EVE General Discussion

true. it would literally take you decades to learn everything.

OP, you forgot RP/Live Events

No and no, in roughly that order.
I'm just pointing out that if you're going to go for reductionism, reduce it all the way.

but your reduction is nonsense.

Well the combat itself in EVE is pretty simple and boring. Its the strategic layer that makes EVE interesting with the combinations of setups and actions you can do.

Not really. It's actually more encompassing than yours.

So you can either start adding in the pieces you missed, which would defeat the point, or just keep reducing.

Who is more troll, the troll or the troll who trolls the troll?

Besides, Tippia is the calmest poster on this forum. If you're not reading all Tippia posts in a slightly amused but detached and maybe a tiny bit bored voice, you're not reading them right.

I always read Tippia as an angry nerd mad about something. I mean I know I post a good deal, but Tippia will respond over and over again if you put forth the effort to get her to post. Tippia comes across as someone who has been educated and has a large vocabulary, but I think there is something not right which I can't put my finger on. Like there is an agenda of some sort which we aren't privy too. Something like Tippia's range of opinions are each their own agenda. I'm not sure if I'm phrasing this right.

Anways, I think Tippia ignores me now because she knows better. Its not that hard to make a 40 page threadnaught with Tippia involved.

She generally only posts if your thread meets at least two of three criteria: first, she obviously needs to notice the thread; second, it needs to be a hot topic; third, it needs to be either very attractive and well thought out content, or so incredibly dumb that it warrants thinly-veiled ridicule with the appearance of constructive criticism.

Can you figure out which of those criteria this thread meets?

The utility of reductionism is in the point a reduction is intended to illustrate.

In engineering disciplines of all kinds there are attempts to reduce a truly complex problem to the level that is necessary for comprehension by a target audience. For example, "we are building a bridge across the Huangpu river," is how you might describe the construction of the second largest steel arch bridge in the world to someone at a party. To an engineering firm you are interested in contracting for the job, you might go into more detail such as pointing out that the foundation for the bridge needs to cater for the structure being build on a sediment-rich flood plain, the distance to be crossed being in the order of five hundred metres, and the required minimum clearance being 45m. There are very few people in the world who need to know every detail such as the number of welds, the type of weld employed at each weld point, the composition of each girder and cable, the precise mixture of concrete used, how many panels of what type of glass were required for the observation areas, and so forth.

So I dispute your suggestion that the solution to the OP's absurd reductionism is to add in the pieces missed or to reduce further. At what point do you stop adding in details?

If one examines St Mio's famous "Things to do in EVE Online" graphic, it is immediately obvious that there are three levels of reduction present in the one diagram: these reductions are represented as the hierarchy (solo, group, PvE, PvP etc), the nodes, and then the links to further discussion about each node.

It is thus not the level of reduction that is to be challenged, merely the composition of the reduction. This composition needs to accommodate the intended audience. The failure in the OP is to clearly state the intended audience, which led to an invalid reduction of EVE Online.