These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#321 - 2012-11-02 21:27:12 UTC
KrakizBad wrote:
Our massive, expensive SRF's are definitely not for the benefit of the line members, nosiree, nor the logistics, nor jump bridges, nor noobie programs.

Every isk from moons goes into a giant money bin for alliance leaders to swim in.

it is so the alliance leaders could build themselves each the pimpest of ratting marauders, crusing around -1.0 truesec systems in lvl 5 sanctums - living the mission runner's ultimate fantasies
Robert De'Arneth
#322 - 2012-11-02 21:28:21 UTC
Dar Manic wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Dar Manic wrote:
Why do I have to call it a market PvP toon? durr

market playing is PvP. According to one definition on GD. :)

A PVP toon specializing in the market then? i'm sorry your stupid argument went nowhere.


WTF DOES PvP MEAN? Too many people on GD are arguing PvP is everything in EVE. Selling, buying, building, everything. They believe I'm wrong when I use PvP to mean shooting/killing/combat/blowing things up.

Your confusion is exactly what I'm arguing with them. PvP means combat/shooting/killing/blowing things up. When you say PvP , you don't mean buying, selling, building, everything else in EVE.



Undercutting someone on the market is pvp, that is a fact, because pvp means player vs player. Big smile

I'm a nerd, you can check my stats!! Skilling Int/Mem at 45 sp per minute is how I mack!     I'm like a lapdog, all bark no bite. 
Dar Manic
Dirt Road Services
#323 - 2012-11-02 21:32:49 UTC
Robert De'Arneth wrote:
Dar Manic wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Dar Manic wrote:
Why do I have to call it a market PvP toon? durr

market playing is PvP. According to one definition on GD. :)

A PVP toon specializing in the market then? i'm sorry your stupid argument went nowhere.


WTF DOES PvP MEAN? Too many people on GD are arguing PvP is everything in EVE. Selling, buying, building, everything. They believe I'm wrong when I use PvP to mean shooting/killing/combat/blowing things up.

Your confusion is exactly what I'm arguing with them. PvP means combat/shooting/killing/blowing things up. When you say PvP , you don't mean buying, selling, building, everything else in EVE.



Undercutting someone on the market is pvp, that is a fact, because pvp means player vs player. Big smile


*hopefully not a double post*

So I can sell a PvP toon which only does selling, buying, manufacturing, etc.!!! Thanks.

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.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#324 - 2012-11-02 21:40:44 UTC
Dar Manic wrote:


*hopefully not a double post*

So I can sell a PvP toon which only does selling, buying, manufacturing, etc.!!! Thanks.


Sure but you get better results if you call it an industry alt.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#325 - 2012-11-02 22:17:00 UTC
KrakizBad wrote:
Our massive, expensive SRF's are definitely not for the benefit of the line members, nosiree, nor the logistics, nor jump bridges, nor noobie programs.

Every isk from moons goes into a giant money bin for alliance leaders to swim in.

Just like SRF is used to replace losses while defending the moons that pay for the SRF......

And of course, in order to defend these moons that pay for the SRF we need jump bridges and logistics and to recruit new members to protect the moons that pay for the jumpbridges and logistics and recruiting of new members so we can protect the moons that......

You guys have never actually worked this out have you?

"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..."
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#326 - 2012-11-02 22:23:29 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:


You guys have never actually worked this out have you?


We get fights.
Besoina
Delicious Snacks
#327 - 2012-11-02 22:56:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Besoina
Touval Lysander wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Our massive, expensive SRF's are definitely not for the benefit of the line members, nosiree, nor the logistics, nor jump bridges, nor noobie programs.

Every isk from moons goes into a giant money bin for alliance leaders to swim in.

Just like SRF is used to replace losses while defending the moons that pay for the SRF......

And of course, in order to defend these moons that pay for the SRF we need jump bridges and logistics and to recruit new members to protect the moons that pay for the jumpbridges and logistics and recruiting of new members so we can protect the moons that......

You guys have never actually worked this out have you?


Basically what your saying is the alliance leads & their close circle of friends get access to the moon goo & the rest of us get to role around scrapping the bottom of the **** barrel in systems that probably dont even have sanctums. Because, again only the friends of the top brass gets to rat in good systems (Thank you ccp for nerfing 80% of null).

So in the end, besides the ship replacement program what benefit does a high sec player see to moving down into null, where they will surely be placed at the bottom of the ladder in a system bordering the enemy?

I think YOU actually worked this out quite clearly for everyone.
Some Rando
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#328 - 2012-11-02 23:04:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Some Rando
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
This is what I mean by non PvP centric, taking actions that reduce the likelyhood of encountering a specific form of PvP (or just plain ignoring it). He calls that specifically PvP gameplay, which I disagree with.

Taking actions to minimize the chance of encountering (a type of) PvP in and of itself is a PvP action since it involves you, a player, minimizing risks imposed by another player. I don't think there's really any form of actual PvE in EVE because nearly everything you do affects some other player, whether by introducing ISK, devaluing goods, preventing loss, taking up space, or directly blowing **** up.

This is why introducing mechanics that inhibit or prevent other players from affecting you in one way or another is bad. You may be better at using certain tools than the other guy, and both will use whatever advantages they have to get ahead.

CCP has no sense of humour.
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#329 - 2012-11-02 23:22:05 UTC
Besoina wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Our massive, expensive SRF's are definitely not for the benefit of the line members, nosiree, nor the logistics, nor jump bridges, nor noobie programs.

Every isk from moons goes into a giant money bin for alliance leaders to swim in.

Just like SRF is used to replace losses while defending the moons that pay for the SRF......

And of course, in order to defend these moons that pay for the SRF we need jump bridges and logistics and to recruit new members to protect the moons that pay for the jumpbridges and logistics and recruiting of new members so we can protect the moons that......

You guys have never actually worked this out have you?


Basically what your saying is the alliance leads & their close circle of friends get access to the moon goo & the rest of us get to role around scrapping the bottom of the **** barrel in systems that probably dont even have sanctums. Because, again only the friends of the top brass gets to rat in good systems (Thank you ccp for nerfing 80% of null).

So in the end, besides the ship replacement program what benefit does a high sec player see to moving down into null, where they will surely be placed at the bottom of the ladder in a system bordering the enemy?

I think YOU actually worked this out quite clearly for everyone.

Actually, that's what the guy who doesn't live in null said. The rest of us are laughing at him.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#330 - 2012-11-02 23:33:59 UTC
Some Rando wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
This is what I mean by non PvP centric, taking actions that reduce the likelyhood of encountering a specific form of PvP (or just plain ignoring it). He calls that specifically PvP gameplay, which I disagree with.

Taking actions to minimize the chance of encountering (a type of) PvP in and of itself is a PvP action since it involves you, a player, minimizing risks imposed by another player. I don't think there's really any form of actual PvE in EVE because nearly everything you do affects some other player, whether by introducing ISK, devaluing goods, preventing loss, taking up space, or directly blowing **** up.

This is why introducing mechanics that inhibit or prevent other players from affecting you in one way or another is bad. You may be better at using certain tools than the other guy, and both will use whatever advantages they have to get ahead.

Introduction of isk/LP/items is only PvP if that introduction removes the ability for others to do the same and/or results in competition with other resources. I actually have alot of non-competitive LP sitting around so until I use it in that fashion it was a purely PvE experience. Not everything is PvP until used as such.

Additionally reducing risks and taking actions specifically against another player are not the same. While taking precautions may divert a gank in another way it causes them no loss or real change. It's nearly the rough equivalent of not being there to begin with.

Lastly, there are a number of restrictions currently in the game to add consequence to actions, not directly prevent or reduce them, is what preserves playability even for a number of PvP minded individuals. It is possible that a portion of the player base would evolve gameplay as a whole to accommodate the removal of such restrictions, but it is likely to result in a lower overall population (talking players, not characters) as the minimum threshold of survival, much less any sort of accomplishment, becomes greatly increased.
Some Rando
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#331 - 2012-11-02 23:55:34 UTC
Some Rando wrote:
This is why introducing mechanics that inhibit or prevent other players from affecting you in one way or another is bad. You may be better at using certain tools than the other guy, and both will use whatever advantages they have to get ahead.

FYI, this was directed at the less ... smart forum-goers who might be reading this thread, not you.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Introduction of isk/LP/items is only PvP if that introduction removes the ability for others to do the same and/or results in competition with other resources.

LP is a strange case, but missioning itself is pretty clear-cut regarding ISK and items. One could argue, in the Taoist sense, that by not buying or selling your LP goods (or even mission goo/ISK) you are affecting other players (inaction is still an action), but I admit that might be going a bit far.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Additionally reducing risks and taking actions specifically against another player are not the same. While taking precautions may divert a gank in another way it causes them no loss or real change. It's nearly the rough equivalent of not being there to begin with.

You are still taking actions to prevent actions by other players. Hence, PvP. Whether said players actually have it in for you or not is another thing.

CCP has no sense of humour.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#332 - 2012-11-03 00:06:41 UTC
Quote:

KrakizBad wrote:

I think YOU actually worked this out quite clearly for everyone.

Actually, that's what the guy who doesn't live in null said. The rest of us are laughing at him.

Actually, that's what the guy who used to live in null said. The rest of those that left 0.0 are laughing at you

"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
#333 - 2012-11-03 00:11:29 UTC
Besoina wrote:

Basically what your saying is the alliance leads & their close circle of friends get access to the moon goo & the rest of us get to role around scrapping the bottom of the **** barrel in systems that probably dont even have sanctums. Because, again only the friends of the top brass gets to rat in good systems (Thank you ccp for nerfing 80% of null).

So in the end, besides the ship replacement program what benefit does a high sec player see to moving down into null, where they will surely be placed at the bottom of the ladder in a system bordering the enemy?

I think YOU actually worked this out quite clearly for everyone.

I'd like to point out that the alliance leaders don't keep best systems/sanctums etc. to themselves. They don't need to.

As for highsec moving to null. Not quite. The problem is getting nullseccers who are in highsec back to null. (et al. thankyou CCP for nerfing 80% of null)

Everything else is true.

"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..."
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#334 - 2012-11-03 00:12:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Some Rando wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Additionally reducing risks and taking actions specifically against another player are not the same. While taking precautions may divert a gank in another way it causes them no loss or real change. It's nearly the rough equivalent of not being there to begin with.

You are still taking actions to prevent actions by other players. Hence, PvP. Whether said players actually have it in for you or not is another thing.

I don't think we're going to agree on this one. Your taking someone taking precautions as an act against a ganker while I see the ganker as unaffected by any one individuals choice to tank their ship. Also, the statement "You are still taking actions to prevent actions by other players." seems to qualify inaction as PvP (Edit: I suppose in certain cases it is actually, but that statement still feels unnecessarily broad).
Some Rando
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#335 - 2012-11-03 00:30:06 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
I don't think we're going to agree on this one.

vOv But I would like to say:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Your taking someone taking precautions as an act against a ganker while I see the ganker as unaffected by any one individuals choice to tank their ship.

You may actually be affecting two players, because the ganker passed you over due to your precautions and instead went after easier prey. Lol

CCP has no sense of humour.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#336 - 2012-11-03 00:38:27 UTC
Some Rando wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
I don't think we're going to agree on this one.

vOv But I would like to say:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Your taking someone taking precautions as an act against a ganker while I see the ganker as unaffected by any one individuals choice to tank their ship.

You may actually be affecting two players, because the ganker passed you over due to your precautions and instead went after easier prey. Lol

Ganker + untanked barge ends up about the same as ganker + tanked barge + untanked barge. The tanked barge isn't the reason why the ganker chose to gank, nor will his presence save the untanked barge.

In the end I suppose it's just how you look at it.
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#337 - 2012-11-03 01:41:58 UTC
Dar Manic wrote:
Why do I have to call it a market PvP toon? durr

market playing is PvP. According to one definition on GD. :)

Wikipedia has a different view...
Quote:
PvP can be broadly used to describe any game, or aspect of a game, where players compete against each other.


So, according to the definition the devs have used before, yes, player interaction (or a player taking steps to *avoid* the actions of another player, while in game) is PVP.

Markets are PVP, mining (can be, if you want it to be), everything except "accept mission" or "turn in mission" can just about be classed under the heading "PVP".

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Dar Manic
Dirt Road Services
#338 - 2012-11-03 03:25:26 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Dar Manic wrote:
Why do I have to call it a market PvP toon? durr

market playing is PvP. According to one definition on GD. :)

Wikipedia has a different view...
Quote:
PvP can be broadly used to describe any game, or aspect of a game, where players compete against each other.


So, according to the definition the devs have used before, yes, player interaction (or a player taking steps to *avoid* the actions of another player, while in game) is PVP.

Markets are PVP, mining (can be, if you want it to be), everything except "accept mission" or "turn in mission" can just about be classed under the heading "PVP".


So corporations looking for PvP players want players who only buy, sell, manufacture, etc.?

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.
#339 - 2012-11-03 04:08:37 UTC
Your attempt to change a definition is bad, and you should feel bad for trying it.
EvEa Deva
Doomheim
#340 - 2012-11-03 05:32:08 UTC
Some people like the OP are bent, if PvE really gets your butt a hurtin that much you need to go outside.