These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

So why is CCP supporting the Burn Jita event?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aphoxema G
Khushakor Clan
#241 - 2012-04-30 16:55:36 UTC
This is excellent experience for developers to see impacts of hisec aggression. I'm sure CCP is watching this even very closely and getting some excellent insight from it.
Vyanr
SKORPION LEGION
#242 - 2012-04-30 19:00:00 UTC
I like the huge sense of entitlement people have.

when you click 'I Agree' to the TOS and the EULA, you're not agreeing to have only your wants and needs recognized, but that you're accepting that you are merely renting server time/space, that CCP is not responsible for keeping you happy, and that CCP can do whatever the hell they please

Yes, Goonfleet are trolls/mean people/jerks/etc. But at least they're professional about it. They're having fun, and honestly so is everyone else who hasn't moaned about their internet space ship being blown up.

As has been mentioned before. This is what CCP loves, you can't not love your game's community using the game mechanics that are working as intended to reform itself. Yeah, you can't get that in WoW, because last time I checked, the only real economy to WoW is either players shouting trade offers, or the Auction.

Star Trek Online doesn't have this sort of Economy, because damn near everything is bound to your character when you put it on.

Don't know why you carebears are whining about it anyway, if you were smart, you'd have prepared for this sort of thing, You should be cheering for the action you don't care to take. More profits, less selling of things at 1 isk less than the other person.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#243 - 2012-04-30 19:01:43 UTC
Vyanr wrote:
Don't know why you carebears are whining about it anyway, if you were smart, you'd have prepared for this sort of thing, You should be cheering for the action you don't care to take. More profits, less selling of things at 1 isk less than the other person.

Tsk.

0.01 isk everyday ~

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Vyanr
SKORPION LEGION
#244 - 2012-04-30 19:15:10 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Vyanr wrote:
Don't know why you carebears are whining about it anyway, if you were smart, you'd have prepared for this sort of thing, You should be cheering for the action you don't care to take. More profits, less selling of things at 1 isk less than the other person.

Tsk.

0.01 isk everyday ~


QTF

:D
Kurai Kihaku
Commonwealth of Individuals
#245 - 2012-04-30 19:21:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Kurai Kihaku
Vyanr wrote:
I like the huge sense of entitlement people have.

when you click 'I Agree' to the TOS and the EULA, you're not agreeing to have only your wants and needs recognized, but that you're accepting that you are merely renting server time/space, that CCP is not responsible for keeping you happy, and that CCP can do whatever the hell they please



That is not true. They are responsible for keeping me happy if they want my money in their pocket. If they dont, I perfectly understand, and I'll be happy to relieve them of that burden. But until now, I didnt see any indication of that.

Sister Rhode wrote:
CCP supports it because they didn't design a game for carebears.


And they didnt design a game purely for PvP either. If that was so, other gameplay elements wouldnt have been included. The way you, and many others put it, high sec sounds like something trivial, added as an afterthought.

If what you are saying is true, I never seen CCP clearly state that in an official statement, write it on their webpage, or note it anywhere clearly visible. And they damn well should, if they intend it to be that way. Note, I said "intend", not "intended", because the latter is completely irrelevant, no matter how many times you keep throwing that in my face to prove your point.


Sister Rhode wrote:
Nothing is stopping you from logging in, going to Jita and shooting us.


But what if I simply DONT FEEL LIKE IT? I gotta work during most of all those hours you are in Jita. And that one hour that I do have time to log in to haul some goods, I am being blocked. Obviously, I am not happy to find out that someone with too much free time and money has the power to prevent me from playing my favourite game the way I want to play it. In my opinion, the only entity with the ability to do this should be the devs.


What I cannot understand though, is why is it that CCP and so many others who play EVE refuse to acknowlege that some people simply do not want to PvP, and will continue refusing to do so, no matter how much you push at them.

There are those that refuse to PvP because they simply do not have the time for these things. PvP requires a hefty time investment and lots of dedication. You need to buy all necessary items on the market, then you need to fly your ship to the place where the fight wil take place just to get it blown up and be forced to start the whole tedious process over again. All for a few seconds of excitement, and hours of grinding to make the isk back required to purchase a replacement ship and all items required. I happen to be one of those that find their satisfaction in other things, such as mining rocks while watching TV or modifying orders on the market during evenings before going to sleep. Am I suddenly not allowed to do so becuase some maniac out there in control of a large virtual corporation with too much free time thinks I should change my activities to PvP?


I can quit in anger... But why? The maniac would then be very sad becuase he would have no one to push anymore.. The problem is that eventually it's ought to happen. I may decide that the satisfaction I get from EVE online is no longer worth the time/monetary investment due to certain rescent changes, and then the maniac in control of a large and powerful virtual corp can sit there playing with himself... Roll But wait, that sounds like I am planning to quit, which I most certainly dont intend to do until the option of "carebearing" is completely and totally taken away from me.
Molang
MyXGamer
#246 - 2012-04-30 19:29:55 UTC
As an experienced care bear I felt compelled to respond to this. In 4 years I have probably left the safety of hi-sec twice in that time. That's OK, I love my spreadsheets and I love my haulers.

However,
I LOVE events like Burn Jita! Loosing ships and loot is the cost of doing business (very small cost if you are doing it right). Eve industry is not a static money making machine you need to think and adapt. Only then do you stop being the care bear victim that the goons are targeting.

Stop being a victim and adapt to the situation at hand. Start manufacturing haulers.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#247 - 2012-04-30 19:32:32 UTC
Gogela wrote:
Cipher Jones wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
I generally support anything the playerbase does unless it violates our TOS/EULA Big smile

So when the Mitinni directly states that put a notorious griefer in charge of griefing its not violating the TOS? Because last time I had this brought this up CCP did not answer, and ppl claimed there was no griefing. Now that it is overt griefing you still do nothing, so I assume that the answer is you only enforce the TOS/Eula when the community demands it.

The tears...

It's so weird how so much of the time the internet turns p*****s into tough guys. I think this is the only forum on the internet that makes some people turn into p*****s. I wonder how that happens... Cipher?

Roll


I wouldn't know, I'm not a pussy IRL or on the internet.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#248 - 2012-04-30 19:35:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Cipher Jones
Malcanis wrote:
Cipher Jones wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
I generally support anything the playerbase does unless it violates our TOS/EULA Big smile



So when the Mitinni directly states that put a notorious griefer in charge of griefing its not violating the TOS? Because last time I had this brought this up CCP did not answer, and ppl claimed there was no griefing. Now that it is overt griefing you still do nothing, so I assume that the answer is you only enforce the TOS/Eula when the community demands it.







Suicide ganking isn't in and of itself "griefing".


I am referring to openly admitted griefing, so there is no need for disambiguation.

Quote:
again... I was uder the understanding the griefing rules in EVE are so vague there might as well not be any.


Starting out by saying you don't understand something you haven't read is pro.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
ian papabear
No Regard.
#249 - 2012-04-30 19:36:25 UTC
I think the Jita burning thing is absolutely amazing.

It is incredible to see a tons and tons of players come together for a central idea(s). Whether you're an enemy, friend, neutral to goons: it is an incredible spectacle to see.

.
jason hill
Red vs Blue Flight Academy
#250 - 2012-04-30 19:38:22 UTC
dear ccp
can you please bloody roll the game back to 2003 when we only had 8000 players on average playing as we never had a tenth of the amount of bloody moans on the forums as we bloody do now .Evil ffs its a sodding sandbox just bloody live with it


you dont like then thats your problem .....live with it . goons are not the 1st to do this ...and they wont be the last . Roll
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#251 - 2012-04-30 20:06:41 UTC
jason hill wrote:
dear ccp
can you please bloody roll the game back to 2003 when we only had 8000 players on average playing as we never had a tenth of the amount of bloody moans on the forums as we bloody do now .Evil ffs its a sodding sandbox just bloody live with it


you dont like then thats your problem .....live with it . goons are not the 1st to do this ...and they wont be the last . Roll


Evesearch disagrees with your post.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Van Rivor
Chao Salvage
#252 - 2012-04-30 20:28:44 UTC
Molang wrote:
As an experienced care bear I felt compelled to respond to this. In 4 years I have probably left the safety of hi-sec twice in that time. That's OK, I love my spreadsheets and I love my haulers.

However,
I LOVE events like Burn Jita! Loosing ships and loot is the cost of doing business (very small cost if you are doing it right). Eve industry is not a static money making machine you need to think and adapt. Only then do you stop being the care bear victim that the goons are targeting.

Stop being a victim and adapt to the situation at hand. Start manufacturing haulers.


This!!! Holy crap, this!!!
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#253 - 2012-04-30 20:46:15 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
I generally support anything the playerbase does unless it violates our TOS/EULA Big smile


How's the Eve manifesto looking like lately ?

COO - Bene Gesserit Chapterhouse  CEO - Sanctuary Pact Alliance
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#254 - 2012-04-30 20:51:40 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:
jason hill wrote:
dear ccp
can you please bloody roll the game back to 2003 when we only had 8000 players on average playing as we never had a tenth of the amount of bloody moans on the forums as we bloody do now .Evil ffs its a sodding sandbox just bloody live with it


you dont like then thats your problem .....live with it . goons are not the 1st to do this ...and they wont be the last . Roll


Evesearch disagrees with your post.


eve disagrees with you

soz

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#255 - 2012-04-30 21:01:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
So many people in this thread that use an incorrect definition of "Player vs. Player" gaming, and refuse to use the one the game developers use.

So many people in this thread that use an incorrect definition of "Griefing" and refuse to use the one the game developers use.

So many people in this thread admitting they are so bad at organizing themselves and how they play this game that they allow other players to dictate how they play it.

So many people in this thread that admit they cannot handle direct competition from other players, and can only succeed against limited AI opponents.

So many people in this thread that say this sort of head to head competition is not what they are paying for, yet continue to pay for it.

So many people in this thread that say they should not have to endure a "Player vs. Player" environment, and then turn around and undercut competing players on the market or mine the last bit of ore out of a belt.

So many people in this thread that feel the game rules they agreed to when they made their account should be changed to only favor their play style at the expense of all other players.

So many people in this thread claiming people do not want events like this, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Thankfully so many people in this thread saying a non combative play style is more than fine, as long as you understand and support the fact that many people have a more aggressive play style and anyone in game can and will be affected by this as well.

Takes all kinds I suppose.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
EVE Stig
Doomheim
#256 - 2012-04-30 21:27:55 UTC  |  Edited by: EVE Stig
Amanda Holland wrote:
I was under the understanding this was a sandbox game and so long as you dont hack the client, everything's fair game. I didnt see evidence of any hacking cept maybe the guy in the Nyx but I understand that was legal.

Just cause you dont like Goons, or Mittani, or their actions or tactics doesnt make that illegal. Or well I hope it doesnt. Id rather not play a game that dumb.


Cipher Jones wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
I generally support anything the playerbase does unless it violates our TOS/EULA Big smile



So when the Mitinni directly states that put a notorious griefer in charge of griefing its not violating the TOS? Because last time I had this brought this up CCP did not answer, and ppl claimed there was no griefing. Now that it is overt griefing you still do nothing, so I assume that the answer is you only enforce the TOS/Eula when the community demands it.






again... I was uder the understanding the griefing rules in EVE are so vague there might as well not be any.
Plus disnt Goons wardec most of the ppl they were killing? Hell then even by the definition given earlier, thats war not griefing.

Where/when did Mittani say anything? I havent seen him since "the return"


I say...
this!

Ranger 1:
So many people in this thread that use an incorrect definition of "Player vs. Player" gaming, and refuse to use the one the game developers use.

True, so...INFORM THEM!!

So many people in this thread that use an incorrect definition of "Griefing" and refuse to use the one the game developers use.

I didnt know there WAS one that the devs use.INFORM US

So many people in this thread admitting they are so bad at organizing themselves and how they play this game that they allow other players to dictate how they play it.

so 0.0 play then? Cause 0.0 and solo are rarely together in the same sentence

So many people in this thread that admit they cannot handle direct competition from other players, and can only succeed against limited AI opponents.

Then they are playing the wrong game

So many people in this thread that say this sort of head to head competition is not what they are paying for, yet continue to pay for it.

then they are stupid

So many people in this thread that say they should not have to endure a "Player vs. Player" environment, and then turn around and undercut competing players on the market or mine the last bit of ore out of a belt.

then they are stupid - I leave like 5 in every rock I mine heh

So many people in this thread that feel the game rules they agreed to when they made their account should be changed to only favor their play style at the expense of all other players.

then they are stupid - and CCPSHOULDNT LISTEN TO THEM

So many people in this thread claiming people do not want events like this, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Then they are lying to us or to themselves it doesnt matter

Thankfully so many people in this thread saying a non combative play style is more than fine, as long as you understand and support the fact that many people have a more aggressive play style and anyone in game can and will be affected by this as well.

Yeah but more say you must play MY way or GTFO. or at least theyre louder

Takes all kinds I suppose."

"Some say that he is actually dead, but the Grim Reaper is too afraid to tell him." "Some say he is the 3rd member of Daft Punk and he did the vocals of "Technologic" song. All we know is,he's called EVE Stig"!
Hauling Hal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#257 - 2012-04-30 21:30:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Hauling Hal
Well, duhh! CCP support it, because it is within the rules of the game. Funnily enough, they'll support anything within the rules of the game if it gets them publicity.


/edit Pah, forgot to quote, but I'm sure anyone that reads this can make something up.
EVE Stig
Doomheim
#258 - 2012-04-30 21:35:53 UTC
Hauling Hal wrote:
Well, duhh! CCP support it, because it is within the rules of the game. Funnily enough, they'll support anything within the rules of the game if it gets them publicity.


/edit Pah, forgot to quote, but I'm sure anyone that reads this can make something up.


Technically they support anything within the rules of the game wether it makes them look good or not

or they should -.-

"Some say that he is actually dead, but the Grim Reaper is too afraid to tell him." "Some say he is the 3rd member of Daft Punk and he did the vocals of "Technologic" song. All we know is,he's called EVE Stig"!
Amanda Holland
Doomheim
#259 - 2012-04-30 21:37:09 UTC
EVE Stig wrote:
Hauling Hal wrote:
Well, duhh! CCP support it, because it is within the rules of the game. Funnily enough, they'll support anything within the rules of the game if it gets them publicity.


/edit Pah, forgot to quote, but I'm sure anyone that reads this can make something up.


Technically they support anything within the rules of the game wether it makes them look good or not

or they should -.-


Yeah... hence mittani's ban AFTER the apology AND stepping down from the chairman's seat. There are many who think he was wronged.

ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) vroom vroom motorcycle CCP to the sandbox: "This "adapt or die" attitude is nothing new to EVE, but we want to give it a constant rhythm that is a bit more under our control than in the past"
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#260 - 2012-04-30 21:43:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Quote:
True, so...INFORM THEM!!


Smile

The definition that CCP, and indeed the rest of the gaming industry, uses for Player vs. Player has been spelled out many times even in this very thread. Griefing has been covered as well.

Unfortunately, that doesn't stop people from sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting "No, I'm right and everyone else is wrong".

Not criticizing your post in any way, it was good.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.