These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Decline in numbers... starting to turn into RAPID!!!

First post
Author
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#781 - 2015-09-01 14:45:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Whitehound wrote:
Meaningless marketing buzzwords
All of the "PvE" activities in Eve are designed to pit you against other players, or to pit other players against each other. They are conflict drivers; ergo PvE activities are indirect PvP activities.

CCP consider every single thing you do in Eve as a PvP activity, their definition of PvP is the only one that matters with regards to their product.

Your opinions about what counts as PvP and what does not are irrelevant in the face of the established definition provided by the people that make the game.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Whitehound
#782 - 2015-09-01 14:45:27 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
And did you not just say that it was irrelevant?
Nope.

Then how do you prove that you have won?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Bellatrix Invicta
Doomheim
#783 - 2015-09-01 14:46:02 UTC
Whenever someone asks me to define "futility", I will link them to Lucas's and Whitehound's posts here. Yikes.

If you think you've won, think again.

The CODE always wins.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#784 - 2015-09-01 14:48:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Bagrat Skalski wrote:
What if one will guess it will land on face up and the other will guess it will land on the other side down?
Then you slap the other guy and tell him to do it properly.

Whitehound wrote:
Then how do you prove that you have won?
Again, repeating the question does not change the answer.

I suppose that's why you won't provide the definitions: because the remains that you simply can't.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#785 - 2015-09-01 14:48:57 UTC
I can only speak for myself. And there are many things I could say but I will stick to the most obvious.

I used to enjoy doing solo pvp in low sec.

But off grid boosting has tipped the balance against that being worth my time.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#786 - 2015-09-01 14:49:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Tippia wrote:

True enough, but short of launching “EVE” as an interaction template on the same level as “PvE” and “PvP”, those two are still the ones that will be used. Of the two, PvP is the one that describes what EVE has to offer. It's just that it's a far more fundamental version than the conditional variants offered by your regular PvP fare.


You can shrug your shoulders and stick with the ill-fitting model or you can look at the game clear-eyed and come up with one that fits. I'm always in favor of the latter. (And no, I'm not flogging my own blog.)

Tippia wrote:
But sure, that creates a similar set of problems too: we hear complaints about unfairness and unmatched engagements — stuff you might expect from conventional PvP — almost as often as we hear about the PvE confusion.


And that's a real, serious problem, because how many people come here assured that "EVE is all PVP all the time" and imagine some sort of endless, giant, immediately accessible battle in space? If anything, it's even more destructively wrong than the "I just want to PVE" mindset, because at least you can show people operating under that assumption that EVE isn't a PVE game. The guy who was seriously bent out of shape about how the loot from the wrecks of his dueling victims wasn't his by right, because he'd earned it in combat? He was much harder to bring around, because what he expected was PVP by any sane definition. It just wasn't EVE.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Estevan Valladares
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#787 - 2015-09-01 14:52:14 UTC
When someone says you cant eat a pizza because ipods are made in China, there is a mass consensus that its non-sense.

When you say that something cannot be versus because it does not cause losses, then people think it is a valid point.

It is like people forgot the meaning of AND, OR, IF and WHILE all at the same time.

WorldTradersGuild.Com [WTG] - We are here for the long haul

Salvos Rhoska
#788 - 2015-09-01 14:52:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Lucas Kell wrote:
---

1) His position has been explored, explained and annihilated.

2) On your part, show me one legitimate and accepted definition of "competetive pve" as sourced from a reputable site online.

3) When I interact with the same rock as you, I am interacting with you also, in competition.
By example, if I interact with the same football as you in a match, I am interacting with you also, by means of competition for the football. Thinking otherwise is worrisomely autistic.

4) As shown by Tippia, dynamic NPC pricing is a result of player manipulation, and hence inherently PvP insofar as it affects other players. Also, as in my example, trading is pvp in all the same ways as mining is pvp.

5) There is no relevant difference between interacting with people to compete with them, or in interacting with the environment to compete with them. Both constitute PvP. For example, Sov is an environment element. People interact with the Sov environment and mechanics, inorder to compete with other players, and again, ultimately translating as PvP. Its not the environment youncompete against, it is the other players who want it also. Asnit involves other players againstnyou, its inherently and completely PvP.

6) Yes, its arguable whether PvE actually exists at all in EVE, except as incidental and superficial. Though players can engage in PvE, the game itself, as an environment, is inherently PvP. PvP is the competetive element. "Competetive PvE" is a misnomer and fallacy that makes no sense. Its either PvE, or PvP.

7) Warm and cool are not buzz words. They are terms that define temperature between hot and cold, on a linear temperature spectrum.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#789 - 2015-09-01 14:55:12 UTC
Estevan Valladares wrote:
When you say that something cannot be versus because it does not cause losses, then people think it is a valid point.
Yeah, people are often kind of stupid that way.
Throth
Doomheim
#790 - 2015-09-01 14:58:41 UTC
I quit because there is nothing left for me as a casual gamer. I'm tired of the expectations that I have too keep up with every exploit and change or else I'm deserving of griefing. It's another version of victim blaming, only in a virtual world.
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#791 - 2015-09-01 15:00:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Meaningless marketing buzzwords


All of the "PvE" activities in Eve are designed to pit you against other players, or to pit other players against each other. They are conflict drivers; ergo PvE activities are indirect PvP activities.

CCP consider every single thing you do in Eve as a PvP activity, their definition of PvP is the only one that matters with regards to their product.

Your opinions about what counts as PvP and what does not are irrelevant in the face of the established definition provided by the people that make the game.


For some people, what they 'think' counts is all that matters. Once (during college when I was home for the summer, it was so long ago I remember Jesus riding through town on a dinosaur) I had an argument with a friend about the definition of 'out of town'.

Back then I lived in a suburb (Mesquite). I was going to spend a weekend with my then girlfriend's family in Weatherford, a bit more than an hour away. I told my buddy I was 'going out of town' and when I told him where, he said 'that's not out of town!'. "Out of Town is when you go somewhere that requires a plane ride or at least driving for 1 day" is what he said.

It turned into the same kind of dumb as hell argument as this thread did. People zealously defend their internal perceptions and definitions, even in the face of common sense and evidence. My old girlfriend (the one I visited Weatherford) once told me that "you can't call it a meal unless it involved meat" while watching me eat a large salad...

On a side note, i introduced that ex-girlfriend to my buddy from Mesquite. They've been married for 17 years now. They were almost literally made for each other, they spend their time not going out of town while not eating meatless 'meals'.
Whitehound
#792 - 2015-09-01 15:03:43 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Meaningless marketing buzzwords


All of the "PvE" activities in Eve are designed to pit you against other players, or to pit other players against each other. They are conflict drivers; ergo PvE activities are indirect PvP activities.

CCP consider every single thing you do in Eve as a PvP activity, their definition of PvP is the only one that matters with regards to their product.

Your opinions about what counts as PvP and what does not are irrelevant in the face of the established definition provided by the people that make the game.

Sorry, but I could declare your opinion as just as irrelevant. Let's best not go there. Either you take part in a discussion and accept that people have opinions or you are just at risk of trolling others.

Now we already accept that while EVE is a PvP game do we recognize fractions of it as PvE. In no other way am I saying that some of it can be classed as competitive PvE. We are not making generalizations here, but we are make distinctions. Will you let us have this discussion or do you insist that what we do here is irrelevant?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Whitehound
#793 - 2015-09-01 15:07:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Tippia wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Then how do you prove that you have won?
Again, repeating the question does not change the answer.

So winning and losing is irrelevant to you, you see no point in having a competition and with that you concede the argument.

Thank you.

I thought you'd never give up. Lol

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#794 - 2015-09-01 15:10:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Whitehound wrote:
So winning and losing is irrelevant to yo, you see no point in having a competition and with that you concede the argument.
Nope, nope, and nope. In that order. That's just some nonsensical strawman you've come up with since you've, as always, not been able to cobble together anything even remotely resembling a coherent argument.

Those are all your opinions, not mine, and they do not follow from anything I've said.

Here's a bit of logic that you should probably pick up for future reference:
If you ask a question and I say “no”, the answer is ‘no”. If you repeat the question just because you didn't want the answer to be “no”, that does not change the answer to “yes” — the answer is still “no”, only with the addendum “…and you already know this, so stop embarrassing yourself.”
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#795 - 2015-09-01 15:17:08 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
CCP consider every single thing you do in Eve as a PvP activity, their definition of PvP is the only one that matters with regards to their product.
Out of curiosity, if this is the case, then why in the same document does it say:
Quote:
PART TWO – WHAT CAN I DO IN EVE?
Introduction
7 PvP (Player versus Player)
8 Missions
9 Mining
10 Trading
11 Industry
12 Exploration
13 Factional Warfare
Surely 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 all come under 7. And why at fanfest was there PvE panel?

The reason for this is simple. While they consider all actions to be PvP in the sense that all actions have effects felt by other players, those different actions can be further broken down into subcategories. You know this, which is why you fully understand what someone says when they say "I like to do PvE".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#796 - 2015-09-01 15:21:22 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
And did you not just say that it was irrelevant?
Nope.

Then how do you prove that you have won?


Assuming that I was a freighter pilot (I'm not): My proof might be a long history of completed courier contracts. If I only hauled for myself, it would be exactly one freighter purchase in my wallet transaction history and everything where I wanted it, when I wanted it; or maybe, a long list of successful sales from arbitrage in my wallet history.

If you mean externally documented proof, meh. Killmails are incidentals: there are kills that don't show up on any killmail, killmails that don't show critical information (logistics ships), or which provide a woefully wrong impression of the encounter, and killmails that have been forged to "prove" kills that never happened.

Not to mention that when you win by evading direct encounters, it's completely unreasonable to expect the game to figure out that you have. Killmails don't record victories, they record a specific result of direct and unambiguous interactions between players, because that's the sort of task that a computer can easily do.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Whitehound
#797 - 2015-09-01 15:22:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
So winning and losing is irrelevant to yo, you see no point in having a competition and with that you concede the argument.
Nope, nope, and nope. In that order. That's just some nonsensical strawman you've come up with since you've, as always, not been able to cobble together anything even remotely resembling a coherent argument.

Those are all your opinions, not mine, and they do not follow from anything I've said.

So tell me, what is relevant to you and how do you proof it?

You already said that winning in a competition has some relevance to you, has it not?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#798 - 2015-09-01 15:24:42 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
CCP consider every single thing you do in Eve as a PvP activity, their definition of PvP is the only one that matters with regards to their product.
Out of curiosity, if this is the case, then why in the same document does it say:
Quote:
PART TWO – WHAT CAN I DO IN EVE?
Introduction
7 PvP (Player versus Player)
8 Missions
9 Mining
10 Trading
11 Industry
12 Exploration
13 Factional Warfare
Surely 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 all come under 7. And why at fanfest was there PvE panel?

The reason for this is simple. While they consider all actions to be PvP in the sense that all actions have effects felt by other players, those different actions can be further broken down into subcategories. You know this, which is why you fully understand what someone says when they say "I like to do PvE".


None of which changes the underlying PVP nature of the game and every interaction we have with the game. Which is the point of this no inane discussion. For some reason, some people calling a thing what it is (such as calling EVE a pvp game because everything you do pits you against others, intentionally or unintentionally) is hard to do.

It doesn't make a damn bit of sense to me, I'm a pve player, I'm playing a pvp focused game, the PVE I do has PVP consequences. The fact that I generally only do 'ship combat' pvp to defend my PVE space doesn't change the underlying fact of EVE being a pvp game. Hell, if EVE wasn't a PVP game, it's PVE would be utterly boring as far as I'm concerned, but that's just me.


On a side note , I think seeing people's inclination towards narrow definitions is enlightening. It suggests a general narrow mindedness in certain poster's view.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#799 - 2015-09-01 15:26:55 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
2) On your part, show me one legitimate and accepted definition of "competetive pve" as sourced from a reputable site online.
Nothing I link to you would be accepted, since you can just reject anything as not good enough. It's been explained to you though and is pretty simple, you['re just being deliberately obtuse.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
3) When I interact with the same rock as you, I am interacting with you also, in competition.
By example, if I interact with the same football as you in a match, I am interacting with you also, by means of competition for the football. Thinking otherwise is worrisomely autistic.
That's a bit of a different situation, since we're driving the ball away from each other. If you were to bump the rock away from me, then yes, that would be PvP.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
4) As shown by Tippia, dynamic NPC pricing is a result of player manipulation, and hence inherently PvP insofar as it affects other players. Also, as in my example, trading is pvp in all the same ways as mining is pvp.
It's indirect. The mechanic is vs Environment, the competition is vs Players, so it's competitive PvE.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
5) There is no relevant difference between interacting with people to compete with them, or in interacting with the environment to compete with them. Both constitute PvP. For example, Sov is an environment element. People interact with the Sov environment and mechanics, inorder to compete with other players, and again, ultimately translating as PvP. Its not the environment youncompete against, it is the other players who want it also. Asnit involves other players againstnyou, its inherently and completely PvP.
Yes there is. The fact that you were able to articulate the two within this quote shows that there is a difference. That's like me saying "there's no relevant difference between a blue light and a green light because they are both lights". Sov is again slightly different as you are taking away from another player. If the sov were unowned then it's competitive PvE as it, like a rock, is merely part of the environment. If it's someone else's then taking it becomes PvP.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
6) Yes, its arguable whether PvE actually exists at all in EVE, except as incidental and superficial. Though players can engage in PvE, the game itself, as an environment, is inherently PvP. PvP is the competetive element. "Competetive PvE" is a misnomer and fallacy that makes no sense. Its either PvE, or PvP.

7) Warm and cool are not buzz words. They are terms that define temperature between hot and cold, on a linear temperature spectrum.
CCP seem to think PvE exists.

The only difference here is that it's not as linear. You can still call warm water hot, because it will be hotter than whatever baseline your working from. In the same way you can say competitive PvE is PvP if you refuse to make any further distinctions.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#800 - 2015-09-01 15:26:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Markus Reese
And thus.... the conversation has degraded into monkey flinging poo.

Our markets are Indirect PvP. I do something, it affects you directly. If I put something lower on market, you do not get sales. I put something higher on buy order, you cannot get items.

A person can directly manipulate prices to their own end. One person's tactics affects every other player. There is absolutely nothing in the game that is environment to make it PvE. There are scams, deals, trading in different hubs to get more items at a cheaper price than the other guy. That is return is then back into market. If I am richer, I can put you right under.

Lets go with something simple like ship hulls. Everybody needs em. I trade em and I don't want you to. I am rich so I drive the prices so low, you are taking a loss. You stop dealing in said ship hulls. Now I have the supply since nobody else is buying or making. Suddenly, I spike prices for my area. People need that hull so will pay the nose. I won PvP cause I forced you to stop playing that part of the market. How is it PvE? Where is the E?????

The bit with brokers and it leaving your hangar is mechanics only. It is like saying somebody isn't a carpenter because they are using a modern lathe for wood working! The mechanics are tools. PvP isnt PvP since there is little people in your ships actually aiming your turrets...

Competitive PvE is when one person's action is not directly affecting eachother. If both were mining in some belt where they had their own protected rocks, then it would be correct. There is competition, but each person is still running independently.

My corp many moons ago used to competitive mine. We would warp in with our fleet to a belt, and take the rocks we wanted, right out from another player. We as players, caused effect on another player through competion, hence we were player competing against a player. The environment was just a tool, no different than a track in a racing game or a base in an FPS. Mining = capture the flag.

Hrm... Dust514 must be pve. It is people trying to get objectives.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.