These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Carebear Entitlement: The Decadence of the Modern Era

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Pipa Porto
#281 - 2012-11-02 01:28:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

If they have no interest in pvp, why did they pick a pvp-centric game? Why not pick a friendlier, less harsh pve-centric game like Star Trek Online (now that it exists)?

Because the mechanics of the 2 are wholly different and in terms of raw gamplay eve is in some peoples' opinion vastly superior.
Jenn aSide wrote:

This is what I can't understand, what kind of twisted people pick a game that goes counter to what they want when alternatives exist that cater exactly to what they want.

This assumes there is a perfect choice, but i'm not aware of a game that is everything eve is mechanically without the constant PvP.
Jenn aSide wrote:

Rhetorical question, we know why, because some peopel would rather change a thing than go find a thing that's already what they want. It's why some women will pick a "fixer-upper" type scumbag guy over a guy with a job and no criminal record (lol).

It's not just the "carebears" it's (for example) the people who want to fly their ships with joysticks when EVE is clearly a space ship CAPTAINS game. There are games around that let you fly stuff with joysticks, why not play that. It's mind boggling to me. personally, i wish everyone who doesn't like EVE or only plays EVE because "it could be epic is they change it!" would just "F" straight off and find something they actually like.

It's not rhetorical, the issue is that you are simply equating a large swath of greatly dissimilar games as being just like Eve without the PvP. Or perhaps you consider these things superficial? Others may not, and there lies the issue with finding PvE centric EVE. It doesn't exist.


Oh, Oh, I know. I know of a game that's mechanically identical to EVE but doesn't allow unconsensual PvP.

SISI (Well, now Buckingham or whatever).

Why don't miners go there? Because they like affecting other players in the game, but don't like being affected by other players in the game. So they try to get other people's ability to affect them nerfed instead of hitting up SISI.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#282 - 2012-11-02 01:41:04 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

If they have no interest in pvp, why did they pick a pvp-centric game? Why not pick a friendlier, less harsh pve-centric game like Star Trek Online (now that it exists)?

Because the mechanics of the 2 are wholly different and in terms of raw gamplay eve is in some peoples' opinion vastly superior.
Jenn aSide wrote:

This is what I can't understand, what kind of twisted people pick a game that goes counter to what they want when alternatives exist that cater exactly to what they want.

This assumes there is a perfect choice, but i'm not aware of a game that is everything eve is mechanically without the constant PvP.
Jenn aSide wrote:

Rhetorical question, we know why, because some peopel would rather change a thing than go find a thing that's already what they want. It's why some women will pick a "fixer-upper" type scumbag guy over a guy with a job and no criminal record (lol).

It's not just the "carebears" it's (for example) the people who want to fly their ships with joysticks when EVE is clearly a space ship CAPTAINS game. There are games around that let you fly stuff with joysticks, why not play that. It's mind boggling to me. personally, i wish everyone who doesn't like EVE or only plays EVE because "it could be epic is they change it!" would just "F" straight off and find something they actually like.

It's not rhetorical, the issue is that you are simply equating a large swath of greatly dissimilar games as being just like Eve without the PvP. Or perhaps you consider these things superficial? Others may not, and there lies the issue with finding PvE centric EVE. It doesn't exist.


Oh, Oh, I know. I know of a game that's mechanically identical to EVE but doesn't allow unconsensual PvP.

SISI (Well, now Buckingham or whatever).

Why don't miners go there? Because they like affecting other players in the game, but don't like being affected by other players in the game.
Because it's intended as a test server and not a production server? I'd imagine there would be some level of official policy change or consequence were it to be treated otherwise.
Pipa Porto
#283 - 2012-11-02 01:51:30 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Oh, Oh, I know. I know of a game that's mechanically identical to EVE but doesn't allow unconsensual PvP.

SISI (Well, now Buckingham or whatever).

Why don't miners go there? Because they like affecting other players in the game, but don't like being affected by other players in the game.
Because it's intended as a test server and not a production server? I'd imagine there would be some level of official policy change or consequence were it to be treated otherwise.


There are a number of organized groups who play exclusively (or almost exclusively) on SISI.

More importantly, it is the mechanically identical game which does not allow for any form of unconsensual PvP. Saying "CCP will stop people from playing there if the start" isn't relevant because no significant number of miners has tried playing there exclusively.

Why? It's not because they think CCP is going to stop them, it's because they want to affect the game. They want their ISK to mean something, and the only way that's possible is on the main server. At the same time, they reject the fact that other people can affect them, and try to get CCP to prevent that.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#284 - 2012-11-02 02:11:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Pipa Porto wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Oh, Oh, I know. I know of a game that's mechanically identical to EVE but doesn't allow unconsensual PvP.

SISI (Well, now Buckingham or whatever).

Why don't miners go there? Because they like affecting other players in the game, but don't like being affected by other players in the game.
Because it's intended as a test server and not a production server? I'd imagine there would be some level of official policy change or consequence were it to be treated otherwise.


There are a number of organized groups who play exclusively (or almost exclusively) on SISI.

More importantly, it is the mechanically identical game which does not allow for any form of unconsensual PvP. Saying "CCP will stop people from playing there if the start" isn't relevant because no significant number of miners has tried playing there exclusively.

Why? It's not because they think CCP is going to stop them, it's because they want to affect the game. They want their ISK to mean something, and the only way that's possible is on the main server. At the same time, they reject the fact that other people can affect them, and try to get CCP to prevent that.

It's not really an identical game as much as it is another instance of the same game. Keep in mind we frequently have any progress made exclusively on the test server overwritten by the live server information. Additionally it would likely be that change in behavior of a large number of miners that would cause that change in policy. I could be wrong there, but until the conditions are met and either it does happen or it doesn't I could be right as well.

Additionally you may be overestimating people's motivations. Most of the people making these arguments either aren't aware of the extent of their effect on the game as a whole or simply don't believe it justifies the range of activities which can be used against them for which their only protection is evasion. I am not agreeing with that view, but I can see why some would have it.

Yes, they want their isk to have buying power, which makes your solution rather odd being that you are trying to send them to a place where they can obtain no isk for the ore they gather, but aside from that they CANNOT completely reject the affect of others as those others are the source of the isk they trade their ore for.

Edit: And the groups you spoke of, do they PLAY on the test server(s) or test/experiment/confirm theories on sisi, which may comprise the bulk of their logged in time admittedly, but do so to use what they've learned on TQ?
Gussarde en Welle
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#285 - 2012-11-02 02:18:10 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
FeralShadow wrote:
I for one simply think the isk:reward ratio is out of whack. People should WANT to leave high sec for null sec, of their own volition, even when pvp is a risk. Low, but null especially, should be so rewarding that people staying in high sec are making pennies compared to the rest. Don't nerf highsec,just get the Risk:Reward ratio back into balance.

When CCP introduced anomalies to 0.0 space, the isk fountain gushed so hard they had to then nerf it back into oblivion. Then came incursions, with the same result.



This. And also as I have said numerous times before: We need more ISK DRAINS. Lots and lots and lots of ways to consume ISK. That's how CCP makes profit, and they should be looking at it that way. In real life there are plenty of drains to economic value:

1) banking - consumption of value through interest
2) consumption of consumer commodities
3) perishable goods and structures - maintenance required to maintain a certain status, i.e. vehicles (ships?), infrastructure and buildings.

NONE of these are present in EvE! And they should be! It wouldn't be that much more coding.

CCP, HEAR ME!
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#286 - 2012-11-02 03:02:44 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:

Empire keeps getting better, and nullsec stagnates. The results are predictable. Established nullsec powers can keep picking up territory because the small guys can't earn enough with small holdings to get ahead.

Not so sure it's can't pick up enough isk to make it worthwhile, I'm convinced they can't stay in 0.0 - full stop.

Part of my wasted space concept looked at POS's that were as good as invulnerable - not to reduce risk - which was the bit battered around, but to provide a point where they could actually start and expect to stay for a period longer than 24 hours.

As it stands, the only way to be a startup in 0.0 territory is to be blue to everyone BEFORE you move in or expect everything to be gone in less than 2 days - it's fait acompli so why bother.

It's this absolute that you must either be big to stay there or be big to get there. This needs to break. Any method that MIGHT work has got to be better than the status quo.

A lot of this nerfing high, fix null is only going to make 0.0 stagnation worse imho. If 0.0 is all blue, all easy, and all win mode - what's to do? More of the same people in the same alliances doing the same thing.

The only thing any of these proposed changes will do is increase how much isk is made, not how it's made or who get's it.

I'm positive 0.0's success and longevity is going to come down to "smaller" being ABLE to mark space and project - with limiters to prevent the absolute that "biggest is best" that we currently "enjoy" .

"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..."
Count of MonteCylon
Anti-Pirate Enforcement
#287 - 2012-11-02 06:23:24 UTC
I used to play sandbox MUDs (multi-user dungeons, text based role playing games) that often started out like EVE. But the carebear types would complain when they would die, and so they kept making dying less meaningful, until it did nothing but move you under certain circumstances. And the carebear types didn't stop complaining.

So yeah, I mostly just mine because I'm old now and have a job etc., but still, f- carebears Smile

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. -- Ephesians 6:12
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#288 - 2012-11-02 12:57:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Forum ate my post, wow. Not typing all that again lol
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#289 - 2012-11-02 13:25:02 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Because it's intended as a test server and not a production server? I'd imagine there would be some level of official policy change or consequence were it to be treated otherwise.


Much like TQ is intended as an open, single-shard FFA PvP server.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#290 - 2012-11-02 13:33:25 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:

Empire keeps getting better, and nullsec stagnates. The results are predictable. Established nullsec powers can keep picking up territory because the small guys can't earn enough with small holdings to get ahead.

Not so sure it's can't pick up enough isk to make it worthwhile, I'm convinced they can't stay in 0.0 - full stop.

Part of my wasted space concept looked at POS's that were as good as invulnerable - not to reduce risk - which was the bit battered around, but to provide a point where they could actually start and expect to stay for a period longer than 24 hours.

As it stands, the only way to be a startup in 0.0 territory is to be blue to everyone BEFORE you move in or expect everything to be gone in less than 2 days - it's fait acompli so why bother.

It's this absolute that you must either be big to stay there or be big to get there. This needs to break. Any method that MIGHT work has got to be better than the status quo.

A lot of this nerfing high, fix null is only going to make 0.0 stagnation worse imho. If 0.0 is all blue, all easy, and all win mode - what's to do? More of the same people in the same alliances doing the same thing.

The only thing any of these proposed changes will do is increase how much isk is made, not how it's made or who get's it.

I'm positive 0.0's success and longevity is going to come down to "smaller" being ABLE to mark space and project - with limiters to prevent the absolute that "biggest is best" that we currently "enjoy" .


0.0 isn't "all blue" - there are 3 major conflicts going on right now. Plus numerous smaller ones. Plus a lot of stuff that goes on in W-space that we just never hear about unless we personally know someone involved.

Here's a tip: whenever anyone tells you something along the lines of "all of 0.0 is one huge napfest" or "it's safer in 0.0 than it is in hi-sec", they're lying to you, and whatever they're trying to persaude you to do (or oppose) is based on a false premise, almost certainly to their own benefit.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Samahiel Sotken
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#291 - 2012-11-02 13:49:22 UTC
Gussarde en Welle wrote:
1) banking - consumption of value through interest


While we agree on the need for more isk sinks in this game, this line bothers me. You do realize banks don't just take money and set fire to it to light their cigars. They're charging you for a service (liquidity in the form of credit), and then they themselves are spending that gross profit; to cover operating expenses, maintain liquidity themselves in order to make loans, and by investing net profit in the form of value generating investments. Some of it also goes to hookers and blow, I.E. college funds for young co-eds and covering utilities for the homes of drug dealer's mothers. Won't no one think of the poor freezing mothers?
Kenneth O'Hara
Sebiestor Tribe
#292 - 2012-11-02 15:30:25 UTC
Tired of pointless and whinny threads such as this one? Click on the link in my sig... Tell 'em i sent you.

Bring Saede Riordan back!! Never Forget! _"__Operation Godzilla Smacks Zeus"  ~__Graygor _
Dar Manic
Dirt Road Services
#293 - 2012-11-02 15:50:57 UTC
FeralShadow wrote:
Clearly something is going on in the Eve universe. There are numerous "threadnaughts" like these. I for one simply think the isk:reward ratio is out of whack. People should WANT to leave high sec for null sec, of their own volition, even when pvp is a risk. Low, but null especially, should be so rewarding that people staying in high sec are making pennies compared to the rest. Don't nerf highsec, just get the Risk:Reward ratio back into balance.


There's the problem with your basic assumption of Eve.

I just don't understand null sec players.

**Please note: **Anytime I use the phrase PvP in a post, I'm talking about shooting/combat/killing things/blowing things up. Thank you.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#294 - 2012-11-02 19:21:29 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Because it's intended as a test server and not a production server? I'd imagine there would be some level of official policy change or consequence were it to be treated otherwise.


Much like TQ is intended as an open, single-shard FFA PvP server.

Which means that there is no non-pvp-centrict but otherwise eve like game out there that I'm aware of, which was my point. If there is such a game then we can probably avoid a great deal of heartache by just pointing people to it, but just saying go to the test server isn't the answer.
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#295 - 2012-11-02 19:23:43 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Because it's intended as a test server and not a production server? I'd imagine there would be some level of official policy change or consequence were it to be treated otherwise.


Much like TQ is intended as an open, single-shard FFA PvP server.

Which means that there is no non-pvp-centrict but otherwise eve like game out there that I'm aware of, which was my point. If there is such a game then we can probably avoid a great deal of heartache by just pointing people to it, but just saying go to the test server isn't the answer.

Heartache would also be saved by not trying to turn an open, single-shard FFA PvP server into the non-PVPcentric game that they think EVE is.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#296 - 2012-11-02 19:29:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
KrakizBad wrote:
Heartache would also be saved by not trying to turn an open, single-shard FFA PvP server into the non-PVPcentric game that they think EVE is.

From the standpoint of an individual player eve can be a non-pvpcentric game as is. All depends on what the player wants from it.
Gussarde en Welle
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#297 - 2012-11-02 19:37:17 UTC
Samahiel Sotken wrote:
Gussarde en Welle wrote:
1) banking - consumption of value through interest


While we agree on the need for more isk sinks in this game, this line bothers me. You do realize banks don't just take money and set fire to it to light their cigars. They're charging you for a service (liquidity in the form of credit), and then they themselves are spending that gross profit; to cover operating expenses, maintain liquidity themselves in order to make loans, and by investing net profit in the form of value generating investments. Some of it also goes to hookers and blow, I.E. college funds for young co-eds and covering utilities for the homes of drug dealer's mothers. Won't no one think of the poor freezing mothers?


Banks control liquidity in the market by absorbing or releasing it. One could also argue that banks, like large corporations, contribute to centralizing wealth and in so doing, destroy value, as no one person can or does spend all of that wealth.
Dar Manic
Dirt Road Services
#298 - 2012-11-02 19:39:52 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Heartache would also be saved by not trying to turn an open, single-shard FFA PvP server into the non-PVPcentric game that they think EVE is.

From the standpoint of an individual player eve can be a non-pvpcentric game as is. All depends on what the player wants from it.


qft

I just don't understand null sec players.

**Please note: **Anytime I use the phrase PvP in a post, I'm talking about shooting/combat/killing things/blowing things up. Thank you.
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#299 - 2012-11-02 19:50:33 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Heartache would also be saved by not trying to turn an open, single-shard FFA PvP server into the non-PVPcentric game that they think EVE is.

From the standpoint of an individual player eve can be a non-pvpcentric game as is. All depends on what the player wants from it.

That standpoint doesn't hold up to a ganker, so no. EVE pacifism works great until someone comes along who disagrees.
Den Arius
Monte Inc
#300 - 2012-11-02 19:54:49 UTC
KrakizBad wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Heartache would also be saved by not trying to turn an open, single-shard FFA PvP server into the non-PVPcentric game that they think EVE is.

From the standpoint of an individual player eve can be a non-pvpcentric game as is. All depends on what the player wants from it.

That standpoint doesn't hold up to a ganker, so no. EVE pacifism works great until someone comes along who disagrees.


Of course, the individual can do his best to avoid PVP (in the literal sense, not including market PVP and the meta game) and strictly stick to PVE activities. This isn't to say that the individual can avoid being affected by PVP:

1) PVP affects prices, so unless the player avoids the market - he will be affected by PVP

2) PVP does not have to be a consensual activity, a ganker can blow his ship up - he will be affected by PVP

Bobb