These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zhade Lezte
#41 - 2012-11-21 21:24:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Zhade Lezte
Berendas wrote:
Good read, but I think you need to add a footnote to section (4). Some people are just there to annoy, incite argument, and get their yucks at the discussion's expense. They may be completely logical people (most legitimate trolls are) but they will not allow their logic to be visible and will make posts that are incorrect or intentionally uninformed. Not everyone is wise to their game so these detractors may be obvious to some but not all of EVE's forum-goers.


Yeah, general discussion got a lot more entertaining when I realized that something like 50-75% of the people being idiots were just trolls on alt or gimmick characters.
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#42 - 2012-11-21 21:25:10 UTC
I accept the writers opinion as truth.

Others will treat it as an opinion.

Thereby validating the writer's opinion. (Although they may not realize it)

But this is just my opinion.
Zhade Lezte
#43 - 2012-11-21 21:27:12 UTC
Man get your relativism outta here and go observe some people.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#44 - 2012-11-21 21:27:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Real world, the saying goes... your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Unless, of course, we're in the boxing ring (or MMA octagon).
…and we're in such a ring right now. You stepped in the moment you logged in — highsec is as much a part of the ring as low and null. At most, it's a corner where the padding on the gloves is a bit thicker (which, as it turns out, is not always a good thing for the parties involved).

Someone else's play style as a PvPer does not disallow your play style as a carbear. The game already allows for both. The game just puts it on your shoulders to ensure that you get to play the way you want. Or to use a different Malcanisism: [playing EVE] does not mean you get to succeed at anything you want to try — it means you get to try anything you want to succeed at.

Quote:
What EVE needs is more PVPers that are content to PVP with other players that enjoy PVPing, and fewer sociopaths that want to blow up the ships of carebears.

What's the matter griefer? Can't win a fight against someone that is ready and looking to fight back, so have to take out your frustration by beating up on the people that are not ready for, not looking for a fight?

Pathetic losers, those people are.
Ok. At this point I'd suggest that you go and re-read the article and see if you can spot what you just did and why it's a bad thing.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#45 - 2012-11-21 21:28:54 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Hope this helps



+1 Alex, Mittani, Gianturco


Lin would say /bow fot this interesting piece of thought and humility.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Bud Austrene
Secure Haven
#46 - 2012-11-21 21:31:20 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Hope this helps


If you look around you in RL, you will see "The Big Lie" is still alive and doing well in just about every facet of life.
But it seems that few really seem to be aware of it.
I think it is a little bit of wishful thinking and ignorance.
Your article was good but i think it would be better if the message were shorter.
It seems that people's attention span is short and i have found that it is more effective to keep it short and add to it a little at a time.
But keep in mind, there will always be a new crop of the "wishful thinking and ignorant".
And of course, there are always those that are just trouble makers at heart and are immune.
"The Big Lie" is never ending and will always be with us.

But recognizing it makes it so that we can protect ourselves from some of the consequences and maybe use it to further our own agendas.

Yes I am an alt. I see no reason to make it easy for bullies and greifers

KrakizBad
Section 8.
#47 - 2012-11-21 21:34:17 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
BAWWW

Poor OP, this is why you can't have nice things.
Sara XIII
The Carnifex Corp
#48 - 2012-11-21 22:06:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Sara XIII
Well done Malcanis. One of the best articles I've read over there. I mean you're no James 315 but that was pretty damn thought provoking!

BlinkP
Between Ignorance and Wisdom
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#49 - 2012-11-21 22:08:17 UTC
The forums are not an RSS feed. User has been put on probation for 6 hours.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
JitaPriceChecker2
Doomheim
#50 - 2012-11-21 22:09:37 UTC
I call this BS.

I dont need a single Hi-Sec player.
What he is good for if i cant shoot him.
HollyShocker 2inthestink
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#51 - 2012-11-21 22:23:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Real world, the saying goes... your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Unless, of course, we're in the boxing ring (or MMA octagon).
…and we're in such a ring right now. You stepped in the moment you logged in — highsec is as much a part of the ring as low and null. At most, it's a corner where the padding on the gloves is a bit thicker (which, as it turns out, is not always a good thing for the parties involved).

Someone else's play style as a PvPer does not disallow your play style as a carbear. The game already allows for both. The game just puts it on your shoulders to ensure that you get to play the way you want. Or to use a different Malcanisism: [playing EVE] does not mean you get to succeed at anything you want to try — it means you get to try anything you want to succeed at.

Quote:
What EVE needs is more PVPers that are content to PVP with other players that enjoy PVPing, and fewer sociopaths that want to blow up the ships of carebears.

What's the matter griefer? Can't win a fight against someone that is ready and looking to fight back, so have to take out your frustration by beating up on the people that are not ready for, not looking for a fight?

Pathetic losers, those people are.
Ok. At this point I'd suggest that you go and re-read the article and see if you can spot what you just did and why it's a bad thing.



This is where I disagree with you Tippia. The ring as you want to call it is where both parties are shiped up and trained up for pvp. Two parties looking for a fight, not a miner in a ship that cant fight back.

Killing miners in hi-sec is not consensual pvp it like clubing baby seals on the beach with a bat.

When fighters step into the ring they both know what they are there for they both trained to be there. Ones not there to fight and the other to do laundry.

Like I have said before most will try to justify killing miners as pvp to make themselves feel better about their actions. Killing miners in hi-sec is for people that fail at pvp where it should be done not hi-sec. You can argue all you want about sandbox but if they wanted you to pvp in hi-sec they would not have Concord at all. Think about it.
Ginger Barbarella
#52 - 2012-11-21 22:25:33 UTC
Saw it's on the website of the disgraced lawyer, stopped reading.

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
Some Rando
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2012-11-21 22:28:07 UTC
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
Killing miners in hi-sec is not consensual pvp it like clubing baby seals on the beach with a bat.

Which is actually pretty hilarious in a video game, if you think about it. Miners, baby seals, the same thing... Makes sense.

CCP has no sense of humour.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#54 - 2012-11-21 22:32:23 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
You start out okay. You point out that burning high sec won't move the carebears to low or null. They will just quit playing.

(though, I will have to admit that the CSM notes indicate this is not completely true. CCP claims that burn high sec did, in fact, result in less mining in high sec, slightly more mining in 0.0, and lots more mining in low (of course 100% increase from near 0 is still pretty near 0 in the case of low sec). On the flip side of this, CCP was seeing enough carebear drops that they had to re-balance barges to create barges that are gank resistant to stop and reverse the drops that were being caused by burn high-sec.)

I'm not convinced that the move of miners to low or null actually created more ship boomage, or just PVPer rage at local and station/POS games where miners safe up as soon as any non-blue enters local.....



Here is where you go badly off track....
"Equally misguided are the narrowly focused vocal hi-sec uber alles types who just wish that all the drama-llama nullsecers and Jack Sparrows in lo-sec would just go away."

I've not seen a single post from a carebear asking that the PVPers be removed from game. In general, we carebears all seem to realize and accept that it is the boom that creates the demand.

The posts I see from carebears are basically, "both carebears and PVPers can co-exist within the same game, via game mechanics that set up different areas of space that have different rules, that allow different play style".


" They want CCP to endsolung the problem with a server split or, failing that, PvP-flag hi-sec. They believe that, no longer trammeled by the demands of PvPers, EVE could be happily balanced into an eternal "

Hmmm... The people I see calling for sharding are those that want to go to 0.0, but not have to live under the yoke of goons/test and the other ubber large alliances with fleets of supers. They want to be able to start over, on equal footing, in a new shard, as all players would be insta-noobs there... I guess they do not realize that the goons/test could just insta create alts on the new shard, and still be the largest alliance on the new shard, in a heart beat.

High sec already has criminal flag that gets you concorded, so I have no clue what you are talking about with your " PVP-flag high sec" comment.


The bottom line is this. CCP wants max subscribers. They are going to do whatever is necessary to create environments where both PVPers and carebears can enjoy playing the game the way they enjoy playing the game.

It doesn't matter how loudly one side or the other calls for removing the other, CCP is going to ignore that. CCP will watch subs and unsubs, and make game changes necessary to keep as many (of each type of player) playing, and paying.


This whole post MUST be a test lol, because just reading it makes me want to break Mittani rule #5 lol.

It kind of seems like the article was Mittani trying to put foward a middle ground posistion, in the spirit of a U.N. of EVE. Welp, these kinds of post kind of demonstrate the weakness of the article. If everyone was reasonable it would be different' but everyone isn't, so joining hands and singing kuumbayyaa (so to speak lol, not saying this is what the article suggested) with people who don't particulairy like EVE isn't very realistic.
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
#55 - 2012-11-21 22:35:11 UTC
JitaPriceChecker2 wrote:
I call this BS.

I dont need a single Hi-Sec player.
What he is good for if i cant shoot him.



0/10

wumbo
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#56 - 2012-11-21 22:36:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
This is where I disagree with you Tippia. The ring as you want to call it is where both parties are shiped up and trained up for pvp. Two parties looking for a fight, not a miner in a ship that cant fight back.
No, it's the same old ring. It just happens to be challenger night and anyone who stumbles in gets to throw a punch (and take a few in return).

Quote:
You can argue all you want about sandbox but if they wanted you to pvp in hi-sec they would not have Concord at all.
No. It's quite the opposite. If they didn't want people to fight in highsec, there would be no CONCORD.

CONCORD is there specifically because they want people to fight because if they didn't, CONCORD would serve no purpose and in its place would be the impossibility to fire at other players. Instead, the actual purpose of CONCORD is to ensure that aggression costs — it is not in any way there to make it not happen.

Ginger Barbarella wrote:
Saw it's on the website of the disgraced lawyer, stopped reading.
You really should read it. It's about you.
Some Rando
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2012-11-21 22:37:35 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
It kind of seems like the article was Mittani trying to put foward a middle ground posistion

Articles on that website are written by a wide variety of authors, who are credited at the top of the article.

I mean, I know everyone is an alt of James 315 who is an alt of The Mittani, but, you know, just saying...

CCP has no sense of humour.
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#58 - 2012-11-21 23:34:10 UTC
Tippia wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Real world, the saying goes... your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Unless, of course, we're in the boxing ring (or MMA octagon).


…and we're in such a ring right now. You stepped in the moment you logged in — highsec is as much a part of the ring as low and null. At most, it's a corner where the padding on the gloves is a bit thicker (which, as it turns out, is not always a good thing for the parties involved).

Someone else's play style as a PvPer does not disallow your play style as a carbear. The game already allows for both. The game just puts it on your shoulders to ensure that you get to play the way you want. Or to use a different Malcanisism: [playing EVE] does not mean you get to succeed at anything you want to try — it means you get to try anything you want to succeed at.


The underlined is a fine example of "This is the way EVE is meant to be played and no other. There is just this one".

The bold is a fine example of contradicting the underlined and is also blatantly false.

For starters, if someones idea of pvp (since suicide ganking a defenseless miner is not pvp. It's not pvp if the other person can't fight back) is to suicide gank a miner repeatedly, regardless of where this miner mines making it impossible for that miner to mine, then one person's playstyle has just "disallowed" another's.

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.
Qin Tawate
Doomheim
#59 - 2012-11-21 23:36:42 UTC

dude, this tippia has 10 k likes. He can never be wrong, right? Big smile
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#60 - 2012-11-21 23:43:15 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:
The underlined is a fine example of "This is the way EVE is meant to be played and no other. There is just this one".

The bold is a fine example of contradicting the underlined and is also blatantly false.

For starters, if someones idea of pvp (since suicide ganking a defenseless miner is not pvp. It's not pvp if the other person can't fight back) is to suicide gank a miner repeatedly, regardless of where this miner mines making it impossible for that miner to mine, then one person's playstyle has just "disallowed" another's.

Whose fault is it for giving up?