Jita Park Speakers Corner

I nearly 7 years, I've never had a bad result, although I've been in good corps that joined terrible alliances a couple of times.

You can see my employment history for yourself; there's at least a dozen different corps there.

So

Malc: 12 corps, 0 bad results (I'll willingly admit that some were better than others, but they were all great guys even if some were less well run than others)

Inda: 3 corps, 3 bad results


What do you think someone looking at those numbers, with no prior knowledge of either of us, might conclude from those stats?

Player B. Who the hell sticks with a bad corp for any amount of time?

Dunno, why ARE you here? You seem to be going out of your way to say that you don't like multiplayer gameplay, and yet you're subscribed to a MMO. If there was ever a case where "maybe this game isn't for you" applies, this is it.

That's the key question. I could not have expressed the problem more clearly if I tried. Why should the result be different

If you want to get a better result, you will need to either change the conditions or change your approach to the problem.

You have decided that it would be more effective to try and change the whole game than change your approach to it. I admire the scope of your ambition and the strength of your determination more than I do your chances of success.

I freely admit that I did the exact opposite, and adapted what I did and how I approached the challenges to the nature of the groups I was within. When I was in the pirate corp Alcoholics Anonymous, I did various (terrible nasty) things that would have been unnacceptable in the Ruffryders, but I had fun in both corps and liked the people in them. When I was in High4Life, I operated with a mindset that wouldn't have gone down at all well when I was in FLA but which worked a treat in H4L.

Essentially, with each change in corp, I was ready to rewrite my definition of success to match the overall theme of the group. Consequently, I worked well with them, contributed to the group's success and generally enjoyed myself. When I stopped enjoying myself, I usually left for hi-sec for a few weeks until mission running bored me to the point where I wanted to try another corp, and off I went.

So no, I don't think you're mentally ill. I think you've talked yourself into a corner, and you find yourself feeling that being consistent and "right" is more important than having fun and making friends. That can be admirable and right in real life - I wouldn't want my lawyer or doctor to such a moral week reed - but EVE isn't real life, it's a stylised simulation we engage in together for our entertainment. It's not always fun, in the sense that a rollercoaster is "fun", but if you're playing EVE in a way that leaves you uninterested and uninvolved, then you're literally doing it wrong.

And it's not even that you don't want to socialise: you specifically say that you want to be able to talk to people in game. You've had a couple of bad experiences and decided that you don't want to risk "failing" again. So you've backed yourself into a rhetorical corner where you can never succeed, because not failing is more important than succeeding.

Tell me: what do you need from a corp for you to consider your membership of it as a "success"?

I built my perfect fit from the ground up and I still had to do a lot of adapting and growing. And deal with tons of jerks ;)

"So, how do I avoid food poisoning? Never eating again is a fine solution"

Well, it's not as if anything I could do ingame was any better than some ancient cursing, is it?

It is as effective to curse his children than to use EVE's mechanics to make him stop his behavior or regret it. Well, actually cursing his children may be slightly more effective... no weasel would expect that kind of backlash.

By the way, it's not space pixels. It's trust. And surely he deserves to suffer a little for abusing it so he avoids it in the future.

CCP thinks differently and so they provide ingame impunity, but by doing so, they're just calling for someone, someday, put EVE in the news with some RL not-impunity. Yet that would be another question.

You seem like a well-adjusted guy.




Why do you think solo mining is any good to begin with? Boosters are a -huge- part of mining. If you want to solo then go run L4s.

I guess I can respect the will to power that demands an entire game change to suit ones idiosyncrasies, but the requisite effort could be put to smaller challenges with much greater rewards.

Sitting here year after year swimming against the tide of change is just, frankly, stupid.

If nothing you could do in-game is more effective than that then nothing he could do in game is, either.



But the whole point of putting it in the context of a game is that people can play at untrustworthiness and throw themselves into combat with other players because it's all just a game. Screwing someone over in RL because they punked you in EVE is like screwing them over in RL because they punked you in Munchkin. Getting punked is an outcome that's an expected part of the game. If you don't like that, don't play the game.

And that leads to the irony of your position, which is that anyone who visits real-world consequences on another player for something that happened in game is committing a far more serious breach of trust; namely, the trust that other players recognize that it's just a game, and this is part of the game play, and any responses will remain in game. This trust has been violated before, and it has made the news before, but the takeaway isn't "wow, look what that horrible game did to that poor guy," it's, "wow, that guy has serious issues."

Now, there are boundary cases like Diplomacy, but that game requires you to knife everyone else in the back in order to win, and so you'd better know that you have thick skinned friends if you don't want to leave the table with a smaller social circle. EVE doesn't, at all. That's just one option.