These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Care-bears may be physically unable to PvP

First post
Author
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#121 - 2013-01-18 19:19:48 UTC
Hestia Mar wrote:
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
I think CCP should fly around and randomly gank people who have never been killed, just to show them that this game is made for PvPers for PvP purposes.



Wrong, wrong, wrong...it may have been the intention for EVE to be a pvp game, but that's not what it has become. The simple massive majority of players who stay in hi-sec and don't pvp are testament to that. Get used to it my friend, you're the minority in our game now.

And please don't bring up the usual 'market trading is pvp' argument - that's competition, not pvp


One "wrong" would suffice. And its not the PvPers making the market is PvP argument. By "our" do you mean you and your alts?
Lovely Dumplings
My Little Pony Appreciation Corporation
#122 - 2013-01-18 19:25:06 UTC
Hestia Mar wrote:
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
I think CCP should fly around and randomly gank people who have never been killed, just to show them that this game is made for PvPers for PvP purposes.



Wrong, wrong, wrong...it may have been the intention for EVE to be a pvp game, but that's not what it has become. The simple massive majority of players who stay in hi-sec and don't pvp are testament to that. Get used to it my friend, you're the minority in our game now.

And please don't bring up the usual 'market trading is pvp' argument - that's competition, not pvp


To be frank, that's...a really dumb way of thinking. The EVE economy is demand driven. Without shiplosses driven by PVP, the entire eve economy would grind to a halt. Since PVPers are the apex consumers of our world, THEY have the ultimate control, not industrials.

Simply, look at this, which causes a bigger ripple...supply of trit on the market, or a FOTM ship change. In a supply driven economy, trit cost would be important. Demand driven, end-consumer whims push the market.

"Market is not PVP" ideas are what will cause you loss to a "Market is PVP" person. Market=PVP has no problems loss-leadering your stuff, awoxing your corp, hinting New Order into your mining fields, or just plain wardeccing you. No hard feelings, all about the ISK, just business.

www.minerbumping.com

Lfod Shi
Lfod's Ratting and Salvage
#123 - 2013-01-18 19:30:12 UTC
It's not this complicated. Losing a ship isn't fun for some people. I've lost plenty, including sacrificial lambs built for the purpose of being lost.

It huwts every time. Cry

...end transmission...

♪ They'll always be bloodclaws to me ♫

Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#124 - 2013-01-18 19:32:16 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I think it's just the long grind to get stuff that does it, and then, you just get the stuff blown up.




I've often thought that there should be systems that will not accept any ships over a certain hull and no T2 gear. Something that would ensure that your opponent is flying a similar ship to your own. And the ships fighting there would all be cheap as hell. Of course there's still the skill difference. But I bet the real hardcore guys would get sick of the small pond pretty quickly.

I don't like the idea of artificial enforcement like that though, IDK.

Maybe a POS tower that has a chance to destroy modules, the more expensive the module the higher the chance that it will be destroyed.

But something to make cheap ships more common in PvP. Hmmmm, that might increase the cost of plex as people don't need to buy so many BC's. Would CCP care if the ISK price for Plex went up 20 or 23%?
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#125 - 2013-01-18 19:35:17 UTC
Lfod Shi wrote:
It's not this complicated. Losing a ship isn't fun for some people. I've lost plenty, including sacrificial lambs built for the purpose of being lost.

It huwts every time. Cry

...end transmission...

What if it wasn't a ship that you were piloting, rather a custom built rat that you sent out to bother your enemies? Or a seeker missile that you place near the station of your enemies, one that will attack them if they linger outside of their station or within a certain distance of where the mine is set.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#126 - 2013-01-18 19:35:27 UTC
I have seen it where something hits a market for a certain price, and then the price drops, and those who bought at a higher price get angry.


So those who have had the ability to "join a null corp" and pay the high price of having to donate a significant portion of their free time and sanity to PVP and getting PVP get a little irked when they are faced with the prospect of PVP getting "cheaper"

The truth of the matter is that not everybody is a neckbeard with hours and hours to dedicate to PVP, and CCP has been realizing that.

Yes, people can complain, but these days, and as the player base ages, gets promoted at work (more responsibility), has kids (less free time) , and other matters, they have less time to spend on say, waiting hours to get a fleet together and do a 30 jump roam into nullsec and chase a few ships off a few gates.


And so things change... Crimewatch, Duelling (coming soon), FW....

and there are those null dwellers, who bit the bullet, and getting more and more bitter with each expansion that makes PVP more accessible.

When CCP knows that a certain point gets reached, for many players who simply don't have time, that point that occurs RIGHT after they no longer log in to up their Skill Queue.

Does CCP cater to those whose only real accomplishment is "putting up with nullsec", the few and far between they are (and how many are in high sec who used to be in null)? How long can that last?

Yes, things are changing. PVP is getting more accessible. Because people can play a FPS game endlessly, for YEARS, because you get whacked and go back to a spawn point, but if you had to go back to a grind every time then COD/MW would be a footnote in gaming history.

Of course, there will probably never be such a think in EvE - but those of you who have the clone vat with scores of ships parked right outside of it have exactly what a FPS player has, because you "put in the time" - time that YOU had, and what others don't, and I don't recall that this game has the "he who has the most time to play wins" being one of the selling points. In fact, it's those other games who have that element that makes it a turnoff for people who pay their own bills (meaning that if you don't have all weekend every weekend for your guild to help you run through the same instance repeatedly until you have the entire purple set, you last 2 seconds in the arenas) .


Too bad so sad. The player are changing, times are changing. The game is changing to remain viable and profit(?)able.

Deal with it.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Itis Zhellin
#127 - 2013-01-18 19:41:07 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
Itis Zhellin wrote:
Tbh,blablablablablablablaballalbnalabhalahaanalabaabalanbaljabkla is like a flush in the toilet. No offense pls.

Did you actually say something there?

Yes dude, I actually said a lot. Is like you keep hit me with Doors while Im on Sabbatah13
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#128 - 2013-01-18 19:43:16 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

I simply think that it's good for a pvp game to require some effort and thought before being successful at an activity. Making things easier for people who don't or can't overcome simple problems (the simple problems all of us who pvp have already figured out) is not a good move. It's like saying "Chess is too hard" and letting people use Checkers rules instead.


I don't want Eve to be easier. I do think that there are some options that would make the game more interesting for everyone involved; PvP via rats or paid off station gunners, mines that can be placed and will attack individuals or corps that get near them, POS towers that cause modules to blow up, kamikaze ships that miners can use to blow up stuff.

As it stands now the options for direct destruction are pretty limited and not usable by many players.
Whitehound
#129 - 2013-01-18 19:44:57 UTC
Physically unable is a strong description, but I get what you are saying. It depends very much on how someone was raised. Someone who got smothered with love is more driven to conflict than someone who has only seen tough love. The easiest way to help them, if they actually want help that is, is to let them open up and start getting active on their terms.

If this is too complicated to understand then imagine someone being the victim of an accident and as a result has been traumatized. Concussions and agonizing pain can put one in a dark place. Such people, too, are unable to respond to threats and are unable to defend themselves for a certain time. Painkillers, alcohol and other drugs can have similar effects.

It never means that someone cannot fight. All it means is that they are already in a fight (with themselves, with their environment, with their pain, etc.) and one only cannot see it.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Davith en Divalone
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#130 - 2013-01-18 20:31:12 UTC
Wow, lots of projection and armchair psychoanalysis.

Eve is a game that combines some of the best features of space trading, combat simulations, and 4X games, makes them interact, and makes them all player-driven and competitive to varying degrees. This is in contrast to games that just happen to have a optional economy. (To abuse WoW, crafting is largely irrelevant, and the auction house is irrelevant when best-in-slot items are non-exchangeable purchases from NPC vendors.)

People who think economic games are not vicious and cut-throat have never sat down with certain members of my family at a Monopoly board. I'd rather jump into a gate camp than deal with a bidding war among cousins. The gate camp at least is a win-win situation that makes everyone's night a little more interesting, and I think I've lost more ISK in market battles.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#131 - 2013-01-18 21:35:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
Jenn aSide wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:

I have looked into this issue for a good long time. What the PvP combat adverse players are afraid of is stress. A confrontational interaction with another person is what causes the physical reaction you mention. For some that gives them The Rush, and is desirable. For others its just a pile of stress that leaves them feeling drained and even sick, and is to be avoided.

Why do such players even play eve? Because its the best space MMO on the market, and with a little care the stressful situations can be avoided the majority of the time. Do you know a better space MMO for such players?


Star Trek Online.


Im not sure I understand. Are you saying that in terms of game play in an open sandbox where I can explore, mine, build, market, and do PvE, STO is better than eve? Also as to what type of game Eve is, remember this

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We often hear "EVE is a PvP game, PvE is secondary". To this we would like to respond that EVE is a sandbox and shouldn’t necessarily favor one side over the other. What you do with it is up to you: all player activities should feel as appealing and rewarding no matter which choice you take, as long as you are willing to live up with the consequences of your actions.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Hemmo Paskiainen
#132 - 2013-01-19 01:47:30 UTC
The problem with carebears is that they care too much about isk. Any risk of loosing isk is tooo big. They prefer blob warefare as it gives them little bit of a rush vs minimal risk. It is ether greed or shortsightingness that is troubeling them. The reson to blob is also the biggest reson that carebears jump ship in corporations and alliances when they dont have advantage in fleeting. This is why 'carebear' alliances implode damn quick... ppl just bail when it is easier and better (read cheaper) for themselves. Their isk and their wallets are more important. As a vet 0.0 recruiter for several years i strongy advice to not mass recruit bears if ppl want to build a solid corp. ;)

If relativity equals time plus momentum, what equals relativity, if the momentum is minus to the time?

Zol Interbottom
Blimp Requisition Services
#133 - 2013-01-19 01:54:29 UTC
as a newish player and professional carebear i don't PVP for a simple reason, i literally can't afford to PVP, its not "I WANT MORE ISKS, NOT RISKS" its the fact that i don't have the massive cash flow to support any sort of PVP, i could fit a T1 frigate but even that i can't afford to buy right now

"If you're quitting for the 3rd time you clearly ain't quitting" - Chribba

Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#134 - 2013-01-19 01:58:04 UTC
Hemmo Paskiainen wrote:
The problem with carebears is that they care too much about isk. Any risk of loosing isk is tooo big. They prefer blob warefare as it gives them little bit of a rush vs minimal risk. It is ether greed or shortsightingness that is troubeling them. The reson to blob is also the biggest reson that carebears jump ship in corporations and alliances when they dont have advantage in fleeting. This is why 'carebear' alliances implode damn quick... ppl just bail when it is easier and better (read cheaper) for themselves. Their isk and their wallets are more important. As a vet 0.0 recruiter for several years i strongy advice to not mass recruit bears if ppl want to build a solid corp. ;)

There is no problem with bears. They play the game their way, nothing problematic about that.

I went down to Delve last summer to watch some of that mess. The Test fleets were 2 and 5 hundred guys, the locals mustered a handful here and there. Are you saying that Test is a carebear corp? And that blob warfare is not a valid tactic?

I'm sorry that this post had to be 4 lines long. You can read it twice if that will help.

Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#135 - 2013-01-19 02:01:03 UTC
Zol Interbottom wrote:
as a newish player and professional carebear i don't PVP for a simple reason, i literally can't afford to PVP, its not "I WANT MORE ISKS, NOT RISKS" its the fact that i don't have the massive cash flow to support any sort of PVP, i could fit a T1 frigate but even that i can't afford to buy right now

Welcome to the game Zol. Why in the name of Christ would you pick "interbottom" for a last name?
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#136 - 2013-01-19 02:01:44 UTC
lol, I'm sorry. lol
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#137 - 2013-01-19 02:08:46 UTC
You know how the physical response of PVP is often described, in a rather dramatic way by those getting it for the first time.

A lot of good can come from that. The pathways in the brain operating under such stress is what a fighter pilot is made of.

To say someone is not able to handle it physically - not sure.

But one thing is for certain, having the same kind of PVP-like stress in real life is not making getting it on purpose in a game more appealing. It may not be in inability to handle it, but a matter of already having had enough.

I wish this could be the only stress in my life. But I am not "King of Mom's Basement" nor lingering there looking for something to get excited about.


Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#138 - 2013-01-19 02:13:26 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
You know how the physical response of PVP is often described, in a rather dramatic way by those getting it for the first time.

To say someone is not able to handle it physically - not sure.



The reasons are really irrelevant. Just the options...Do you need a hug?
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#139 - 2013-01-19 02:15:12 UTC
I'm mentally disturbed myself from overexposure. Can barely make phone calls anymore. If you figure out a solution pleas let me know.
Mister S Burke
Doomheim
#140 - 2013-01-19 03:29:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Mister S Burke
Snarky post removed, I refuse to be drug into ad hominems.