These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

When NPCs become detrimental to PVP

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Salvos Rhoska
#201 - 2017-01-02 22:31:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Teckos Pech wrote:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html


Lol.

"Alias:

Complex Question
Many Questions
Plurium Interrogationum
Translation: "many questions", Latin"

So in your mind a simple single yes/no binary question, with allowance for explanation/caveat, constitutes a "complex" or "many questions".

You are categorically misusing and misunderstanding these forms of argumentative fallacies.

There is no argumentative flaw in a yes/no question. They are systemically used in questioning witnesses in courts and law enforcement.

They are rationally, argumentatively, and logically sound, insofar as the question is rational/relevant, and the answer has (optionally) an opportunity for explanation of why it is yes/no.

Your question of whether I have stopped beating my wife, when infact I have no wife nor have ever had. was irrational and irrelevant. I answered it in the syntax you queried, but there is no consequence to it, because your premise for asking it was false.

You can ask me have I stopped being an orange, to which, logically, I can only reply "Yes, I have. Cos I was never was an orange." I cant answer "No", because that would mean I have been and remain an orange, when infact I am not, and have never been, an orange.

My question was not a logical fallacy, and certainly not one of this type.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Salvos Rhoska
#202 - 2017-01-02 22:51:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Teckos Pech wrote:


In other words, I do not see this change as nothing but good. In fact, in 3 months or so we might be where Ima Wreckyou suggests: with PvErs complaining that they can't do what they used to do. That they need more effort to obtain the outcome they used to obtain with less effort.

And what is even more amazing is that people like Herzog sees this kind of change somehow benefiting casual play. Shocked

And to be clear, my "side" is CCP should not make changes that reduce emergence. To the extent that my views also put me in say the "PvP" campe...okay. That's fine too.


1) "I do not see this change as nothing but good"
This is a double negative, and infact literally states you see the changes as good..

2) Yes, this may potentially significantly impact player based PvE activity. So what.
As I stated in a previous post, if this trend is carried through NPC corps, it has significant ramifications for localization of player activities throughout EVE.

3) There is nothing "casual" about these changes. Its a fundamental change of the dimensions of EVE. It is very, very serious. The virtual environment is beginning to react to player behavior. It is a glorious and good thing.

4) Lets put this argumentative fallacy crap behind us. Its not important, although it does complicate debate. Im not bragging, but I know this stuff intimately. I only bring it up when someone tries to nail me, falsely, on one. Most people dont know this stuff, and arguing it just derails topics. Its not relevant to discussing this topic, as best as each can.

5) Increased NPC interactivity/dynamics affects everyone in EVE.As you and others have indicated, I think many people dont realize how far reaching changes like this might be. Currently, its just one NPC corp, but it has been indicated this likely may become systemic.Get ready for it.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#203 - 2017-01-02 23:43:22 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Herzog:

My approach is different.

I dont perceive this as a PvE vs PvP issue at all, in any form.
This direction of development improves them both.

What matters, is that EVE as a systemic environment, starts to dynamically react to player behavior.

This is a far truer manifestation of EVE, as a game in which you make your own destiny, than ever before.
Its no longer just players you compete with, but the EVE universe itself, which interacts according to your choices, and most importantly, the choices of others (which constitutes PvP too).

EVE will remain a pervasive PvP environment, but developed into a reactionary environment in terms of systemic mechanics.
This direction includes and improves both PvP, and PvE, for the betterment of the game.
A better sum total.

We have had many debates here on the nature of difference between PvP and PvE.
The definition of PvP has congealed and is a matter of wide concencus.
But the definition of PvE, is still ambiguous.

People forget, that the "E" in PvE, means Environment.
Boiled down, as established in our definition of PvP by exclusion, it means everything else except players.

EVE, in terms of NPC interaction and dynamics, is a vast dead expanse.
The "environment" is passive and inert.

People like Remiel and Torin argue it should remain "dull and boring".
I cant agree.
First of all, dull and boring is NEVER a good thing in a game, no matter how you cut it.
Second of all, EVE is a single shard universe already overwhelmingly directed by player behavior.
But its player action on a dead, inert landscape.

The potential of NPC dynamics opens up a third dimension, parallax and degree of complication that truly integrates player behavior into EVE, and EVE into player behavior.


Aye we may have something to disagree on. The argument is not about PVP as you state, which is correct. But it's the (perceived) PVPer's argument towards Eve "sand" having to be dead and boring that comes from their credo. I'm not referring to the F1 monkey, the roamer, the 1v1 guy who goes looking for fights, and not even the NPSI guys. I refer to these toxic gankers who hide behind the concept of PVP and "content creation" for what is by most definition griefing.


I agree with your points, but the source of the problem in this thread is not real PVP from real PVPers, just griefers hiding behind the concept. And of course anything that might deny them a gank or bring on a consequence is bad and unfair. Of course the sand in the sandbox - or to be more precise, their litterbox - needs to be dead and boring. It's all about them. All the trappings of toxic people in a poorly managed player community are afoot. You will never get any agreement with them on these forums because the grief does not stop in space with these people. You could be so correct that God almighty Himself posts and says "yep, he's right. It'll even written in stone next time I put anything to stone" and these form warriors are still going to disagree with you, lie, gaslight, project, and double down.

You are correct. But what we can disagree on is the root cause of the trouble in this debate. I'm for all AI all of the time, and I'm the one who lost a 3 year old exploration ship to AI, some strange Serpentis spawn that even showed up as white crosses on the overview, that showed up after I went too far in an escalation. I say, bring it.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Salvos Rhoska
#204 - 2017-01-03 00:07:00 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

I agree with your points, but the source of the problem in this thread is not real PVP from real PVPers, just griefers hiding behind the concept.


First of all, +1 to your post,

I am aware of the impetus of the players in the central quote above.
Our difference lies in our attitude towards them.
I perceive them as a necessary "evil", and content creators.
You are sallty as hell, and I dont blame you for it. Ive read your past grievances, and I find them valid in large part.

If its any consolation, these players are scared shitless of the potential ramifications of this direction by CCP.

But, frankly, all of us should be.
Not in a bad way, but because it portents a fundamental shift in EVE.

If EVE, as a systemic environment, starts coming "alive" and reactive, many things will change, but hopefully so that they improve both PvE and PvP, and the overall EVE experience.

As Im sure you agree, CCP has spent a lot of time and effort providing player based content, at the expense of developing EVE itself as a nascent systemic environment. Players will adapt. You cant code better players. But adding a third dimension to EVE interms of NPC entity dynamics? I think EVE is finally matured and ready for that. Yuuuuuge potential.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#205 - 2017-01-03 00:08:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
..., but the source of the problem in this thread is not real PVP from real PVPers, just griefers hiding behind the concept. And of course anything that might deny them a gank or bring on a consequence is bad and unfair. Of course the sand in the sandbox - or to be more precise, their litterbox - needs to be dead and boring. It's all about them. All the trappings of toxic people in a poorly managed player community are afoot. You will never get any agreement with them on these forums because the grief does not stop in space with these people...

The concept of 'real pvp' becomes subjective as soon as the straight 'player versus player' meaning is put aside, but even assuming it doesn't include a narrow group of players that you don't personally like, there is no problem in the thread. It's a discussion and sensible discussion is fine, no matter what the view or who puts it.

But it's posts like this that just inflame the debate as there are several examples of people posting in this thread with views counter to Salvas that have never ganked, are not personally interested in ganking and have no problem with consequences in pvp.
Salvos Rhoska
#206 - 2017-01-03 00:33:32 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
But it's posts like this that just inflame the debate as there are several examples of people posting in this thread with views counter to Salvas that have never ganked, are not personally interested in ganking and have no problem with consequences in pvp.


This direction is so new, and its potential repercussions so severe and wide reaching, that nobody will escape it.
The potential of NPC dynamics/interaction with player behavior is revolutionary.

As I said earlier, and maintain, I applaud Remiel for originating this thread. He has a niche activity and he has provided for discussion on a significant concern. Remiel happened to be at the cutting edge of what I think is a CCP pilot project. We are getting first hand data and experience from him.

He also, admirably, has changed his premise, adapted and understood that this may be the future of EVE.

Which leads to my central point.

It is better to have a dynamic, interactive environment in EVE, than a dead, "boring and dull" inert one.
EVE is finally approaching maturity where this can happen.

It would affect all of us, but we will have a better game thereafter.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#207 - 2017-01-03 00:35:19 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


That too I can categorically refute.


No you can't (you can't prove a negative). First it is my opinion and second the notion that you are completely objective and are not letting your beliefs influence you strains credulity, IMO. Keep asserting it all you want, I just don't believe you. This is not meant to be insulting it is just that I don't think people can divorce their beliefs and wall them off like that. That it is better to state those beliefs and that way it there in the open.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
So in your mind a simple single yes/no binary question, with allowance for explanation/caveat, constitutes a "complex" or "many questions".

You are categorically misusing and misunderstanding these forms of argumentative fallacies.


No. The question of better AI is a complex question as this thread demonstrates. Remiel and others may be fine with better AI for missions or anomalies, but not for these mining fleets. So for them the answer is both yes and no and you demanding just one answer is a dishonest debating technique which undermines your statements that you are totally objective and neutral. You have disallowed a more complex answer to a complex question.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
If its any consolation, these players are scared shitless of the potential ramifications of this direction by CCP.[/quote[

Seriously? Tell us how objective and unbiased you are. Roll

[quote=Salvos Rhoska]I am aware of the impetus of the players in the central quote above.
Our difference lies in our attitude towards them.
I perceive them as a necessary "evil", and content creators.
You are sallty as hell, and I dont blame you for it. Ive read your past grievances, and I find them valid in large part.


Hint, you are telling everyone which side you are on here with statements like "Our difference lies in our attitude...." That clearly says, "I am in this camp."

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#208 - 2017-01-03 00:37:58 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
..., but the source of the problem in this thread is not real PVP from real PVPers, just griefers hiding behind the concept. And of course anything that might deny them a gank or bring on a consequence is bad and unfair. Of course the sand in the sandbox - or to be more precise, their litterbox - needs to be dead and boring. It's all about them. All the trappings of toxic people in a poorly managed player community are afoot. You will never get any agreement with them on these forums because the grief does not stop in space with these people...

The concept of 'real pvp' becomes subjective as soon as the straight 'player versus player' meaning is put aside, but even assuming it doesn't include a narrow group of players that you don't personally like, there is no problem in the thread. It's a discussion and sensible discussion is fine, no matter what the view or who puts it.

But it's posts like this that just inflame the debate as there are several examples of people posting in this thread with views counter to Salvas that have never ganked, are not personally interested in ganking and have no problem with consequences in pvp.


No kidding, this attempt to define PvP is totally self serving an intellectually dishonest clap trap. "Oh, that PvP I like, the that PvP is well griefing (and should be sanctioned in some manner)."

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Salvos Rhoska
#209 - 2017-01-03 01:09:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Techos:

1) I am under no obligation to disprove my own belief. There is no negative there. I tried to encourage discussion away from fallacies like this, but apparently you are either unaware of them or deliberately pursuing them as antagonistic.

If you dont believe what I say, that is your problem, not mine. I am under no obligation to change your beliefs or your "opinion". of me or what I have said. I stated the truth of my position.

I specifically warned against such imaginary implications contrived in your own mind, but you just arent getting it.
Perhaps soon I will start laying imaginary implications on you too, and see how you cope.

2) Remiel's situation, is significant, but adaptable. The repercussions of a more dynamic EVE environment will affect us all, for better or worse.

3) There is no dishonesty in a yes/no question, especially when it is a conclusion of an explanation. I already addressed this.

4) When someone says they understand the delineating perspectives and arguments, it does not mean they are choosing sides. Its merely a statement of understanding someones position. Understanding does not make one complicit.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#210 - 2017-01-03 02:38:56 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Techos:

1) I am under no obligation to disprove my own belief. There is no negative there. I tried to encourage discussion away from fallacies like this, but apparently you are either unaware of them or deliberately pursuing them as antagonistic.

If you dont believe what I say, that is your problem, not mine. I am under no obligation to change your beliefs or your "opinion". of me or what I have said. I stated the truth of my position.

I specifically warned against such imaginary implications contrived in your own mind, but you just arent getting it.
Perhaps soon I will start laying imaginary implications on you too, and see how you cope.

2) Remiel's situation, is significant, but adaptable. The repercussions of a more dynamic EVE environment will affect us all, for better or worse.

3) There is no dishonesty in a yes/no question, especially when it is a conclusion of an explanation. I already addressed this.

4) When someone says they understand the delineating perspectives and arguments, it does not mean they are choosing sides. Its merely a statement of understanding someones position. Understanding does not make one complicit.


1) you literally just straight out admitted your position has been a subjective one all along.

2) you make EVE more dynamic by working on player interactions with other players, not interactions with NPCs.

3) yes, there is, especially when you're trying to turn a nuanced situation into a yes/no question/answer. Creationists do this all the time. I'm very familiar with it, been handling their nonsense for over a decade and you demonstrated no greater intellectual honesty than them when you asked for a yes/no answer to a question that can only be answered when considering all variables and contexts in different situations.

4) you've been taking a 'side' in this from your very first post. deny it all you like, anyone with an intact frontal lobe can see that unequivocally.

I went to bed after my last post last night and when I got here this morning, this thread had blown up.

And I'm seeing the same misrepresentations and confusions as before, so let me clarify a few things:

1. No, the NPCs didn't follow me. I think when you disperse a mining fleet, they warp off for a bit, then go looking for another belt. If you happen to be in the next belt they warp to with -5 or worse standings, they warp off again and are immediately followed by a response fleet.

2. I'm a solo PVP'er, and the belts are a good place to hunt other players. Sometimes, they are oblivious and are too easy to kill, no challenge. I don't know that when I go after them, but I don't regret blapping them either. They got the message that warns you about lowsec just like everyone else, and they chose to close it and proceed anyway. They knew the risks. Sometimes, my target is a trap, and the moment he gets tackle in, 20 other guys and their logi come out of whatever wh spawned in the system that day and tan my hide. I also don't know that when I go after them, but I do it anyway. Because sometimes, when I go after a target in the belts, they turn out to be a really good fight, and I'd miss out on those fights if I didn't go for everything that moved. The fights I'm looking for are like the one I described early in the thread, one of my earliest fights, my brawling ishkur vs a kiting wolf. The kind of fight that gets the blood rushing and the heart pumping. It's gonna be a little anti-climactic for one party or the other in a fight like that if it's disrupted by a mining fleet landing on the belt, finding one of them has bad standings, and then dropping a response fleet.

3. Those bad standings are derived as much from player interaction (with players in those NPC corps) as they are from interactions with the NPCs themselves. THIS IS THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM AND THE PRIMARY ISSUE THAT I POSTED THIS THREAD ABOUT. It doesn't just make no sense that one should be punished for PVP with negative standings when we already take a sec hit and are driven into the depths of lowsec for it, it's also a great incentive for players to make toons in the corps with mining fleets, because it affords them a level of protection. Don't want the mining fleets to come after you and spoil potentially epic fights? Okay, well, don't shoot me otherwise you'll lose standings with them.

4. I had a guy in lowsec a few weeks ago who was picking fights, and I knew I couldn't take him solo, so I asked one of my PVP mates in low to come give me a hand. You know what he said? "Nah, I'm busy getting shiny stuff from the mining fleets around here". This is a direct (albeit anecdotal) example of 'more dynamic' PVE detracting from player interactions. He just wants to go off solo all of a sudden and fight NPCs, because why not? They are actually more fun to fight than most players. And therein lies the other part of this problem, and why I stand firmly in the camp of, "npc interaction should be dull, and boring, because it's more player interaction that needs to be encouraged in this player-driven MMO." I say this because I, too, have enjoyed fighting them. That's a problem.

“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
Diane Persis
#211 - 2017-01-03 02:47:19 UTC
The fact remains that CCP put safeguards in place, arbitrary rules and NPC choosing sides, that simply shouldn't exist in a sandbox.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#212 - 2017-01-03 02:48:06 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


1) "I do not see this change as nothing but good"
This is a double negative, and infact literally states you see the changes as good..


Uhhmm no. You appear to see this change as nothing but a good thing. I do not. That is what that sentence reads.

Quote:
2) Yes, this may potentially significantly impact player based PvE activity. So what.
As I stated in a previous post, if this trend is carried through NPC corps, it has significant ramifications for localization of player activities throughout EVE.


The question is will it be a positive or negative impact. Your almost knee jerk reaction is: it is good no matter what anyone else writes and I'm completely and totally objective.

Quote:
3) There is nothing "casual" about these changes. Its a fundamental change of the dimensions of EVE. It is very, very serious. The virtual environment is beginning to react to player behavior. It is a glorious and good thing.


Yes, I agree which makes some of Herzog's statements baffling.

Quote:
5) Increased NPC interactivity/dynamics affects everyone in EVE.As you and others have indicated, I think many people dont realize how far reaching changes like this might be. Currently, its just one NPC corp, but it has been indicated this likely may become systemic.Get ready for it.


No it isn't. These mining ops are not active for 12 Empire corps and pirate factions. And the issue for me is still will this add anything of value or not. You actually did not answer the most important part of that post, IMO.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#213 - 2017-01-03 02:58:30 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
..., but the source of the problem in this thread is not real PVP from real PVPers, just griefers hiding behind the concept. And of course anything that might deny them a gank or bring on a consequence is bad and unfair. Of course the sand in the sandbox - or to be more precise, their litterbox - needs to be dead and boring. It's all about them. All the trappings of toxic people in a poorly managed player community are afoot. You will never get any agreement with them on these forums because the grief does not stop in space with these people...

The concept of 'real pvp' becomes subjective as soon as the straight 'player versus player' meaning is put aside, but even assuming it doesn't include a narrow group of players that you don't personally like, there is no problem in the thread. It's a discussion and sensible discussion is fine, no matter what the view or who puts it.

But it's posts like this that just inflame the debate as there are several examples of people posting in this thread with views counter to Salvas that have never ganked, are not personally interested in ganking and have no problem with consequences in pvp.


No kidding, this attempt to define PvP is totally self serving an intellectually dishonest clap trap. "Oh, that PvP I like, the that PvP is well griefing (and should be sanctioned in some manner)."



You lost faction with me when you showed you demonstrated how bumping (no consequence highsec tackle) is the foundation of ganking in a self aggrandizing thread YOU STARTED that existed solely for inflamed debate.

But thank you for demonstrating my point once more (I was betting on it) to illustrate the kind of people we have to deal with here. Your name comes up in the topic every time.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#214 - 2017-01-03 03:04:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Techos:

1) I am under no obligation to disprove my own belief. There is no negative there. I tried to encourage discussion away from fallacies like this, but apparently you are either unaware of them or deliberately pursuing them as antagonistic.

If you dont believe what I say, that is your problem, not mine. I am under no obligation to change your beliefs or your "opinion". of me or what I have said. I stated the truth of my position.

I specifically warned against such imaginary implications contrived in your own mind, but you just arent getting it.
Perhaps soon I will start laying imaginary implications on you too, and see how you cope.

2) Remiel's situation, is significant, but adaptable. The repercussions of a more dynamic EVE environment will affect us all, for better or worse.

3) There is no dishonesty in a yes/no question, especially when it is a conclusion of an explanation. I already addressed this.

4) When someone says they understand the delineating perspectives and arguments, it does not mean they are choosing sides. Its merely a statement of understanding someones position. Understanding does not make one complicit.


Seems to me you just chucked out the notion of being objective and are now in the subjective camp. Also if you are not going to, at least periodically, challenge/attempt to disprove/review your beliefs that strikes me as tending toward dogmatism. And lastly, if you are not going to change your beliefs nor try to persuade me to change mine, at least to some degree....why are you even bothering to post at all?

This whole situation strikes me as one of trade-offs. If better NPC AI leads to less player-on-player interaction that is not a good thing. If it leads to more, that is a good thing. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall the case being made for more player-on-player interaction. And I consider player-on-player interaction the core of the game. It is what makes it the sandbox. You cannot have much of a sandbox, IMO, without player-on-player interaction.

There, I have laid out how you can try to change my beliefs. Suggest some ways this will lead to more player-on-player interaction (note: it need not be non-cooperative, it could be cooperative). And bear in mind another point I made. More player-on-player interaction to accomplish what is already being accomplished today can also be problematic. That is what that ding-a-ling Greyscale kept prattling on about with getting rid of things like jump freighters and the like. He wanted to make NS logistics a complete nightmare. Sure it would encourage more player-on-player interaction in theory...but it might also just lead players to say, "**** it, I'm off to play World of Warships."

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#215 - 2017-01-03 03:07:53 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
..., but the source of the problem in this thread is not real PVP from real PVPers, just griefers hiding behind the concept. And of course anything that might deny them a gank or bring on a consequence is bad and unfair. Of course the sand in the sandbox - or to be more precise, their litterbox - needs to be dead and boring. It's all about them. All the trappings of toxic people in a poorly managed player community are afoot. You will never get any agreement with them on these forums because the grief does not stop in space with these people...

The concept of 'real pvp' becomes subjective as soon as the straight 'player versus player' meaning is put aside, but even assuming it doesn't include a narrow group of players that you don't personally like, there is no problem in the thread. It's a discussion and sensible discussion is fine, no matter what the view or who puts it.

But it's posts like this that just inflame the debate as there are several examples of people posting in this thread with views counter to Salvas that have never ganked, are not personally interested in ganking and have no problem with consequences in pvp.


No kidding, this attempt to define PvP is totally self serving an intellectually dishonest clap trap. "Oh, that PvP I like, the that PvP is well griefing (and should be sanctioned in some manner)."



You lost faction with me when you showed you demonstrated how bumping (no consequence highsec tackle) is the foundation of ganking in a self aggrandizing thread YOU STARTED that existed solely for inflamed debate.

But thank you for demonstrating my point once more (I was betting on it) to illustrate the kind of people we have to deal with here. Your name comes up in the topic every time.


That thread was about risk not bumping. And yet like the intellectual light weight you have yet to show up in the thread to discuss alternatives to bumping mechanics.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#216 - 2017-01-03 03:08:09 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

I agree with your points, but the source of the problem in this thread is not real PVP from real PVPers, just griefers hiding behind the concept.


First of all, +1 to your post,

I am aware of the impetus of the players in the central quote above.
Our difference lies in our attitude towards them.
I perceive them as a necessary "evil", and content creators.
You are sallty as hell, and I dont blame you for it. Ive read your past grievances, and I find them valid in large part.

If its any consolation, these players are scared shitless of the potential ramifications of this direction by CCP.

But, frankly, all of us should be.
Not in a bad way, but because it portents a fundamental shift in EVE.

If EVE, as a systemic environment, starts coming "alive" and reactive, many things will change, but hopefully so that they improve both PvE and PvP, and the overall EVE experience.

As Im sure you agree, CCP has spent a lot of time and effort providing player based content, at the expense of developing EVE itself as a nascent systemic environment. Players will adapt. You cant code better players. But adding a third dimension to EVE interms of NPC entity dynamics? I think EVE is finally matured and ready for that. Yuuuuuge potential.



Scared? I don't know about that. They have every reason to believe they can forum-brigade and get something changed to favor their play style. No consequence highsec tackling is supposed to be fixed by now, but it never comes. The only quick nerf I ever saw to a gank method was Herr Wilkus' "Tornado Trifecta" and that took a week. That was the end of being able to warp while GCC'ed. But it took a long time to do away with hyperdunking. (as fun as it was to disrupt one) and that was after CCP swung one way then the other on the subject.

They find one little thing and then game it to death and if the developers see it as a hole of sorts they fix it then we get a month of complaints about nerfs. Meanwhile the no-consequence highsec tackling continues.

If they are scared, don't expect them to admit it. But they are masters of "mechanic fu" so if they, even once, figure out a way to screw someone with this AI stuff, there will be large self-aggrandizing threads about it, making fun of everybody who is not them, making fun of CCP, and pretty much making fun of everybody who ever made fun of them (past and present, and probably future too for good measure).

If the discovered method turns out to be a hole in the mechanic that surpasses the original intent, and it gets fixed, these same people will then create large threads about how they are the poor victims of yet one more nerf. That's usually how it goes.

The key thing here is, I think, that the importance of these new developments do not get shadowed by these terrible people who just have to be the center of attention and get everything their way. If they don't approve of it (for not being related to and enhancing their play style) they will attack it like a pack of SJWs at a pickup artist convention. They will find every last flaw and abuse it to bring trouble and make it look like it's all a bad idea. If they are successful the AI won't go far but maybe we will get more skins instead.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#217 - 2017-01-03 03:10:38 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
..., but the source of the problem in this thread is not real PVP from real PVPers, just griefers hiding behind the concept. And of course anything that might deny them a gank or bring on a consequence is bad and unfair. Of course the sand in the sandbox - or to be more precise, their litterbox - needs to be dead and boring. It's all about them. All the trappings of toxic people in a poorly managed player community are afoot. You will never get any agreement with them on these forums because the grief does not stop in space with these people...

The concept of 'real pvp' becomes subjective as soon as the straight 'player versus player' meaning is put aside, but even assuming it doesn't include a narrow group of players that you don't personally like, there is no problem in the thread. It's a discussion and sensible discussion is fine, no matter what the view or who puts it.

But it's posts like this that just inflame the debate as there are several examples of people posting in this thread with views counter to Salvas that have never ganked, are not personally interested in ganking and have no problem with consequences in pvp.


No kidding, this attempt to define PvP is totally self serving an intellectually dishonest clap trap. "Oh, that PvP I like, the that PvP is well griefing (and should be sanctioned in some manner)."



You lost faction with me when you showed you demonstrated how bumping (no consequence highsec tackle) is the foundation of ganking in a self aggrandizing thread YOU STARTED that existed solely for inflamed debate.

But thank you for demonstrating my point once more (I was betting on it) to illustrate the kind of people we have to deal with here. Your name comes up in the topic every time.


That thread was about risk not bumping. And yet like the intellectual light weight you have yet to show up in the thread to discuss alternatives to bumping mechanics.


I also made a bet you would not care about your name coming up over topics like these. You deliver.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#218 - 2017-01-03 03:21:17 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
...some bot aligned sperg...

Just another confirmed liar.

Unfortunately that's not a trait of the character, but the person behind the character.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Jax Bederen
Dark Horse RM
#219 - 2017-01-03 05:34:50 UTC
You kill their peeps you live with the consequences. Sometimes it works against you, there is no problem here.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#220 - 2017-01-03 05:48:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Jax Bederen wrote:
You kill their peeps you live with the consequences. Sometimes it works against you, there is no problem here.


So why is this only limited to 'peeps' in just a few NPC mining corps? Does Alliastra have a mining fleet I don't know about? If so, I'll drop corp right now so that whenever someone kills me, they lose standings with Alliastra, eventually making them KOS to any mining fleet in any belt they warp to that has one. Why is it that one has to 'think twice' about and 'suffer the NPC consequences' of killing someone in an NPC corp, but not a player corp? Aren't they already protected enough by virtue of being immune to wardecs?

“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