These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Questions
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kestral Anneto
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2015-02-10 22:40:15 UTC
So, seen a few threads discussing the change to the friendly fire in corps switch for concord, the reactions are a mixed bag.
This has raised a few questions to me.

If EvE is the 'Sandbox', why do people get twitchy about people that don't want to PvP, and find another side of EvE interesting?

Why do some people want to force people to PvP?

Given that a lot of people want to PvP, why do people go for carebears rather than go looking for other people that want to PvP?

Why do people go into frothing rages when CCP does anything that is considered 'protecting' carebears?

Sorry if these are stupid questions, I just find the reaction is interesting.
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2015-02-10 22:47:36 UTC
Internet spaceships are serious business. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#3 - 2015-02-10 23:01:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Kestral Anneto wrote:
So, seen a few threads discussing the change to the friendly fire in corps switch for concord, the reactions are a mixed bag.
This has raised a few questions to me.

If EvE is the 'Sandbox', why do people get twitchy about people that don't want to PvP, and find another side of EvE interesting?

Why do some people want to force people to PvP?

Given that a lot of people want to PvP, why do people go for carebears rather than go looking for other people that want to PvP?

Why do people go into frothing rages when CCP does anything that is considered 'protecting' carebears?

Sorry if these are stupid questions, I just find the reaction is interesting.

From my perspective:

1. Giving people freedom to chose what they want to do and making all people responsibile for their choices is not a bad thing

2. It's rarely the pvpers (highsec or otherwise) that ask for nerfs to others playstyles. It's usually the reverse. As a result, the reactions are personal, just as the reactions of carebears are personal when they request nerfs to playstyles.

The hypocrisy in saying "I should be free to play my game, so can you please nerfs others" is what leads to the reaction.

In relation to pvp. There is no one proper way to pvp. Different people gain enjoyment from different forms of pvp. Trying to force one style (or a limited set) of pvp on anyone is a limitation on choice.

So in the ideal, the sandbox would be free and totally open to all choices and all consequences. CCP can't really do that, so the balance between the city builder type players and the pvp type players will always be discussed, especially when changes are made to the line between them.
Cancel Align NOW
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2015-02-10 23:03:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Cancel Align NOW
I was against the proposed change as it originally stood. Simply because the option of internal corporation PVP was being removed en-masse. I like the change as it is intended now, give each corporation the option to allow or disallow internal PVP.

I learned my PVP basics with some mates in a high sec corp back in 2005-6. We chased and shot each other and learned how to escape and what ranges to keep and what ammos to use through trial and error and it was fun. It worries me a little that a new generation of players will not be given the same learning opportunities (we keep our corp safe m8) and then when they get taken apart by some of the more nefarious members of the Eve community they will insist it is the game mechanics fault not their lack of learning that allowed their destruction.

I also have not seen a raging frothing kick back against this change since the dev blog came out yesterday. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of said angst.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#5 - 2015-02-10 23:03:56 UTC
I'll quote myself from this thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=392179&find=unread

ShahFluffers wrote:
The current industry and market mechanisms guarantee that I (a PvPer) lose money to builders and traders... forcing me to perform money making activities that I do not enjoy and disrupting my preferred style of gameplay, ship on ship combat.
The only recourse I have is... well... nothing. I HAVE to either build stuff myself, make money, or find someone willing to do either for me... or I have no ships and equipment to blow up other players with.

All of EVE's systems and styles of play are integrated. The conflict that arises from this is intentional. Because that is what makes for an interesting game.

PvPers cannot blow up ships without performing industry or money making activities that they may not enjoy to support their gameplay.
PvEers and Industry types cannot make ships/equipment without performing ship-on-ship combat that that they may not enjoy to support their gameplay.

It's a two-way street. Neither side is entitled to be "left alone" or have mechanics discourage the "other side" from bothering them.



And quote from here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=482176#post482176

Crumplecorn wrote:
"It's a sandbox"

But then, some bright spark in the back pipes up, EVE is a sandbox, so I should be able to do whatever I want. EVE is indeed a sandbox, however it is a Multiplayer Sandbox. The definition of a sandbox is not "I can do whatever I want", it is that rather than providing a specific experience, the game provides an environment and tools with which to craft your own experience. For single-player games, these definitions are functionally the same. The problem with a multiplayer sandbox is that not only can you do whatever you want, so can everyone else. You want to mine in highsec in complete peace? The game lets you. It's the other players that are the problem.

The hypocrisy of demanding the freedom to do what you like, while simultaneously demanding or celebrating the curtailment of other people's playstyles should be self-evident, but apparently it's not.

"EVE isn't a PvP game"

Yes, it really is. Being, as it is, a multiplayer sandbox, it is a shared environment which we all inhabit together and all affect. For any of it to be non-PvP, all of it would have to be non-PvP. Even if CCP made it so it was impossible to blow up spaceships in highsec, highsec would still affect the rest of the game just by being there. As long as we are all playing the same game, the guy in the corner mining endlessly has an effect on the guys fighting a war in the other corner. And so, requests to be able to act with impunity will be not be received well by those who actually understand the game.

How did you Veterans start?
Serene Repose
#6 - 2015-02-11 01:33:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Serene Repose
Kestral Anneto wrote:
If EvE is the 'Sandbox', why do people get twitchy about people that don't want to PvP, and find another side of EvE interesting? Because these people only give lip-service to "sandbox". They want it to be a gankfest, like the other game they used to play but got bored with and so came here. Gank? Ganking is doing nothing more than getting gear and attacking defenseless people or noobs because in their minds that's "accomplishment."

Why do some people want to force people to PvP?See above.

Given that a lot of people want to PvP, why do people go for carebears rather than go looking for other people that want to PvP?

Why do people go into frothing rages when CCP does anything that is considered 'protecting' carebears?

Sorry if these are stupid questions, I just find the reaction is interesting. See above.
The oft-made mistake here is to take these people at their word when they spew on this forum. They concoct all sorts of wild scenarios and formulae to give the appearance they really have some intellectual goal, or game-preserving interests, but all they want to do is BS this discussion to oblivion, all the while they can just gank away with no penalty other than a paltry, tokenistic hit on their sec status...with a timer, of all things.

Thank-you for asking. I enjoyed saying that for the thousandth time. Cool

We must accommodate the idiocracy.