance of mature non-vindictive conversation ends between us, with your ironic assumption that I don't know what a citation is. I'll tell you what a citation is. A citation is a reference to a credible primary or secondary source of information that is peer reviewed and itself presented with falsifiable evidence. I've been writing for science magazines and E-zines for fifteen years. I've seen 'citations' like yours before. Antivaxxers who comment on vaccination breakthroughs love to froth at the mouth 'citing' blogs and anecdotes from across the web. You want to convince me, first you need something that is up-to-date in research terms (ie not more than three to five years old, depending on the research). Secondly, it needs to be peer reviewed. And thirdly, it needs to actually address the claims you're making.

Your citations were none of the above.

Additionally, read the correction I made in my post. I recognise the author's authority in the field, but I don't recognise the authority of the work you linked me to, as it was little more than a blog, and authority =/= argument. You still failed to address the claims you made, or provide a peer reviewed source (from him or otherwise), or provide current up-to-date research.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#103 - 2014-01-31 11:23:10 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
You're funny. You need to do some research on what a 'citation' is.


And this is where any semblance of mature non-vindictive conversation ends between us, with your ironic assumption that I don't know what a citation is. I'll tell you what a citation is. A citation is a reference to a credible primary or secondary source of information that is peer reviewed and itself presented with falsifiable evidence. I've been writing for science magazines and E-zines for fifteen years. I've seen 'citations' like yours before. Antivaxxers who comment on vaccination breakthroughs love to froth at the mouth 'citing' blogs and anecdotes from across the web. You want to convince me, first you need something that is up-to-date in research terms (ie not more than three to five years old, depending on the research). Secondly, it needs to be peer reviewed. And thirdly, it needs to actually address the claims you're making.

Your citations were none of the above.

Additionally, read the correction I made in my post. I recognise the author's authority in the field, but I don't recognise the authority of the work you linked me to, as it was little more than a blog, and authority =/= argument. You still failed to address the claims you made, or provide a peer reviewed source (from him or otherwise), or provide current up-to-date research.

Oxford Dictionary

I don't care what you do, you don't get to redefine what a citation is. All a citation needs to be to be a citation is point to publication, of any kind.

I find it amusing when people like yourself demand specific, usually impossible to provide 'evidence' while spouting nonsense like "the majority of people didn't subscribe to eve to blah blah blah" when you yourself have no idea or information in respect of the individual reasons that people did subscribe.

Then you try to discredit tangible and relevant sources of information based on nonsense claims that 'it looks like a blog" whilst not offering any counter-information or sources to back up your position.

If a person says "I think this because" and links supporting information, then if you disagree, you need to state your counter position, state why you hold it and link a BETTER source to support it. Otherwise you're just... irrelevant.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Doc Severide
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#104 - 2014-01-31 11:31:25 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
You're funny. You need to do some research on what a 'citation' is.


And this is where any semblance of mature non-vindictive conversation ends between us, with your ironic assumption that I don't know what a citation is. I'll tell you what a citation is. A citation is a reference to a credible primary or secondary source of information that is peer reviewed and itself presented with falsifiable evidence. I've been writing for science magazines and E-zines for fifteen years. I've seen 'citations' like yours before. Antivaxxers who comment on vaccination breakthroughs love to froth at the mouth 'citing' blogs and anecdotes from across the web. You want to convince me, first you need something that is up-to-date in research terms (ie not more than three to five years old, depending on the research). Secondly, it needs to be peer reviewed. And thirdly, it needs to actually address the claims you're making.

Your citations were none of the above.

Additionally, read the correction I made in my post. I recognise the author's authority in the field, but I don't recognise the authority of the work you linked me to, as it was little more than a blog, and authority =/= argument. You still failed to address the claims you made, or provide a peer reviewed source (from him or otherwise), or provide current up-to-date research.

Oxford Dictionary

I don't care what you do, you don't get to redefine what a citation is. All a citation needs to be to be a citation is point to publication, of any kind.

I find it amusing when people like yourself demand specific, usually impossible to provide 'evidence' while spouting nonsense like "the majority of people didn't subscribe to eve to blah blah blah" when you yourself have no idea or information in respect of the individual reasons that people did subscribe.

Then you try to discredit tangible and relevant sources of information based on nonsense claims that 'it looks like a blog" whilst not offering any counter-information or sources to back up your position.

If a person says "I think this because" and links supporting information, then if you disagree, you need to state your counter position, state why you hold it and link a BETTER source to support it. Otherwise you're just... irrelevant.

Cool... I like it...
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2014-01-31 11:39:28 UTC
Seras Victoria Egivand wrote:
Kenrailae wrote:
There is no walking in stations because we'd rather CCP spent their time working on game mechanics, ships, balance and other 'Eve' things, not barbies in space.



How many expansions cough patches does it take they had 10 years mb it would be nice if they finished wis and cough actually added content to the game..... New ships and balancing is not content...

Incursions were added to EVE Online on 18 January 2011 <<< that's the last resemblance of actual content they have added.

call me a hater... Tell me to go play another game doesn't matter.. I like eve but i also like if the people i give my money to actually adds stuff to the game i play....




Bastion modules, New classes of destroyers, Overheating previously non-overheatable modules, new structures, player owned PoCo's.....


New stuff is making it into the game(Albeit it some of it is the wrong new stuff). But in the wider world of Eve, the one outside Miners and Missioners Online, there is still ALOT to do that doesn't involve giving me 101 ways to dress up my barbie.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2014-01-31 11:45:25 UTC
lol remiel... talking to a lying hypocrit makes no sense, so why even try? It's IZ. All that helps is straight out mentioning the beeshit so others can see it too ... and that's that.

bingo, his pig not being a goat doesn't make the pig wrong, just him an idiot for shouting at his pig "WHY ARENT YOU A GOAT!" (Source)

-- Ralph King-Griffin, about deranged people playing EVE ONLINE

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#107 - 2014-01-31 12:00:46 UTC
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
lol remiel... talking to a lying hypocrit makes no sense, so why even try? It's IZ. All that helps is straight out mentioning the beeshit so others can see it too ... and that's that.

Do you have a peer reviewed citation supporting your personal attack?

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#108 - 2014-01-31 12:04:13 UTC
infinity ziona is a lying hypocrite

source

Infinity Ziona wrote:
I don't care what you do, you don't get to redefine what a citation is. All a citation needs to be to be a citation is point to publication, of any kind.

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#109 - 2014-01-31 12:07:46 UTC
i don't actually know what hypocrite means to be honest
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2014-01-31 12:08:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
You're funny. You need to do some research on what a 'citation' is.


And this is where any semblance of mature non-vindictive conversation ends between us, with your ironic assumption that I don't know what a citation is. I'll tell you what a citation is. A citation is a reference to a credible primary or secondary source of information that is peer reviewed and itself presented with falsifiable evidence. I've been writing for science magazines and E-zines for fifteen years. I've seen 'citations' like yours before. Antivaxxers who comment on vaccination breakthroughs love to froth at the mouth 'citing' blogs and anecdotes from across the web. You want to convince me, first you need something that is up-to-date in research terms (ie not more than three to five years old, depending on the research). Secondly, it needs to be peer reviewed. And thirdly, it needs to actually address the claims you're making.

Your citations were none of the above.

Additionally, read the correction I made in my post. I recognise the author's authority in the field, but I don't recognise the authority of the work you linked me to, as it was little more than a blog, and authority =/= argument. You still failed to address the claims you made, or provide a peer reviewed source (from him or otherwise), or provide current up-to-date research.

Oxford Dictionary

I don't care what you do, you don't get to redefine what a citation is. All a citation needs to be to be a citation is point to publication, of any kind.


Okay, allow me to clarify.

You need a RELEVANT SUBSTANTIAL citation that addresses your claims. You may as well have cited Snow White and the Seven Dwarves instead of what you gave me, because it was irrelevant and unsubstantial support for your assertions.

Note: you are missing, more than likely ignoring, the key points I made. Your 'citation' was out of date, not peer reviewed, and not relevant.

Quote:
I find it amusing when people like yourself demand specific, usually impossible to provide 'evidence' while spouting nonsense like "the majority of people didn't subscribe to eve to blah blah blah" when you yourself have no idea or information in respect of the individual reasons that people did subscribe.


If your evidence is impossible to find, then why are you making claims that rely on it? Additionally, the evidence that 100% of people playing EVE subbed for the spaceships is the lack of ambulation content to begin with. Clarification: everyone that subbed on EVE subbed for the spaceships. Some people also want ambulation.

Is that clear yet? I did try to highlight this point for you with perspective, but once again you ignore the primary points and poke holes in the details that are mostly irrelevant anyway. All this frothing at the mouth demanding WIS is all well and good, but you are achieving nothing because, and I have already told you why, if it comes, it will come when it is well thought out and has meaning and purpose in the game. All you're really doing when you ignore these main points that have been repeatedly made to you is denying the reality of what EVE is, and that is why so many people fight against you. WIS will probably come, but I will bet that you'll find something to complain about still when it does, because you are just that kind of person. The forums are loaded with them, otherwise they wouldn't be so entertaining.

Look, EVE is a spaceship game. Your avatar is an afterthought, because ultimately, your ship is your gameplay avatar more than your actual character. EVE substitutes the character for the ship for gameplay purposes, because you can't run around in space casting spells and fighting with swords. That's what EVE is, has always been, and always will be. Ambulation has always been an afterthought, and one that nearly destroyed the game because it wasn't well thought out. I assure you, there are plenty of people that want it, but they all want the spaceships too or they wouldn't be here. Everyone that plays EVE wants the spaceships, or they wouldn't be here. That's the evidence that 100% of players subbed for the spaceships. Even if it's just to look at them, or buy and trade them. But not everyone that subbed wants ambulation, the evidence of which is apparent in the resistance to WIS, which is why it is a low priority and a high risk proposition for CCP. One that, in the end, may just not be worth it, because not everyone that wants it but doesn't get it is going to quit over it. In the end, they're all still here for the spaceships.

Now, allow me to teach you a little something about the burden of proof. If you make a claim, you need to substantiate it.

Quote:
If a person says "I think this because" and links supporting information, then if you disagree, you need to state your counter position, state why you hold it and link a BETTER source to support it. Otherwise you're just... irrelevant.


No. A claim asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I explained why your citation simply isn't good enough, and in the end why the claim itself is irrelevant to EVE in any case. It's not my problem if you ignore that explanation, but I don't need to provide evidence for a position of rejection because no evidence has been presented to convince me not to reject it. Do you understand? I don't need to counter with evidence because if your position was substantiated in the first place, I wouldn't need to.

Additionally, a person's relevance is unrelated to the relevance of their claims. I've never called you irrelevant, I called your claims irrelevant, and your citation irrelevant. Let's try to keep the spittle flinging to a minimum, shall we? There's another reason people don't like you. You lack respectful discourse.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Joia Crenca
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#111 - 2014-01-31 13:22:27 UTC
"Look, EVE is a spaceship game. Your avatar is an afterthought, because ultimately, your ship is your gameplay avatar more than your actual character. EVE substitutes the character for the ship for gameplay purposes, because you can't run around in space casting spells and fighting with swords. That's what EVE is, has always been, and always will be. Ambulation has always been an afterthought, and one that nearly destroyed the game because it wasn't well thought out. I assure you, there are plenty of people that want it, but they all want the spaceships too or they wouldn't be here. Everyone that plays EVE wants the spaceships, or they wouldn't be here."

Very true. I'd like to see more WiS/ambulation, plus the return of the Gallente Pleasure / Quafe station (and similar alternate cultural immersion stations for all the factions). But I am glad that resources are being put into improving the game and bringing more depth into the basic play of it. But I wouldn't mind seeing some effort toward refining the WiS (so it doesn't work the video card so hard) and expanding it a bit. Even let me bring up another character onscreen by calling them on my 'in station monitor'. Video-phones anyone?
Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#112 - 2014-01-31 13:45:36 UTC
Joia Crenca wrote:
Video-phones anyone?

lol

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#113 - 2014-01-31 13:54:21 UTC
My favorite part is how often IZ tries to play the proverbial race card by insinuating that he'll call the mods because people call him a liar...

when he blatantly lies.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#114 - 2014-01-31 14:35:47 UTC
There are a lot of genuine concerns surrounding CCP putting development time into Avatar content. But as long as those concerns are addressed, it's entirely possible to do it in a way that makes everyone happy. I say everyone, but a few people are incapable of being happy no matter what you do. Those people just need ignoring.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#115 - 2014-01-31 15:06:36 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
But as long as those concerns are addressed

CCP has addressed those concerns by bailing on WiS and focusing on Eve content. The only people who should be ignored are those asking for CCP to go back on their word and once again put their game in danger.

I'm still waiting on you to provide a single link or quote from a CCP developer that proves I'm wrong about anything I've said about WiS.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise

Slade Trillgon
Brutor Force Federated
#116 - 2014-01-31 15:11:37 UTC
Tajic Kaundur wrote:
Posting in stealth WIS thread



Nothing stealth about it Shocked
Slade Trillgon
Brutor Force Federated
#117 - 2014-01-31 15:21:10 UTC
First off I am not anti WiS, but most stations are empty and massive. There is a lot of coding required to open up these massive stations for walking around when most of the time there will be no one in them.
Abishai
#118 - 2014-01-31 15:39:03 UTC
I dont think we will get Walking in Station/Ships any time soon, but maybe we can get Sitting in Pod view.
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#119 - 2014-01-31 15:45:40 UTC
Rhes wrote:

I'm still waiting on you to provide a single link or quote from a CCP developer that proves I'm wrong about anything I've said about WiS.


Rhes, I am not sifting through your bull **** and through the forums to find quotes. Now before you say I am unwilling to provide evidence therefore I must be wrong, what is actually happening here is that it's already been done. I know that putting the effort in to actually disprove your **** gets me nowhere. You'll ignore it and carry on, and then low and behold you'll come back asking for evidence later like it never happened.

Your faith in your dumb ass arguments is fundamental, and there is no arguing with fundamentalists.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#120 - 2014-01-31 15:51:35 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
Rhes, I am not sifting through your bull **** and through the forums to find quotes. Now before you say I am unwilling to provide evidence therefore I must be wrong, what is actually happening here is that it's already been done. I know that putting the effort in to actually disprove your **** gets me nowhere. You'll ignore it and carry on, and then low and behold you'll come back asking for evidence later like it never happened.

Your faith in your dumb ass arguments is fundamental, and there is no arguing with fundamentalists.

You told me yesterday that my arguments had been debunked many, many times. I'm just asking for a single example...shouldn't be that difficult. I figured you'd be excited to show me up.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise