These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 fight between PvPers and carebears really is the carebears' fault.

First post First post
Author
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#321 - 2013-05-19 06:43:31 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
This game is about pvp, through and through. Except for mission agents, and limited few npc buy orders, everything is interacted with another player.

The problem is that it seems the OP equates "pvp" with "combat", whereas combat is NOT forced or needed.. it is in fact what the game is BASED on. PVP, however, is required at some point, regardless of how much involvement you contribute in-game.


The discussion we are having, Murk, is whether or not a "game" can really be "about" anything at all. You say the game is about PVP, but I say that YOU are about PVP, and are imposing that view on not just the game and objects within it, but on the other players. I think this tells us something about who you are as a person, not just that you want this game to be about PVP, but that you demand that other players adopt that same desire and approach the game in that same way, even going so far as to punish them for failing to comply.

Shao Huang takes a view that is not exactly inconsistent with that. He is just asking about what the process is (according to others) that causes people to feel like you are victimizing them, when, from a literal standpoint, it's just pretty lights on a screen. "What turns a pretty pixel flash into grief?", as it were. (I think that's what he's asking.)

Interestingly enough, Murk, you have done something very similar in this thread. You seem to believe that what Shao Huang, Corey Fummimasa, I, and presumably others have contributed to the discussion so far is not really what this thread is "about", and have suggested that WE take actions to remediate our "misbehavior". Well, in the interest of staying on topic, I won't tell you what hole you can stick that suggestion in.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#322 - 2013-05-19 06:48:41 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:


The discussion we are having, Murk, is whether or not a "game" can really be "about" anything at all. You say the game is about PVP, but I say that YOU are about PVP, and are imposing that view on not just the game and objects within it, but on the other players. I think this tells us something about who you are as a person, not just that you want this game to be about PVP, but that you demand that other players adopt that same desire and approach the game in that same way, even going so far as to punish them for failing to comply.

Shao Huang takes a view that is not exactly inconsistent with that. He is just asking about what the process is (according to others) that causes people to feel like you are victimizing them, when, from a literal standpoint, it's just pretty lights on a screen. "What turns a pretty pixel flash into grief?", as it were. (I think that's what he's asking.)

Interestingly enough, Murk, you have done something very similar in this thread. You seem to believe that what Shao Huang, Corey Fummimasa, I, and presumably others have contributed to the discussion so far is not really what this thread is "about", and have suggested that WE take actions to remediate our "misbehavior". Well, in the interest of staying on topic, I won't tell you what hole you can stick that suggestion in.


Sorry but this game is very much based upon pvp. Anyone insisting that they should be exempt from it is playing the wrong game and should probably go to something like STO which is a pve based MMO.
Shao Huang
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#323 - 2013-05-19 09:48:45 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Sorry but this game is very much based upon pvp. Anyone insisting that they should be exempt from it is playing the wrong game and should probably go to something like STO which is a pve based MMO.


This is plausible. Probably CCPs intent to some extent. Structurally present to some extent. Let's say it is completely the case, whatever definition of PvP someone might use.

Is the game also a 'sandbox'?

If so, how do we put those together?

I also wonder, what are the absolute minimal requirements for playing the game? As far as I can tell it is have a sub, agree to the EULA, log in. Is there something else? Even the 'log in' part is tough. How often do they have to log in, at what frequency, in a now ten year old game, to be considered 'playing'?

So for instance, what if the game someone is playing a sandbox game where many people insist it is exclusively PvP, with a variety of definitions about that, and they insist it is not? Likely the experience would consistently suck for them to the extent that their asserted model was not structurally coupled with the game itself, but can we say they are not playing? They think they are playing. The sucky experience they might be having may constitute play for other people in some cases.

I have been thinking tonight that it might be more interesting to consider it in slightly different way than 'the game is X'.

As a model, suppose there are generally three categories of play. They overlap and are all occurring, but one of them is often contextualizing for a particular player. It is not necessary for all three to be present, but one usually is for any form of consistent play. This is more about the sandbox nature of it.

1- Power: my attention is on being able to declare a goal (any goal) and work to achieve that. If it is never possible, or I have no experience of progress, I might quit, but not necessarily.
2- Meaning: my attention is on the interconnection of things. I want to understand something and I might be interested participating in and generating meaning.
3- Affect: my attention is on how I feel when I do something I understand as playing the game, regardless what form that takes.

(The marketing might look like: Be what you want. Do what you wish. Write your own story. Feel the rush (or the pain).

Let's take the third one for a sec and imagine that is really all that is going on for a player. They do not care about goals at all. They do not care about meaning at all. Might be hard to imagine for some people. It is easier to imagine if we only include something we might consider positive affect- a good feeling of some sort. What if, for whatever reason the player actually has an appetite for something we consider a bad feeling? In the context of meaning it makes no sense for us at all. In the context of power they don't seem to have any particular goal. We might look at their behavior and ascribe goals or meaning based on our models of those things, but what if it simply does not occur for that player in that way?

Private sig. Do not read.

Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#324 - 2013-05-19 11:32:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Corey Fumimasa
baltec1 wrote:


Sorry but this game is very much based upon pvp. Anyone insisting that they should be exempt from it is playing the wrong game and should probably go to something like STO which is a pve based MMO.

Blueballing is a perfectly valid PvP tactic. Maybe LHA and co are actually better at PVP than they have been given credit for!

But I take your point that no one in Eve can be made mechanically exempt from PvP if they interact with other players in any way. There is not, and must never be, a button or option that allows players to participate in one aspect of the game while at the same time being immune from another.

In reference to Shau's post; a player certainly can choose a path that is immune to being attacked by another player, but that player will be limited in affecting those around him. For instance a player could log in everyday for a year, look at his rookie ship and go through the market pages, he could write a useful description of a certain category of items as he studied the market. This is a perfectly valid game play choice and one that is immune to other players affecting him.

Now lets assume that he wants some ISK for some reason, he decides to sell his market study. He finds a buyer and agrees to mail the information to the client. He sends the mail and never gets paid. By interacting with others and potentially affecting them he has lost his immunity, and in our example has been beaten in the game of Eve trade.
Jame Jarl Retief
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#325 - 2013-05-19 13:42:31 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:

In reference to Shau's post; a player certainly can choose a path that is immune to being attacked by another player, but that player will be limited in affecting those around him. For instance a player could log in everyday for a year, look at his rookie ship and go through the market pages, he could write a useful description of a certain category of items as he studied the market. This is a perfectly valid game play choice and one that is immune to other players affecting him.

Now lets assume that he wants some ISK for some reason, he decides to sell his market study. He finds a buyer and agrees to mail the information to the client. He sends the mail and never gets paid. By interacting with others and potentially affecting them he has lost his immunity, and in our example has been beaten in the game of Eve trade.


And now, just take your example one step further and ask the question - what happens after said player gets swindled (or "beaten" as you put it) and basically loses all that work. Will he stay in the game or will he quit the game in disgust? Similarly to how many players quit the game after similar "interactions" with other players? And is that healthy for the game?

I mean, let's admit it, graphically EVE is one of the best MMOs out there, and it has tons of lore, some content, plenty of things to do, but only 500k subs? When other MMOs have millions? And is that actually good for EVE players? I mean, it's simple math, 500k subs generate a lot less income than 5 million subs. And less income means smaller development teams with smaller budgets producing smaller and less impressive content than it could with proper funding. So, in a way, this is harming every EVE player in terms of tweaks, features and content that the game is denied.

And what is even more counter-intuitive is the PvPers objection to flooding the game with more PvEers and "space barbie" players. Sure, most of those will remain inaccessible for PvP, locked in stations or floating around high sec with Concord protection. But out of that huge player influx, maybe some will venture into low, null or WH out of curiosity. And that's more pew pew than would otherwise be without those players. So what harm, if any, will it do to the game?

Because as other games have proved, PvEers and PvPers can co-exist on the same server, and it will not kill the economy. Case in point, WoW PvE server can contain both PvEers and PvPers (who admittedly have to stick to battleground and arenas, and are barred from griefing in the game world), and yet the server will have strong and vibrant economy, and PvEers enjoy the game's PvE content, and PvPers enjoy competitive PvP via rated arenas and battlegrounds. And everyone gets what they want. And for those who just must have griefing within the game world, there's plenty of PvP servers as well, which offer all of the above plus the griefing. And the end result? That game is "dying" now, after 9 and a half years, with its 8 million subs. Which is, drumroll please, still 16x more than EVE's "ten years and still growing" subs.

Bottom line - I'm not against PvP. But I'm against low quality PvP (your basic suicide ganks, griefing, gate camping, etc.) As I think it is costing the game more subs, and thus harms its development in all areas, than any other factor.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#326 - 2013-05-19 15:52:54 UTC
Andski wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
I disagree. Its the way it is because gankers cant control themselves. Your suggestion would make it far too unbalanced in favor of ganking. Itd be pointless doing anything else.


suicide gankers don't need to control themselves because the game has had mechanics to keep them in check for years, see the 15 minute GCC timer that effectively keeps you docked for 15 minutes

even the most active ganking campaigns have only spawned /maybe/ one or two hundred ganks per day, at most, and I'm talking about the very peak of hulkageddon

consider that: ~1000 suicide ganks per week is enough to send people into an absolute panic where they all whine on the forums about being victims and compare it to the holocaust, the pogroms and every other historical atrocity, but worse

Thats my point. They must be controlled by overly tough mechanics or they get out of control. If concord didnt wtfpwn as suggested by the person I was replying too and were destroyable then there would be mayhem. They have to be OP.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Shao Huang
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#327 - 2013-05-19 16:30:37 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
[quote=baltec1]
Now lets assume that he wants some ISK for some reason, he decides to sell his market study. He finds a buyer and agrees to mail the information to the client. He sends the mail and never gets paid. By interacting with others and potentially affecting them he has lost his immunity, and in our example has been beaten in the game of Eve trade.


I also don't think there should ever be some immunity mechanic. On the other hand I am pretty interested in non-linear play and the things that reveals and makes possible...

In your example above what happens if we remove or change your first assumption: he wants ISK?

ISK is still exchanged. We can posit motives, but we actually have no idea what he wants. We see events and behaviors. We can even measure them. They have no inherent meaning, as is the case with all data.

We must add context to ascribe meaning, as we spoke of elsewhere. This is true even if we take the context to be a self evident pre-given condition. This is why I asked about the minimum context required to play the game. It does not seem to ever include anything about win/lose, attain this or that, etc. There are some prescriptions, but very, very few and none of those seem to imply anything about a necessary or fixed context. Nothing is required about competition or any of that.

The structure is made so we can compete. There is nothing required about competition, winning or losing as a frame. The inclination is to view someone not competing as losing. This is simply not the case. It is a construction and not one hard wired into the game. The reason it feels important to me not to have some mechanic that completely insulates a player in some part of the EVErse has nothing to do with a PvP frame, however we define that. It has to do with compromising the sandbox by creating authority in the game outside of any ability for player narrative to influence this. This creates evidence that the game 'should' be some way or another vested in some mediating authority. That in turn is a structure for griefing and victimization built into the game, rather than explicitly generated by the players.

Personally I would really like to see an example in EVE where there was less, or even no, external authority, only structure. The only 'authority' would be about the integrity of the structure. The EULA would exist, but for the most part be cooked into the game. It is not far off from this now. I have played other small instances of this. Many of the 'sky is falling' predictions come true, but these games are not EVE. Community often does not exist in the same way. The EVE community is generally ferociously protective of the game and the sandbox aspect of the game. We would either self regulate in way that allowed new people to enter the game or the game would become very small, and go out of existence. What is much more likely is that players would attempt to create some form of self governance. That might succeed or fail, or succeed and fail at different times in different ways.

Because this means that CCP cedes a great deal of mediating authority to the player base, and this is very high risk, it seems unlikely to happen. We could understand this as fear. It is not unreasonable, but the presence of control exerted in way that is understood as external to autonomy tends to condition and limit the possible domain of emergence in a system. CCP requires a predictable outcome in order to function as a business, with respect to most notions of what a business is. They have to manage the dynamic between what is felt as a necessary level of predictable (and so controlled) outcome and a structure that optimizes the possibility of emergence. If they get it wrong it occurs as an emergency for them, rather than as emergence. I don't have much experience with CCP about this really, but based on what I can detect and comparing to many other examples in the world I have encountered about this, I feel CCP does an amazingly good job in this particular regard, intentionally or otherwise.

There is at least one working example of self governance already. It is likely controversial to suggest. The Goons already self regulate in way that allows new players to enter the game. They have an entire structure for that which extends well beyond the formal boundaries of the game. This structure allows entry, but it does not rely on CCP as an authorizing body to function. Of course it does rely on the existence of CCP as a business in the context of EVE at least. It is only one sort of model and many others are possible. There are other limited models in the game, but the Goon model completely by-passes anything beyond the minimal requirements of have a sub, agree to the EULA, log in. They have many other requirements they self generate, but those are not stipulated or required by CCP. They are player generated.

As an aside, have you ever heard of e-prime? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

Why? Well in practice it eliminates the ability to say: the game is X. How then would we make the statement: the game is PvP. What would we say instead?

Private sig. Do not read.

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#328 - 2013-05-19 16:37:50 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:


The discussion we are having, Murk, is whether or not a "game" can really be "about" anything at all. You say the game is about PVP, but I say that YOU are about PVP, and are imposing that view on not just the game and objects within it, but on the other players. I think this tells us something about who you are as a person, not just that you want this game to be about PVP, but that you demand that other players adopt that same desire and approach the game in that same way, even going so far as to punish them for failing to comply.

Shao Huang takes a view that is not exactly inconsistent with that. He is just asking about what the process is (according to others) that causes people to feel like you are victimizing them, when, from a literal standpoint, it's just pretty lights on a screen. "What turns a pretty pixel flash into grief?", as it were. (I think that's what he's asking.)

Interestingly enough, Murk, you have done something very similar in this thread. You seem to believe that what Shao Huang, Corey Fummimasa, I, and presumably others have contributed to the discussion so far is not really what this thread is "about", and have suggested that WE take actions to remediate our "misbehavior". Well, in the interest of staying on topic, I won't tell you what hole you can stick that suggestion in.


Sorry but this game is very much based upon pvp. Anyone insisting that they should be exempt from it is playing the wrong game and should probably go to something like STO which is a pve based MMO.


And yet people would rather twist reason and reality to match their preconcieved notions everyone else knows are untrue. Saying EVE isn't a pvp game is like saying STO isn't a PVE based game because it has "pvp areas".

As a player of both EVE and STO, I can't fathom the amount of disfuntion a person has to have to play EVE when they don't like non-consensual pvp and harsh death penalties, 2 defining features of EVE. Why play a game where you have to hide in high sec in an NPC corp when STO gives you full access to the entire world, with spaceships (and the walking around on planets, not just stations) etc etc. It makes no sense to me, I play STO when i need a vacation from cold and dark lol.

The truth is, the kinds of misfitted personalities (rebels with a stuipd cause lol) that do what I describe above don't WANT total protection, they just think they do. You turn any part of EVE (like High Sec) into STO (ie total safetly and emphasis on "solo" players) and I promise you most of the "high sec needs to be safe" people will leave for another "unsafe" game they can ruin while the hardcore and pvp type players will stay (frustrated but still in love with EVE).
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#329 - 2013-05-19 17:24:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Corey Fumimasa
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:

And now, just take your example one step further and ask the question - what happens after said player gets swindled (or "beaten" as you put it) and basically loses all that work. Will he stay in the game or will he quit the game in disgust? Similarly to how many players quit the game after similar "interactions" with other players? And is that healthy for the game?
......edited for space.....
Bottom line - I'm not against PvP. But I'm against low quality PvP (your basic suicide ganks, griefing, gate camping, etc.) As I think it is costing the game more subs, and thus harms its development in all areas, than any other factor.


Chess, poker, horseshoes and tic tac toe all still exist, not because there are no losers, but because they are great games. If you want to be entertained and would like Eve to do that then by all means come and participate in those areas that you find to be entertaining.

Eve was designed by gamers for gamers. It is not meant to be passive entertainment, the excitement and interaction, and emotional reaction that the universe creates is based in part on a game. An artificial system which 2 or more people attempt to master and to prove their mastery by the act of besting another player.

This act does not indicate that the losing player is any less of a person, or not deserving of victory. It is only a measure of the victors mastery of the game, nothing more or less.

To answer your question; the act of leaving a game while bemoaning the unfairness of it and besmirching the other players is, or used to be, considered poor sportsmanship. With the introduction of role-playing "games" the definition stretched a bit.

A non-competitive social interaction and play in which mastery is described by mechanical systems of scoring.

Both are perfectly valid forms of interaction. And so the question that needs to be asked about Eve is; Game or non-competitive social interaction?

CCP can handle their own business as far as target subsciptions, we have neither the experience or the data to even conjecture on their goals and progress.
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#330 - 2013-05-19 20:06:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Corey Fumimasa
Shau,

The game or structure must have external regulation in order to elicit feelings of failure or success for most players. Even the RW works this way as people use various external measures to rate and justify themselves. This is where “sand box” inevitably smashes into “theme park.”

Is RL a sandbox or a themepark? I guess it depends on how a person interacts with it; one can self-regulate and engage in a sandbox, or submit to the judgments of others and so enjoy the themepark. They are both valid choices with benefits and drawbacks.

The greater potential for griefing and victimization that comes with submitting oneself to external judgment is balanced by participation in a rule-set that has provided “success” and achievement for those who have participated before.

In contrast the freedom that comes from a sandbox is exhilarating but also less supportive.

Goons are regulated by SA forums; they submit themselves to the judgment of Something Awful forums. A very clever business model that acknowledges someone as a good player if they can “survive” in the social structure of that organization; which is one that encourages “good” play and actively persecutes “bad” play.

Many “good” players rally together under the banner of “Goon/Something Awful” Their unity magnifies their “goodness” and so the product is a self-fulfilling advertisement. Something Awful collects its money and the customers are happy. Brilliant really, but not indication that Goons are entirely self regulating.

As for “The inclination is to view someone not competing as losing” I think Mahatma Ghandi, Sun tzu, and many other great minds would disagree with that statement. Non-competition is a wonderful and very potent defense, and one that I think belongs in the sandbox end of the spectrum rather than the theme park side.

Eve was originally designed as an experiment to determine if an artificial game world could be more fulfilling and rewarding than the real world. The greatness of Eve and its ability to captivate people comes not from the players submission to judgment, rather it comes from the way that it allows people to set their own goals and to feel good about themselves.
Melvin Coulter
Tactical Feed.
Pandemic Horde
#331 - 2013-05-19 20:16:11 UTC
Nothing to see here... Move along.. just another post complaining about the carebears...

Move along!

Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#332 - 2013-05-19 21:11:09 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:


I get it why the PvPers are so frustrated by us. I really do.

Problem is, it is my experience, that this is NOT going to go away. ANY attempt to try to get us to accept a higher than "virtually 0" loss is simply going to result in us quitting the game.


Orly? Can I have your stuff when you leave? If that above statement is really true, we didn't want you here in the first place.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#333 - 2013-05-19 21:25:12 UTC
EVE is a themepark where you get to punch other themepark goers in the groin while you are on the ride together.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server

Josef Djugashvilis
#334 - 2013-05-19 21:25:57 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:


I get it why the PvPers are so frustrated by us. I really do.

Problem is, it is my experience, that this is NOT going to go away. ANY attempt to try to get us to accept a higher than "virtually 0" loss is simply going to result in us quitting the game.


Orly? Can I have your stuff when you leave? If that above statement is really true, we didn't want you here in the first place.


Is that the royal 'we'?

So long as a player does not break the rules as set out by CCP, anyone is entitled to do whatever they wish, with the single proviso that they accept that they can be ganked once they undock.

How much effort any player puts into not getting ganked is up to them.

If they can effectively reduce the probability of getting ganked to zero, good for them.

I do not want anyone to quit, quite the opposite in fact.

The more players the better.

This is not a signature.

FeralShadow
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#335 - 2013-05-20 03:27:46 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
FeralShadow wrote:
You know, it surprises me how many problems some industrialists have with griefers. We get paid nearly constantly to go chase away griefers from industrial corps so they can go about their business. It's funny because I can tell who are real pvpers and who just want to kill miners based on how they fight.

Some people stay docked up in fear, others take things into their own hands and do something about it, to their benefit.



That is another thing I would NEVER do... pay a mercenary corp to fight a war for me. Next thing you know, the mercenaries are paying other corps to war dec you, just so you will pay them to fight the war for you.

I'm not your source of income. If you want income, go grind it mining, missioning, ratting, salvaging like I do. Or pay some real, and trade me a PLEX for the ISK I grind.


Man you must have had some bad experiences with mercs. At any rate, we get plenty of contracts so we are never wanting, and never have to resort to underhanded tactics like that (not that we would anyway). Additionally, why should you not be our source of income? You buy stuff off the market all the time, you're some manufacturer's source of income. For that matter, some trader's source of income too. Since being a Merc isn't something that's officially supported by the market or something we can't grind for hours at a time, it's not a legit way to make money? You've got a strange perception.

Of course, we all already knew that.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#336 - 2013-05-20 03:41:07 UTC
Malak Dawnfire wrote:
Maybe if High sec wasn't so safe, Low sec might actually be a viable place to travel instead of the instant death near empire camps. Shocked


You must be flying in a different lowsec than I do. It's a ghost town.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#337 - 2013-05-20 07:00:05 UTC
SmilingVagrant wrote:
Malak Dawnfire wrote:
Maybe if High sec wasn't so safe, Low sec might actually be a viable place to travel instead of the instant death near empire camps. Shocked


You must be flying in a different lowsec than I do. It's a ghost town.

You are right next to a heavily camped empire-lowsec gate?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#338 - 2013-05-20 07:01:02 UTC
Maybe it's camped by ghosts. Then you'd both technically be correct.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#339 - 2013-05-20 07:22:28 UTC
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
I mean, let's admit it, graphically EVE is one of the best MMOs out there, and it has tons of lore, some content, plenty of things to do, but only 500k subs? When other MMOs have millions?


You could do a great service to yourself and your argument by checking how many MMOs have "millions" of subscribers. There's World of Warcraft with 12M in 2011, Aion with 3M in 2010, Runescape with 1.3M in 2009, then a bunch of sub-million population games including EVE Online. The appeal of a science fiction universe just isn't as great as a fighting fantasy universe. I would be surprised if a significant portion of Aion's subscriber base was outside East Asia.

So of all the MMOs, which one has been consistently gaining subscribers since inception? WoW has apparently been suffering great losses for the last couple of years (depending on who you read, they've dropped to about 9M active subscribers), EVE has been consistently growing (apart from that unfortunate Incarna release), and many other MMOs have flagged their death throes by converting to Free To Play.

EVE is a PvP virtual world. There is no argument about that. Yes, people will quit when they do something foolish and loose "everything". Then they come back, because they realise the inherent fairness of the game, and want to believe that they can do better next time (and perhaps be a little less foolish with their hard one pixel wealth).

Of all the MMOs, EVE Online, Darkfall and Ultima are the only ones that you can put down for six months and return to later without having fallen behind because of an expansion or two that have been released in the meantime. So people do come back.
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#340 - 2013-05-20 08:04:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Azrael Dinn
After reading some parts from this post and all the tears and complains I came up to a conclusion that even if it's my fault that I want to avoid pvp cause I realy don't like loosing ships and I like much more the industrial part of the game it's still more of the pvper fault if ge gets up set by the fact that he can't get me than it would be my fault.

Lets face it, if you can't kill me while I'm in space it just means your bad at pvp or that if you go cry about it that you didn't get me it means theres something wrong with your way of thinking things and that realy tells alot about you as a person. This is just a game and as it's a MMO I'm paying my subscriptions I have the right to choose how I play the game and influense the sandbox.

If you wanna try to kill me, fine but don't go cry about it if you can't.

And if you want me to play the game in another way then please start paying my subcriptions also.

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm