These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Plea for Rationale in the System of Natural Consequences
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cailais
The Red Pill Taker Group
#501 - 2012-05-30 00:08:10 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


You are not playing a sandbox, but THEIR sandbox.


A sandbox universe simply means that it can exist in a near infinite variety of states including the most extreme states.

Even if one entity commanded all of EVE the sandbox would remain valid as long as it was theoretically possible for that state to change.

C.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#502 - 2012-05-30 01:32:59 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Jeniam Retriat wrote:

As to the rest of your points, there is a connecting theme with why miners aren't happy; it's still possible to suicide gank our ships and turn a profit, even if we're fitting them defensively. The insurance nerf didn't mean that players had to choose between not ganking and ganking in a Brutix at an ISK loss, it meant they had to choose between easily ganking in a Brutix at an ISK loss or ganking in a Catalyst with a couple of friends/alts and still breaking even or making a profit. Same with the CONCORD buff and same with the complaints/requests for tougher mining ships we have now.

RubyPorto wrote:
Anyway, the miners are using a Solid Gold Spatula to flip burgers at a McDonalds in South Central LA, and expressing surprise and anger when they get robbed.


That's what the OP is doing, sure. The rest of us are asking why our profession is the only one that got handed the Solid Gold Spatula, and why we can't just get a high quality Stainless Steel Spatula that performs the same job just as well but isn't a magnet for muggers. To put it more clearly, why is it that Mining is the only profession whose best ship is an automatic target for for-profit ganking even outside of Hulkageddon? If an L4 mission runner moves into one of their high end ships like a Navy Raven, that ship isn't automatically a target for gankers just for being used; you have to fit it out in high end deadspace/faction/officer mods before it's a target (would that be a gold-plated spatula?). A mission runner doesn't get in a Rattlesnake and get told that that ship is too valuable to use in hisec, or that they have to drastically alter their way of playing to use it without getting killed, or that they should just use a Dominix because it's a lot cheaper and only a bit worse, and yet that's exactly what happens to miners when they move from Covetors to Hulks.


Finally I found someone who understands my points!


Rokh = Stainless Steel Spatula
Hulk = Solid Gold Spatula

Miners, through years of nobody bothering them, have adjusted their baseline from what it was before Barges were released. They've started to view the Solid Gold Spatula as the only thing that can flip burgers.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#503 - 2012-05-30 01:41:33 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


Hi Bat Country here. Killing droves of tengu doesn't mess with the ice market. Thats why we have not bothered to kill them.


I know for certain that your upper ranks also mess with Technetium.

Why not messing with minerals by killing Tengus? Less loot goes to the market => prices rise.

This is now expecially evident, as since CCP nerfed the M0 drops, missioneers can now easily loot again in a solo setup (expecially on marauders but hey, why would you not kill them too Twisted) and this is causing serious M3-M4 drop in price and by result, mineral prices are also affected.


How do you know GSF messes with the Tech market? Is it because they've been very public about doing exactly that? If it's public knowledge because the cartel announced it in a press release, you look a little silly when you make it sound like super sekrit spy knowledge.

Minerals are hard to hold in a Cartel. Tech is easy to hold in a Cartel. Once someone holds a Tech Cartel, it makes perfect sense to fund a campaign to increase Tech demand. There is one industry whose Tech demand is massive when that industry is disrupted. That's mining.

Besides that, Tengu's are blitz boats. If they're hanging out to loot/salvage the field, they're doing it wrong.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#504 - 2012-05-30 01:44:39 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

High Sec miners must find ways to efficiently mine their ore while avoiding or defeating the attempts by other players to stop them. This applies to all Sec levels.

Many High Sec miners appear to not understand the rules of the game that are relevant to their profession.


They can't defeat attempts by other players to stop them, since all it takes is to bring N + 1 catalyst to finish a more tanked Hulk.

They can avoid by docking and never undocking again and maybe ask themselves if they should do something else, like i.e. go play a real PvP game like GW2.

A miner that decides to undock since today perma-hulkageddon is just a poor idiot, similar to someone fitting a plate, shield flux, 3 medium lasers and 2 small turrets.


2 Hulks, 3x Webs and 2 MLUIIs each. Gank proof hulks if you're looking at your screen at all.

Mine aligned. If that's hard, figure out a way to make it easier.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
vivcalc
Doomheim
#505 - 2012-05-30 02:05:17 UTC
i like what the op has to say. he's right. there shouldn't be ganking in hi sec. i had five accounts and i closed them all because of the ganking. ccp doesnt care about the hi sec losses because it boils down to they make more money off pvp accounts than pve accounts. miners and traders are the minority and therefore will continue to be victimized because it is in ccp's economic self interest. if they gave a **** about this issue they would ban ganking and end the nonsense. but money forms their decisions about what kind of game play is going to happen. at least they could be honest about it so those of us who dont like being the victim can have the honesty to decide to quit altogether and let ccp go to hell.
Devore Sekk
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#506 - 2012-05-30 02:07:37 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Rokh = Stainless Steel Spatula
Hulk = Solid Gold Spatula

Miners, through years of nobody bothering them, have adjusted their baseline from what it was before Barges were released. They've started to view the Solid Gold Spatula as the only thing that can flip burgers.


See, it's a matter of expectations.

There are Level 4 mission runners who use a Drake, which you might consider the Cardboard Spatula. There is a whole spectrum of Level 4 capable ships; each higher one comes with the expectation you are able to fit and pilot it appropriately so as not to lose your investment. Each level of mission ship means you can run missions more efficiently.

If you don't want to risk losing a 3B isk mission runner or do not know how to protect it properly, you fly something cheaper, and accept the lesser lever of income and efficiency.

However, this is not the case with mining. Every miner seems to be of the opinion that you can only mine in a Hulk. When in fact there is also and ENTIRE spectrum of mining ships. Each step in the ladder means you are able to mine more efficiently, but each step on the ladder also means you are expected to fit and pilot your ship appropriately so as to avoid losing it.

If you don't want to risk losing a 400M isk mining ship or do not know how to protect it properly, you fly something cheaper and accept lesser mining efficie.... err, sorry, apparently you come crying to the forums.

Carebear logic.
Alia Gon'die
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
#507 - 2012-05-30 02:08:59 UTC
vivcalc wrote:
i like what the op has to say. he's right. there shouldn't be ganking in hi sec. i had five accounts and i closed them all because of the ganking. ccp doesnt care about the hi sec losses because it boils down to they make more money off pvp accounts than pve accounts. miners and traders are the minority and therefore will continue to be victimized because it is in ccp's economic self interest. if they gave a **** about this issue they would ban ganking and end the nonsense. but money forms their decisions about what kind of game play is going to happen. at least they could be honest about it so those of us who dont like being the victim can have the honesty to decide to quit altogether and let ccp go to hell.


I'm sorry we killed your hulk, why don't you buy another one with Technetium provided by OTEC?

Self-appointed forums hallway monitor Ask me about La Maison and what it means for you! http://bit.ly/LTW5gW These wardec rules are not in place for our protection. They're in place for yours.
Hench Tenet
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#508 - 2012-05-30 02:18:03 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Homo Jesus wrote:
I too want a change to the rules so it's easier for me to win at something. Whenever I get the time I'll find the bits and pieces of the EULA that support my views and make another thread to help our douche bag cause.

He's simply used to the real-life status quo, where people like himself have always gotten ahead via lobbying and frivolous lawsuits. There is nothing competitive about the state of business today, save for the free-for-all that is the entry-level job market. The whole system is fixed and rotten, but aside from that, it encourages complacency.

He is unable to enter an environment that EVE simulates, a purer, more base environment, and compete. He became lost, and unable to respond to changing trends. So he came to the forums, and with the usual passive-aggressive attitude that his kind exhibits, tried to get what he wants by making a bunch of real-life legal parallels.

At some point, he forgot that he was playing a video game with guns.

The thing that gets me the most, though, is that he thinks that his subscription acts as anything more than a cash buffer for CCP's actual development budget. It is indeed ignorant to think that CCP itself doesn't realize that the players who whine about getting killed will quit at some point. The only way they would stay (and even that is questionable, due to the whole boredom factor), is if these players were never violenced in any way, shape, or form. And in a game like EVE, that's simply impossible.


This is a Good Post. I was going to say this. The fact that you think your payment is worth more than other's, and the fact that you contribute nothing to the game except that payment, is just bad.
Oddball Six
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#509 - 2012-05-30 02:38:03 UTC
Hench Tenet wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Homo Jesus wrote:
I too want a change to the rules so it's easier for me to win at something. Whenever I get the time I'll find the bits and pieces of the EULA that support my views and make another thread to help our douche bag cause.

He's simply used to the real-life status quo, where people like himself have always gotten ahead via lobbying and frivolous lawsuits. There is nothing competitive about the state of business today, save for the free-for-all that is the entry-level job market. The whole system is fixed and rotten, but aside from that, it encourages complacency.

He is unable to enter an environment that EVE simulates, a purer, more base environment, and compete. He became lost, and unable to respond to changing trends. So he came to the forums, and with the usual passive-aggressive attitude that his kind exhibits, tried to get what he wants by making a bunch of real-life legal parallels.

At some point, he forgot that he was playing a video game with guns.

The thing that gets me the most, though, is that he thinks that his subscription acts as anything more than a cash buffer for CCP's actual development budget. It is indeed ignorant to think that CCP itself doesn't realize that the players who whine about getting killed will quit at some point. The only way they would stay (and even that is questionable, due to the whole boredom factor), is if these players were never violenced in any way, shape, or form. And in a game like EVE, that's simply impossible.


This is a Good Post. I was going to say this. The fact that you think your payment is worth more than other's, and the fact that you contribute nothing to the game except that payment, is just bad.


Actually I think you isolate my point to myself personally when the point I am making is broader than that. Clearly as you go down the first few pages of posts in the forum, I am not the only one asking questions about the recent mechanics that are brought front-of-mind by organized "gank fests" and "hulkageddon". I lost a ship and some implants. Big deal. My post is about more than just a single loss. Its about a lot of people having some of the same experiences that I am, where things you expect from the game and expectations set around the game turn out not to be true, and CCP is asleep at the wheel.

"Casual Gamers" and "Carebears" (there is probably some overlap, but they are two separate player contingents as you can easily be one without being the other) make up a segment of game subscription beyond mine personally. They contribute real dollars to the real CCP that enables real development work and investment in products like the upcoming dust.

There is so much concentration on the word "sandbox" in the term "multiplayer sandbox" that people forget there are both in-game and real life considerations attendant to the word multiplayer as well. At some point CCP is going to have to determine where that line is drawn and at what level of external manipulation they feel comfortable allowing.

Either CCP needs to wake up and say we see the effect that ganking in high sec, the new development of organized ways of doing this has macro impacts and we are going to say sandbox is paramount.

OR

They say we arent completely comfortable with these things, we think there is a balance here. Ganking is and will continue to be legitimate but there are some ways of balancing the audiences we have and the point at which things become griefing, a point of organization we will allow and not allow, etc.

The other extreme of completely removing ganking as a player element is NOT going to happen. I know that. You know that. I knew that when I wrote my original post. No matter what direction the game goes, CCP needs to stop sleeping next to the griefing provisions, and the macro developments in the gaming universe, and the development of the player audience (and its attendant revenue streams) and show a strategy in place that marks what the line is to be.
Berithon Athonille
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#510 - 2012-05-30 02:48:42 UTC
Oddball Six wrote:
lots of words


Basically this boils down to you wanting to play a pacifist sim game. Unfortunately EVE isn't this game.

EVE is founded on being able to shoot other people, in null sec, low sec, or high sec.

Learn this. Tank your ship. Don't be so fail.
Oddball Six
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#511 - 2012-05-30 03:15:22 UTC
Berithon Athonille wrote:
Oddball Six wrote:
lots of words


Basically this boils down to you wanting to play a pacifist sim game. Unfortunately EVE isn't this game.

EVE is founded on being able to shoot other people, in null sec, low sec, or high sec.

Learn this. Tank your ship. Don't be so fail.


Actually it boils down to two things:

1) CCP enforcing rules and policies it has apparently engineered to engender specific gameplay, and then stood by as those systems of control are disregarded.

2) The conversation has evolved to include a side strain of discussion about how the game also contains those whose intended use of the multiplayer sandbox is to rely on those controls in a way that is profitable to CCP but doesn't stay completely predicated on pvp. CCP's balancing of the game has to make some form of consideration for those players in defining what the sandbox is to look like. Much of the argument in the thread has been predicated on "sandbox" as an unbounded, overriding term. But blatantly that is not the case, is it? Otherwise Concord would not exist at all, high-sec would be an absent construct, etc.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#512 - 2012-05-30 03:16:15 UTC
Oddball Six wrote:


Actually I think you isolate my point to myself personally when the point I am making is broader than that. Clearly as you go down the first few pages of posts in the forum, I am not the only one asking questions about the recent mechanics that are brought front-of-mind by organized "gank fests" and "hulkageddon". I lost a ship and some implants. Big deal. My post is about more than just a single loss. Its about a lot of people having some of the same experiences that I am, where things you expect from the game and expectations set around the game turn out not to be true, and CCP is asleep at the wheel.

"Casual Gamers" and "Carebears" (there is probably some overlap, but they are two separate player contingents as you can easily be one without being the other) make up a segment of game subscription beyond mine personally. They contribute real dollars to the real CCP that enables real development work and investment in products like the upcoming dust.

There is so much concentration on the word "sandbox" in the term "multiplayer sandbox" that people forget there are both in-game and real life considerations attendant to the word multiplayer as well. At some point CCP is going to have to determine where that line is drawn and at what level of external manipulation they feel comfortable allowing.

Either CCP needs to wake up and say we see the effect that ganking in high sec, the new development of organized ways of doing this has macro impacts and we are going to say sandbox is paramount.

OR

They say we arent completely comfortable with these things, we think there is a balance here. Ganking is and will continue to be legitimate but there are some ways of balancing the audiences we have and the point at which things become griefing, a point of organization we will allow and not allow, etc.

The other extreme of completely removing ganking as a player element is NOT going to happen. I know that. You know that. I knew that when I wrote my original post. No matter what direction the game goes, CCP needs to stop sleeping next to the griefing provisions, and the macro developments in the gaming universe, and the development of the player audience (and its attendant revenue streams) and show a strategy in place that marks what the line is to be.


What new mechanic are you referring to? The only new mechanic that significantly affected the rate of suicide ganking is the Insurance nerf, which reduced the ease and profitability of ganking.

EvE, with its constant training and the many ways to make ISK quickly is very casual friendly, but it doesn't suffer fools or the lazy very well. Carebears are fine so long as the recognize that EvE actually works as advertised (i.e. People will shoot you sometimes *GASP*)

CCP has made it clear from the get go that they are happy with any manipulation that occurs within the game. What "external" manipulation are you referring to, because all I see you talking about is an in game group manipulating the in game market through in game actions.

The large scale developments in the universe are what CCP (and everyone else) call "emergent gameplay" and most companies would kill for a playerbase that gets in the news for emergent gameplay as often as EvE's players do.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#513 - 2012-05-30 03:20:53 UTC
Oddball Six wrote:
Berithon Athonille wrote:
Oddball Six wrote:
lots of words


Basically this boils down to you wanting to play a pacifist sim game. Unfortunately EVE isn't this game.

EVE is founded on being able to shoot other people, in null sec, low sec, or high sec.

Learn this. Tank your ship. Don't be so fail.


Actually it boils down to two things:

1) CCP enforcing rules and policies it has apparently engineered to engender specific gameplay, and then stood by as those systems of control are disregarded.

2) The conversation has evolved to include a side strain of discussion about how the game also contains those whose intended use of the multiplayer sandbox is to rely on those controls in a way that is profitable to CCP but doesn't stay completely predicated on pvp. CCP's balancing of the game has to make some form of consideration for those players in defining what the sandbox is to look like. Much of the argument in the thread has been predicated on "sandbox" as an unbounded, overriding term. But blatantly that is not the case, is it? Otherwise Concord would not exist at all, high-sec would be an absent construct, etc.


1) What rules and policies are being disregarded? Is CONCORD no longer killing aggressing ships? Are people not being censured for EULA/TOS violations? I haven't seen any evidence of either of those.

2) CONCORD as it exist today is a concession to the carebears who didn't want to be shot. Back when EvE was released, CONCORD was pretty easily tankable (indeed, it was farmed for tags), so Suicide Ganks involved a lot less Suicide than they do today. If you want EvE without PvP, you have access to SiSi, where there is no PvP, including market PvP. Anytime you interact with another player, including through the market screen, you are involved in PvP. Just because you don't like some forms of PvP doesn't mean you get to avoid being influenced by them.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Oddball Six
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#514 - 2012-05-30 03:35:53 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


CCP has made it clear from the get go that they are happy with any manipulation that occurs within the game. What "external" manipulation are you referring to, because all I see you talking about is an in game group manipulating the in game market through in game actions.



Extra-game or "meta-gaming" at greater scale and frequency through events like organized "gank fests", "hulkageddon", et al. While they are not exaclty new, they are now occuring with an organization promoted through elements and communications outside of the game that have scaled such participation to the level of macroeconomic impact. CCP has probably never seen an event in the past where an entire sector of gameplay is curtailed up to HALF by an organized event that is predicated on circumventing the design controls on high sec space.

Quote:

The large scale developments in the universe are what CCP (and everyone else) call "emergent gameplay" and most companies would kill for a playerbase that gets in the news for emergent gameplay as often as EvE's players do.


And yet, CCP has had to hire an economist and making tools and reporting investments to track the complexity of the effects of the emergent gameplay. The recent emergence being of a type that circumvents engineered / developed design elements in an entire class of game play area. And which progression of execution affects a large number of subscribers who have a certain gameplay style.

I understand your point about emergent gameplay. I have thought about its impact and absolutely and completely agree with you, that to some level it is a celebratory feature of the game, and a key area of development that CCP is going to be careful to maintain.

At the same time, we cannot become so focused on the concept of sandbox that we forget the multiplayer and associated revenue elements. As I have stated before, this thread is more about CCP stepping in to recognize the changes that the new organization and its direction of organization have wrought on a large segment of game mechanics and for them to make a call once again whether this is intended gameplay or whether balancing or enforcement action is appropriate at a certain threshold of player impact and/or ignoring developed game mechanics.
Oddball Six
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#515 - 2012-05-30 03:41:44 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


1) What rules and policies are being disregarded? Is CONCORD no longer killing aggressing ships? Are people not being censured for EULA/TOS violations? I haven't seen any evidence of either of those.

2) CONCORD as it exist today is a concession to the carebears who didn't want to be shot. Back when EvE was released, CONCORD was pretty easily tankable (indeed, it was farmed for tags), so Suicide Ganks involved a lot less Suicide than they do today. If you want EvE without PvP, you have access to SiSi, where there is no PvP, including market PvP. Anytime you interact with another player, including through the market screen, you are involved in PvP. Just because you don't like some forms of PvP doesn't mean you get to avoid being influenced by them.


1) See my original post for the references for what CCP has committed. It is precisely the nascent willingness to ignore the developer implemented guards like concord in order to participate in metagaming rewards which are outside of the established controls, revenue sources, et al, of the game itself.

2) Your narrow view is that anyone interested in avoiding combat should be relegated to a separate instance so as not to befoul your intended mode of gameplay. The simple fact is that the carebear professions have an integral place in the primary environment of play. They have been a player base which is nutured in some measure by the expectations that the game mechanics will be effective in promoting and inhibiting certain types of play.

When the metagaming encourages gamers en masse to ignore the controls which establish those modes of play, the impact has to be considered by CCP for its effect on real life subscription demographics.

What does it do to the player experience for certain players? Does a certain threshold of meta-gaming rise to the level of griefing or circumvention of the intended controls? How do you define that threshold? Is it based on the organization to accept ganking individually on a large scale? On the number of times someone is involved in a gank? On the strategies one uses to scout and get a gank in place? Something else?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#516 - 2012-05-30 03:52:51 UTC
Oddball Six wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


CCP has made it clear from the get go that they are happy with any manipulation that occurs within the game. What "external" manipulation are you referring to, because all I see you talking about is an in game group manipulating the in game market through in game actions.



Extra-game or "meta-gaming" at greater scale and frequency through events like organized "gank fests", "hulkageddon", et al. While they are not exaclty new, they are now occuring with an organization promoted through elements and communications outside of the game that have scaled such participation to the level of macroeconomic impact. CCP has probably never seen an event in the past where an entire sector of gameplay is curtailed up to HALF by an organized event that is predicated on circumventing the design controls on high sec space.


Those events are In-Game groups manipulating In-Game markets through In-Game activity. Complaining about the metagame in a game that celebrates the same is Roll

As for similar events, the first one happened in 2003, when m0o camped a HS-HS gate for a few months. Then there were the cartels based on T2BPOs that controlled T2 prices. There was also BOB, controlling 2/3 of player controllable space. Then there was EBANK. Then there were the first 4 Hulkageddons. I could go on.

What design controls are being circumvented? CONCORD is designed to provide consequences to illegal actions. Those consequences are clearly spelled out and ruthlessly enforced (it's an exploit to escape them). CONCORD is not meant to and has never been meant to provide protection to anyone.

Quote:

Quote:

The large scale developments in the universe are what CCP (and everyone else) call "emergent gameplay" and most companies would kill for a playerbase that gets in the news for emergent gameplay as often as EvE's players do.


And yet, CCP has had to hire an economist and making tools and reporting investments to track the complexity of the effects of the emergent gameplay. The recent emergence being of a type that circumvents engineered / developed design elements in an entire class of game play area. And which progression of execution affects a large number of subscribers who have a certain gameplay style.

I understand your point about emergent gameplay. I have thought about its impact and absolutely and completely agree with you, that to some level it is a celebratory feature of the game, and a key area of development that CCP is going to be careful to maintain.

At the same time, we cannot become so focused on the concept of sandbox that we forget the multiplayer and associated revenue elements. As I have stated before, this thread is more about CCP stepping in to recognize the changes that the new organization and its direction of organization have wrought on a large segment of game mechanics and for them to make a call once again whether this is intended gameplay or whether balancing or enforcement action is appropriate at a certain threshold of player impact and/or ignoring developed game mechanics.


How is having to hire an economist to stop them from ravaging the puppy again (specific acts of canine ravishment include the introduction of the Drone Regions and the r64 nerf that lead to the Tech bottleneck) in any way relevant to this conversation?

Again, what design elements are being circumvented? Be specific. If people are escaping CONCORD, or otherwise using explots, that's circumventing design elements. Suicide Ganking is adapting to the buff that CONCORD got some years ago, and Suicide Ganking in destroyers is adapting to the Insurance Nerf that miners were clamoring for for years. Eve is all about adapting to your environment. The gankers do it, why can't you?

So you're calling for CCP to punish players for daring to organize themselves in a Massively Multiplayer Online Game? Really?

CCP has been clear many, many times that Suicide Ganking is an intended gameplay mechanic. If you can't adapt to another players use of an intended gameplay mechanic, play another game.
It's like landing on Boardwalk with a Hotel and complaining that Hotels are an unintended gameplay mechanic because you don't like that someone organized four houses to put a Hotel up.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Annabelle Ember
Kavashikari
#517 - 2012-05-30 03:55:17 UTC
The fact that you're always in danger -- even in hi-sec -- is what makes this game so uniquely satisfying.

I realize it's a little hard to feel satisfaction at the moment your Hulk has just been scattered in pieces across half the solar system, but the fact is that risk is what gives the reward value. There are a LOT of games where its way easier to get rewards. They're really fun! ...at first. But they don't have the depth and staying power that EVE has.

Your problem isn't that you got shot. It's that you aren't shooting back.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#518 - 2012-05-30 03:59:54 UTC
Oddball Six wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


1) What rules and policies are being disregarded? Is CONCORD no longer killing aggressing ships? Are people not being censured for EULA/TOS violations? I haven't seen any evidence of either of those.

2) CONCORD as it exist today is a concession to the carebears who didn't want to be shot. Back when EvE was released, CONCORD was pretty easily tankable (indeed, it was farmed for tags), so Suicide Ganks involved a lot less Suicide than they do today. If you want EvE without PvP, you have access to SiSi, where there is no PvP, including market PvP. Anytime you interact with another player, including through the market screen, you are involved in PvP. Just because you don't like some forms of PvP doesn't mean you get to avoid being influenced by them.


1) See my original post for the references for what CCP has committed. It is precisely the nascent willingness to ignore the developer implemented guards like concord in order to participate in metagaming rewards which are outside of the established controls, revenue sources, et al, of the game itself.


How are they ignoring CONCORD? Are their ships not being destroyed?

Players paying other players to do things is exactly what mining is (via the market). You want to ban that too?

Quote:

2) Your narrow view is that anyone interested in avoiding combat should be relegated to a separate instance so as not to befoul your intended mode of gameplay. The simple fact is that the carebear professions have an integral place in the primary environment of play. They have been a player base which is nutured in some measure by the expectations that the game mechanics will be effective in promoting and inhibiting certain types of play.

When the metagaming encourages gamers en masse to ignore the controls which establish those modes of play, the impact has to be considered by CCP for its effect on real life subscription demographics.

What does it do to the player experience for certain players? Does a certain threshold of meta-gaming rise to the level of griefing or circumvention of the intended controls? How do you define that threshold? Is it based on the organization to accept ganking individually on a large scale? On the number of times someone is involved in a gank? On the strategies one uses to scout and get a gank in place? Something else?


Yes, the carebear profession do have an integral place in the economy. That's the exact reason they cannot be divorced from risk and still be allowed to participate in said economy.

CCP has very narrowly defined griefing as killing newbies in newbie systems (along with things like endlessly bumping a freighter with no intent to gank it). They've defined harassment as using offensive/racist/inflammatory language. They've specifically said, over and over, that Suicide ganking is perfectly valid gameplay.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#519 - 2012-05-30 04:03:04 UTC
Devore Sekk wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Rokh = Stainless Steel Spatula
Hulk = Solid Gold Spatula

Miners, through years of nobody bothering them, have adjusted their baseline from what it was before Barges were released. They've started to view the Solid Gold Spatula as the only thing that can flip burgers.


See, it's a matter of expectations.

There are Level 4 mission runners who use a Drake, which you might consider the Cardboard Spatula. There is a whole spectrum of Level 4 capable ships; each higher one comes with the expectation you are able to fit and pilot it appropriately so as not to lose your investment. Each level of mission ship means you can run missions more efficiently.

If you don't want to risk losing a 3B isk mission runner or do not know how to protect it properly, you fly something cheaper, and accept the lesser lever of income and efficiency.

However, this is not the case with mining. Every miner seems to be of the opinion that you can only mine in a Hulk. When in fact there is also and ENTIRE spectrum of mining ships. Each step in the ladder means you are able to mine more efficiently, but each step on the ladder also means you are expected to fit and pilot your ship appropriately so as to avoid losing it.

If you don't want to risk losing a 400M isk mining ship or do not know how to protect it properly, you fly something cheaper and accept lesser mining efficie.... err, sorry, apparently you come crying to the forums.

Carebear logic.


+130427

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
#520 - 2012-05-30 04:09:46 UTC
Oddball Six wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


1) What rules and policies are being disregarded? Is CONCORD no longer killing aggressing ships? Are people not being censured for EULA/TOS violations? I haven't seen any evidence of either of those.

2) CONCORD as it exist today is a concession to the carebears who didn't want to be shot. Back when EvE was released, CONCORD was pretty easily tankable (indeed, it was farmed for tags), so Suicide Ganks involved a lot less Suicide than they do today. If you want EvE without PvP, you have access to SiSi, where there is no PvP, including market PvP. Anytime you interact with another player, including through the market screen, you are involved in PvP. Just because you don't like some forms of PvP doesn't mean you get to avoid being influenced by them.


1) See my original post for the references for what CCP has committed. It is precisely the nascent willingness to ignore the developer implemented guards like concord in order to participate in metagaming rewards which are outside of the established controls, revenue sources, et al, of the game itself.

2) Your narrow view is that anyone interested in avoiding combat should be relegated to a separate instance so as not to befoul your intended mode of gameplay. The simple fact is that the carebear professions have an integral place in the primary environment of play. They have been a player base which is nutured in some measure by the expectations that the game mechanics will be effective in promoting and inhibiting certain types of play.

When the metagaming encourages gamers en masse to ignore the controls which establish those modes of play, the impact has to be considered by CCP for its effect on real life subscription demographics.

What does it do to the player experience for certain players? Does a certain threshold of meta-gaming rise to the level of griefing or circumvention of the intended controls? How do you define that threshold? Is it based on the organization to accept ganking individually on a large scale? On the number of times someone is involved in a gank? On the strategies one uses to scout and get a gank in place? Something else?



Oh come on now. Your view is the narrow minded one and detrimental to Eve, whether your own self perception of some important guy will allow to recognize that or not.

What you describe above can be applied to any sort of ganking. It can easily apply to a system called Rancer. What do the perma camps there "do for player experience for certain players"? Any choke points. People claiming systems and regions and not allowing certain players to exist there by any means available. Where does it stop? What makes miners special that they need special intervention? What makes you special? Besides the fact that IT IS YOU Lol

I remember back in the good old days, yes I said good old days, there were whines when certain groups started laying claims to regions. People petitioned GMs and whined how such and such will not allow them to play there.

I also remember being able to gank in perimeter on jita gate, yes on the gate, for good 30 seconds a long time ago. Yet, the whining was only a fraction of what it is today. It is people's attitudes that need adjusting and not the mechanics.

What you also need to accept is that concord is "role play police" and not equipped with thought crime detection. They punish crime role played by players only. Being a criminal is role play in eve. No one is actually braking game rules.

Game is a sandbox and yes it does allow you to ignore others and mine in peace but you are not entitled to it. You will have opposition, competitors etc... Don't confuse sandbox with "I am entitled to do what I want". You are only entitled to try make it happen, just like the rest of us.

No one is asking anyone to enjoy being ganked, but prevention is so damn easy yet people refuse to even try.

I tried responding to you politely several pages ago but apparently if points don't align with your views they are invalid.

You (and all other whiners) are demanding changes based on limited perception born of ignorance. Changes which will affect all of us. You really think that you are that entitled?

And since you like real life comparisons, here's one: "bad stuff" doesn't care about your ignorance of it. It will simply happen.


* I may or may not be writing this from my mother's basement. Roll