These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Bears must destroy ISK

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#101 - 2013-01-20 12:06:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Corey Fumimasa
TharOkha wrote:
Corey Fumimasa wrote:

Care bears accumulate massive fortunes with their mining and industrial play. They have few options to destroy ISK with their playstyle.
.

*slap in da face*

Now go back to eve school and teach yourself what is and what isnt isk sink/faucet.

Newb is expalining eve economy mechanics. Its the same thing as some dumb creationist explains some scientific methods to PhD Scientist.

There are many ways how to oppose hisec industrialists. You need to understant that pew pew is not the only way to destroy your oponent.

In fact, hisec industrialists have sinked maybe more isk than you will with your pew pew playstyle.


I'm not a pewpewer or a newb, and I bet you wouldn't slap in the face.

No one has all the answers, that's why we discuss things on open forums. Eve becomes better as more options for interaction are introduced into the sandbox.
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#102 - 2013-01-20 12:51:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Corey Fumimasa
*Discussion for actual implementation is now taking place on Features and Ideas. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=195821&find=unread
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#103 - 2013-01-20 15:50:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

That just sounds like a much more dynamic and interesting EVE to me.
I would hope that high sec industrialist would support stuff like that, and not just say no because it would ammount to an endorsement of PvP via meaningful high sec wardecs.


I think it will split the bears; most of the hardcore confictaphobic's wont like the idea. But I think there's a bunch of miners and builders who would love the chance to strike back in a way that doesn't involve dogfighting. Even if it means that Eve will be a more volatile place.

The idea of allowing "owned" systems to be more productive is a good one to. It will help the CCP economy directors to even out the losses caused by indy warfare options.

indec in opposition to wardec. Thats just a great new phrase to ad to Eve.

That's fine, that's why they have the NPC corps.

Don't want to be wardecced? Don't join a player run corp.
However, that should also mean something. You sholdn't not join a player run corp and still be able to do the vast majority of manufacturing from the NPC corps; it's a huge advantage that doesn't fall in line with the way that the rest of EVE works.

If you're in a player run corp, and you drop corp, something needs to be lost.

I personally do not think that everyone playing in high sec actually has a problem with wardecs. I honestly think that the people who absolutely refuse to accept EVE for what it is are the minority, and that most people would be willing to put up with wardecs if there was some reason to.

As it stands it is simply easier to drop your corp and form a new one, there's zero penalty for doing so. When you don't have 100 other players to worry about then the choice between staying in a war or dropping becomes really easy. There's no point in an actual surrender, or to even fight back; there's nothing to fight for.

I firmly believe that if you gave the high sec corporation something of value, they wouldn't just stick it out in the face of war, they would become aggressors themselves.


We're people, for the most part as a peoples we thrive on copetition. Most people don't actually have a problem with PvP, that's actually a myth mostly perpetrated by the anit-PvP crowd to make it look like "most people" are carebears who don't want to be shot at.

Most people don't like POINTLESS pvp. PvP for the sake of PvP is something that the majority of people really don't have any appreciation for, it's meaningless.

You put something of real meaning behind that PvP and I guarantee you that those same bears would set all of high sec on fire.


I hate to say it, but Blizzard taught everyone a very valuable lesson.
Bears LOVE pvp. They hate ganking, they hate meaningless PvP, but if you give them goals and something to tangibly achieve and they're just as happy to PvP as most everyone else.

Battlegrounds and Arenas are hugely popular on WoW PvE servers because it provides goals and gives them something to achieve. PvPers tend to dislike them because it pulls people out of the world.



There's simply nothing to fight for in high sec, and it is my belief that that is entirely the reason why high sec doesn't like wardecs. When you've got nothing to fight for, fighting becomes pointless, and therefor undesireable.

Bears, as a rule, do not dislike PvP, they dislike ganking.
Dave stark
#104 - 2013-01-20 15:55:00 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
That's fine, that's why they have the NPC corps.

Don't want to be wardecced? Don't join a player run corp.
However, that should also mean something. You sholdn't not join a player run corp and still be able to do the vast majority of manufacturing from the NPC corps; it's a huge advantage that doesn't fall in line with the way that the rest of EVE works.

If you're in a player run corp, and you drop corp, something needs to be lost.

I personally do not think that everyone playing in high sec actually has a problem with wardecs. I honestly think that the people who absolutely refuse to accept EVE for what it is are the minority, and that most people would be willing to put up with wardecs if there was some reason to.

As it stands it is simply easier to drop your corp and form a new one, there's zero penalty for doing so. When you don't have 100 other players to worry about then the choice between staying in a war or dropping becomes really easy. There's no point in an actual surrender, or to even fight back; there's nothing to fight for.

I firmly believe that if you gave the high sec corporation something of value, they wouldn't just stick it out in the face of war, they would become aggressors themselves.


We're people, for the most part as a peoples we thrive on copetition. Most people don't actually have a problem with PvP, that's actually a myth mostly perpetrated by the anit-PvP crowd to make it look like "most people" are carebears who don't want to be shot at.

Most people don't like POINTLESS pvp. PvP for the sake of PvP is something that the majority of people really don't have any appreciation for, it's meaningless.

You put something of real meaning behind that PvP and I guarantee you that those same bears would set all of high sec on fire.


I hate to say it, but Blizzard taught everyone a very valuable lesson.
Bears LOVE pvp. They hate ganking, they hate meaningless PvP, but if you give them goals and something to tangibly achieve and they're just as happy to PvP as most everyone else.

Battlegrounds and Arenas are hugely popular on WoW PvE servers because it provides goals and gives them something to achieve. PvPers tend to dislike them because it pulls people out of the world.



There's simply nothing to fight for in high sec, and it is my belief that that is entirely the reason why high sec doesn't like wardecs. When you've got nothing to fight for, fighting becomes pointless, and therefor undesireable.

Bears, as a rule, do not dislike PvP, they dislike ganking.


this, all of this. so much.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#105 - 2013-01-20 16:01:53 UTC
So it's the carebears now who get to define what is and isn't "pointless" ?
Who are you to tell me if my ganking has a meaning or not ? o_O

Who are you to talk about things you don't even have a clue of anyway ? O_o
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#106 - 2013-01-20 16:14:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Corey Fumimasa
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
You sholdn't not join a player run corp and still be able to do the vast majority of manufacturing from the NPC corps; it's a huge advantage that doesn't fall in line with the way that the rest of EVE works.



I think the majority (at least a large plurality) of players are pretty much solo gamers. The guys who log on, move some goods around, check their manufacturing and research que's, or mine or mission, BS with some friends and then log off. Those guys need more options for interaction with the game.

If players are forced to join a PC corp just to craft I'm not sure they are getting more options.

I agree with much of what you say; but this idea of linking success in Eve to successful social interaction doesn't sit well. Perhaps if the CEO's had no control over the people in their corp. So a solo industrialist may have to join a PC corp, and the longer they are with that same corp the efficient their que's get, but the CEO wouldn't have the ability to alter tax rate's without consent or apply roles or even to remove the player from the corp.

So that each player is more like a sub-contractor than an employee.
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#107 - 2013-01-20 16:19:41 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
So it's the carebears now who get to define what is and isn't "pointless" ?
Who are you to tell me if my ganking has a meaning or not ? o_O

Who are you to talk about things you don't even have a clue of anyway ? O_o

Who are you talking to Solstice? No one here is changing the game, we are just BSing about some interesting options. What was called pointless? I missed that. A few posters here are on my block list.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#108 - 2013-01-20 16:34:50 UTC
This thread has to be the most complete and comprehensive collection of misunderstandings about ISK and PLEX I have ever seen.
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#109 - 2013-01-20 16:37:46 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
You sholdn't not join a player run corp and still be able to do the vast majority of manufacturing from the NPC corps; it's a huge advantage that doesn't fall in line with the way that the rest of EVE works.




So that each player is more like a sub-contractor than an employee.

Yeah this ---^

I'm pretty sure that a lot of the reason people don't join corps is because CEO's have too much control. When I was in ABH academy they tried to tell players what they could and could not do. In that case they didn't want us to run can-flipper bait ops because they were afraid of getting dec'd.

Myself and the more aggressive players of course left. There should be either no restrictions to moving on when the situation calls for it, or no tools for the officers to push people.

This raises the question; must Eve be based on social interaction or does it stand solely on the merits of open play with consequences?
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#110 - 2013-01-20 16:40:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:
This thread has to be the most complete and comprehensive collection of misunderstandings about ISK and PLEX I have ever seen.


Care to point one out? One by a real poster, not the 3 amigo's who took over the 1rst 3 pages.
TheBlueMonkey
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2013-01-20 16:45:59 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Nicor Syke'Nexen wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
if i'm destroying isk i'm not plexing my accounts, and if ccp doesn't want my money, i know blizzard/activision do.


/confused

so, you're saying you'd pay for a game that sucks, just because that company wants your money more, and gives zero opportunity to 'play for free'?




no, i'm saying that if ccp would rather me delete my isk, than turn it in to cash for them, then that's fine. however if i can't keep all my accounts active then there's not really anything left for me here. i've not been on WoW for a while so that'll keep me entertained for a few weeks finishing some rep grinds.



Except its wow.

Good luck with that
Tarvos Telesto
Blood Fanatics
#112 - 2013-01-20 16:47:09 UTC
Another anty carebear therad, come on grap your guns go shoot somone, try understand this game is both for people who pve and pvp, if you cant adap to this maybe eve isynt for you.

EvE isn't game, its style of living.
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#113 - 2013-01-20 16:50:59 UTC
Tarvos Telesto wrote:
Another anty carebear therad, come on grap your guns go shoot somone, try understand this game is both for people who pve and pvp, if you cant adap to this maybe eve isynt for you.

What the hell does that have to do with having more options to attack someone? Adapt? I love it here.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#114 - 2013-01-20 17:01:01 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
Care to point one out?
That combat destroys ISK, as suggested by the OP, when in fact it does the exact opposite.
That mining and industry does not destroy ISK, as suggested by the OP, when it does.
That carebears have no options for destroying ISK, as suggested by the OP, when almost all the ISK destruction is tied to some kind of activity enjoyed by carebears.


…and let's not even start with the nonsense that there aren't any options for going after your enemies.
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#115 - 2013-01-20 17:09:55 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:

Care bears accumulate massive fortunes with their mining and industrial play. They have few options to directly destroy the ISK of their enemies with their playstyle.


You do know mining is an ---> ISK SINK

or are you under the misguiding impression that mining creates ISK. ??
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#116 - 2013-01-20 17:11:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
Care to point one out?
That combat destroys ISK, as suggested by the OP, when in fact it does the exact opposite.
That mining and industry does not destroy ISK, as suggested by the OP, when it does.
That carebears have no options for destroying ISK, as suggested by the OP, when almost all the ISK destruction is tied to some kind of activity enjoyed by carebears.


…and let's not even start with the nonsense that there aren't any options for going after your enemies.


Yeah I figured that was the disconnect.

If a ship gets blown up in Eve is it fair to say that it has been destroyed in game?

If I point a raygun at your wallet and 50% of the ISK in that wallet is no longer there what would you say that I did to the ISK? I understand that it may not have been removed from the game. But as far as you are concerned it has been destroyed.

Perhaps you have worked hard to understand sinks and faucets and its difficult to shift back to non-metagame references. But as someone with an understanding of such things you should also be able to distinguish by context which form of destruction we are talking about. Especially if you want to look smart and present yourself as someone with an honest interest in ideas and dialog rather than just an opinion with an avatar.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#117 - 2013-01-20 17:17:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
If a ship gets blown up in Eve is it fair to say that it has been destroyed in game?
Yes, but no ISK has been destroyed in the process — only created.

Quote:
Perhaps you have worked hard to understand sinks and faucets and its difficult to shift back to non-metagame references.
It has nothing to do with meta-game but with fundamental game mechanics and game design. If you want to talk about assets, talk about assets. If you want to talk about ISK, talk about ISK. Don't confuse the two because it only makes your claims incorrect and weakens any argument based on those false claims because they make you seem deeply uninformed.

…oh, and everyone has the same means and opportunities to mess with their opponents.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#118 - 2013-01-20 17:23:28 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
If I point a raygun at your wallet and 50% of the ISK in that wallet is no longer there what would you say that I did to the ISK? I understand that it may not have been removed from the game. But as far as you are concerned it has been destroyed.

The supposed isk loss already happened when you bought the ship - that isk was made unavailable to you and in return you got the ship. You feel that your ship being destroyed is an isk loss because you can no longer reclaim the isk that you lost when you bought the ship by reselling it. The isk isn't destroyed however, someone else (or by now probably several people) have it.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Nick Asir
Doomheim
#119 - 2013-01-20 17:34:55 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
If a ship gets blown up in Eve is it fair to say that it has been destroyed in game?
Yes, but no ISK has been destroyed in the process — only created.


He is talking about the isk the hostile corporation has, not the overall level of isk in the game. They spent isk on that ship, the ship was destroyed, ergo the corporations isk worth has gone down.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#120 - 2013-01-20 17:42:26 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
You sholdn't not join a player run corp and still be able to do the vast majority of manufacturing from the NPC corps; it's a huge advantage that doesn't fall in line with the way that the rest of EVE works.




So that each player is more like a sub-contractor than an employee.

Yeah this ---^

I'm pretty sure that a lot of the reason people don't join corps is because CEO's have too much control. When I was in ABH academy they tried to tell players what they could and could not do. In that case they didn't want us to run can-flipper bait ops because they were afraid of getting dec'd.

Myself and the more aggressive players of course left. There should be either no restrictions to moving on when the situation calls for it, or no tools for the officers to push people.

This raises the question; must Eve be based on social interaction or does it stand solely on the merits of open play with consequences?

Those corps should fail, not succeed because the only other option is stay in the NPC corp.

Null is the way it is exactly because of this.
The same guys that run their corps like their totalitarian rulers are the same ones who think they're RPing the Klingon empire in null. WAR! rawr! smash! Yeah, those guys usually fail in null.

Chilbros seems to be the corp structure that thrives most in a wholey player driven enviroment. TEST, HBC, and CFC exist because they're not uptight, douchebags, forcing people to do things they don't want to do. People seem pretty willing to put themselves threw some real drudgery for corporations with a laidback mentality.

People appear to be willing to endure some serious structure grind to spread the gospel and goodwill of two very similliar "onlline cultures".


It's not because it's null.
It's because in null there is meaningful ownership.

High sec should be the same.
Just focused around industrial warfare. Afterall, high sec is the industrial might of EVE, I'm perfectly fine with that. That might needs to be moved from NPC corps to player run corps though.

It shouldn't matter what area of EVE you play, the player run corp should have the single most control.
There should be a faction warfare system in high sec that is centered around industrial corporations and the wardec mechanics.