These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Lowsec, sec status and you.

Author
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#21 - 2011-12-16 20:50:13 UTC
Personally, I feel that there should be no sec loss for destroying ships in low sec. There should only be penalty loss for destroying pods in low sec.
This would be great for FW pilots as well, because they'll be better able to depend themselves against non-FW fleets without having to worry about sec loss, as long as they dont' pod the pilots. However, FW pods are fair game for any members in the opposing FW team. However, the non-FW fleets will receive massive faction loss for destroying a FW ship and pod, and still receive the same sec loss for destroying the pod. This is to negate pirating of FW fleets, but also fits well with what should be the outcome of engaging a FW fleet, since they are representing the faction.

Now, destroying a ship in high sec should come with a much larger sec penalty if it is not done through aggression or through wardeccing.

On top of that, I feel that small acts of aggression that normally wouldn't involve a concord, such as stealing, should also have a small sec loss in high sec ( I do me small, like 1 lvl 3 mission small), however, firing on the thief would not have sec loss, and retaliating to the engagement would also not come with a sec loss for the thief.

Overall, this seperates low sec from high sec, but also seperates low sec from null sec, and makes life better for FW pilots.
DHuncan
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#22 - 2011-12-16 20:55:40 UTC
Spork Witch wrote:
Rina Asanari wrote:
Tippia wrote:
DHuncan wrote:
EVE is not all about PVP. Thats just PVP talk. PVP is the less important thing in EVE but CCP knows is what atracts the big mass they need to pay the bills and keep this strategy game moving on. There is no need encourage anyone to PVP.

Wow. It's a rare sight see that much wrong condensed into such a small post. Lol


That's what you think. Then please explain why there's so much PvE contents around like production, PI, missions... If you're right, why not cutting down EvE to a simple ship/module market and ISK payout per kill, and nothing else?

If you think production and industry in EVE aren't PvP, then you're even newer than your employment history says lol


Who you talking to? Obviously the term PvP we use in combat sense. Nobody here ignores the market is players market. I dont know how old is your character and I will not go and see but you should know by now what we reffer no matter how noob you'd be.

What did you say about CODE?

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#23 - 2011-12-16 21:05:28 UTC
Spork Witch wrote:
If you think production and industry in EVE aren't PvP, then you're even newer than your employment history says lol


I love how people try to use the market as a representation of pvp. Yes, by definition it is pvp, however, you can put that definition to anything else in Eve. I compete against other player for mining, missioning loot and salvage payout, market, location, production facilities, research facilities. etc. etc.

However, I can also say, by definition, that these are all representations of pve as well. This is because everything in Eve is considered part of the environment. So, even me engaging you in 1v1 ship to ship combat can also be considered pve because what you are flying, the dps you do, the factors that determine the winner, are all aspects created by the environment that is Eve.

So again, Eve is as much pve centric as it is pvp centric by definition. The only thing that could be considered true pvp if Eve were to be involved is if you and I met up and I stomped a mud hole in your @ss at fan fest or something, but then again, the environment that is Eve (pve) is also the cause of that outcome.
Spork Witch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2011-12-16 21:14:18 UTC
DHuncan wrote:
Who you talking to? Obviously the term PvP we use in combat sense. Nobody here ignores the market is players market. I dont know how old is your character and I will not go and see but you should know by now what we reffer no matter how noob you'd be.

Tell that to your mate Rina, who quite clearly didn't get that both Tippia and I are well aware of what is and isn't PvP :)

Your post, quoted by itself, is extremely wrong: _everything_ in EVE is PvP, you just might not realize it at first. And that's what the draw is, that _everything_ is against and/or with the other players. That's what Tippia was picking at (and even through the goofy grin on, to make it even more obvious). That is what your mate missed, and what you are clearly missing as well.

Joe Risalo wrote:
Spork Witch wrote:
If you think production and industry in EVE aren't PvP, then you're even newer than your employment history says lol


I love how people try to use the market as a representation of pvp. Yes, by definition it is pvp, however, you can put that definition to anything else in Eve. I compete against other player for mining, missioning loot and salvage payout, market, location, production facilities, research facilities. etc. etc.

However, I can also say, by definition, that these are all representations of pve as well. This is because everything in Eve is considered part of the environment. So, even me engaging you in 1v1 ship to ship combat can also be considered pve because what you are flying, the dps you do, the factors that determine the winner, are all aspects created by the environment that is Eve.

So again, Eve is as much pve centric as it is pvp centric by definition. The only thing that could be considered true pvp if Eve were to be involved is if you and I met up and I stomped a mud hole in your @ss at fan fest or something, but then again, the environment that is Eve (pve) is also the cause of that outcome.

Joe, just quit before you end up even further behind lol

Even more directly than the abstract you paint, a lot of the motivating force behind much of EVE's blow-each-other-up PvP is economic at its core. People build the ships and weapons to fight the wars. The wars are fought over resources and territory to build with. Wars are fought to push out the competition. Price wars are waged to help push people out. It's all PvP, and it all feeds into everything else.

Also, no, me, a player, shooting you, a player, is not PvE, no matter how you spin that one. Even if you try to gank me while i'm ratting, as soon as you threw that player into the mix, it stops being PvE, and it becomes PvP. There's nothing to spin about it lol. I think you've been playing a bit too much of the Crafts of War.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#25 - 2011-12-16 21:46:40 UTC
Spork Witch wrote:
Joe, just quit before you end up even further behind lol

Even more directly than the abstract you paint, a lot of the motivating force behind much of EVE's blow-each-other-up PvP is economic at its core. People build the ships and weapons to fight the wars. The wars are fought over resources and territory to build with. Wars are fought to push out the competition. Price wars are waged to help push people out. It's all PvP, and it all feeds into everything else.

Also, no, me, a player, shooting you, a player, is not PvE, no matter how you spin that one. Even if you try to gank me while i'm ratting, as soon as you threw that player into the mix, it stops being PvE, and it becomes PvP. There's nothing to spin about it lol. I think you've been playing a bit too much of the Crafts of War.


Actually, yes, anything that you say is PVP by definition, can also be spun to be pve, by definition. While me engaging you is fundamentally pvp as we know it, it is again, by definition, also pve because while it may be a player pilotting that ship, the ship, the location, and everything else besides the players themselves are fundamentally the environment, and the only way this situation can occur is with items, physics, and factors provided by the environment, other wise, there would be no game without the enviroment, and it would simply be you and I hitting each other upside the head.
So again, Eve is as much pve centric as it is pvp centric because everything that you do in Eve effect other players, but is also only capable of happening due to the environment provided by the game.

I know it annoys you to hear this, but probably in the same manner that it annoys me to hear that Eve is purely pvp centric, but by definition, we're both correct.
Spork Witch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2011-12-16 21:54:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Spork Witch
Joe Risalo wrote:
Spork Witch wrote:
Joe, just quit before you end up even further behind lol

Even more directly than the abstract you paint, a lot of the motivating force behind much of EVE's blow-each-other-up PvP is economic at its core. People build the ships and weapons to fight the wars. The wars are fought over resources and territory to build with. Wars are fought to push out the competition. Price wars are waged to help push people out. It's all PvP, and it all feeds into everything else.

Also, no, me, a player, shooting you, a player, is not PvE, no matter how you spin that one. Even if you try to gank me while i'm ratting, as soon as you threw that player into the mix, it stops being PvE, and it becomes PvP. There's nothing to spin about it lol. I think you've been playing a bit too much of the Crafts of War.


Actually, yes, anything that you say is PVP by definition, can also be spun to be pve, by definition.

No, Joe, they can't:

Wikipedia wrote:
Player versus environment, or PvE (also known as Player versus Monster, or PvM in some communities), is a term used in online games, particularly MMORPGs, CORPGs, MUDs, and other online role-playing video games, to refer to fighting computer-controlled enemies[1]—in contrast to PvP (player versus player).

Usually a PvE mode can be played either alone, with human companions or with AI companions. The PvE mode may contain a storyline that is narrated as the player progresses through missions. It may also contain missions that may be done in any order. For example, Guild Wars narrates its story by displaying in-game cut scenes and dialogue with non-player characters (NPCs). To enhance replayability, missions can often be completed many times. Characters playing in this mode are often protected against being killed by other players and/or having their possessions stolen. An example of a game where this is not the case is Eve Online, where players can be, and often are, ambushed by other human players player versus player while attempting to complete a PvE mission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_versus_environment

I find it amusing that EVE in particular is cited making my exact point, and no, I didn't just edit it to make it say that lol

As soon as the thing the player is going against is another player, instead of the computer, it stops being PvE, and it becomes a PvP situation.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#27 - 2011-12-16 22:03:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Please name the things in Eve, that are not PvP. Come on Spawn, this is also directed at you. Blink

My first question on this was three things, but no one could so I'll open it up without a limit.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#28 - 2011-12-16 22:11:01 UTC
We'll agree to disagree, and you can continue quoting definitions that have been altered beyond their original meaning.

Player vs environment used to be defined as exactly what is suggest until the entroduction of other players into the environment to which lead to a change of the definition to meaning player vs computer, which, again, used to have a definition seperate from pve.
Pve used to be exactly that, such as puzzle games that pitted the player against a puzzle I.E. the environment. Then, games introduced artificial intelengence, which was defined as player vs AI. Then players were pitted against each other which became known as pvp. However, due to the complexity of the system, Pve and Pvai were wrapped into one definition and given the meaning to represent anything not player controlled. Hence why I suggest the "true" and/or "original" meaning of player vs environment would still include anything created by the environment. However, we seem to be using the botched definition that was defined after the introduction of pvp, so in that case, sure you're correct.

Now, I'd like to get back on topic and quote my suggestion that I had introduced in relation to this thread

me wrote:
Personally, I feel that there should be no sec loss for destroying ships in low sec. There should only be penalty loss for destroying pods in low sec.
This would be great for FW pilots as well, because they'll be better able to depend themselves against non-FW fleets without having to worry about sec loss, as long as they dont' pod the pilots. However, FW pods are fair game for any members in the opposing FW team. However, the non-FW fleets will receive massive faction loss for destroying a FW ship and pod, and still receive the same sec loss for destroying the pod. This is to negate pirating of FW fleets, but also fits well with what should be the outcome of engaging a FW fleet, since they are representing the faction.

Now, destroying a ship in high sec should come with a much larger sec penalty if it is not done through aggression or through wardeccing.

On top of that, I feel that small acts of aggression that normally wouldn't involve a concord, such as stealing, should also have a small sec loss in high sec ( I do me small, like 1 lvl 3 mission small), however, firing on the thief would not have sec loss, and retaliating to the engagement would also not come with a sec loss for the thief.

Overall, this seperates low sec from high sec, but also seperates low sec from null sec, and makes life better for FW pilots.
DHuncan
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#29 - 2011-12-16 22:33:02 UTC
So your complaints really go to the OP who is trying to encourage changes to easen the would PvPers to actualy PvP. He has not understood that PvE does not exist. So we are all PvPers just some of us didn't realize that yet. Thats a new twist of the PvP speach? We who are industrialist in high sec are actually PvPing a lot in the markets and polishing our BPs a little bit more to save some wastes and get better profits and thats PvP. Ok, if you say so.
Let Tippia talk on Tippia's behalf and Rina in Rina's.

What did you say about CODE?

Spork Witch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2011-12-16 22:36:48 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
We'll agree to disagree, and you can continue quoting definitions that have been altered beyond their original meaning.

No, we'll agree that you're wrong, and wish to remain willfully ignorant. And no, the term "PvE" has never been accurately used to describe competitive interaction between players. Ever. I've been in this genre since we started adding graphics to go with the text. Your "definition" strips the term of any and all meaning, because it applies to anything and everything in any and every game ever made. Saying everything in EVE is PvP, on the other hand, does not do this, as the interactions and emergent behavior responsible for it cannot be applied to all cases in all things, as your definition of PvE.

Try better next time.

As to the topic at hand, it's quite simple: either add bubbles to lowsec, or kill WTZ. The problem with lowsec isn't that there are secstatus penalties, it's that there's no reason to go there. Why would I go to lowsec for negligible potential profit improvements compared to high-sec? Since warp to zero, it's nearly impossible to secure a low-sec system in any meaningful way, thus causing massive increases in risk to people operating there (and virtually zero risk to people passing through), why would I go there, to fight or otherwise? Thanks to WTZ making it so you can't secure a system, we now make nullsec and high-sec the only viable locations to operate. The rewards are greater, and with bubbles, we can actually secure the area to make the risk manageable / worthwhile.

Secstatus is ridiculously easy to burn off, especially in nullsec (where there are also no penalties). that's the very reason they made it harder to do (single biggest payout per bounty cycle, instead of constant increases as you kill things) and made it so that you can't go over 5.00 (so that you can't "hide" behind a positive secstatus to lull victims into complacence). Ganking in high-sec (where the penalties are even more severe than low-sec) is rampant (which is fine) with the current system in place. There's quite simply no good end results from reducing these penalties anywhere.

The trick to getting people into lowsec isn't to reduce the penalties for fighting there, but rather to improve the risk/reward ratio of going there in the first place.
Spork Witch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2011-12-16 22:41:32 UTC
DHuncan wrote:
So your complaints really go to the OP who is trying to encourage changes to easen the would PvPers to actualy PvP. He has not understood that PvE does not exist. So we are all PvPers just some of us didn't realize that yet. Thats a new twist of the PvP speach? We who are industrialist in high sec are actually PvPing a lot in the markets and polishing our BPs a little bit more to save some wastes and get better profits and thats PvP. Ok, if you say so.
Let Tippia talk on Tippia's behalf and Rina in Rina's.

Sorry, you clearly needed help comprehending what they were saying.

And yes, when you're trying to eck out that last bit less wastage, or even mine your own mins rather than buying them, so you can undercut the other guy's price and maintain your profit margin, selling your stuff instead of his, that is most certainly PvP. One could potentially twist this to apply to any "auction house" system, but when you consider that most games simply don't have anything you can do to improve your margins or anything like that, it's not really PvP anymore, you're just driving prices down, it's not really a competitive system. EVE's is.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#32 - 2011-12-16 23:06:19 UTC
Spork Witch wrote:
No, we'll agree that you're wrong, and wish to remain willfully ignorant. And no, the term "PvE" has never been accurately used to describe competitive interaction between players. Ever. I've been in this genre since we started adding graphics to go with the text. Your "definition" strips the term of any and all meaning, because it applies to anything and everything in any and every game ever made. Saying everything in EVE is PvP, on the other hand, does not do this, as the interactions and emergent behavior responsible for it cannot be applied to all cases in all things, as your definition of PvE.


Here let me break it down the definitions in relation to the expansion of Gaming.

A game came out. It pitted the player against random puzzles to which were preordaned by the game itself. This was known as the game's environment.
Then along came games that pitted the player against AI opponents. This became known as player vs AI, and caused a redefining of pve to disclude anything related to AI.
Then, along game the introduction of player vs player which required another redefining of pve to disclude anything in relation to being player controlled.
So you had player vs environment, which now only included thngs that had no AI and weren't player controlled.
You have player vs AI which included anything with artificial intelegence and was not player controlled.
Then you had player vs player which pertained only when one or more players were pitted against other players.

However, then more advanced games were introduced, and the so defined at the time player vs environment became an obsolete term since almost everything had some form of artificial intelegence. So the definition for pve and pvai were intertwinned and thus became known solely as player vs environment in which the AI became the environment, since everything in the game was no longer set in place, but had variable outcomes depending on the player's reaction to the environment. So since the environment was given it's own AI, the two definitions were defined as having the same meaning.

Anyone else who has been gaming long enough to have experienced these redefinings will agree with me because they know as well as I that there used to not be AI and there used to not be pvp.
Spork Witch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2011-12-16 23:09:26 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Spork Witch wrote:
No, we'll agree that you're wrong, and wish to remain willfully ignorant. And no, the term "PvE" has never been accurately used to describe competitive interaction between players. Ever. I've been in this genre since we started adding graphics to go with the text. Your "definition" strips the term of any and all meaning, because it applies to anything and everything in any and every game ever made. Saying everything in EVE is PvP, on the other hand, does not do this, as the interactions and emergent behavior responsible for it cannot be applied to all cases in all things, as your definition of PvE.


Here let me break it down the definitions in relation to the expansion of Gaming.

A game came out. It pitted the player against random puzzles to which were preordaned by the game itself. This was known as the game's environment.
Then along came games that pitted the player against AI opponents. This became known as player vs AI, and caused a redefining of pve to disclude anything related to AI.
Then, along game the introduction of player vs player which required another redefining of pve to disclude anything in relation to being player controlled.
So you had player vs environment, which now only included thngs that had no AI and weren't player controlled.
You have player vs AI which included anything with artificial intelegence and was not player controlled.
Then you had player vs player which pertained only when one or more players were pitted against other players.

However, then more advanced games were introduced, and the so defined at the time player vs environment became an obsolete term since almost everything had some form of artificial intelegence. So the definition for pve and pvai were intertwinned and thus became known solely as player vs environment in which the AI became the environment, since everything in the game was no longer set in place, but had variable outcomes depending on the player's reaction to the environment. So since the environment was given it's own AI, the two definitions were defined as having the same meaning.

Anyone else who has been gaming long enough to have experienced these redefinings will agree with me because they know as well as I that there used to not be AI and there used to not be pvp.

*pats joe on the head* There, there, Joe, it's ok, that you don't know what you're talking about. It's not your fault. You can only take blame for remaining willfully ignorant. it's not your fault you didn't know before, but it is your fault that you choose to continue to be wrong.
DHuncan
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#34 - 2011-12-16 23:18:40 UTC
There is not such a thing as competitive margin. Ore is free, it grows every morning in the asteroid belt, so missions do. I can sale at the price I want and all is profit. Admit this: you skipped the tutorials when you first joined, didn't you?

What did you say about CODE?

LeHarfang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2011-12-16 23:19:54 UTC
I think some peoples here (like Joe) don't seem to understand what PvE really means, in the gaming industry.

Yes environnment truly means everything around you, including other humans. However, here, were speaking in gaming terms and PvE is actually a widely accepted terms by gaming companies and their employees. It could be replaced by PvNPC and it would mean the exact same thing.

In that definition, yes, the market and all the industrial stuff is PvP driven. The only thing of Eve that is PvE is when players shoot things for NPCs and/or shoot at red crosses spawned by the server. When you shoot on little white squares (whatever is the color in it), it's PvP.

Now stop poluting this discussion by playing with words!!! Eve has always been marketed as a PVP sandbox game and i dont think CCP will change, unless the real life market changes a lot. Why do you think they went back to making PvP ships after the massive protests at trading hubs, in high sec, where all the industrialists are!?!?

Alright, now on topic:

I do agree that it would be pretty interresting to see more ways of bringing more high sec players who are there because they can't go into PvP.

Another thing, making high sec ore available in null sec as well would help a lot to bring more industrialists/ high sec alts in the PvP arena that is null sec. I mean, a lot of players prefer to go in high sec simply because the stuff they needs to build stuff is'nt available in null sec. Of course, to make industry more effective in null sec, that also means alliances will needs to defend their barges (maybe they already do, idk, i never in null sec, even if i want to)
Spork Witch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2011-12-16 23:32:56 UTC
DHuncan wrote:
There is not such a thing as competitive margin. Ore is free, it grows every morning in the asteroid belt, so missions do. I can sale at the price I want and all is profit. Admit this: you skipped the tutorials when you first joined, didn't you?

Actually, what little there was in the way of tutorials, I did those nearly 7 years ago. You kids these days are spoiled, the current tutorials are amazing (and give tons of free stuff!). I've run through those too, at least the ones introduced in Apocrypha.

Minerals are 1) not free, 2) not always mined. You can choose to devote time to mining or time to making isk to buy ore/mins, or reprocess loot, either way it is time and resources spent doing one thing instead of the other. The adage "time is money" is not an empty comment. How you handle this, and how efficient you are at how you choose to go about it, absolutely affect your margins.
LeHarfang wrote:
I think some peoples here (like Joe) don't seem to understand what PvE really means, in the gaming industry.

Yes environnment truly means everything around you, including other humans. However, here, were speaking in gaming terms and PvE is actually a widely accepted terms by gaming companies and their employees. It could be replaced by PvNPC and it would mean the exact same thing.

In that definition, yes, the market and all the industrial stuff is PvP driven. The only thing of Eve that is PvE is when players shoot things for NPCs and/or shoot at red crosses spawned by the server. When you shoot on little white squares (whatever is the color in it), it's PvP.

Now stop poluting this discussion by playing with words!!! Eve has always been marketed as a PVP sandbox game and i dont think CCP will change, unless the real life market changes a lot. Why do you think they went back to making PvP ships after the massive protests at trading hubs, in high sec, where all the industrialists are!?!?

Alright, now on topic:

I do agree that it would be pretty interresting to see more ways of bringing more high sec players who are there because they can't go into PvP.

Another thing, making high sec ore available in null sec as well would help a lot to bring more industrialists/ high sec alts in the PvP arena that is null sec. I mean, a lot of players prefer to go in high sec simply because the stuff they needs to build stuff is'nt available in null sec. Of course, to make industry more effective in null sec, that also means alliances will needs to defend their barges (maybe they already do, idk, i never in null sec, even if i want to)

"high-sec ore" doesn't disappear in lower security areas, the occurence of more rare ore simply goes up proportionally (and certain types are only found at X and lower). Supply lines are critical, though, and normally what occurs is the rare low/null-sec ore is transported to highsec, and sold and they bring the abundant high-sec stuff back. It's more efficient use of time and resources. And yes, they protect their miners in null; you can't operate without teamwork.

Further, this in-and-out traffic is essential to the functioning of both. If I can get everything in nullsec, why interact at all with high-sec? If no one interacts with high-sec, how are the newbies supposed to get started? The two are interdependent on each other, as it should be. The only real problem is the disproportionate risk/reward between high-sec and low-sec. There's simply no reason to work in low-sec, the improved rewards are marginal, and the increased risk is even greater than in null-sec. Which is why you see the current dichotomy: carebears in highsec, almost everyone else in nullsec, and little more than griefers and FW noobs in low-sec.
DHuncan
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#37 - 2011-12-17 00:00:37 UTC
Im not a kid these days. Im playing EVE for a while. You can check that in game and see how wrong you are again. Seems everyone disagreing your only way to understand EvE must, necesarily, be an idiot, a kid or a new player (with hope for redemption in this last case -by reading your preachings, surely-). No boy, before EvE there was a Escape Velocity from Ambrosia Software. A not internet Macintosh game that was obviously the father of EvE. That you dont know probably cause by then you still pee in your bed and eat your buggers. I hope you have stoped by now. You are teaching nothing here.
Ore, again, is free as need not to be purchased thus there is not ninimum price must get. Time is money? Relax, log off and take a walk by the country side. Get a bath of reality and come back to play when you realize this is a game. Money (isk) does not exist. It simply spawns at demand. Do you think the Republic loses 1 Million isk when they pay me 1 Million isk for my services? Do you think PLEX would be allowed in market if it really were an in-game economy 'competition'. Not dude, you can buy isk but you can not buy skill. Start thinking instead of preaching guessing so badly.

What did you say about CODE?

Spork Witch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2011-12-17 00:24:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Spork Witch
DHuncan wrote:
Im not a kid these days. Im playing EVE for a while. You can check that in game and see how wrong you are again. Seems everyone disagreing your only way to understand EvE must, necesarily, be an idiot, a kid or a new player (with hope for redemption in this last case -by reading your preachings, surely-). No boy, before EvE there was a Escape Velocity from Ambrosia Software. A not internet Macintosh game that was obviously the father of EvE. That you dont know probably cause by then you still pee in your bed and eat your buggers. I hope you have stoped by now. You are teaching nothing here.
Ore, again, is free as need not to be purchased thus there is not ninimum price must get. Time is money? Relax, log off and take a walk by the country side. Get a bath of reality and come back to play when you realize this is a game. Money (isk) does not exist. It simply spawns at demand. Do you think the Republic loses 1 Million isk when they pay me 1 Million isk for my services? Do you think PLEX would be allowed in market if it really were an in-game economy 'competition'. Not dude, you can buy isk but you can not buy skill. Start thinking instead of preaching guessing so badly.

http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/freeminerals.jpg

Ore requires time to mine. Time that could be spent doing something else. If the ore you mine results in minerals that could be bought on the market for less isk than you could have made doing something else in the same amount of time, you have wasted time and money, even if your wallet never flashes. This is not a complicated economic concept.

Actually, Elite is widely regarded to be the predecessor / inspiration for EVE (and the inspiration for Escape Velocity, for that matter). And around that time, for me, it was Atari 2600 and a Digital-built 80286. First MMO for me was NWN back in 1991, when they added graphics to go with the text ^^

As to PLEX, the reason they're allowed is because money is obtained legitimately within the economy, and used to purchase them. CCP receives RL money for the creation of the time code, so they get paid either way, and the end result is a decrease in the number of RMTs and people willing to use them, since there's a safe, secure way to "buy money," all within existing, well-balanced game mechanics.

Lastly, I don't think anyone that disagrees with me is an idiot; I think idiots are idiots. It just happens that a lot of idiots like to disagree with me when they're wrong.
DHuncan
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#39 - 2011-12-17 00:55:56 UTC
In order to be right you would say anything. The thing here is not about you can do something better than making free isk with your time. The thing here is that according to you EVE market is PvP cause you 'need' to polish your BPs further and further to achieve minimal margins of profit. Once that proven false (you failed once again) then you through this about 'the less you gain is a loss".
Also I dont give a dime about your first computer or your irl biography. If that intends to be an answer to what I said about EV, I point you that I only was saying you that when you talk about 'we, kids today, didnt have to fight as hard as you in your times' sort of crap, you may be taking the habit of mistaking. You should have had a puppy instead, you wouldn't be this way.

What did you say about CODE?

Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#40 - 2011-12-17 06:41:59 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Please name the things in Eve, that are not PvP. Come on Spawn, this is also directed at you. Blink

My first question on this was three things, but no one could so I'll open it up without a limit.


Besides the entirety of empire space and everything in it? Ill list specifics.

NPC mission agents
Epic arc and cosmos missions
exploration
industry
mining
standing, in general
incursions

the list goes on, I dont understand why you specificly deny all of this like it doesnt exist? You have the entirety of null space to engage in whatever kind of pvp you wish to play, and I dont want to stop you from doing that at all, but the problem with you people is thats not what you want to do, you want to invade the pve portion of "space" to pick on players that are defenseless, and thats about all you wanna do. If that wasnt the case you wouldnt be complaining about the security increases pve players are asking for to protect them from the kind of play intended for null space.

The entire fictional storyline of the game, all of it, is entirely for PVE play, not PVP. ALL OF IT. If the game was supposed to be based round pvp entirely, there would be absolutely no reason for a storyline, content, or any of it, with the exception of a small area of space reserved for noob players until they could join a corp and join a sovereign area. I have litterally played games EXACTLY like this. Dont ask me to recall the names because I havent played them since i was a teen and that was over 10 years ago.
Previous page123Next page