These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Mittani's Presumption of Safety

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Twulf
Thunder Clap Industry
#121 - 2012-05-30 15:46:17 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:
The first goal of a corporation is to make money, not create a good game. They are mutually exclusive.


Presumably, a "good game" is what is needed to "make money" in the video game industry. So much for your argument!


You are wrong, To make money, you need to cater to the biggest market of players. Good game or not. Example the last 5 years of MMORPG games.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#122 - 2012-05-30 15:53:50 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Yeah, this blog post of mine seems relevant:

http://stinkinguplocal.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/save-me-from-non-consentual-pvp/

Basically, Eve is all about competition. Almost every element of the game permits some level of player-versus-player behavior. Why should they get to opt out of combat, unless we can all opt out of whatever competitive play we want?

The underlying problem is that people don't understand, as Mittens points out, that it is entirely possible to avoid being ganked. I've said it over and over in recent conversations: the Covetor is 75-80% the yield of the hulk for less than 10% of the price. The Rokh is about 65% the yield and nigh invulnerable to gankers. It all comes back to the risk versus reward concept: to get the highest yeild in the game you have to take the risk of using an expensive and fragile ship. What the carebears are asking for is to remove that balance and allow them to achieve the reward without taking on the risk.

I think the new play experience is partly to blame. A new player gets introduced to mining, scanning, and missions, and given a pat on the back and a hearty "good luck!". They don't understand the different philosophies of PVE and PVP fittings. They don't understand aggression mechanics. They ARE honestly surprised when they find out their stuff can be destroyed in highsec, because Eve gives the impression that it's secure.

Bittervets, Mittens included, will asert that the new player just needs to "do their research". I feel this is an unrealistic expectation. I have absolutely no problem with someone picking up a game, saying "this looks cool", and playing it without spending hours reading about it and learning exactly what the environment is like. I think a much larger problem is that CCP's tutorials--at least the ones I saw when I started two years ago--actively misinform the player on how game mechanics work. it's ENTIRELY centered around PVE and leaves newcomers completely unequipped to deal with the reality of Eve.




You forget the advertisement showing a wallet with ISK increasing over a montage of activities. This is why the Covetor is not used as much. I am not sure what game some people are playing but for them it's all about racking ISK and more ISK and so much as a 1 percent loss to yield, perhaps a change to mechanics or an implant, they scream bloody murder. We saw the same thing with the incursion blitzers. Again, what game are they playing? Wormholes were becoming deserted when VG blitzing became the ISK Fountain of the Month. Taking down the Sansha motherships brought out such sense-of-entitlement-driven hatred it was unreal.

They don't really have a play style. CCP could come up with a new activity or mission next month that yields more ISK than anything else, and the same crowd would flock to it, and if so much as one ISK is taken down for some reason, they would scream again.

The ISK-snatching mentality, that the number in the wallet is the end all be all, seems dysfunctional. Financial motivation? Maybe they are RMTers. But there cannot be that many.

Again, I don't know what game they are playing. I can say the same for people who would sit on a gate all day for a killmail, and then run from a 5 on one (their 5 versus one) out of fear that they might get popped and not go one up in their stats. I have seen the same kinds of people playing other MMOs.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#123 - 2012-05-30 15:56:06 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Suicide ganking is easy, because it is EASY.


It's a lot harder when the targets aren't botserrr AFK miners.


lol no it is not. The very first Hulk I suicide ganked was a real person at the keyboard chatting in local. He was actively moving around the belt and everything. I used an alt to get a warp in on him with my Brutix. I waited till he was pointed in a direction that there was no celestial and whooosh..... warped in at optimal and blam. Dead Hulk.

It was easy, make no mistake about it. Lol
Nikodiemus
Ganja Clade
Shadow Cartel
#124 - 2012-05-30 15:56:42 UTC
People still read that angry drunk's articles?
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#125 - 2012-05-30 16:00:28 UTC
Nikodiemus wrote:
People still read that angry drunk's articles?


I honestly read the first few after the BoB thing. Then they just started to be pointless. He would ramble on about nothing. Straight

Maybe one day someone can put together a list of the good ones.
Hauling Hal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2012-05-30 16:08:44 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

Eventually, after you clowns have driven off enough of the sub base, the VP of Sony accounting might have a word with the mgmt level at CCP and suggest that the cancer within Eve be excised.



Because Sony has an awesome reputation at running MMOs and not losing thousands of customers or killing entire products because of stupid decisions at the executive level?
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#127 - 2012-05-30 16:14:41 UTC
Hauling Hal wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

Eventually, after you clowns have driven off enough of the sub base, the VP of Sony accounting might have a word with the mgmt level at CCP and suggest that the cancer within Eve be excised.



Because Sony has an awesome reputation at running MMOs and not losing thousands of customers or killing entire products because of stupid decisions at the executive level?


Sony is now deeply entwined with CCP because of the Dust collaboration.
You think that Sony may just not be a tad sensitive to going down that same path AGAIN?

There is no doubt that Sony is watching sub rates in Eve very closely, because of the impact this will have on Dust, and vice versa. If the Eve sub rates start falling, then yeah, Sony will indeed have some chats with CCP.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#128 - 2012-05-30 16:53:01 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I don't' recall any movements towards making the game safe, especially to such level that goons must somehow fight back against it to save the game.

There are always suggestions in the forums about it, for an against, but this is business as usual. What specifically happened that such action is needed to save the game from a kind of "Carebearism"?




I don't get it.
The written word is really not that complicated, this is evidenced by the fact that people learn to read and write it on a daily basis; all over the world.

It is truelly amazing that something can be written out as simple as possible, to such an extent that you don't even need to attempt to try and decipher the point of what you read, and some people still don't understand it.

It's not just Herzog here, I believe the two post prior to his also utterly failed to comprehend what they read.

The article did not state that there was a movement in EVE to make the game safe. It pointed out a trend in games in general to move to a more handholding and safer enviroment; which has lead to people in EVE seemingly thinking that EVE is the same. That there is a group within EVE that thinks that there is supposed to be a place where you are safe, and that any interaction with another player that they don't want is "forcing" them to play the game in a way they don't want.

That this group of people are so far removed from the reality of the game they play, that when they do have an interaction they don't want they imply that the person "exploited" a loophole to "force" a particular gameplay on them. That these people have fallen into the belief that there is an entire section of the game world designed for them to only PvE and that they never have to do any PvP unless i'ts consentual.

The article clearly points out that contrary to what this group thinks, the rules are not set up that way.


Dear Herzog,
Look up. The point shot over your head.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#129 - 2012-05-30 16:57:50 UTC
Hauling Hal wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

Eventually, after you clowns have driven off enough of the sub base, the VP of Sony accounting might have a word with the mgmt level at CCP and suggest that the cancer within Eve be excised.

Because Sony has an awesome reputation at running MMOs and not losing thousands of customers or killing entire products because of stupid decisions at the executive level?

Heh heh heh.

EVE Online: Sony Edition :(

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 ?
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#130 - 2012-05-30 17:01:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I don't' recall any movements towards making the game safe, especially to such level that goons must somehow fight back against it to save the game.

There are always suggestions in the forums about it, for an against, but this is business as usual. What specifically happened that such action is needed to save the game from a kind of "Carebearism"?




I don't get it.
The written word is really not that complicated, this is evidenced by the fact that people learn to read and write it on a daily basis; all over the world.

It is truelly amazing that something can be written out as simple as possible, to such an extent that you don't even need to attempt to try and decipher the point of what you read, and some people still don't understand it.

It's not just Herzog here, I believe the two post prior to his also utterly failed to comprehend what they read.

The article did not state that there was a movement in EVE to make the game safe. It pointed out a trend in games in general to move to a more handholding and safer enviroment; which has lead to people in EVE seemingly thinking that EVE is the same. That there is a group within EVE that thinks that there is supposed to be a place where you are safe, and that any interaction with another player that they don't want is "forcing" them to play the game in a way they don't want.

That this group of people are so far removed from the reality of the game they play, that when they do have an interaction they don't want they imply that the person "exploited" a loophole to "force" a particular gameplay on them. That these people have fallen into the belief that there is an entire section of the game world designed for them to only PvE and that they never have to do any PvP unless i'ts consentual.

The article clearly points out that contrary to what this group thinks, the rules are not set up that way.


Dear Herzog,
Look up. The point shot over your head.




And what is the reason for the alliance appointing itself as the protector of being unsafe in the game with the same pretentious rhetoric as German Fascists of the 1930s did towards protecting "genetic purity"?

What I see from MItt an the goon parrots is almost in the same template as that was used by Goebbels and his crew (which actually comes from late 19th century American progressives but I digress...).


Thanks for bothering to make a long post about my points though. But I don't feel it was necessary. There have always been people who lose and cry "exploit!" or "hax!" and always people who see complaining as just as much a tactic or fittable module they would use in game. This is why the bot reporting is so boinked, because it would be used as a meta-weapon. Even the hue and cry over your bosses drunken rant had a lot of meta-weapon air to it. There is nothing new here.

I do understand your point about the evolution of MMOs towards more handholding and have seen it myself. But it can also be argued that the new scanning mechanics were handholding for ninja salvagers and ganking in deadspace pockets. It gets the credit for lowering the population of lowsec, as an example. There are changes that made things easier for the seedier side of the game, as is there were changes making it easier for carebears. Tier 3 battle cruisers are another example.

I am not missing the point, I don't agree with yours. The game is evolving. I see things getting better for all kinds of play styles. Nobody is making highsec a no PVP zone. Yes there will be people who want it, but there are also people who want high sec completely removed too. Neither has it their way. So I don't understand the drama.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Johnny Rook
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#131 - 2012-05-30 17:04:27 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Hauling Hal wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

Eventually, after you clowns have driven off enough of the sub base, the VP of Sony accounting might have a word with the mgmt level at CCP and suggest that the cancer within Eve be excised.



Because Sony has an awesome reputation at running MMOs and not losing thousands of customers or killing entire products because of stupid decisions at the executive level?


Sony is now deeply entwined with CCP because of the Dust collaboration.
You think that Sony may just not be a tad sensitive to going down that same path AGAIN?

There is no doubt that Sony is watching sub rates in Eve very closely, because of the impact this will have on Dust, and vice versa. If the Eve sub rates start falling, then yeah, Sony will indeed have some chats with CCP.


how does eve losing subs of high sec miners affect a game that's to do with the combat side of things?
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#132 - 2012-05-30 17:13:22 UTC
Twulf wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:
The first goal of a corporation is to make money, not create a good game. They are mutually exclusive.


Presumably, a "good game" is what is needed to "make money" in the video game industry. So much for your argument!


You are wrong, To make money, you need to cater to the biggest market of players. Good game or not. Example the last 5 years of MMORPG games.


So you are honestly suggesting that CCP should go down this route? Why?

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#133 - 2012-05-30 17:15:06 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Twulf wrote:
You are wrong, To make money, you need to cater to the biggest market of players. Good game or not. Example the last 5 years of MMORPG games.

So you are honestly suggesting that CCP should go down this route? Why?

Because they like those MMORPG games, and thus EVE should be just like them :)

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 ?
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#134 - 2012-05-30 17:15:21 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
The Miner profession is in better shape than ever.

Now the AFK Miner, BOT Miner and Theme Parker Miner is having trouble.


No, they moved to null, in blued renter alliances.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#135 - 2012-05-30 17:20:15 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

The ISK-snatching mentality, that the number in the wallet is the end all be all, seems dysfunctional. Financial motivation? Maybe they are RMTers. But there cannot be that many.


Modern sub-culture teaches money is all and the end of all. They are the byproduct of a mentality that is driving the world into garbage.


Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Again, I don't know what game they are playing. I can say the same for people who would sit on a gate all day for a killmail, and then run from a 5 on one (their 5 versus one) out of fear that they might get popped and not go one up in their stats. I have seen the same kinds of people playing other MMOs.



And those others are the deficient sons of Sun Tzu. Another bastage that should never have born.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#136 - 2012-05-30 17:22:05 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Again, I don't know what game they are playing. I can say the same for people who would sit on a gate all day for a killmail, and then run from a 5 on one (their 5 versus one) out of fear that they might get popped and not go one up in their stats. I have seen the same kinds of people playing other MMOs.


Hi nobody in this game actually cares about killboard stats, hth

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#137 - 2012-05-30 18:15:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:


And what is the reason for the alliance appointing itself as the protector of being unsafe in the game with the same pretentious rhetoric as German Fascists of the 1930s did towards protecting "genetic purity"?

What I see from MItt an the goon parrots is almost in the same template as that was used by Goebbels and his crew (which actually comes from late 19th century American progressives but I digress...).


Thanks for bothering to make a long post about my points though. But I don't feel it was necessary. There have always been people who lose and cry "exploit!" or "hax!" and always people who see complaining as just as much a tactic or fittable module they would use in game. This is why the bot reporting is so boinked, because it would be used as a meta-weapon. Even the hue and cry over your bosses drunken rant had a lot of meta-weapon air to it. There is nothing new here.

I do understand your point about the evolution of MMOs towards more handholding and have seen it myself. But it can also be argued that the new scanning mechanics were handholding for ninja salvagers and ganking in deadspace pockets. It gets the credit for lowering the population of lowsec, as an example. There are changes that made things easier for the seedier side of the game, as is there were changes making it easier for carebears. Tier 3 battle cruisers are another example.

I am not missing the point, I don't agree with yours. The game is evolving. I see things getting better for all kinds of play styles. Nobody is making highsec a no PVP zone. Yes there will be people who want it, but there are also people who want high sec completely removed too. Neither has it their way. So I don't understand the drama.


Herzog wrote,
"I don't' recall any movements towards making the game safe, especially to such level that goons must somehow fight back against it to save the game."

The article said no such thing, it didn't even imply any such thing.

That was my point, that you seemingly missed the point of what was written in the article, and somehow took from it something that was neither said nor implied.

You're over analyzing what was written.

There is a segment of people that think that hi-sec means concentual pvp, and when someone takes an aggressive action towards them that they're being "forced" into something they shouldn't have to do, and go so far as to imply that that person somehow "exploited" to do so.

GD forums have all the evidence that this is indeed true. You only need to look at the numerous threads of people demanding CCP do something, for people to unsubscribe until CCP do something, or that they're quitting becuase CCP does nothing.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#138 - 2012-05-30 18:36:22 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
You're over analyzing what was written.

But the analysis agrees with his view of what is happening, and what (CCP) needs to do about it Roll

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 ?
Aramatheia
Tiffany and Co.
#139 - 2012-05-30 18:38:41 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Evelyn Meiyi wrote:
Pok Nibin wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:
The first goal of a corporation is to make money, not create a good game. They are mutually exclusive.


Presumably, a "good game" is what is needed to "make money" in the video game industry. So much for your argument!

Actually, ("so much for your argument", hilarious) good games are too difficult for the general public and never make the kind of money corporations like to see. They want something for the teeming, mindless masses...you know,
like Mitt said in the "article."

"So much for your argument..." Whatta hoot! Lol


Actually. this is more true than you realize, especially since the mid-1990s.

Once Big Business started to realize that computer games are a profitable enterprise, more and more companies got into the field (including a good many that never should have). Since then, games have slowly gone from being something that a company takes pride in making (anyone remember King's Quest, or Space Quest?), to being just a line on the balance sheet of some mindless corporate drone that has no idea what the industry is all about.

With some amazing exceptions (EVE Online, World of Warcraft, and Bioshock come immediately to mind), it stopped being about making a 'good game' and more about 'maintaining a profit margin', even at the expense of quality. Releases were rushed, products left half-finished, and companies struggled against schedules that were impossible to meet if they wanted to launch a product of any quality.

The industry is coming back, now, slowly -- but it's not done healing yet.


I noticed you add World of Warcraft as an exception, but it really isn't. Blizzard cares more about lost profit than any other company.


*Kinda off topic reply-posting*

WoW wasnt always so mindbumblingly terrible. It has its non pvp worlds but it also has the pvp ones where you can pvp ppl anywhere even thier capital cities ( i have played on both types).. anyway thats not my points. the BC expansion was great it has stuff you had to spend time and effort for. but blizzard lost the plot with wotlk, and cata and the game went to crap. Still has the pvp/no pvp worlds but its just terrible now. But once upon a time it was fun and a decent game. I think activision is to blame for that.

Lets also see what happens with halo 4.. first couple halo's were GREAT before microsoft muscled in. ODST and Reach while fun first time on campaign did become questionable, Reach and Halo 3 had too much buyable DLC, that should never exist in a fps, ever. Hope that the silly clothes in the aurum shop is all we ever see there.
Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#140 - 2012-05-30 18:39:58 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Nikodiemus wrote:
People still read that angry drunk's articles?


I honestly read the first few after the BoB thing. Then they just started to be pointless. He would ramble on about nothing. Straight

Maybe one day someone can put together a list of the good ones.


Way ahead of you, I pruned out all the ****** ones already for you: Ten Ton Hammer (Partial Archive)

Go ahead and read all the linked ones, they're the only ones worth reading.