These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Tilting at windmills

First post First post
Author
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#121 - 2012-05-03 16:31:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Jessie-A Tassik wrote:
Someone read Adam Smith and believed him?

Wow. Shocked

Why don't you give us a lecture about The Consumer With Perfect Knowledge? Kind of like physics "Frictionless Surfaces".

Never read adam smith - but tbqh - everyone qq'ing about "goons" wrecking the game is getting under my skin. One of the "goons" biggest advantages has been in (super) cap ships (lately) - And Mittani and all the rest of the 0.0 inhabitants have lobbied, directly against their own best interests to get them nerfed...

So yeah, I think people are blowing they're "control" over ccp way out of line...
Malcanis wrote:
I'm not saying anything about 7-account hi-sec guys except that few of them seem to have 0.0/W-space characters, and if they do there aren't many of them.

I'm just saying that a significant demographic of "hi-sec" characters belong to players who consider themselves "null sec", whereas the demographic of "0.0" characters that belong to players who consider themselves "hi-sec" is trivial.

My wild-assed guess would be that hi-sec is something like 20-30% populated by characters belonging to players who consider themselves as "low/null" and that less than 1% of characters in null belong to "hi-sec" players.

And my original point was that we *only* know for sure the numbers that CCP has put out, and nothing else. 2.2 accounts (average) per player, and the % break down of where people live...

Everything else is speculation...


And the point I was making is that it's obviously incorrect to infer player preferences from security status populations. Simply saying "67% of characters are in high sec therefore 67% of players don't want PvP/want suicide ganking banned/don't want T2 production moved to 0.0" relies on a blatant fallacy.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Broken Thoughts
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#122 - 2012-05-03 16:42:07 UTC
nerf people who actually care about how the game evolves, lets all just be quiet and suck up whatever change ccp makes
Bane Necran
Appono Astos
#123 - 2012-05-03 17:05:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Bane Necran
Broken Thoughts wrote:
nerf people who actually care about how the game evolves, lets all just be quiet and suck up whatever change ccp makes


Typical 0.0 attitude.

Everything always benefits you, so anyone complaining should just shut up, right?

"In the void is virtue, and no evil. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness." ~Miyamoto Musashi

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#124 - 2012-05-03 17:18:20 UTC
Bane Necran wrote:
Broken Thoughts wrote:
nerf people who actually care about how the game evolves, lets all just be quiet and suck up whatever change ccp makes


Typical 0.0 attitude.

Everything always benefits you...


Yeah you're right. Let's swap the stats of player outposts and NPC ones to make things fair.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#125 - 2012-05-03 17:25:07 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
And the point I was making is that it's obviously incorrect to infer player preferences from security status populations. Simply saying "67% of characters are in high sec therefore 67% of players don't want PvP/want suicide ganking banned/don't want T2 production moved to 0.0" relies on a blatant fallacy.

I agree - I don't believe I ever said they did, my original response was to the person saying that "some large fraction of the hi-sec population is null sec alts" (implying population metrics meant nothing). . . .

@,@

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.

Takseen
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2012-05-03 17:26:01 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Jessie-A Tassik wrote:
Markus Reese wrote:
Yeah, accounts do, but take this. They lose 10 accounts to people who thing eve should autoplay. They gain 20 to people who think eve is fun, people who typically when I talk to say eve is dull, ie mining and the power imbalances happening in pvp. Business says lose the 10 to get 20.


Well they've been sucking up to Null Bears since the game started and EvE hasn't grown in years.

So BUSINESS says you are wrong.

By your own admition they have been sucking up to null for years: Eve has grown steadily year after year.

/discuss

Oh, and FYI, the only depressions in Eve's subscriptions coincide with care bear releases that focussed on PvE on high sec content.


Are you sure? Apocrypha was a PvE focused expansion and that was wildly popular. I don't remember much outcry during the Incursion expansion either.
Now the Incarna and whatever the PI release was called were unpopular, but that's because they were crap, not because they weren't about pvp. Likewise the pvp focused Dominion release ended up causing a shedload of problems with lag and supercap proliferation.
Bane Necran
Appono Astos
#127 - 2012-05-03 17:28:44 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Yeah you're right. Let's swap the stats of player outposts and NPC ones to make things fair.


In your urgency to attack my statement you forgot one crucial thing: making sense.

"In the void is virtue, and no evil. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness." ~Miyamoto Musashi

Takseen
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#128 - 2012-05-03 17:34:25 UTC
Enuen Ravenseye wrote:
RAP ACTION HERO wrote:
what do you hisecers want again?


To be left in peace ... so they can continue to bot and RMT without interference.


Pretty sure this is easier to do in nullsec with the co-operation of the local alliance.

Not that any of them would condone such activity, of course.
Takseen
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2012-05-03 17:36:44 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Enuen Ravenseye wrote:
RAP ACTION HERO wrote:
what do you hisecers want again?


To be left in peace ... so they can continue to bot and RMT without interference.


I thought most of those recently caught were not in hi-sec. Am I mistaken in this?



You are mistaken. More bots were banned from The Forge than from all of 0.0 IIRC.


So they were market bots. Which are even more universally hated than mining bots, because you can't even gank them and they can do even more stuff that humans can't. Any idea where the most mining bots were banned?
Fannie Maes
Doomheim
#130 - 2012-05-03 17:44:39 UTC
Myz Toyou wrote:
Fannie Maes wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Vince Snetterton wrote:
Given that the silent majority of the game...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

In short, you assume that those who do not speak must agree with you. Yet you have provided no evidence other than their silence.



a third of the eve population voted for CSM, I didn't including many others. How big portion of people playing eve are members in an alliance? Not me either!

Who visits fanfest and talk to devs and gm's daily?



There you have it, CCP/CSM listen to those that give the feedback and contribute. The 2/3rd that didnt care about CSM are the ones that either dont care about the game, dont think things need to be changed or the ones that couldnt indentify themselfs with the stuff the several highsec CSM candidates had on their agenda.
All you high sec dwellers do is whine whine whine. Maybe if you would refocus your agenda from: "We want risk free ISK for everyone in epic poportions and no effort at all" (which basicly sums up all you guys cry for on a daily basis) towards something more realistic and something that also goes along with CCPs idea of EVE: Risk vs. Reward. When this happens you maybe can get some more ppl motivated to vote for your candidates.




Yeah before the CSM not a single eve player gave a **** about this game. Thanks to CSM CCP are now able to receive feedback for the first time in history and gamers are able to care!

I can't wait until CSM exists in every single game and community, without them there is no feedback, change, progress or personal investments taking place.


PS: That was ******* sarcasmP


Double PS: Please explain how being in goons is more risky than high-sec? Besides being commanded by a ******** FC that does not know about aggro mechanics Lol
Aron Croup
Incompatible Protocol
#131 - 2012-05-03 17:46:59 UTC
Vince Snetterton wrote:
If high sec players want any control over their game, they have to become organized, and form a strong voting bloc.


I have had similar thoughts about this and reached pretty much the same conclusion that you did. Many of the residents in high-sec space are there because they:

A: Are casual EVE players who do not have much invested in the game, and thus don't care much about elections.

B: Are newbies who don't yet fully understand the different game- and meta mechanics.

C: Are reluctant to be a part of a larger group of people.

It would be difficult to convince any of these demographics to join a single cause for the betterment of the game. Not to mention that living in Empire does not mean you all suddenly agree on the same things.

I do think there is one demographic that it should be possible to gather and make into some sort of power-structure. Independent mining and production corporations. Miners have been taking a severe beating these past years and I'd expect many of them will be ready to do whatever it takes to get some kind of rebalancing of their profession, and production corporations are deeply affected by all the various changes that CCP make and have certain common interests.

So yeah, you couldn't unite empire, but you could certainly build a fairly large group of people on the industry side of EVE.




Takseen
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#132 - 2012-05-03 17:49:40 UTC
Why would miners be complaining? The drone poo removal was one of the best things to happen to them, surely.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#133 - 2012-05-03 17:55:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Fannie Maes wrote:
Myz Toyou wrote:
Fannie Maes wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Vince Snetterton wrote:
Given that the silent majority of the game...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

In short, you assume that those who do not speak must agree with you. Yet you have provided no evidence other than their silence.



a third of the eve population voted for CSM, I didn't including many others. How big portion of people playing eve are members in an alliance? Not me either!

Who visits fanfest and talk to devs and gm's daily?



There you have it, CCP/CSM listen to those that give the feedback and contribute. The 2/3rd that didnt care about CSM are the ones that either dont care about the game, dont think things need to be changed or the ones that couldnt indentify themselfs with the stuff the several highsec CSM candidates had on their agenda.
All you high sec dwellers do is whine whine whine. Maybe if you would refocus your agenda from: "We want risk free ISK for everyone in epic poportions and no effort at all" (which basicly sums up all you guys cry for on a daily basis) towards something more realistic and something that also goes along with CCPs idea of EVE: Risk vs. Reward. When this happens you maybe can get some more ppl motivated to vote for your candidates.




Yeah before the CSM not a single eve player gave a **** about this game. Thanks to CSM CCP are now able to receive feedback for the first time in history and gamers are able to care!

I can't wait until CSM exists in every single game and community, without them there is no feedback, change, progress or personal investments taking place.


PS: That was ******* sarcasmP

Double PS: Please explain how being in goons is more risky than high-sec? Besides being commanded by a ******** FC that does not know about aggro mechanics Lol


Of course players cared, and of course feedback took place.

However it is a lot harder to ignore someone sitting across from your desk than it is to ignore badly written forum posts.

As for High Sec being riskier than Null...

When was the last time you got lost access to all your high sec assets because Sov changed hands and you are locked out of your station in Amarr?

When was the last time you couldn't mine, not because you know a gank squad is in the area for the day, but because there are a few thousand hostile pilots camping you in the station?

When was the last time you needed to form up with thousands of other players and engage in an hours long fleet battle just for the right to not be forced to move elsewhere?

The truth is, you wouldn't last a week in Null... and I suspect you realize that. Smile

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

Jessie-A Tassik
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#134 - 2012-05-03 18:02:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Jessie-A Tassik
Polly Oxford wrote:

Why are you still quoting that site? How is number of simultaneous users a good indicator of how the game is growing/shrinking? CCP gives subscriber numbers, which is the only interesting thing from a business perspective. That ****** graph can't account for people that only log in for an hour a day compared to someone who is logged in all day.

Also insinuating that Devs are corrupt without any proof whatsoever is despicable. Normally this forum is a great form of amusement, because people whine about everything, but accusations like this are disgusting and I really hope you will find another game to play.
I don't care if you hate me and call me names, but some lowlife making stuff up to hurt people in their real life is just wrong.


No proof? Are you suggesting that there is no proof, in the present or past of devs favoring specific players groups?

Really? I mean really? For real? Not a tiny bit of proof?

And number of simultaneous users is a GREAT indicator of game health. Bots complicate this, but since most bots are Null Sec, I doubt those numbers have changed much.
Fannie Maes
Doomheim
#135 - 2012-05-03 18:03:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Fannie Maes
Ranger 1 wrote:

Of course players cared, and of course feedback took place.

However it is a lot harder to ignore someone sitting across from your desk than it is to ignore badly written forum posts.

As for High Sec being riskier than Null...

When was the last time you got lost access to all your high sec assets because Sov changed hands and you are locked out of your station in Amarr?

When was the last time you couldn't mine, not because you know a gank squad is in the area for the day, but because there are a few thousand hostile pilots camping you in the station?

When was the last time you needed to form up with thousands of other players and engage in an hours long fleet battle just for the right to not be forced to move elsewhere?

The truth is, you wouldn't last a week in Null... and I suspect you realize that. Smile



Yeah, I would never last in nullsecRoll

I bet you wont believe me but I have been to 0.0 many times as early as 2005. That is why I "Lol" at people saying it is hard, perhaps for the CEO, director and Alliance leader but for the common 0.0 dweller it is easier living than having the girl pick you up at the bars.


ie seeing a goon who started playing eve in 2011, joing goons same year troll forums and mocking high-sec dwellers is I'm afraid pretty damn sad and pathetic Blink

Now regarding the rest of your argument, if I believe you then CSM is responsible for last years **** ups by CCP.

Logical, right? And fixes before CSM was a stab in the dark!

CSM must be more valuable than "you wish to cancel account? Please select reason and elaborate further", I don't think so, if it was that means CCP would have acted before more than 10% cancelled their subscriptions, you know, after they flew in the CSM for an emergency meeting after threads, polls, emails, podcasts, blogs and subs left...


I guess they were all poorly written, Mitannis's English changed all that.


PS: If 0.0 is such interest and fun for you may I recommend the in-game channel for recruitment or corp recruit forum? Most will let you into 0.0 with zero experience and if you are not a trial account Bear
Jessie-A Tassik
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#136 - 2012-05-03 18:06:57 UTC
Takseen wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Enuen Ravenseye wrote:
RAP ACTION HERO wrote:
what do you hisecers want again?


To be left in peace ... so they can continue to bot and RMT without interference.


I thought most of those recently caught were not in hi-sec. Am I mistaken in this?



You are mistaken. More bots were banned from The Forge than from all of 0.0 IIRC.


So they were market bots. Which are even more universally hated than mining bots, because you can't even gank them and they can do even more stuff that humans can't. Any idea where the most mining bots were banned?


Market bots are a product of stupid 0.01 ISK mechanics.

This could be fixed but Dev is busy making sure his Null Sec buddies can have 2000 ship fights.
Jessie-A Tassik
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#137 - 2012-05-03 18:14:37 UTC
Roime wrote:
So many words, so little substance. You have an agenda, which seems to be bashing the game, the players and the devs, but why?



My agenda is simply.

Those who want to charge screaming insane gibberish at others are going to receive as much emotional pain as I can dish out till they stop.

Since the crybaby little girls that are the Goons are the current crop of screaming mouth breathers, they get my special attention.

It is a service I perform for the good of others.

The fact that I enjoy it has nothing to do with my enthusiasm. Lol
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#138 - 2012-05-03 18:15:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Fannie Maes wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

Of course players cared, and of course feedback took place.

However it is a lot harder to ignore someone sitting across from your desk than it is to ignore badly written forum posts.

As for High Sec being riskier than Null...

When was the last time you got lost access to all your high sec assets because Sov changed hands and you are locked out of your station in Amarr?

When was the last time you couldn't mine, not because you know a gank squad is in the area for the day, but because there are a few thousand hostile pilots camping you in the station?

When was the last time you needed to form up with thousands of other players and engage in an hours long fleet battle just for the right to not be forced to move elsewhere?

The truth is, you wouldn't last a week in Null... and I suspect you realize that. Smile



Yeah, I would never last in nullsecRoll

I bet you wont believe me but I have been to 0.0 many times as early as 2005. That is why I "Lol" at people saying it is hard, perhaps for the CEO, director and Alliance leader but for the common 0.0 dweller it is easier living than having the girl pick you up at the bars.


ie seeing a goon who started playing eve in 2011, joing goons same year troll forums and mocking high-sec dwellers is I'm afraid pretty damn sad and pathetic Blink

Now regarding the rest of your argument, if I believe you then CSM is responsible for last years **** ups by CCP.

Logical, right? And fixes before CSM was a stab in the dark!

CSM must be more valuable than "you wish to cancel account? Please select reason and elaborate further", I don't think so, if it was that means CCP would have acted before more than 10% cancelled their subscriptions, you know, after they flew in the CSM for an emergency meeting after threads, polls, emails, podcasts, blogs and subs left...


I guess they were all poorly written, Mitannis's English changed all that.

PS: If 0.0 is such interest and fun for you may I recommend the in-game channel for recruitment or corp recruit forum? Most will let you into 0.0 with zero experience and if you are not a trial account Bear


I notice you don't seem to last too long there. Smile Probably because you don't understand what is involved with taking and holding space, as opposed to riding the coat tails of others.

The reason why new players can get into null is that older players like myself have pushed for them to be accepted there if they have the desire to do so.

If you chose to try and twist that into a bad thing, that's your problem. Blink

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

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#139 - 2012-05-03 18:17:40 UTC
You guys really need to decide if the CSM affects nothing, or if they are responsible for all the bad decisions CCP has made over the years.

You can't have it both ways, and makes it look suspiciously like you are trolling instead of trying to put across a logical argument.

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

Fannie Maes
Doomheim
#140 - 2012-05-03 18:25:19 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Fannie Maes wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

Of course players cared, and of course feedback took place.

However it is a lot harder to ignore someone sitting across from your desk than it is to ignore badly written forum posts.

As for High Sec being riskier than Null...

When was the last time you got lost access to all your high sec assets because Sov changed hands and you are locked out of your station in Amarr?

When was the last time you couldn't mine, not because you know a gank squad is in the area for the day, but because there are a few thousand hostile pilots camping you in the station?

When was the last time you needed to form up with thousands of other players and engage in an hours long fleet battle just for the right to not be forced to move elsewhere?

The truth is, you wouldn't last a week in Null... and I suspect you realize that. Smile



Yeah, I would never last in nullsecRoll

I bet you wont believe me but I have been to 0.0 many times as early as 2005. That is why I "Lol" at people saying it is hard, perhaps for the CEO, director and Alliance leader but for the common 0.0 dweller it is easier living than having the girl pick you up at the bars.


ie seeing a goon who started playing eve in 2011, joing goons same year troll forums and mocking high-sec dwellers is I'm afraid pretty damn sad and pathetic Blink

Now regarding the rest of your argument, if I believe you then CSM is responsible for last years **** ups by CCP.

Logical, right? And fixes before CSM was a stab in the dark!

CSM must be more valuable than "you wish to cancel account? Please select reason and elaborate further", I don't think so, if it was that means CCP would have acted before more than 10% cancelled their subscriptions, you know, after they flew in the CSM for an emergency meeting after threads, polls, emails, podcasts, blogs and subs left...


I guess they were all poorly written, Mitannis's English changed all that.

PS: If 0.0 is such interest and fun for you may I recommend the in-game channel for recruitment or corp recruit forum? Most will let you into 0.0 with zero experience and if you are not a trial account Bear


I notice you don't seem to last too long there. Smile Probably because you don't understand what is involved with taking and holding space, as opposed to riding the coat tails of others.

The reason why new players can get into null is that older players like myself have pushed for them to be accepted there if they have the desire to do so.

If you chose to try and twist that into a bad thing, that's your problem. Blink


Here we go...


Ranger 1 wrote:
"I notice you don't seem to last too long there Smile


Roll Yeah, it was so difficult, blob fleets require too much thinking, mining in 0.0 is serious ******* business Shocked

At any moment someone can tell you that a red or a neut is 5 jumps away from your system Lol

I left cause it bored me, you on the other hand stayed because of your skill and brains I see.

Twist what? I destroyed your argument for having CSM and you refuted it by saying 0.0 has skill!