EVE General Discussion

The assumption stems from the complaint that CCP isn't doing [whatever] to solve the supposed problem. It starts as finger-pointing right out the gate, and demonstrations that it's not nearly as simplistic or one-sided as that, or that many of the things people suggets are actually in the game, gets met with outright hostility.

You mean like dismissing out of hand the suggestions for how to deal with — to the point of outright removing — the problems they're facing? Or like the demands that certain game styles be wiped out and replaced with redundant convenience mechanics?

That entitlement is the big issue: the demand that something must be done to solve… some not particularly well-defined issue. What this “something” could be is never clarified. What would be an acceptable answer is never clarified. Why existing solutions are insufficient is never clarified. Anything that doesn't toe the line of “CCP must solve my subjective problem” becomes a target of scorn and abuse.

Roll up, roll up and behold the amazing Tippia leaping between two horses midstream!



Behold! The mechanic is a necessary limitation that maintains game playability!

Ignore the fact that the OP's suggestion would solve exactly the same problem without changing any of the game's normal mechanics or environment!

But wait ... look over there ...



Now the issues that follow from the mechanic are self-imposed and not derived from the mechanic at all! How did this happen? Magic! You simply ignore the fact that the OP is presenting an alternative to the current workaround and pretend that the work around is a real feature.


And yet ...



You were befuddled dear audience, for it's not a desirable mechanic at all and definitely not worth implementing for its own sake ...

But ... abracadabra ...



It IS a feature again!

How does she do it ladies and gentlemen? We will never know. Treasure this display, dear audience for you will not see it's like again.

Unless, of course, you happen to be around on GD next time someone makes a reasonable suggestion that also happens to make life a bit less easy for gankers.

Wrong

I'm sure CCP are working to correct Jita pop caps, it's likely an ongoing process. Again, you are assuming the agenda of posters who disagree with you based upon a narrow minded viewpoint. Debates often do start out as whining but could develop into broader discussion if a minority would allow it without antagonising everyone who remarks.


Again, heaps of assumption. Not all players demand changes without considering broader effects, and proposals are often framed as topic to speculate on rather than make demands over.

When people suggest "tweaks" for example, they may be ill informed or unworkable the majority of times. So what - random nerd #67800 posts a silly idea on a forum? Just occasionally it prompts a contribution from someone with something worthwhile to say. Was it wormholes which drew heavily from a player made F&I suggestion? I'm pretty sure elements of TiDi were player generated. Without an environment to chat in people will resort to whining and mindless insults. It both stops new players from entering forum discussion and from learning how to post effectively on a forum - or they simply join the vocal minority and resort to trolling.


Actually I was referring to your tone of entitlement to abuse virtually everyone you disagree with simply by virtue of living on the forum
Player entitlement is a tired old meme trotted out to slap people in their place when they make emotive arguments. It's not actually all that entitled to consider game problems and propose solutions, and it's yet another thinly veiled insult to accuse everyone else of either making demands or expecting CCP to fix them.


Whilst it's amusing to watch your outrage, you really shouldn't take your inability to force your opinion on others so personally. Actually I'm starting to enjoy mocking you a bit too much. I'll stop. There, there.

Because it's easier to ***** and moan on forums than to exert the effort required to do what you're suggesting.

Because it's easier for them to demand changes to an inanimate object that inherently has limitations than it is to remove their own limitations.

They feel entitled to do it "their way" because they are entitled.

In the meantime, while they are here bitching and spamming jump enter jump enter, I am making ISK hand over fist trading in other systems (of which there are more than 7,000).

Also because they're stupid.

We've seen what happens if it's not there — it's not a state that people would define was playable. So yes, It maintains playability. Unless your goal is for the game not to be playable, it is a necessity.

…except, of course, that his suggestion would change the normal mechanics or environment and doesn't actually solve the problem at all. If it didn't change the mechanics or environment, it would already work the way the OP suggests. But of course, it doesn't — that's why the OP wants to change the game's mechanics and environment. Never mind the fact that his end state can already be had through other means, making such a change unnecessary.

By being that wall all along. The issue is something the player creates. Changing the mechanics to “solve” this issue would (drumroll) change the mechanics. So if you want to imply that there is some kind of contradiction, you need to do better than this.

And the contradiction is… what? No, being rendered invulnerable for sitting around in the open and doing nothing is not a desirable mechanic. if you want to be out of harm's way, there are already means of achieving that, but they require (drumroll) not sitting around in the open and doing nothing. A different feature is a different feature than the undesirable one.

So until you come up with something more solid than rhetorics to (fail to) show something wrong with what I said, I suppose I should thank you for digging out the quotes that showed it to be very consistent in its reasoning.

Strategic strawman alert!

No-one is suggesting there should be no mechanic to solve the issue. The suggestion is that there should be a different one. This is characteristic of your argument as a whole.

I don't think it should, just because lazy people who cant be bothered to click and push return cant get through the gate straight away and get flustered should not mean a queue system on the gate during peak time just so a line is formed, it should stay how it is and that is whoever has the most perseverance gets in.

Prove it.

…and who, like you, can't prove any of it and have to resort to unproven assertions, red herrings and ad hominems to cover up for this fact.

…other than through your attempt to discredit the simple fact that it is a necessary limitation and that it does maintain playability.

Simple solution

1) when a ship lands on the gate to jita and jita is full have it initiate warp.
2) while in warp to jita place the player in a queue to get in and provide them with an eta and # in queue dialog box
3) allow players to cancel if they don't want to wait, this will spit them out into the lions den with the standard cloak as if they had just jumped from jita

All the processing stays on the non-jita blades
Gate campers don't get free kills on parked transports
Players get the much needed jita queue
Seems like a reasonable amount of work for devs

Everyone is happy, yes?