These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Eve is not IKEA - deal with it

First post
Author
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2012-10-10 01:37:28 UTC
Well...if EVE were IKEA it would all be Minmatar crap.

Just saying...

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

SegaPhoenix
Chicks on Speed
Weapons Of Mass Production.
#22 - 2012-10-10 03:22:53 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
TLDR: Read the title.

In recent days, I am seeing a belligerent POV (from only a few it must be said) that CCP is dumbing down Eve, turning it into a carebear heaven yaddy ya.



The schism in EVE can be roughly boiled down into this. Some players believe in Darwinian gameplay and some believe in Socialist gameplay.

In Darwinian style the weak get weeded out early and (hopefully) never come back. This has been more or less EVEish since its debut but less and less so every year. We are now trending towards a more (for lack of a better term) socialist gameplay. Don't let the unfit unsubscribe lets coddle them and help them for better or worse. Neither version by your definition has less PVP but the socialist style requires gameplay changes instead of player adaptation.

This is the best I can do to try and describe the hatred in my eve online heart when players call for change based on player ineptitude.





Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#23 - 2012-10-10 04:31:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Touval Lysander
SegaPhoenix wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
TLDR: Read the title.

In recent days, I am seeing a belligerent POV (from only a few it must be said) that CCP is dumbing down Eve, turning it into a carebear heaven yaddy ya.



The schism in EVE can be roughly boiled down into this. Some players believe in Darwinian gameplay and some believe in Socialist gameplay.

In Darwinian style the weak get weeded out early and (hopefully) never come back. This has been more or less EVEish since its debut but less and less so every year. We are now trending towards a more (for lack of a better term) socialist gameplay. Don't let the unfit unsubscribe lets coddle them and help them for better or worse. Neither version by your definition has less PVP but the socialist style requires gameplay changes instead of player adaptation.

This is the best I can do to try and describe the hatred in my eve online heart when players call for change based on player ineptitude.

An excellent point, but this would only hold true if those seeking or at the very least, acceptant of said changes were in fact new.

I'd be almost willing to wager that a very large portion of the players telling some of the bittervets to pull their heads in have been around a lot longer than 2-3 years.

We can rant and rave all we like about this so-called "softening", but it still comes down to the ONLY people who would REALLY be affected by said changes to highsec are gankers.

The only people bitching about miner exhumer buffs are gankers!

How many gankers do nothing but gank - all day, every day - as a profession? Betcha it aint many. In fact, the majority of arguments are coming from one alliance (and friends) which is maybe 4 or 5 players in total. Throw in a couple of read my blog whores and that's your we-must-gank-train.

Have we convinced ourselves that Eve is a "cold harsh universe" purely on our ability to suicide gank? Is THAT what makes Eve a good game? Seriously?

And yet, this argument being perpetuated, totally out of all proportion, is not even about the ability to gank, the argument is about the abilitiy to gank PROFITABLY.

THAT'S IT... We're arguing for an IKEA Eve, a standardisation across all sectors, because a ganker is too lazy to kill miners where they CAN be killed profitably.

For mine, if the "htfu crowd" are screaming blue-murder in defense of a very small part of the game without actually understanding the simplest of logic or solutions, perhaps the call from the "stfu crowd" is a little more than justified - it may in fact be neccessary.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Taiwanistan
#24 - 2012-10-10 04:44:35 UTC
Everyday a new whine with a convoluted analogy.

TA on wis: "when we have a feature that is its own functional ecosystem of gameplay then hooks into the greater ecosystem of EVE as a whole, and it provides good replayability."

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#25 - 2012-10-10 04:51:39 UTC
Taiwanistan wrote:
Everyday a new whine with a convoluted analogy.


Quote:
In fact, the majority of arguments are coming from one alliance (and friends) which is maybe 4 or 5 players in total.

I forgot about you. Make it 5 or 6.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Taiwanistan
#26 - 2012-10-10 04:55:25 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Taiwanistan wrote:
Everyday a new whine with a convoluted analogy.


Quote:
In fact, the majority of arguments are coming from one alliance (and friends) which is maybe 4 or 5 players in total.

I forgot about you. Make it 5 or 6.

only 5 or 6 players ganking in the whole eve?

TA on wis: "when we have a feature that is its own functional ecosystem of gameplay then hooks into the greater ecosystem of EVE as a whole, and it provides good replayability."

SegaPhoenix
Chicks on Speed
Weapons Of Mass Production.
#27 - 2012-10-10 04:57:12 UTC  |  Edited by: SegaPhoenix
edit - well, i had a well typed response but the forums ate it.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#28 - 2012-10-10 04:58:43 UTC
Taiwanistan wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Taiwanistan wrote:
Everyday a new whine with a convoluted analogy.


Quote:
In fact, the majority of arguments are coming from one alliance (and friends) which is maybe 4 or 5 players in total.

I forgot about you. Make it 5 or 6.

only 5 or 6 players ganking in the whole eve?

Nope. Only 5 or 6 gankers whining. Incessantly.

Man, even a Goon has been seen getting irate at some of the ganker crud spewing forth lately. It's bad dude, real bad.

Join in.... NEW ideas are welcome...

Oh wait....

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Taiwanistan
#29 - 2012-10-10 05:00:03 UTC
Hisec is already safer with sec status requirements, police and concord. Game mechanics and magical NPC protectors what more do you need?

TA on wis: "when we have a feature that is its own functional ecosystem of gameplay then hooks into the greater ecosystem of EVE as a whole, and it provides good replayability."

Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#30 - 2012-10-10 05:00:13 UTC

Your argument is invalid and has plenty of holes.

PVP in EVE is about non-consentual PVP.

You totally neglect this. And hi-sec should be no different.

And not everyone pays the same for their sub.

Where I am.

SegaPhoenix
Chicks on Speed
Weapons Of Mass Production.
#31 - 2012-10-10 05:01:39 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:


The only people bitching about miner exhumer buffs are gankers!

Have we convinced ourselves that Eve is a "cold harsh universe" purely on our ability to suicide gank? Is THAT what makes Eve a good game? Seriously?

And yet, this argument being perpetuated, totally out of all proportion, is not even about the ability to gank, the argument is about the abilitiy to gank PROFITABLY.



The largest most unfortunate event to happen over the last few years in this game has been the very point I was hoping you'd bring up. The Mining Barge/Exhumer Change. Before the change, exhumers and barges were perfectly tank-able. I myself tried several times to gank a hulk with a destroyer only to find out that hulks are no joke and I barely scratched him. If ones searches my killboard history you'll see I have failed many ganks and never succeded. Oh hey maybe its not as easy as every whiner claims it was eh? They were fit for tank and enjoying the ganker tears mightily. The problem is you had a lazy player-base who didn't want to have to fit a tank or pay attention and whined to CCP to do something about it.

The day CCP changed the GAME to meet the demand of lazy, self entitled idiots will forever to me be ten times worse than the incarna debacle. No, EVE isn't dieing, but it is changing, and unfortunately I think it will alienate those who heavily invested themselves in the Darwinian style of play we all relished so much and thought would never change.

What you'll notice is that we aren't going to go down quietly. In traditional Darwinian fashion we will try and try and try again to keep ganking/scamming/griefing/killing/building/inventing/mining/teaching and playing better than anybody else in the universe. Or at least until it all gets dumbed down so far for those who cant be bothered to put any effort that we will eventually lose interest and go play mech warrior online.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#32 - 2012-10-10 05:03:20 UTC
Taiwanistan wrote:
Hisec is already safer with sec status requirements, police and concord. Game mechanics and magical NPC protectors what more do you need?

I.
Don't .
Need.
Anything.

I.
Am.
Not.
The.
One.
Complaining.
About.
Highsec.
Safety.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#33 - 2012-10-10 05:07:46 UTC
IKEA sells sandbox furniture. Twisted

.

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#34 - 2012-10-10 05:11:55 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:

Your argument is invalid and has plenty of holes.

PVP in EVE is about non-consentual PVP.

You totally neglect this. And hi-sec should be no different.

And not everyone pays the same for their sub.

1) Not invalid. Possibly full of holes. Can you be more specfic?

2) Yes. PvP in Eve is about non-consensual PvP but PvP is NOT just SvS.

3) Eve is not in highsec. Highsec is in Eve.

4) Highsec should be no different....... to what - the other sectors? It's HIGH SECURITY.

dict' def of high:

Quote:
exceeding the common degree or measure; strong; intense


"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#35 - 2012-10-10 05:14:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Touval Lysander wrote:
4) Highsec should be no different....... to what - the other sectors? It's HIGH SECURITY.

dict' def of high:

Quote:
exceeding the common degree or measure; strong; intense
Notice how your definition does not include any of the words “complete”, “total”, or “absolute”. So yes, highsec should be no different than the other sec levels in terms of what PvP dangers you might face.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#36 - 2012-10-10 05:16:04 UTC
SegaPhoenix wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:


The only people bitching about miner exhumer buffs are gankers!

Have we convinced ourselves that Eve is a "cold harsh universe" purely on our ability to suicide gank? Is THAT what makes Eve a good game? Seriously?

And yet, this argument being perpetuated, totally out of all proportion, is not even about the ability to gank, the argument is about the abilitiy to gank PROFITABLY.



The largest most unfortunate event to happen over the last few years in this game has been the very point I was hoping you'd bring up. The Mining Barge/Exhumer Change. Before the change, exhumers and barges were perfectly tank-able. I myself tried several times to gank a hulk with a destroyer only to find out that hulks are no joke and I barely scratched him. If ones searches my killboard history you'll see I have failed many ganks and never succeded. Oh hey maybe its not as easy as every whiner claims it was eh? They were fit for tank and enjoying the ganker tears mightily. The problem is you had a lazy player-base who didn't want to have to fit a tank or pay attention and whined to CCP to do something about it.

The day CCP changed the GAME to meet the demand of lazy, self entitled idiots will forever to me be ten times worse than the incarna debacle. No, EVE isn't dieing, but it is changing, and unfortunately I think it will alienate those who heavily invested themselves in the Darwinian style of play we all relished so much and thought would never change.

What you'll notice is that we aren't going to go down quietly. In traditional Darwinian fashion we will try and try and try again to keep ganking/scamming/griefing/killing/building/inventing/mining/teaching and playing better than anybody else in the universe. Or at least until it all gets dumbed down so far for those who cant be bothered to put any effort that we will eventually lose interest and go play mech warrior online.

Ganking CAN be done in EVERY sector.

The argument is PURELY about the ability to GANK PROFITABLY in HIGHSEC.

Quote:
The problem is you HAVE a lazy player-base who don't want to MAKE AN EFFORT and are WHINING to CCP to do something about it.

I fixed it for ya.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#37 - 2012-10-10 05:18:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Touval Lysander
Tippia wrote:

Notice how your definition does not include any of the words “complete”, “total”, or “absolute”. So yes, highsec should be no different than the other sec levels in terms of what PvP dangers you might face.

Wasn't my defn but still. Fair point.

And it isn't safe Tippia and I'm not really arguing that.

The ganker CAN still gank. The miner CAN still die.

The GankerMan whine because he CAN'T make a PROFIT in HIGHSEC.

THAT is the entire argument in a nutshell.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#38 - 2012-10-10 05:21:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Touval Lysander wrote:
The ganker CAN still gank. The miner CAN still die.

The GankerMan whine because he CAN'T make a PROFIT in HIGHSEC.

THAT is the entire argument in a nutshell.
And it's good argument. They should be able to. There's no reason why highsec should automatically make it impossible.
Taiwanistan
#39 - 2012-10-10 05:27:35 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Taiwanistan wrote:
Hisec is already safer with sec status requirements, police and concord. Game mechanics and magical NPC protectors what more do you need?

I.
Don't .
Need.
Anything.

I.
Am.
Not.
The.
One.
Complaining.
About.
Highsec.
Safety.


Why do you whine with a new thread everyday?

TA on wis: "when we have a feature that is its own functional ecosystem of gameplay then hooks into the greater ecosystem of EVE as a whole, and it provides good replayability."

SegaPhoenix
Chicks on Speed
Weapons Of Mass Production.
#40 - 2012-10-10 05:27:39 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:

The ganker CAN still gank. The miner CAN still die.

The GankerMan whine because he CAN'T make a PROFIT in HIGHSEC.

THAT is the entire argument in a nutshell.


No it isn't.


They've effectively eliminated ganking by the amount if EHP they gave to miners. And they eliminated it on the behalf of players who never tried eliminating it themselves when they had the power to do so. I don't play EVE for profit, i play EVE for entertainment and that's where your argument has holes.

What could have been avoided in the old system by fitting extenders/hardners and staying aligned has been replaced by a system were anything short or mass suicide won't kill a miner anymore.