These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 end of Corpmate Awoxxing?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#441 - 2014-10-31 11:12:04 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
So it seams the only argument the carebears can bring to the table is the "new players quit because they lose a ship" argument, which is a non issue like many already mentioned. You don't infiltrate a corp for a week to slay a newbie in a Venture just to get kicked, you do it to get the bling mission ship or the Orca of the idiot CEO who screws over the new players
Actually, the argument rational people are putting forward is that having corp aggression as a mechanic is no longer required and serves only to make sure that new players have a much harder time finding corps. The thing is, you are purely talking about this from the "I wouldn't awox a venture" point of view. What you have to remember though is you would awox an orca, so why would a group with an orca at risk recruit someone with little to no history in eve - as noobs will have. What that leads to is the current situation, where decent corps have bars of entry too high for most noobs, and the majority of corps that don't have high bars of entry are either ones that want to harass noobies or ones so clueless they are a negative experience for all of their members.

The thing is CCP have stated their reason for this in the minutes as a player retention issue. Since they have the stats, I'd be inclined to accept that as a good reason. I certainly wouldn't be listening to a member of CODE, a group which is notoriously pro-botting and anti-noob.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#442 - 2014-10-31 11:24:12 UTC
Tisiphone Dira wrote:
Lucas, Your hypothetical CEO has no business 'showing newbies the ropes', he sounds awful, somebody who themselves needs to be shown the ropes.
You don;t get to make that distinction.

Tisiphone Dira wrote:
As others have said: People who want to be social and interact already do. Asocial people who want to mine a rock for hours on end or shoot at red crosses without being bothered won't suddenly think "oh, I'm safe from awoxing now, time for me to find a corp and make lots of friends." They see no benefits and still have all the 'downsides' of theft and wardecs.
And if the entire world was so black and white, you might have a point. The problem is that there are many people who given the opportunity would become great parts of the EVE community, but they aren't getting that chance because they are currently being treated like crap. Sure, there are people who will always leap in screaming YOLO and do great, there are also people who will never ever get to that point. But the people in the middle that could go either way, they need to be drawn in and engaged, not alienated and abused from day 1.

Tisiphone Dira wrote:
You know what brought me into this game? The tale of the guiding hand social club heist (and the EIB). When I got bored and was about to quit, you know what kept me engaged? The shenanigans of the New Order. The remove of a mechanic like awoxing just ensures that less content is generated that draws people in and keeps them interested. Nobody has ever joined eve because they heard how engaging the missions are, or how fantastic the mining is. They are awful. I can show a mate the tale of the awox that resulted in the 'code war bride' and get him excited to play.

I did not show him how exciting the carebearing is, because it isn't. EVE cannot compete with WoW as a theme-park. The thing EVE has going for it is exactly this type of content. Awoxing and the like are what is keeping this game afloat. If you want more players, buff this type of content (and fix the damn tutorials and NPE), do not nerf it into oblivion.
I don't know and neither do I care what drew you in. EVE is a sandbox, it's whatever you want to make of it. If you want to carebear, fine, if you want to go around abusing people, fine. At the end of the day though, CCP need to look at the bottom line, and if people are leaving because they aren't being engaged enough and are being pushed out by the "villains" that are too risk averse for low/null sec, then yes, they need to make it easier to get engaged. And the ability to join corps IS part of the NPE, or at least it should be, but a major problem is that anyone less than a month old is assumed to be an awox alt.

Tisiphone Dira wrote:
As others have said, this change does nothing to move people into real corporations, all it does is largely destroy a playstyle. Don't give the carebears an unappetizing carrot. Give them the stick. Have npc corp's tax affect everything (take the ore directly from their holds). After a month or so move forcibly people from the 'newbie' npc corp into a 'veteran' npc corp that can be wardeced and has awoxing. Do whatever it takes before resorting to the destruction of a playstyle. Nerf it a bit if you must, but to take such a drastic step as this seems very unwise and contrary to everything EVE (everybody vs everybody) stands for.
All this would do is shed even more characters from the game and make a whole heap of people create hundreds of single player corps. And mate, this is not a "drastic" step. This is a tiny little change. all it does is bring players corps into alignment with everything else. You can;t shoot a random in highsec without getting concorded, so why should you be able to shoot your corp members?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#443 - 2014-10-31 11:46:42 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
So it seams the only argument the carebears can bring to the table is the "new players quit because they lose a ship" argument, which is a non issue like many already mentioned. You don't infiltrate a corp for a week to slay a newbie in a Venture just to get kicked, you do it to get the bling mission ship or the Orca of the idiot CEO who screws over the new players
Actually, the argument rational people are putting forward is that having corp aggression as a mechanic is no longer required and serves only to make sure that new players have a much harder time finding corps. The thing is, you are purely talking about this from the "I wouldn't awox a venture" point of view. What you have to remember though is you would awox an orca, so why would a group with an orca at risk recruit someone with little to no history in eve - as noobs will have. What that leads to is the current situation, where decent corps have bars of entry too high for most noobs, and the majority of corps that don't have high bars of entry are either ones that want to harass noobies or ones so clueless they are a negative experience for all of their members.

The thing is CCP have stated their reason for this in the minutes as a player retention issue. Since they have the stats, I'd be inclined to accept that as a good reason. I certainly wouldn't be listening to a member of CODE, a group which is notoriously pro-botting and anti-noob.


The rational counter-argument those against this change are putting forth is that this change will do nothing to increase either player retention or the rate new players joining corps as awoxing is not the primary reason people don't join corps - that would be wardecs or a general anti-social disposition in general. Further, even if there are a large number of people (which from https://zkillboard.com/kills/awox/ seems unlikely) who quit because of "getting awoxed", it is also possible they might have quit a week later for "being killed during a wardec" or "getting suicide ganked" even if awoxing had been banned. Banning awoxing is also not without cost as it will complicate in-corp sparring and training, and eliminate a storied play-style that has generated many memorable tales of over the long history of Eve.

Therefore the only remaining benefit is the reduction of risk to established highsec corps, a change that many who view Eve through the lens of a competitive PvP sandbox game find quite distasteful as the general design of the game requires a balancing of risk vs. reward and the continual destruction of assets. This change makes things more safe and will reduce destruction making it non-desirable from that angle.

Couple these changes with more dramatic nerfs to NPC corps (to get people, and especially new players, into player-run corps) and remove wardec dodging and you may then have an easier time selling this changes as overall good for the game. Removing awoxing in isolation just appears as a direct buff to a certain play-style at the expense of another with not only no obvious benefit for the game, and a change that will result in less destruction and less conflict - something that shouldn't be encouraged in a competitive PvP sandbox game.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#444 - 2014-10-31 12:08:24 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
The rational counter-argument those against this change are putting forth is that this change will do nothing to increase either player retention or the rate new players joining corps as awoxing is not the primary reason people don't join corps - that would be wardecs or a general anti-social disposition in general.
Agreed that it may not be the main reason people don't join corps, but it certainly is a reason why people have negative experiences once they join a corp and is a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players.

Black Pedro wrote:
Further, even if there are a large number of people (which from https://zkillboard.com/kills/awox/ seems unlikely) who quit because of "getting awoxed", it is also possible they might have quit a week later for "being killed during a wardec" or "getting suicide ganked" even if awoxing had been banned. Banning awoxing is also not without cost as it will complicate in-corp sparring and training, and eliminate a storied play-style that has generated many memorable tales of over the long history of Eve.
Maybe they would, maybe the wouldn't Maybe having the support of other who are in the same situation would prevent them from leaving. I can certainly see why being singled out and ganked by the group of people who are supposed to be your allies is more damaging than you and your allies being attacked by randoms. In-corp sparring and training can still be done with duels and limited engagement timers, and I've not heard of a memorable tale that revolved around corp aggression. Most awox stories that come to mind involve running away with a great deal of stuff, which will be unaffected.

Black Pedro wrote:
Therefore the only remaining benefit is the reduction of risk to established highsec corps, a change that many who view Eve through the lens of a competitive PvP sandbox game find quite distasteful as the general design of the game requires a balancing of risk vs. reward and the continual destruction of assets. This change makes things more safe and will reduce destruction making it non-desirable from that angle.
The risk reduction is negligible. All it means is that to kill a member of a corp you'll have to use the wardec mechanic as it is designed to be used. Nothing will prevent you awoxing the corp by setting up a kill or providing intel, it's purely the act of avoiding concord by being in the corp that would be removed.

Black Pedro wrote:
Couple these changes with more dramatic nerfs to NPC corps (to get people, and especially new players, into player-run corps) and remove wardec dodging and you may then have an easier time selling this changes as overall good for the game. Removing awoxing in isolation just appears as a direct buff to a certain play-style at the expense of another with not only no obvious benefit for the game, and a change that will result in less destruction and less conflict - something that shouldn't be encouraged in a competitive PvP sandbox game.
If NPC corps are nerfed, that will simply create single person player corps. If dec dodging is removed, then wardec groups deccing hundreds of corps at a time will need to be heavily restricted and the price of wardec wills need to increase. At the end of the day this is a game. If you can just wardec someone giving them the options of stop playing or die for less than pocket change and they have no way to avoid that, then the game will fail to engage players on a whole new level.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Balshem Rozenzweig
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#445 - 2014-10-31 12:11:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Balshem Rozenzweig
Doc J wrote:
People have the right to play the game in the safe manner they wish or in the conflict/dangerous way. You shouldn't be wanting to impose your belief of "conflict makes the game interesting" on people who say for instance-pay to play the game the way they wish which might actually be in the comfort zone.


What about people who want to hunt others in high sec, then? They pay for the game too.

No one is entitled to anything. It's a game in the end. You create an artificial environment when player can interact in a way the game allows it (even if by accident), and this is where the fun comes from.

You cannot expect to go to low sec and farm missions there without everyone and their mother trying to kill you. Same way you cannot expect to be 100% safe anytime in high sec. The scaling is there it's just not 100% this way or that one.

Risk is high sec makes a lot of sense because other games already provide people with tons of safety (how does it even sound - playing a game for SAFETY?!) and we dare say EVE cannot compete with the ones with highly personalized and semi interactive (pushing 1-9 buttons) avatars. EVE has something else - the unique atmosphere of action having consequences.

I, and I dare say most of the players in eve, love the pvp that eve has to offer because it has impact on the parties involved. I cannot repair my ship after I lost a fight - most of the time I need to totally replace it. Each battle I take part in has impact!

My wife doesn't understand the appeal when I tell her "around 20 days of game time in ship value just went pop" but then - she wants to go back to wow :P And even she can see how it makes the game stand out.

TL;DR loosing a ship you need to totally replace with your own work is awesome. Don't take it away from these poor newbies. If they don't like it they will not like the game either.

"NUTS!!!" - general McAuliffe
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#446 - 2014-10-31 12:33:13 UTC
Princess Scarlett wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


The change CCP made was pro-pvp in a pvp game, pro-conflict in a game about conflcit, pro-destruction inn a game where 'churn' is the fuel of commerce. This idea is the exact opposite, which is exactly why it's bad. With this, fewer people will bother to awox in high sec, making for a more peaceful environment, which is great in real life but sucks in a video game.

.



EVE Is not a PVP game and never was. check the total kill stats.
For every pvp kill there are 400 pve kills.
You PvP related illusions and whining do not matter in the big picture.

Benjamin Franklin will always win.


Every one of those pve kills (and half of them are mine, I shoot npcs THAT MUCH) has something to do with pvp. As a PVEr I'm competing with every other mission runner and explorer. That's PVP. avoiding getting killed by real people while PVEing is also PVP.

EVERYTHING you do in EVE Online other than spin a ship or sit in the captains quarters is pvp related. PVP isn't just shooting things.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#447 - 2014-10-31 12:36:09 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
The thing is CCP have stated their reason for this in the minutes as a player retention issue. Since they have the stats, I'd be inclined to accept that as a good reason. I certainly wouldn't be listening to a member of CODE, a group which is notoriously pro-botting and anti-noob.

It is relatively clear from the minutes that they are just guessing like everyone else. If they had the numbers they would show them right away and end the discussion right there.

Your ad-hominem attacks and fals claims are a bad substitute for real arguments. Maybe you should remain silent if you are not capable of discussing in a civilized manner.

Evil RatKid
Haedonism Bot
People for the Ethical Treatment of Rogue Drones
#448 - 2014-10-31 12:37:39 UTC
Quote:
If NPC corps are nerfed, that will simply create single person player corps. If dec dodging is removed, then wardec groups deccing hundreds of corps at a time will need to be heavily restricted and the price of wardec wills need to increase. At the end of the day this is a game. If you can just wardec someone giving them the options of stop playing or die for less than pocket change and they have no way to avoid that, then the game will fail to engage players on a whole new level.


I think the frustration with wardec-immune NPC corps and with wardec evasion comes from the fact that wardecs have already been so heavily nerfed. Wardecs got on just fine back when they were 2 million isk a pop, and wardec evasion was considered an exploit. The myth of corps wardeccing hundreds of others used to be reality - and I think most of us can agree that it was awesome. I can only think of one alliance right now that maintains over 100 wardecs, and when you do the math the amount of isk they are paying for wardec fees is pretty mind boggling.

Wardec fees for one week against one corp start at 50 mil per week and scale up to 500 mil. Sure, carebears love to scoff at how cheap that is, but when you run multiple decs- which even a solo wardeccer must do to maintain it as a viable playstyle - it gets pricey fast. Imagine what that hypothetical corp maintaining 100 wardecs is paying - base price would be 20-25 billion per month assuming that all the targets were small 50 million isk decs and that they 25% of them didn't simply evade the dec. That much isk for an organization that doesn't have nullsec rental income or moongoo income.

Wardec fees don't need an increase, they need a decrease.

Evasion as it exists today I'm actually ok with. Wardecs I was fine with, but this AWOX nerf really demands that they be rebalanced to maintain the risk:reward ratio in highsec. The best way to do that is to nerf NPC corps, and the best way to nerf NPC corps is to make them all faction warfare corps - excepting the starter schools of course (must think of the children). A wardec fee price reduction would be the icing on the cake.

www.everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com

Vote Sabriz Adoudel and Tora Bushido for CSMX. Keep the Evil in EVE!
Sol Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#449 - 2014-10-31 12:38:06 UTC
How in hell is CODE pro-botting now??

Ladies of New Eden YC 117 by Indahmawar Fazmarai

Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!

Diana Kim > AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#450 - 2014-10-31 12:38:49 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Okay.. lets say CCP remove the ability to awox but new players are still leaving in large numbers and players are still staying in NPC Corps.

What next?

Reimburses Corp thefts? Removing War Dec's ? Banning Ganking ?

I mean are their people who truly believe that stopping the ability to awox is really going to make people stay in HS Corps and not leave Eve?



What should happen in that kind of situation is a person thinking "hmmm, what i believed would happen, didn't happen, perhaps I need to reconsider this issue, and also figure out what is wrong with my core belief system that led me to this incorrect conclusion"

What actually happens is this: : "Hmmm, so it's didn't work, someone must have not done it right, they should do it over and over again until they get it right!"

Quote:
The backfire effect occurs when, in the face of contradictory evidence, established beliefs do not change but actually get stronger. The effect has been demonstrated experimentally in psychological tests, where subjects are given data that either reinforces or goes against their existing biases - and in most cases people can be shown to increase their confidence in their prior position regardless of the evidence they were faced with.

In a pessimistic sense, this makes most refutations useless.

Brochan McLeod
Frigateer
#451 - 2014-10-31 12:40:20 UTC
Balshem Rozenzweig wrote:

TL;DR loosing a ship you need to totally replace with your own work is awesome. Don't take it away from these poor newbies. If they don't like it they will not like the game either.


I dont like my ships to be shot ... but i like the rest of the game.

Lots of aspects of this game are rather 'niche' ... maybe 'niche' dont pay the bills no more or stunts any further growth?

CCP has a lot of intel on why folks walk away and are acting accordingly as far as i can say.

If this AWOXing is causing Corp's to be so suspicious of new players to the extent that you have to have someones full API and stuff then maybe AWOXing has to go. Im sure it was fresh and new once but seems its just old and bothersome now.

Im sure as heck NOT giving anyone full API... didnt need that in 2012 and i dont see a reason for 'wearing a chip' now, so they can check up on me.

Im here paying and playing because i like a huge part of this game AND i dont mind not beeing in a large player corp.

Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Revis Owen
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#452 - 2014-10-31 12:40:48 UTC
One More Nerf™ strikes again!

Honestly, in 11 years how much have these increased subscription revenue?

Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.
Mike Adoulin
Happys Happy Hamster Hunting Club
#453 - 2014-10-31 12:41:20 UTC
This....is a really bad idea, CCP.

Elite Dangerous is looking downright appealing.

Everything in EVE is a trap.

And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)

You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.

Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
Sol Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#454 - 2014-10-31 12:49:21 UTC
What Jenn is saying in that little box, is that idiots will always stick to what they believe is right and will ignore everything that shows that they are wrong, because being wrong hurts their vulnerable little egos and they can't deal with that.

Thinking is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

Ladies of New Eden YC 117 by Indahmawar Fazmarai

Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!

Diana Kim > AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!
Bob Bedala
#455 - 2014-10-31 12:56:16 UTC
Having just read the minutes, there is a lot of wrong being talked in there by CCP (sorry). The two stated reasons for the change;

Quote:
CCP Masterplan - The main goal of this is to make recruitment safer for the recruiter and the recruitee. And it will remove the fact that you current cannot mitigate the risk of recruiting someone which makes people not recruit.


Not true, you can mitigate the risk by having training corps while trust is earned -- and people do this already. (Or a new "corp lite" as was hinted in the minutes, or some kind of provisional membership role where CEO's can limit access to map intel, shooting corpies etc.)

(Speaking of training, being able to shoot your corpies is hugely important for PVP training (not just for RvB as the minutes state) and I didn't see any workable suggestions in the minutes to fix this damage.)

People can still steal assets, provide intel to enemies etc etc and Fozzie sez he doesn't want this changed. So there are still huge recruitment risks which can be mitigated by improving and adding roles -- the tool designed exactly for this job!

Additionally AFAIK an awoxer can still go in your mission outside of your fleet, pew some rats, and pretty easily con you into taking from a yellow wreck.

So, this is definitely not a barrier to recruitment. It may make people more uneasy, but it is not a barrier. There are a whole bunch of reasons risk-averse CEO's don't hire, and awoxing is just one.

This leaves the main reason -- rookie joins, gets ganked & quits aka Safaris. Now firstly, I reckon people don't Safari people to shoot their t1 frigs. If a naive player has spent PLEX to jump into a blingy Golem after two months, they are going to lose that Golem one way or another, and I'll bet Safaris are way down the list compared to mission baiting and ganking.

I knew a player who quit cos he PLEXed a blingy Golem ASAP when I advised him not to, set up his own corp when I advised him not to, recruited when I advised him not to, and got awoxed by a pro awoxer (not a "griefer"). He quit and gave me all his stuff because I was "the only player he met in the game who wasn't a complete *******". That guy was determined to lose his stuff and you are never going to catch all those guys without killing Eve so please stop eroding Eve's USP.

Anyway, if they ragequit over this I'm not sure how likely they are to stick around, given all the other permaloss they will experience in their eve career.

DJ Funkybacon & Ali Aras both suggest the problem is education;

Quote:
DJ Funkybacon - Can we not educate people against this instead of changing mechanics?
CCP Fozzie - Then we get to the point where we have huge amounts of documentation that covers bad
game mechanics if we keep doing this?


Not a great counter argument IMO. Anyway, we have the "Be Careful" alert that pops when you are about to jump into lowsec, they should have similar warnings the first time you join a player corp. Warn about safari ganks. Warn about "helping to move all your assets" etc. This has the added benefit of actually making players think about the possibilities of what can be done with corps in eve.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#456 - 2014-10-31 12:58:02 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, what they added was NPC and anoms in lowsec which some people then fought over. This encourages players to move together an interact. Currently corp aggression mechanics push people away, both members and CEOs who legitimately want to help show newbies the ropes. The removal of that will help bring people into corps where they can learn how to actually play EVE with others, not just get ganked and laughed at by some asshat who's too scared to go fight actual combat driven players.


This is your prejudice talking, and why you can't think rationally about the issue.

Quote:
I guess "forever" would be the answer to this since it's absolute bullcrap. whether you like it or not this will help newbie retention. You can kick and scream about how everyone joining EVE should enter the game as a hardened battle veteran all you want, but it won't change the fact that a lot of people quit because rather than show them how to play eve a lot of the scum in this game prey on them as easy targets and force them out of the game before they get a chance to figure out that they like it.


So in 6 months , if this doesn't help player retention, you will be adult enough and man enough to come here and admit that you were wrong? We can both book mark this here thread and meet back here in 6 months. You game?

Like many 'bleeding heart' type people, you let yourself believe that if only you 'give people a chance' they'll do what yo want them to. You don't understand people. Most of the people who quit ANYTHING quit because they don't have what it takers to succeed. Most of the people who continue with something do so no matter what barrier you put in their way. Making the game safer has zero effect on the guy or girl sitting at the keyboard trying to fulfil their entertainment needs with a video game.

This is why things like what you advocate on here are doomed to failure, because (again, in your prejudice) you are 'transferring fault' for something (in this case, low player retention) in an external cause you don't like ('mean people' lol) instead of considering that perhaps the problem lies not in the game but in the incompatible individuals who try it.

Quote:
When you joined (and when I joined) the barriers were naturally lower, since there were far less people trying to ruin your day the moment you made a character. I've played from the perspective of a brand new newbie to see what the NPE was like very recently, and it's considerably tougher now than it was when I arrived.


This part either means you are lying (most likely as you dismiss ideas that don't fit into your narrow world view) or you are that incompetent. EVe is safer now than when i started, hell you could TANK npc police (we did so to the caldari militia with hilarious results) back then, older players would tell of how you could tank CONCORD back in the day.

A ganker got an insurance payment when I started. Gankers could dodge Concord by shooting and warping off. Can flipping was easy. Scams were easier. Lots of the game mechanics that keep people safe now didn't even exist then. Any objective analysis of the 2007 EVE vs today will demonstrate (with absolute certainty) that current EVE's "barriers" are lower, EVE was a much more dangerous (and free) place then.

How on earth could any video game discussion be so important to you that you'd need to lie like that? Because if you aren't actually mentally ill, you can't believe what you are typing.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#457 - 2014-10-31 12:59:43 UTC
Sol Project wrote:
What Jenn is saying in that little box, is that idiots will always stick to what they believe is right and will ignore everything that shows that they are wrong, because being wrong hurts their vulnerable little egos and they can't deal with that.

Thinking is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.


That's a bit generic. While true, it applies to almost every single player (and their chosen dogma) that logs into the game. Jenn included.

It's not that they are idiots. It's that they are passionate about the narrow little niche they have chosen in this big, big universe. I respect them for fighting for their chosen playstyle, even though most of them are completely wrong.

Mr Epeen Cool
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#458 - 2014-10-31 13:07:01 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Sol Project wrote:
What Jenn is saying in that little box, is that idiots will always stick to what they believe is right and will ignore everything that shows that they are wrong, because being wrong hurts their vulnerable little egos and they can't deal with that.

Thinking is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.


That's a bit generic. While true, it applies to almost every single player (and their chosen dogma) that logs into the game. Jenn included.

It's not that they are idiots. It's that they are passionate about the narrow little niche they have chosen in this big, big universe. I respect them for fighting for their chosen playstyle, even though most of them are completely wrong.

Mr Epeen Cool


This is the internet, so information never really gets lost. Feel free to link the post where I explicitly ignore evidence in favor of something else.

I'll wait.
Good Posting Reloaded
My Real Mind
#459 - 2014-10-31 13:10:52 UTC
First the bans of scumbags, now this. Bad times for the tough guy wannabe crowd. HAHA, i must add.
Sol Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#460 - 2014-10-31 13:15:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Sol Project
What's wrong about not wanting their playstyle to be removed for reasons that are bullshit to begin with?
Read what people write. They assume new players don't join corps because of awoxxing.

Think: How would they know? Do you seriously believe the majority of people knows that before they join the game?

How about the more realistic approach, which combines with what is going on already?


.) Lowsec is a death trap.
.) All PvPers are griefers.
.) Mining and mission running is a good start into the game.
.) When you join a corp you will just get awoxxed.

Where do the people come from who just level up their ravens? Do they join this game because they knew upfront that it's what they want, or are they being told to do that and then stick with it? What about miners? Do you realise that the first influence most often is the defining one?

The whole issue is a social engineering one and not related to game mechanics.

Ladies of New Eden YC 117 by Indahmawar Fazmarai

Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!

Diana Kim > AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!