These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2012-04-09 16:00
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-05-14 03:39
  • Number of Posts: 7,005
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Remiel Pollard

Security Status -6.5
  • Shock Treatment Ministries Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • New loki stats on test server, mostly good, but something very bad. in EVE Communication Center

    What's a Loki?

  • Solo/Duo PVP goals in EVE Communication Center

    Today's goal: more kills

    Tomorrow's goal: more kills

    Rinse and repeat. PVP is kinda simple like that.

  • The Sack of Romi in EVE Gameplay Center

    What did I walk into?

    Oh, high sec drama. I'll just go back to blapping neutrals in low.

    Slowly backs away from thread

  • CCP again makes fools of us! in EVE Communication Center

    I see EVE Online continues to work as intended, successfully mining salt from people who fail to understand basic instructions.

  • Blaster & Other Close Range Weapons/Ships in EVE Communication Center

    The vast majority of my KB is with brawling ships, and many of my kills are kiting ships. Make no mistake, brawling ships can and do catch and kill kiting ship quite often. In fact, if your kiting ship gets caught by a brawler at all, it's probably dead. It's what you sacrifice to gain the range advantage that I take advantage of.

  • The final topic of The New Old forums! in EVE Communication Center

    Vortexo VonBrenner wrote:
    Ha! I got #1631 - more than any of you! I WIN, LOSERS!





    Nub

  • ETA on Chimera model rollback in EVE Communication Center

    Freddie Merrcury wrote:


    I know it violates the longstanding CCP policy of fixing things that aren't broken,


    This is just a joke, right? Hyperbole? Incursus anyone?

  • Bug Report: Auto-targetting Missiles target nothing. Refuse to fire. in EVE Communication Center

    Not a bug. Don't use FOF missiles for PVP.

  • You know you've played Eve Online too long when... in EVE Communication Center

    ...this is at least the dozenth thread of this kind you've seen during your time playing.

  • How many more players must we lose to bullying in EVE Communication Center

    Mr Mieyli wrote:
    Even two pages ago I was pushing for changes I thought would bring more players into the game, and trying to minimise negative effects that come with that. Then I got thinking that even if CCP would change the game to attract new players it would be at the cost of lessening the things I do like about the game, and once those things are removed to attract players they can't be replaced again. I've accused people of a slippery slope mentality, but it is true that as new players come they will ask for new things, or fail to understand some core things about the game, the chase for new players could go on forever. In SWG they removed the complexity from the game, which (I assume) was one of the central reasons people liked it, in eve the central reason is personal freedom. It's just freedom doesn't always mean what people assume, you are equally free to fail. When you remove the core idea of your game to appeal to new players, you will appeal to no-one.

    I would sorely like for CCP to have more revenue directed at eve, but as others have pointed out there is no guarantee extra income would be pumped back into eve anyway. Instead as Jenn has said the new player experience needs to set up exactly what eve is about, I feel starting in null would help with this, but I'm sure other steps would be needed. Like changing the damn name high-sec away from something that sounds secure.


    There are a lot of things that could make EVE 'better' but better for who? I can think of quite a few things that would make it better for me personally but I've only ever made two suggestions on F&I because none of my other ideas, after thinking on them very carefully, really either fit with the game's core nature, or they just weren't balanced. I can't remember what both of those ideas were, the first one was really good, functional, and had a fair bit of support on F&I but the second one I remember clearly even though it wasn't the important one and was more of a joke than anything: have Morgan Freeman do the voice for Aura (I still want this, joke or not). Both ideas, however, were things that I wanted, for me, and only me, because I don't speak for anyone but myself.

    Instead of thinking about what would attract new players, think instead about what you want in the game. Just you. If no one else out there shares your tastes, which I doubt, then it won't matter. But this "please think of the children" nonsense.... no one buys it. No one believes you have spoken for a vast number of people who all want the same thing. You're not showing us any quantitative data to prove it, you're just asserting that this is what people want, and then a whole bunch of people tell you, "but we're people too and we don't want this so I don't know where you got this idea that you can speak for me," people who've played the game for years and know what it is, and you spend a good 40 pages insisting that they're wrong, and you know what they want better then you.

    So I'm glad that you finally reached this point where you've realised your mistake, because it's a pet hate of mine when people think they can speak for me and what I want. It's so infantalising. In any case, you're coming around and that's good to see. You'll learn, in time, that we were all new once, and yet we're still here, after struggling through a game that was much harder then it is now. Believe it or not, the game is gradually leaning more towards as much mass appeal as possible without breaking its core principles, and has been going that way for a while now. A lot of us have had to adapt to that, and it's trying, but a lot of us also understand that if it can be done right, without killing what makes EVE unique in the process, then it should be done. I'm entirely on board with that.

    And no one except the most zealous actually has a problem with the game trying to do this either, as long as EVE itself isn't made the sacrificial lamb to achieve it. You have to realise, in the end, that if EVE is changed into something else, something it's not, for the sake of mass appeal, then it's already dead. It either stands on its own merits, or it dies on them. Whether that death is the result of servers being switched off or because it gets changed into something else, it still dies. Frankly, I don't see that happening any time soon, and the fear mongering of IZ and ilk doesn't change the fact that CCP just spent a bucketload of money updating their servers, something I don't think they'd do if the game was dying.

  • How many more players must we lose to bullying in EVE Communication Center

    Zoubidah Al-Kouffarde wrote:

    All your other suggestions have been implemented, and if you look at the EvE-Offline graphs you can witness the swansong of this sociopathy simulator, because that's what it really is. And widespread sociopathy does not create a functional society.


    Setting aside the fact that you're not qualified to cast such aspersions on this community (I would be surprised if you were qualified to flip burgers), we're not trying to build a society here. EVE Online =/= real life, and nobody who has an actual grip on reality makes that conflation. People like you do, but that's only because of how easily you conflate reality with fantasy. Everyone else here is playing a character in-game, and like it or not, the game needs its villains.

    It doesn't need you though, you can go.

  • How many more players must we lose to bullying in EVE Communication Center

    Bjorn Tyrson wrote:
    Remiel Pollard wrote:
    Mr Mieyli wrote:
    I believe if the rewards were limited appropriately,


    The correct weight of any awards received for no risk taken is exactly zero. Safety = zero risk = zero reward.


    in fact we do have places in the game where you have zero risk, AND can still make some isk.
    they are called stations, you can remain inside them with impunity for as long as you want, and you can even still make isk, either through station trading, or project discovery.

    on top of that there are the newbie systems where ganking is prohibited, sure you might still be at risk for wardecs, but you could mine there all day long and not have to worry much about gankers. now sure, a ganker might be able to get away with it if you are an older character using the system as a shield. but since characters can be sold, I don't think many of them would take that risk.

    so the "safe" systems. already exist in game, they just don't like them because the rewards aren't good enough for them.


    Starter systems are the exception, and only new players are protected there. Station trading is not. That kind of trading is not risk free. Putting up isk is a risk.

  • How many more players must we lose to bullying in EVE Communication Center

    Mr Mieyli wrote:
    I believe if the rewards were limited appropriately,


    The correct weight of any awards received for no risk taken is exactly zero. Safety = zero risk = zero reward.

  • How many more players must we lose to bullying in EVE Communication Center

    Mr Mieyli wrote:
    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Historically CCP has used EVe Online revenues to fund other games.. The idea that more people giving CCP more money translates to a better EVE is as foolish as saying "man, if I buy TWO Big Macs, and get all my friends to buy Big Macs, McDonalds will reward us by making better food"!!!!!

    Sorry, all you would be accomplishing is raising everyone's cholesterol counts and bring everyone closer to cardiac arrest while lining the pockets of some McDonald's shareholder...


    Blame ccp for that decision, I'd have much preferred the resources went into eve, maybe the Devs care as much as you about the game. It is what it is, the players don't want any different, we'll make new games. Giving a company more money is exactly how it can provide a better service, it's the basis of the economy for Christ sake and I'm the dumb one. Sorry you're such a pessimist, but not everywhere is McDonald's. They feel it's their right to 'bless' you with their presence, that's how they 'give a better service' less travel time, it's an easy route.

    Eve could throw away all it's principles and chase every possible customer and I understand that fear, but is what I'm suggesting really throwing away the principles of the game? It's one small area for gods sake, limited heavily, with the deeper parts of space on the horizon if you decide to venture out that way.


    A safe space in EVE? What's the point of it? I would have no problem with it to be honest, as long as there were a number of restrictions, including but not limited to travel (no cynos, only one way in and out from one system only), weapons (all completely disabled), services (none other than docking), structures (none), income (none - no ratting, no mining, no missions, no exploration, nothing), and player trade (none of any kind). It can be a chat room in space, and that's it, nothing more, because as soon as you give someone a safe space to do anything meaningful in this game, guess where they'll all go? That's why people are against safe spaces in EVE, because any progress you want to make in this game of any kind has to be at the risk of being challenged by other players. THAT IS ITS ENTIRE PREMISE - giving players control of a dynamic socioeconomic spacefaring experience. That's the reason there's only one server with no instancing. It was built that way from the ground up.

  • How many more players must we lose to bullying in EVE Communication Center

    Mr Mieyli wrote:
    Remiel Pollard wrote:
    Mr Mieyli wrote:
    Remiel Pollard wrote:
    Your fantasies of EVE are only going to land you more confusion, failure, and whining. Right now, you're sitting in a kayak expecting it to be a motorboat and complaining that it needs an engine instead of just picking up the damn paddles and learning how to work with what you have, or just getting out of the boat.


    I see it more that I'm sitting in a kayak that could be easily converted to a motorboat and I'm pointing it out.


    And you don't see why just getting a motorboat instead isn't the more sensible solution?


    If you can point me to a motorboat that looks like the kayak I'm sitting in then I'm all ears. This analogy is off in the trees now though. I'm talking about changes to eve, because eve is what is what exists that is closest to what I want. You say it's whining, I say I can't write a game myself currently, so why not push for changes id like to see.


    Because the changes you've suggested so far amount to making EVE into something else, something it's not, which means you want something else, something it's not. If what you want doesn't exist, you always have the option of making it yourself instead of trying to dictate to the artists what their product should be.

    EVE isn't flawless, not by a long shot, but no game really is. Every last one begins as someone's vision of what they wanted to see in a game, rather than what someone else wants to see. Which brings me to what I've been trying to tell you all along: this game has existed for almost fifteen years. If the devs wanted to go for mass appeal, don't you think they would have done it by now? Everything you're suggesting, don't you think they've heard it by now? EVE is established. When you come up with ideas to improve EVE, if they don't follow with EVE's established core principles, then you won't just find resistance to them, you'll get a good deal of backlash and disrespect because people see someone who doesn't understand the game asserting that they know how to make it better.

    So let's try a new analogy, a simple one. Imagine if someone came into the Halo forums and suggested, "what about instead of guns we use water pistols and nobody actually dies, you just get scored per hit and the team/player with the highest score after the time limit wins." This was actually a real suggestion made on the Halo 4 forums when it launched regarding multiplayer. The person making the suggestion was a parent, new to the halo franchise trying to make the game 'better' for their children. The problem is, there are already games for children, there are already games that suit that person's needs, and Halo is an established M-rated shooter. You can imagine the reaction of course, because it was virtually the same as you're receiving here. The difference is, because halo is such a simple game, that the vast majority of people can understand it just fine, and that person didn't have any agreement or support of any kind. Unfortunately, one of EVE's flaws is that it can be difficult to truly ascertain it's core nature, so a lot more people are going to stand by you as a result of it being a more complicated game. I can try to explain it to you - that at its core it's meant to be about player freedom and player choice, where you are the writer of your own story, and mechanics are designed around that core value of achieving that level of freedom with as few limitations as possible, only compromising on that freedom in reasonably limited ways. But at the end of the day, you really have to experience it for yourself, and the only way to do that is to actually exercise your freedom.

    The way I did that was shoot a mining barge in highsec. I failed my gank attempt, but the experience was liberating when I realised that I had the freedom to be as powerful as I wanted to be, and in order to facilitate that freedom, I began learning from my mistakes. Now I have a killboard that most oldschool vets would not shake their head at, despite the fact I've only been playing since 2012 (and only really PVP'ing since late 2013).

    The day before I attempted that gank, I was on the forums doing what you're doing now, and getting shut down and not understanding why. As soon as I understood what EVE was, I understood exactly why I got shut down. You stick around long enough, adapt and learn, and you will too.

    Exercise your freedom. Because unlike other games that purport to give you 'choices' like Mass Effect, in this game those choices aren't scripted, they aren't illusions, they are real, and they have real in-game consequences, of which even the smallest could have game-wide implications. That's what EVE allows by maintaining its core nature, by maintaining its single-shard player-driven HTFU dog-eat-dog trust nobody environment with no instancing and as little handholding as possible. EVE isn't for everybody, but neither is Halo.

    For the record, no, ganking does not put off players. Established research that has already been shared in this thread and many others does not support the idea that ganking is chasing players away, and in fact the experience of many PVP'ers and gankers reports the exact opposite, that when players experience ship loss at the hand of another player, quite often (for me at least) said 'victim' will try to learn how to adapt, and even mail their killer asking what went wrong. In my experience, it's often the newer players who are MOST enthusiastic about learning from their attackers, and it's often the older carebears who have stagnated in highsec without losing anything for far too long who throw hissy fits in local and send rage mails. No, we aren't scaring away new players, we're just making a lot of carebears angry. And that's something we just don't have to care about to any degree.

  • How many more players must we lose to bullying in EVE Communication Center

    Mr Mieyli wrote:
    Remiel Pollard wrote:
    Your fantasies of EVE are only going to land you more confusion, failure, and whining. Right now, you're sitting in a kayak expecting it to be a motorboat and complaining that it needs an engine instead of just picking up the damn paddles and learning how to work with what you have, or just getting out of the boat.


    I see it more that I'm sitting in a kayak that could be easily converted to a motorboat and I'm pointing it out.


    And you don't see why just getting a motorboat instead isn't the more sensible solution?

  • How many more players must we lose to bullying in EVE Communication Center

    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Mr Mieyli wrote:


    I'll repeat myself again, these threads will continue to be created as long as eve remains so far outside normality.


    The above is very telling.

    I knew a guy from my job years back, he moved on a while ago. He's a transplant, originally from California, and was then living here in Texas. He always talked bad about California, he's used the words "it's turned into a big mess" several times.

    But when we talk about our lives here in Texas, he almost invariably tells me about how "where I'm from, we do it this way, I don't know why you all don't"... I once looked him in the eye and told him " where I'm from isn't perfect, but I like it, which is why I've never moved away for very long (the longest stint was 2 years). YOU call the place where you are from crap.... but you take every opportunity to try to turn the place were are at NOW into the same kind of crap. I guess the place you come from is a big mess because it's filled with folks who like to make messes".

    He really didn't like me pointing that out. A few years later he moved to Florida and I lost contact with him, but I'll be he's saying the same things there as he did here. Type don't change.

    I thought of him when you said you'd played other MMOs. You seem to talk bad about those other MMOs. Yet here you are in an avowed niche game (the mistake of 5 years ago has hot changed it's niche game status) advocating that it add more "normality". In other words, you want EVE to turn into the same kind of crap you came from.

    And yet you seem surprised at the resistence to the idea. If most of us wanted normal, we'd be playing some other game. We LIKE the different thing called EVE, and we wish those who didn't would just shove off and find something they can get behind the way we are behind EVE Online.

    EVE is not perfect, but it is one of the few hard core/adult games left in a world of mushy hand holding feel good bullshit. And from now till it ends, folks like me are going to defend this unique hobby, both against unreasonable people like you, and from unthinking stakeholder pressure to "mainstream" it.


    I think you're wasting your time writing any more paragraphs on this one. The only answer such a stupid statement deserved was, "and they'll continue getting the same reply: EVE isn't meant to be 'normal', but if 'normal' is what you want, there are thousands of other games you wish EVE was more like that you can play instead."

  • How many more players must we lose to bullying in EVE Communication Center

    Since we've reached page 42, let's discuss the meaning of life.

  • How many more players must we lose to bullying in EVE Communication Center

    Infinity Ziona wrote:
    Black Pedro wrote:
    Infinity Ziona wrote:

    Black Pedro wrote:

    Even CCP Oveur acknowledged on the forums that you can shoot players anywhere and there is not suppose to be a safe space in this game:

    CCP Oveur wrote:
    [Y]ou can PvP anywhere, as long as you take the consequences, you know this already.


    No one said it should be otherwise. You could PvP anywhere in EvE from day 1 - in high with war decs, in high with extremely costly suiciding.

    PvP everywhere is fine with me. PvP anywhere without the intended risks and consequences is not. It wasn't to Oveur either clearly.
    Of course. Then we are all on the same page. If you shoot someone in highsec you should suffer the intended consequences. You, I and CCP Oveur all agree that highsec is a suppose to be a zone where you are not suppose to be safe and are at risk to both wardecs and suicide ganking. Perhaps we might not agree on the exact details of how sufficient and appropriate the current consequences are for illegal aggression, but at least we agree on the general concept that this is how the game is suppose to work.

    Wow. I didn't expect such a happy resolution on page 41 of this threadnought.



    There are no real consequences now. When Ovuer wrote that the consequences were very great today they're not. That's the crux of the issue.

    An analogy would be in 1855 the consequences of crime x was a 1 pound fine. If the same crime today still resulted in a 1 pound fine then it would hardly be a deterrent. In Eve its even worse because the consequence is much much less than in 2005.


    You're talking about the consequences that the game itself imposes on players.

    Nobody that understands EVE cares about those. The only consequences that matter in regards to player-generated content are the consequences that other players bring to the field. That is, if gankers aren't facing the consequences of their actions against other players, then it's only the other players that have themselves to blame for not taking action to impose them. Otherwise, ship loss is still a consequence, no matter how 'small' it is, it's still a consequence. And if people actually adapted to what EVE is instead of trying to make it something that it isn't, you would be seeing harsher consequences for gankers on the daily.

  • How many more players must we lose to bullying in EVE Communication Center

    Infinity Ziona wrote:
    Remiel Pollard wrote:
    * Snip good points I can't counter honestly so I'll just call it rubbish as if that'll make what he said go away*


    Additionally, your favourite dev quote, the only one you have to support your position in any degree, whether wrong or not, telling me he's 'someone important' in any capacity is little more than an appeal to authority. I don't care if he's the godking of the universe, if he's wrong he's ******* wrong, and if he meant in any capacity that high sec is meant to be safe in that post you keep holding up for the world to see, that one comment that contradicts every other dev comment regarding high sec safety ever made otherwise, then he is simply wrong. But the lengths you'll go to to cling to that which helps validate your personal fantasies have been noted. Please continue deluding yourself, because you're deluding no one that matters with this garbage.

Forum Signature

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104