EVE General Discussion

I don't think you have anything to worry about.

Hmmm, which actually means that those that drop to an NPC corp (to ruin someone's day) are just as bad (if not worse) than the supposedly evil war dec griefer.

Which also means they have no room to talk, as they are just as bad as the people they are complaining about.

You didn't ask me, but I'll answer for me.

I find that EVE offers AMPLE opportunity for cooperative game play. Whether it is working together to mine out a high sec asteroid belt (some mining, some hauling, someone providing orca boosts, someone getting max refine) or moving a freighter (scouts, webbing rapier), running a POS (taking turns fueling, using multiple people's PI for fuel, etc), sharing BPO collections for manufacturing... on and on.

I find that EVE offers AMPLE opportunities for cooperative play styles, even if your primary goal is to avoid the hostile exchange of ammo in space.

The whole point of this argument is just nuts.

Video games are not competitive sports, in which single acting persons act upon the same set of limbs, in an even playfield with very simple rules. Alts, grid, different ships, different skills, gates etc... playfield is not even at all. It can be cheesed. Some gamers will never cheese, as it breaks immersion and the tacit agreement to "play nice". Others will ALWAYS cheese, since they don't care for make believe.

Also, competitive gaming is kind of an oxymoron, isn't it? What next, competitive dinner? competitive barbecue? competitive meet-and-greet? LOL. Social degenerate that you are (© ElPresador)

You should re-read my previous post. It states clearly that:
- Well-balanced gamers are the PLAY WITH type, and their goals are ingame goals, they enjoy make believe
- Schadenfreude seeking competitards are the PLAY AGAINST type, they seek metagame goals, making people rage over the internet. They believe anonymous multiplayer enjoyment is a zero-sum-game, in which they can only have positive fun if their opponent has negative (is annoyed).

You can have exciting pvp and also take care that your opponent has loads of fun, just as you. This is the PLAY WITH mentality, something which seems incredible to you.
Even better, you could have a complete lack of CONCORD in New Eden, and it would work great if gamers had this PLAY WITH mentality. The server could not even handle the number of players that would flock to engage in meaningful and collectively fun pvp.





Reading skills : big fat 0. I enjoy conflict and pvp, as long as it's in the realm of the game, the realm of make-believe, in which gamers want to play WITH each other, not AGAINST.

I only dislike people like you according to how you turn games that should be fun, into cesspools of online sociopathic tryhards, and force devs to hardcore restrictions on pvp so that the playerbase doesn't shrink to a couple thousand grimdark and edgy hormonally-raging teens and butthurt 40yr old hambeasts taking out their pent-up frustration in a goddamn virtual universe. Truthfully, I'm rather thankful that you're here, otherwise I'd spend too much time ingame and would neglect important stuff IRL!


And alas yes, what well-balanced people wish of an online persistent universe, is COMPLETE freedom of action, no restrictions whatsoever, in a community filled with the PLAY WITH type of gamers, who will range from total pve'er to hardcore pvp'er. But said pvp'er will take care that his opponents will always have fun. Something absolutely and completely alien to you, since you believe anonymous online multiplayer activities are zero-sum-games in terms of fun.

Not really, no, seeing as how most games are competitive (largely because cooperative games are immensely harder to design).

…except, of course, that the game is deliberately set up to be very close to zero-sum in order to keep the two core parts of the game engine — industry and the market — moving.

How many players would be willing to be exploded at an appropriate pace to keep the economy going?

The whole notion that people are sociopaths because they engage in competitive behaviour in a competitive game suggests two things: that you don't understand what sociopathy means, or that you suffer from it yourself. The fact that you seem to have a problem distinguishing between virtual and real-world behaviour speaks more towards the latter, or to something far worse…

Put another way: if you have to resort to that argument, I have no option but to completely dismiss your entire line of thinking as being thoroughly irrational.

This is the part that makes me laugh. I've PK'd characters around the gaming table, looking the player square in the eye, with a smile on my face. The hell makes people think I'll hold back in a video game where doing so is a selling point of the product.

LOL. Here comes Tiptard and his cavalcade of suspension points and cherry-pickings.

- Gaming, a collective and fun activity, as competitive: as in competitive going out for drinks in a bar? Competitive going out to see a movie? Competitive garden party? Competitive wedding celebration? How autistic are you?

- Zero-sum-game in terms of FUN, as I clearly and plainly wrote. The PLAY AGAINST type only have fun when their opponent has a negative amount of, i.e. is annoyed. Their mentality is not ingame-oriented in terms of goals. The ingame production and destruction can and should be close to a zero-sum-game of ASSETS, but it does not matter as long as the gamers all share a PLAY WITH type mentality. They'll happily create and destroy each other's ASSETS, everybody having FUN. The PLAY AGAINST type mentality only enjoy destroying other people's FUN, since the ASSET they seek is out-of-game, i.e. Schadenfreude.

- Hrp drp u cnt distinguish btween rl and game bhvior lol u a maniac dude seek hlp... ... ...
Since the PLAY AGAINST type mentality is only happy when their fellow gamer is annoyed IRL, this is very much not virtual behavior at all and is a clear sign of online sociopathy.


Next?

You're frantically dumb. No games are play with or play against in terms of fun, by concept. Those categories only apply to the mindset of gamers. Put well-balanced gamers in a zero-restriction pvp environment, and they'll make it a fun place for all, even for complete pve'ers. Put play against types in Animal Crossing Online, and they'll find ways to annoy and aggravate 6yr old kids. Get it?

I don't know if you're ignorant but you're mightily desensitized if you can't understand playing with people (even in pvp, attacking them but ensuring the fight is enjoyable on all sides) instead of against is more fun for all, and more fun for all is more fun for you. LOL RANDROID.

He's competing with the other people on the killboards. More kills = more points; and PvE ships tend to be worth a lot of points so it's an obvious target…

…of course, being obvious, they will also give less actual cred than the same amount of points from a PvP ship. If someone throws an outrageous and spectacular fit over being exploded in a game that relies on stuff being exploded on a regular basis, then that's something to laugh about too. Because, yes, grown-ups exhibiting that kind of unreasonable behaviour is great fun (cf. the non-cat half of youtube).

The problem with that is that EVE very specifically and very deliberately is a game where wanting it isn't enough and where being left alone is not the standard. If you want something, you have to make it happen, especially if it's something as oddball as being left alone.