These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

What's with the Secrecy?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Na Und
Galactronics
#41 - 2013-10-30 18:22:55 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
Na Und wrote:
Ghost Phius wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
No worries, you're fine.

Although I'd be interested to know exactly how you feel that issue affected your game.

What changed for you from before the incident, to after the incident?



I am one of those people that understands in a game where player vs player is supposed to mean something "ANY" gifting/endorsements by the devs that provide "ANY" economic and/or competitive advantage is not fair to EVERYONE not gifted of the same way.

It is a pure and simple integrity issue that CCP has repeatedly failed over the past ten years.


You don't like it, leave.

[laughing at people whining about the "unfairness" of it all]


(whisper) Last time that approach was pursued CCP had to lay off 20% of their staff and shelve one of their games. It is not a great strategy.


You don't get my point: it's CCP's game to run into the ground, not some brat who feels "entitled" because he plays for PLEX.
Ghost Phius
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2013-10-30 18:28:20 UTC
Na Und wrote:

You don't like it, leave.

[laughing at people whining about the "unfairness" of it all]



Not sure if seriousRoll
Ghost Phius
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2013-10-30 18:33:05 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

Giving acknowledgement (in a variety of ways), encouragement, and help to those 3rd party groups that provide service to the player base is to be commended.

Suggestions otherwise are simply cutting off ones nose to spite your face.

Nothing that was done affects the player base in any tangible way... no ones game play was negatively affected. Not yours, not mine.


Based on this response there appears to be a difference in opinion on what the word integrity actually means.

No worries you are more than welcome to act as if CCP acted with integrity regarding this issue while the blow up about that very narrow point is the entire reason this hot mess got started in the first place if you please.
RAW23
#44 - 2013-10-30 18:35:01 UTC
Na Und wrote:
RAW23 wrote:
Na Und wrote:
Ghost Phius wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
No worries, you're fine.

Although I'd be interested to know exactly how you feel that issue affected your game.

What changed for you from before the incident, to after the incident?



I am one of those people that understands in a game where player vs player is supposed to mean something "ANY" gifting/endorsements by the devs that provide "ANY" economic and/or competitive advantage is not fair to EVERYONE not gifted of the same way.

It is a pure and simple integrity issue that CCP has repeatedly failed over the past ten years.


You don't like it, leave.

[laughing at people whining about the "unfairness" of it all]


(whisper) Last time that approach was pursued CCP had to lay off 20% of their staff and shelve one of their games. It is not a great strategy.


You don't get my point: it's CCP's game to run into the ground, not some brat who feels "entitled" because he plays for PLEX.


Pretending bizarrely that no one bar CCP has a stake in the game despite the whole game being based on encouraging people to feel they have a stake in it What?

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#45 - 2013-10-30 18:45:01 UTC
Ghost Phius wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

Giving acknowledgement (in a variety of ways), encouragement, and help to those 3rd party groups that provide service to the player base is to be commended.

Suggestions otherwise are simply cutting off ones nose to spite your face.

Nothing that was done affects the player base in any tangible way... no ones game play was negatively affected. Not yours, not mine.


Based on this response there appears to be a difference in opinion on what the word integrity actually means.

No worries you are more than welcome to act as if CCP acted with integrity regarding this issue while the blow up about that very narrow point is the entire reason this hot mess got started in the first place if you please.

Fair enough, and you are correct.

You see this as an important issue of integrity.

I see this as a genuine gesture of good will towards the player base (and 3rd party developers that help/are popular with the player base) which was clumsily handled... and is consequentially being blown way, way out of proportion in the most negative way imaginable.

Even more so because there was no negative effect caused for the player base at large.

If I choose to give one of my kids a gift to help them with something they are working on, it doesn't mean I'm playing favorites. It means I'm providing help at an opportune time, and will do so again with my other children at the appropriate time. That's "MY" call as the authority figure, and is not open to second guessing by the rest of my children... especially if the "something they are working on" is going to be enjoyed by the rest of the family as well.

If you work hard enough, you can twist just about any deed done for someone, with genuinely good intentions, into looking like an attempt to ostracize someone else.

I outgrew that mindset a loooong time ago.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Na Und
Galactronics
#46 - 2013-10-30 18:49:05 UTC




Give me a friggin' break . . . if CCP came out with an ad campaign claiming that this game is "eco-friendly," would you be more or less likely to play it? If not, why not?

Are you seriously that gullible? CCP wants your money, period. Full stop. When people stop giving CCP money, it will fail.
Ghost Phius
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2013-10-30 18:55:35 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Ghost Phius wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

Giving acknowledgement (in a variety of ways), encouragement, and help to those 3rd party groups that provide service to the player base is to be commended.

Suggestions otherwise are simply cutting off ones nose to spite your face.

Nothing that was done affects the player base in any tangible way... no ones game play was negatively affected. Not yours, not mine.


Based on this response there appears to be a difference in opinion on what the word integrity actually means.

No worries you are more than welcome to act as if CCP acted with integrity regarding this issue while the blow up about that very narrow point is the entire reason this hot mess got started in the first place if you please.

Fair enough, and you are correct.

You see this as an important issue of integrity.

I see this as a genuine gesture of good will towards the player base (and 3rd party developers that help/are popular with the player base) which was clumsily handled... and is consequentially being blown way, way out of proportion in the most negative way imaginable.

Even more so because there was no negative effect caused for the player base at large.

If I choose to give one of my kids a gift to help them with something they are working on, it doesn't mean I'm playing favorites. It means I'm providing help at an opportune time, and will do so again with my other children at the appropriate time. That's "MY" call as the authority figure, and is not open to second guessing by the rest of my children... especially if the "something they are working on" is going to be enjoyed by the rest of the family as well.

If you work hard enough, you can twist just about any deed done for someone, with genuinely good intentions, into looking like an attempt to ostracize someone else.

I outgrew that mindset a loooong time ago.

If clumsily handled is were you are on the spectrum of the acceptance of the obvious integrity issue then full stop. I agan accept that as I did above already no need to continue on explaining your position regarding CCP's lack of integrity on this narrow issue.
JamDunc
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#48 - 2013-10-30 18:57:59 UTC
I assume GMs are worried that we will find out they make things up as they go. If people published communication then they would see how the GMs act differently to the same situations.


Take RMT as an example. Small guy does it = BAN. Big guy does it = Nothing.
RAW23
#49 - 2013-10-30 19:00:55 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Ghost Phius wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

Giving acknowledgement (in a variety of ways), encouragement, and help to those 3rd party groups that provide service to the player base is to be commended.

Suggestions otherwise are simply cutting off ones nose to spite your face.

Nothing that was done affects the player base in any tangible way... no ones game play was negatively affected. Not yours, not mine.


Based on this response there appears to be a difference in opinion on what the word integrity actually means.

No worries you are more than welcome to act as if CCP acted with integrity regarding this issue while the blow up about that very narrow point is the entire reason this hot mess got started in the first place if you please.

Fair enough, and you are correct.

You see this as an important issue of integrity.

I see this as a genuine gesture of good will towards the player base (and 3rd party developers that help/are popular with the player base) which was clumsily handled... and is consequentially being blown way, way out of proportion in the most negative way imaginable.

Even more so because there was no negative effect caused for the player base at large.

If I choose to give one of my kids a gift to help them with something they are working on, it doesn't mean I'm playing favorites. It means I'm providing help at an opportune time, and will do so again with my other children at the appropriate time. That's "MY" call as the authority figure, and is not open to second guessing by the rest of my children... especially if the "something they are working on" is going to be enjoyed by the rest of the family as well.

If you work hard enough, you can twist just about any deed done for someone, with genuinely good intentions, into looking like an attempt to ostracize someone else.

I outgrew that mindset a loooong time ago.


I'm guessing you're primarily a PvPer rather than someone on the economic side of the game? What your analogy doesn't really take into account is that the things CCP did for Somer did not just help Somer out in a way that is independent from the other players. Rather, they gave Somer (and employees) a competitive edge both over competing businesses and over other players working in any other market segment that Somer and co. should happen to get involved in at any point in the future. This is not really like helping one of your kids in a non-zero sum way that doesn't impact the others. This isn't like taking one of your kids out for ice-cream, which might make the others jealous but doesn't hurt them; its like helping one kid at the expense of the others, a pretty ****** thing for a parent to do. A parallel on the PvP side would be giving a nullsec alliance a strategic edge over another nullsec alliance. Helping one party out at the expense of others is, as someone else aptly put it, taking a great big dump in the sandbox. Eve is about players competing with each other and when the developers pick specific people to help in the competition they damage the other players because that competition is, in important respects, a zero sum game.

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#50 - 2013-10-30 19:09:59 UTC
Na Und wrote:




Give me a friggin' break . . . if CCP came out with an ad campaign claiming that this game is "eco-friendly," would you be more or less likely to play it? If not, why not?

Are you seriously that gullible? CCP wants your money, period. Full stop. When people stop giving CCP money, it will fail.



Absolutely correct, and giving recognition and assistance to 3rd party developers that enrich their property and player base is good for business.

The only issue in this that needed to be addressed already has been, that being the convoluted way their "help" could be used to give an advantage to them concerning ETC's. Which is an issue that affects other resellers, not the player base.

All the rest is simply people having fun milking the situation for all the drama they can. While this is mildly amusing, it is in reality a big waste of time.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Na Und
Galactronics
#51 - 2013-10-30 19:15:30 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Na Und wrote:




Give me a friggin' break . . . if CCP came out with an ad campaign claiming that this game is "eco-friendly," would you be more or less likely to play it? If not, why not?

Are you seriously that gullible? CCP wants your money, period. Full stop. When people stop giving CCP money, it will fail.



Absolutely correct, and giving recognition and assistance to 3rd party developers that enrich their property and player base is good for business.

The only issue in this that needed to be addressed already has been, that being the convoluted way their "help" could be used to give an advantage to them concerning ETC's. Which is an issue that affects other resellers, not the player base.

All the rest is simply people having fun milking the situation for all the drama they can. While this is mildly amusing, it is in reality a big waste of time.


And leading to the "last" thing that I always forget to mention: maybe CCP decided it was a good business decision . . . or maybe CCP didn't think about the consequences at all. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN THE BUSINESS WORLD.

This is CCP's game to lose. Period. Anyone who sticks around to whine about it is only enabling CCP's behavior.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#52 - 2013-10-30 19:18:26 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Ghost Phius wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

Giving acknowledgement (in a variety of ways), encouragement, and help to those 3rd party groups that provide service to the player base is to be commended.

Suggestions otherwise are simply cutting off ones nose to spite your face.

Nothing that was done affects the player base in any tangible way... no ones game play was negatively affected. Not yours, not mine.


Based on this response there appears to be a difference in opinion on what the word integrity actually means.

No worries you are more than welcome to act as if CCP acted with integrity regarding this issue while the blow up about that very narrow point is the entire reason this hot mess got started in the first place if you please.

Fair enough, and you are correct.

You see this as an important issue of integrity.

I see this as a genuine gesture of good will towards the player base (and 3rd party developers that help/are popular with the player base) which was clumsily handled... and is consequentially being blown way, way out of proportion in the most negative way imaginable.

Even more so because there was no negative effect caused for the player base at large.

If I choose to give one of my kids a gift to help them with something they are working on, it doesn't mean I'm playing favorites. It means I'm providing help at an opportune time, and will do so again with my other children at the appropriate time. That's "MY" call as the authority figure, and is not open to second guessing by the rest of my children... especially if the "something they are working on" is going to be enjoyed by the rest of the family as well.

If you work hard enough, you can twist just about any deed done for someone, with genuinely good intentions, into looking like an attempt to ostracize someone else.

I outgrew that mindset a loooong time ago.


I'm guessing you're primarily a PvPer rather than someone on the economic side of the game? What your analogy doesn't really take into account is that the things CCP did for Somer did not just help Somer out in a way that is independent from the other players. Rather, they gave Somer (and employees) a competitive edge both over competing businesses and over other players working in any other market segment that Somer and co. should happen to get involved in at any point in the future. This is not really like helping one of your kids in a non-zero sum way that doesn't impact the others. This isn't like taking one of your kids out for ice-cream, which might make the others jealous but doesn't hurt them; its like helping one kid at the expense of the others, a pretty ****** thing for a parent to do. A parallel on the PvP side would be giving a nullsec alliance a strategic edge over another nullsec alliance. Helping one party out at the expense of others is, as someone else aptly put it, taking a great big dump in the sandbox. Eve is about players competing with each other and when the developers pick specific people to help in the competition they damage the other players because that competition is, in important respects, a zero sum game.

As far as the in game economy goes in this game where everyone has entirely too much ISK, and the main problem is coming up with enough ISK sinks to keep the economy stable, I think you'd be hard pressed to find one example of where someone's game play was actually harmed.

In fact, given the large amount of publicity generated, even their direct competitors have actually probably profited from this situation. How ironic. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Shakira Khalessi
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2013-10-30 19:23:09 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Ghost Phius wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

Giving acknowledgement (in a variety of ways), encouragement, and help to those 3rd party groups that provide service to the player base is to be commended.

Suggestions otherwise are simply cutting off ones nose to spite your face.

Nothing that was done affects the player base in any tangible way... no ones game play was negatively affected. Not yours, not mine.


Based on this response there appears to be a difference in opinion on what the word integrity actually means.

No worries you are more than welcome to act as if CCP acted with integrity regarding this issue while the blow up about that very narrow point is the entire reason this hot mess got started in the first place if you please.

Fair enough, and you are correct.

You see this as an important issue of integrity.

I see this as a genuine gesture of good will towards the player base (and 3rd party developers that help/are popular with the player base) which was clumsily handled... and is consequentially being blown way, way out of proportion in the most negative way imaginable.

Even more so because there was no negative effect caused for the player base at large.

If I choose to give one of my kids a gift to help them with something they are working on, it doesn't mean I'm playing favorites. It means I'm providing help at an opportune time, and will do so again with my other children at the appropriate time. That's "MY" call as the authority figure, and is not open to second guessing by the rest of my children... especially if the "something they are working on" is going to be enjoyed by the rest of the family as well.

If you work hard enough, you can twist just about any deed done for someone, with genuinely good intentions, into looking like an attempt to ostracize someone else.

I outgrew that mindset a loooong time ago.


I'm guessing you're primarily a PvPer rather than someone on the economic side of the game? What your analogy doesn't really take into account is that the things CCP did for Somer did not just help Somer out in a way that is independent from the other players. Rather, they gave Somer (and employees) a competitive edge both over competing businesses and over other players working in any other market segment that Somer and co. should happen to get involved in at any point in the future. This is not really like helping one of your kids in a non-zero sum way that doesn't impact the others. This isn't like taking one of your kids out for ice-cream, which might make the others jealous but doesn't hurt them; its like helping one kid at the expense of the others, a pretty ****** thing for a parent to do. A parallel on the PvP side would be giving a nullsec alliance a strategic edge over another nullsec alliance. Helping one party out at the expense of others is, as someone else aptly put it, taking a great big dump in the sandbox. Eve is about players competing with each other and when the developers pick specific people to help in the competition they damage the other players because that competition is, in important respects, a zero sum game.



Trying to explain these concepts to people dedicated to the CCP bootlicking we see here is a waste of time bro. I think that other guy said CCP is trolling us and they are not alone at this point.Blink
Kirren D'marr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#54 - 2013-10-30 19:35:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirren D'marr
Ranger 1 wrote:

Giving acknowledgement (in a variety of ways), encouragement, and help to those 3rd party groups that provide service to the player base is to be commended.


Roll

Just one more sheep who has fallen for the idea that a business which has made over $135,000 is a "service" in need of some sort of encouragment.

Ranger 1 wrote:
If I choose to give one of my kids a gift to help them with something they are working on, it doesn't mean I'm playing favorites. It means I'm providing help at an opportune time, and will do so again with my other children at the appropriate time. That's "MY" call as the authority figure, and is not open to second guessing by the rest of my children... especially if the "something they are working on" is going to be enjoyed by the rest of the family as well.


Your analogy only holds if you gave a gift to one child to help with their project while neglecting your other children who were simultaneously working on the same project, ensuring that the one child gets better results than the others. With the EVE Vegas giveaway, CCP drove customers to SOMER and away from their competitors, so yes this did was done to the detriment of some. How is that anything but favoring one player organization over others?

Why a switch on/off? Because the new animation doesn't add anything to gameplay and it's graphically annoying. In other words, it's worse than bad: it's useless. Simple as that.     _ - Kina Ayami_
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#55 - 2013-10-30 19:38:05 UTC
I mean, I pay for their product, but that doesn't mean I really trust them.

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
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#56 - 2013-10-30 19:45:51 UTC
sssshhhhhhhhhhh...
Shakira Khalessi
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#57 - 2013-10-30 19:46:02 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
I mean, I pay for their product, but that doesn't mean I really trust them.


They are not trustworthy so good on you.
RAW23
#58 - 2013-10-30 19:55:25 UTC  |  Edited by: RAW23
Ranger 1 wrote:

As far as the in game economy goes in this game where everyone has entirely too much ISK, and the main problem is coming up with enough ISK sinks to keep the economy stable, I think you'd be hard pressed to find one example of where someone's game play was actually harmed.

In fact, given the large amount of publicity generated, even their direct competitors have actually probably profited from this situation. How ironic. Smile


You can do better than claiming that there is so much isk in the economy that economic competition can't harm anyone. Really you can.

Edit - Oh. I see that all your posts on this topic are actually ironic. As your signature says

Quote:

To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight, out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set as the rest of the player base.


Obviously, you can't possibly believe what's in your sig and also maintain your current arguments that it's ok to give stuff to other players from outside that shared toolset. Apologies I didn't catch on earlier. Your sarcasm was too subtle for me.

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#59 - 2013-10-30 19:55:26 UTC
Does anyone else think the forum is getting to be a kind of toxic place? ...Ugh

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#60 - 2013-10-30 20:04:59 UTC
Gogela wrote:
Does anyone else think the forum is getting to be a kind of toxic place? ...Ugh


The forums have always been toxic.

I believe they only lock threads for trolling when the topic does not suit them. Not when there is actual trolling.

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