These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why 500k?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#141 - 2013-05-08 17:58:44 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
it's not about playing the game, it's about trying to figure out why people (LIKE YOU) who don't like key elements of the game continue to play a game you fundamentally dislike (or that at least contains players you fundamentally dislike).


And yet how many PvPers say they find mining to be so boring it makes them want to rip their face off?

Do you equally question them why they play a game that they do not like key elements of and continue to play a game that has players (like the, that do not PvP) they fundamentally dislike?

I see FAR more hatred toward carebears than I do to PvPers. We carebears seem to realize the the PvPers create demand for our goods and services. It is the PvPers that seem to fail to grasp that it is largely the carebears that supply the tools for them to blow up and be blown up in.


Jenn aSide wrote:

But this is a game about space ships with guns, and i've never ever been surprised that, in a game with space ships and guns, people flying space ships have tried to shoot me with guns. yet you seem to, and then can't understand how it's YOU who are basically out of place, not me.



Show me ONE post that I said I've been surprised that there are people flying around trying to activate guns on my ships....

All I've ever said is that I do all within my power to limit the probability that will happen, and I'm pretty good at it these days.


I say, I'm a high sec carebear, you assume I want to remove high sec ganking from the game, despite me saying over and over, that I would never suggest that be done. I understand the reason it exists. I just make sure it isn't me that gets blown up.

Now, I DO argue that we NOT CHANGE the mechanics of high sec, CONCORD, NPC corps, etc, that I use to allow me to play, while minimizing the probability of my ship going boom.


Pretty much the only change I can recall arguing stongly for, is a change to the cloaky mechanics that prevents a sov holding fleet from de-cloaking and dealing with the invader. Mostly because, I wouldn't mind returning the null some day, but the cloaky camper cyno, black ops, hot drop mechanics are making it not worth it. There is no nerf to high sec, or buff to null, that will compensate for how easy it is for one cloaky toon to shut down an entire solar system.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#142 - 2013-05-08 18:00:00 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
Sorry I have been at work.
No need to apologize.

So are you ever going to address the facts and figures, or are you just going to keep trolling? Are you going to provide some reasoning why you prefer unfounded, unreasonable, and counter-factual guesses to actual data? Or are you just going to keep going after me because it's all you can still try (and fail just as much at)?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#143 - 2013-05-08 18:06:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

EvE can accomodate a wide variety of playstyles, including the builders and the destroyers. In fact, both are a necessary part of the balance, as the fun and challenge for either group would be fairly meaningless if the other group could not exist.

The builders should have a reaonsable chance of attaining their goals, the destroyers should have a reasonable chance of destroying what is built (or whomever is doing the building).

Both side need to keep that firmly in mind.



I, almost, completely agree.

I don't think it needs to be possible to destroy the creators, directly. My creators may be supplying ships to my destroyers, and your suppliers may be supplying ships to your destroyers.

That is, there are enough people that play EVE for PvP, that create enough boom, to more than supply the demand of all the producers.

If I have 1000 producers, and we each produce a carrier a week... and you have 1000 producers, each creating 1000 carriers a week... and each side has enough PvPers and fights to destroy a total of 2000 carriers a week, then we're good to go, even if it is hard to directly attack each other's industrial infrastructure.

I know what you are saying, but CCP tries to keep EvE a little more realistic than that where ever possible. One of the most effective ways to cripple an enemy is to cripple his infrastructure and logistics.

That is exactly how WWII was won.

Even in the corporate world today finding a way to undermine a competitor by distrupting his flow of product or supplies is common, and that applies even if you stick to doing things legally... which obviously many do not.

No, the ability to strike directly or indirectly at the producers and movers needs to be preserved... to be able to limit or destroy their ability or profitability to do what they want to do. Whether that be by destroying their mining or hauling vessels, or having a cloaked ship in the area to encourage them to either cease their activities or move to a different area, or even manipulating the market so that they cannot purchase necessary supplies and remain profitable.

This is, and should continue to be, a very effective tactic in EvE conflicts.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Rarize Urkan
EVE Corporation 98582134
#144 - 2013-05-08 18:08:41 UTC
All I know is I got 13 accounts and Ițm prty much small potatoe. I personally know others with similar setups with a dude peaking at 21. That is only people from my contacts.

I only wonder how many accounts the big industrialists boys have.

It would do no1 any good if CCP released real numbers - but from my personal anecdotal evidence I belive there are bellow 200k persons playing.

There is no evidence either way from this thread just a bunch of angry people s skewed oppinion,

My 2 cents
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#145 - 2013-05-08 18:10:45 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


If you don't like the things that make a game what it is (and it's obvious that you don't), why play it Tarawa?


And, again, we see you 100% focused on the non-consensual PvP aspect of EvE, as if that were the only, or primary difference between it and all other MMOs.

You continue to not get it.

Non-consensual PvP is a VERY MINOR aspect of EvE that sets it apart from other games. I think the MUCH larger difference are:
1) Single shard
2) Player driven market
3) Meaningful PvP via sov mechanics, actual loss, limited resources (like moons) that are worth fighting over, etc.


In short, you see the ability to suicide gank in high sec the primary thing that makes EVE, EVE (like not being able to use your hands being the primary thing that makes soccer different). I see suicide gank more like 4 substitutions vs. 3, or maybe, allowing a player to be subbed back in, once they have come out. It would be a change to the game, but would not fundamentally alter the key aspects that make the game what it is.

Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#146 - 2013-05-08 18:16:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
it's not about playing the game, it's about trying to figure out why people (LIKE YOU) who don't like key elements of the game continue to play a game you fundamentally dislike (or that at least contains players you fundamentally dislike).


And yet how many PvPers say they find mining to be so boring it makes them want to rip their face off?

Do you equally question them why they play a game that they do not like key elements of and continue to play a game that has players (like the, that do not PvP) they fundamentally dislike?

I see FAR more hatred toward carebears than I do to PvPers. We carebears seem to realize the the PvPers create demand for our goods and services. It is the PvPers that seem to fail to grasp that it is largely the carebears that supply the tools for them to blow up and be blown up in.


Don't you see what you did there? Rather than answer my question, you tried to deflect it (and badly).

It's not hard to see why PVPrs like a PVP game. It's not hard to understand why people like me (who prefer PVE but accept that non-consensaul PVP is a core element of the game) play the game.

Whats hard to understand why people who HATE fundamental, KEY elements of a game would want to play it. Still everoyn is different and to each his own, but it would be nice if you could understand and accept what EVE is rather than "wondering outloud" why the things that make EVE what it is exist.


Quote:

Show me ONE post that I said I've been surprised that there are people flying around trying to activate guns on my ships....

All I've ever said is that I do all within my power to limit the probability that will happen, and I'm pretty good at it these days.


I say, I'm a high sec carebear, you assume I want to remove high sec ganking from the game, despite me saying over and over, that I would never suggest that be done. I understand the reason it exists. I just make sure it isn't me that gets blown up.

Now, I DO argue that we NOT CHANGE the mechanics of high sec, CONCORD, NPC corps, etc, that I use to allow me to play, while minimizing the probability of my ship going boom.


Pretty much the only change I can recall arguing stongly for, is a change to the cloaky mechanics that prevents a sov holding fleet from de-cloaking and dealing with the invader. Mostly because, I wouldn't mind returning the null some day, but the cloaky camper cyno, black ops, hot drop mechanics are making it not worth it. There is no nerf to high sec, or buff to null, that will compensate for how easy it is for one cloaky toon to shut down an entire solar system.


And that demonstrates exactly what i'm talking about. I (and thousands of others) play in null every single day, in systems that CAN'T be secured and survive just fine.. If I had a dime for every time i had to safe up or dock, I'd buy CCP (and delete your account LOL j/k). I understand you don't care for it, but you actually ask for it to be CHANGED to make your in-game life easier.

That's the kind of thinking that rubs me the wrong way.
Unlike you, I've never EVER asked for a change to make the game easier for me. My dislike of NPC corps (for example) isn't personal, it's philosophical (ie this game is supposed to be about choices and consequences, not hiding behind npc game mechanics), but I know ccp will never change that because it would cost them money.

But you actually think CCP should change the game to make your life in null doable, despite the fact that many of us live there everyday and just deal with it. in-freaking-credible. At the end of the day what i don't like about your thinking it that incredible selfishness that leaks out of your posting.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#147 - 2013-05-08 18:16:49 UTC
Rarize Urkan wrote:
All I know is I got 13 accounts and Ițm prty much small potatoe. I personally know others with similar setups with a dude peaking at 21. That is only people from my contacts.

I only wonder how many accounts the big industrialists boys have.

It would do no1 any good if CCP released real numbers - but from my personal anecdotal evidence I belive there are bellow 200k persons playing.

There is no evidence either way from this thread just a bunch of angry people s skewed oppinion,

My 2 cents

Absolutely correct that we currently have no hard numbers as far as individual players to work with, although we can make some pretty educated guesses. And yes, the problem with ancedotal evidence is that while you know a lot of people with large numbers of alts I have an enormous number of contacts that only have 1 account... as that is all they need.

My personal feeling is that there are likely between 200k and 250k active individual users on Tranquility, primarily because the bulk of EvE's population are high sec pilots with little need for a second account (obviously many exceptions exist, I acknowledge that). But that is just my perspective, based on the people across all security levels of EvE I interact with yes, but still only my limited veiw none the less.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#148 - 2013-05-08 18:23:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


If you don't like the things that make a game what it is (and it's obvious that you don't), why play it Tarawa?


And, again, we see you 100% focused on the non-consensual PvP aspect of EvE, as if that were the only, or primary difference between it and all other MMOs.

You continue to not get it.


When have i said only. i said KEY.
[/quote]
Non-consensual PvP is a VERY MINOR aspect of EvE that sets it apart from other games. I think the MUCH larger difference are:
1) Single shard
2) Player driven market
3) Meaningful PvP via sov mechanics, actual loss, limited resources (like moons) that are worth fighting over, etc.[/quote]


In short, you see the ability to suicide gank in high sec the primary thing that makes EVE, EVE (like not being able to use your hands being the primary thing that makes soccer different). I see suicide gank more like 4 substitutions vs. 3, or maybe, allowing a player to be subbed back in, once they have come out. It would be a change to the game, but would not fundamentally alter the key aspects that make the game what it is.

[/quote]

It's fascinating to watch someone willfully, intentionally misunderstand what's being said simply to make an argument fit their preconceived notions. And by fascinating I mean dumb lol.

Being able to suicide gank in high sec is an example of non-consensual pvp. If you take that away, one of the KEY elements of EVE (non-consensual pvp ie danger everywhere) is gone.

The only way that doesn't make EVE not be EVE is to eliminate NPC corps, so that then everyone in the game is exposed to war-decs (and thus non-consensual pvp, a KEY element of EVE online).

So are you willing to trade NPC corps for an end to suicide ganking (i call this the "obvious rhetorical question gambit" LOL)?

I thought not. The only difference between you and the folks in that thread that Malc link is that you are masochistic enough to play an MMO neither you nor they like lol.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#149 - 2013-05-08 18:24:05 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

I know what you are saying, but CCP tries to keep EvE a little more realistic than that where ever possible. One of the most effective ways to cripple an enemy is to cripple his infrastructure and logistics.

That is exactly how WWII was won.

Even in the corporate world today finding a way to undermine a competitor by distrupting his flow of product or supplies is common, and that applies even if you stick to doing things legally... which obviously many do not.

No, the ability to strike directly or indirectly at the producers and movers needs to be preserved... to be able to limit or destroy their ability or profitability to do what they want to do. Whether that be by destroying their mining or hauling vessels, or having a cloaked ship in the area to encourage them to either cease their activities or move to a different area, or even manipulating the market so that they cannot purchase necessary supplies and remain profitable.

This is, and should continue to be, a very effective tactic in EvE conflicts.


I do not disagree.

My assertion that the ability to attack producers was not a requirement to a healthy EVE market. Do not HAVE to be able to attack producers to keep the economy strong is a long way from SHOULD NOT be able to. I agree with you that attacking the infrastructure is a legitimate and effective tactic, the modern version of which was perfected by U. S. Grant in the US Civil War's March to the Sea, where rather than attacking the Confederate forces directly, he bypassed the troops and attacked the production, economic and transportation infrastructure.



That said, Germany did a heck-a good job decimating the USA's daylight bomber fleets in WWII.

I think the current cloaky mechanics allow too big of an attack, while not permitting an effective defense. It is too easy for a cloaky to slip in, even if you have a gate bubbled. Once in, there is no way to find them, unless they choose to attack. And, they have all the power of deciding when and where to attack.

Attacking the infrastructure is a legitimate war tactic, it is just that the current cloaky mechanics is the equivalent to adding nuke bomb to a gmae of rock-paper-scissors. It always wins, is impossible to prevent, and has no effective counter.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#150 - 2013-05-08 18:25:48 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Rarize Urkan wrote:
All I know is I got 13 accounts and Ițm prty much small potatoe. I personally know others with similar setups with a dude peaking at 21. That is only people from my contacts.

I only wonder how many accounts the big industrialists boys have.

It would do no1 any good if CCP released real numbers - but from my personal anecdotal evidence I belive there are bellow 200k persons playing.

There is no evidence either way from this thread just a bunch of angry people s skewed oppinion,

My 2 cents

Absolutely correct that we currently have no hard numbers as far as individual players to work with, although we can make some pretty educated guesses. And yes, the problem with ancedotal evidence is that while you know a lot of people with large numbers of alts I have an enormous number of contacts that only have 1 account... as that is all they need.

My personal feeling is that there are likely between 200k and 250k active individual users on Tranquility, primarily because the bulk of EvE's population are high sec pilots with little need for a second account (obviously many exceptions exist, I acknowledge that). But that is just my perspective, based on the people across all security levels of EvE I interact with yes, but still only my limited veiw none the less.


I'd bet you're right. I'd lay odds on 175k to 250k,m but only because that makes me FEEL good Twisted .
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#151 - 2013-05-08 18:34:58 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

I know what you are saying, but CCP tries to keep EvE a little more realistic than that where ever possible. One of the most effective ways to cripple an enemy is to cripple his infrastructure and logistics.

That is exactly how WWII was won.

Even in the corporate world today finding a way to undermine a competitor by distrupting his flow of product or supplies is common, and that applies even if you stick to doing things legally... which obviously many do not.

No, the ability to strike directly or indirectly at the producers and movers needs to be preserved... to be able to limit or destroy their ability or profitability to do what they want to do. Whether that be by destroying their mining or hauling vessels, or having a cloaked ship in the area to encourage them to either cease their activities or move to a different area, or even manipulating the market so that they cannot purchase necessary supplies and remain profitable.

This is, and should continue to be, a very effective tactic in EvE conflicts.


I do not disagree.

My assertion that the ability to attack producers was not a requirement to a healthy EVE market. Do not HAVE to be able to attack producers to keep the economy strong is a long way from SHOULD NOT be able to. I agree with you that attacking the infrastructure is a legitimate and effective tactic, the modern version of which was perfected by U. S. Grant in the US Civil War's March to the Sea, where rather than attacking the Confederate forces directly, he bypassed the troops and attacked the production, economic and transportation infrastructure.



That said, Germany did a heck-a good job decimating the USA's daylight bomber fleets in WWII.

I think the current cloaky mechanics allow too big of an attack, while not permitting an effective defense. It is too easy for a cloaky to slip in, even if you have a gate bubbled. Once in, there is no way to find them, unless they choose to attack. And, they have all the power of deciding when and where to attack.

Attacking the infrastructure is a legitimate war tactic, it is just that the current cloaky mechanics is the equivalent to adding nuke bomb to a gmae of rock-paper-scissors. It always wins, is impossible to prevent, and has no effective counter.

Well stated, and your point of view is not without merit, but I think the tactic should still remain effective. I think the main problem is the range and ease of using that cloaker to enable a hot drop... not the threat the cloaker poses in and of himself. The "jump portal" mechanic is what needs to be re-examined instead of the cloaking mechanic.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#152 - 2013-05-08 18:41:44 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

It's fascinating to watch someone willfully, intentionally misunderstand what's being said simply to make an argument fit their preconceived notions. And by fascinating I mean dumb lol.

Being able to suicide gank in high sec is an example of non-consensual pvp. If you take that away, one of the KEY elements of EVE (non-consensual pvp ie danger everywhere) is gone.


Slippery Slope logical fallacy.


Jenn aSide wrote:

The only way that doesn't make EVE not be EVE is to eliminate NPC corps, so that then everyone in the game is exposed to war-decs (and thus non-consensual pvp, a KEY element of EVE online).

So are you willing to trade NPC corps for an end to suicide ganking (i call this the "obvious rhetorical question gambit" LOL)?



Absolutely not. I've never suggested suicide ganking should be removed. I've simply asked "what if"?

If the ability to use NPC corps to avoid war decs is removed from game, I WILL QUIT playing. Why? Because I pay for my subs via PLEX. If there is not a mechanism for me to avoid war decs and go about my business, I'll be unable to earn the ISK I need, forcing me to stop playing.

Remove NPC corps, I'm out, end of discussion.

AND, you continue to say that non-consensual PvP is a KEY element of EVE. I continue to disagree. It is AN aspect, but a fairly minor one. Removing non-consensual PvP from high sec would not suddenly make EVE no longer be EVE. We would continue to have what I consider to be the KEY aspects that make EVE what it is... 1) Single Shard. 2) Player driven market. 3) Meaningful PvP


Jenn aSide wrote:

I thought not. The only difference between you and the folks in that thread that Malc link is that you are masochistic enough to play an MMO neither you nor they like lol.


I like EVE. I like the aspects that I consider to be the key aspects.

We simply disagree as to the importance of non-consensual PvP, in areas of space, as a KEY defining feature of the game.

I think that the ability to attack anyone, anywhere, is a minor aspect to the game, which could be (I am not saying SHOULD, just could) be changed, without fundamentally altering that which sets this game apart from other games. You consider the ability to suicide gank to be THE KEY aspect of the game, that if altered, would fundamentally alter what EVE is.


It is a simply disagreement, and no reason to get all upset, and start throwing out emotive words such as "dumb".
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#153 - 2013-05-08 18:51:26 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Well stated, and your point of view is not without merit, but I think the tactic should still remain effective. I think the main problem is the range and ease of using that cloaker to enable a hot drop... not the threat the cloaker poses in and of himself. The "jump portal" mechanic is what needs to be re-examined instead of the cloaking mechanic.


I disagree. I think the cyno, hot drop is fine.

I think it should be a lot of work to find and decloak a cloaky camper, and if he's active and working hard at staying cloaked, then maybe not even possible.... Like if he's constantly creating new safe spots and bouncing between these newly created safe spots.

I just want the cloaky camping to be as much more work to do, and for there to be some counter, if someone isn't working real hard at it and doing everything just right.
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#154 - 2013-05-08 19:12:35 UTC  |  Edited by: E-2C Hawkeye
I will be happy to waste my time and dig thru tons of locked topics you and your troll team created, only to have you dismiss or ignore it......wait...... No .... please ask someone else to enable your need fo attention.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#155 - 2013-05-08 19:13:45 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:


Slippery Slope logical fallacy.


Then you need a critical thinking course. A slippery slope is an action that could lead to other (unintended) bad conseqeunces down the road. Removing non-consensual pvp isn't a slope, its the cliff from which EVE ceases to be EVE. pointhing that out isn't a Fallacy.

Which means you committed the Fallacy Fallacy.....


Quote:

Absolutely not. I've never suggested suicide ganking should be removed. I've simply asked "what if"?


i've never suggesting you take a long leap off a short plank, but if i ask "what if Tarawa took a long leap off a short plank", you could probably discern my intent.....

Quote:

If the ability to use NPC corps to avoid war decs is removed from game, I WILL QUIT playing. Why? Because I pay for my subs via PLEX. If there is not a mechanism for me to avoid war decs and go about my business, I'll be unable to earn the ISK I need, forcing me to stop playing.

Remove NPC corps, I'm out, end of discussion.


And that's whats wrong with you. Rather than fight back or learn to survive, you can't play a video game unless it holds your hand. You pretty much said as such with that cloaky discussion above (ie thousands of people live everyday in space LHA Tarawa can't handle).

The fact that you game playing skill level isn't enough to allow you to compete and survive in a harsh game like EVE without hand-holding doesn't point to a problem with the game (or of key elements of the game like war dec and non-consensual pvp), it points to a problem with you.

It's exactly what I don't like about NPC corps (although I sure ccp like the subs). It's just hiding behind CCPs skirts, skrits filled with hairy, manly Icelandic legs. They (NPC corps) may be a necessary evil as many gamers are to panty-waistish to learn how to survive in a video game and thus won't sub if they don't have protection, but that don't mean i have to like it lol.

And thats the difference between me and you, I can live with that which i don;t llike (NPC corps and the like), but the things yo don't like would beat you out of a video game you claim to like. Incredible.

Quote:

AND, you continue to say that non-consensual PvP is a KEY element of EVE. I continue to disagree. It is AN aspect, but a fairly minor one. Removing non-consensual PvP from high sec would not suddenly make EVE no longer be EVE. We would continue to have what I consider to be the KEY aspects that make EVE what it is... 1) Single Shard. 2) Player driven market. 3) Meaningful PvP


Jenn aSide wrote:

I thought not. The only difference between you and the folks in that thread that Malc link is that you are masochistic enough to play an MMO neither you nor they like lol.


I like EVE. I like the aspects that I consider to be the key aspects.

We simply disagree as to the importance of non-consensual PvP, in areas of space, as a KEY defining feature of the game.

I think that the ability to attack anyone, anywhere, is a minor aspect to the game, which could be (I am not saying SHOULD, just could) be changed, without fundamentally altering that which sets this game apart from other games. You consider the ability to suicide gank to be THE KEY aspect of the game, that if altered, would fundamentally alter what EVE is.


It is a simply disagreement, and no reason to get all upset, and start throwing out emotive words such as "dumb".




it's not a simple disagreement, it's you ignoring facts (EVe has been a non-consensual pvp game since the day some psychoitic Icelandic UO playing loving freaks dreamt it up) because those facts disagree with you. It's Intellectual dishonesty in it's grossest form. it's probably a defense mechanism for you (it is for many people, simply pretending that what you dislike doesn't exist is an ancient mental tactic....for neanderthals lol), but it's terrible to see in action.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#156 - 2013-05-08 19:14:16 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
See here for some excellent (or appalling, if you prefer) examples.

That thread is horrifying, and it didn't help that the background keeps advertising for a half themepark, half cartoon **** MMO.


A few worthwhile ideas came out of it.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#157 - 2013-05-08 20:07:17 UTC  |  Edited by: LHA Tarawa
Jenn aSide wrote:

Don't you see what you did there? Rather than answer my question, you tried to deflect it (and badly).

It's not hard to see why PVPrs like a PVP game. It's not hard to understand why people like me (who prefer PVE but accept that non-consensaul PVP is a core element of the game) play the game.


Again, we see you focusing on the PvP aspect of EVE, which is only ONE aspect of a multi-facited game.

EVE is not ONLY a PvP game. EvE is as much about working together, to harvest resources, to build things, as it is a game about PvP.

My point is that to enjoy one aspect, you need not enjoy all aspects.


Using the word "core" instead of "key" does not win you an argument as to whether removing non-consensual PvP from high sec, while keeping it in other areas of space like low sec and null sec, would make EVE no longer be EVE.



Your entire argument is that non-consensual PvP is the KEY defining factor that makes EVE, EVE, and removing it from any area of EVE, like high sec, would mean EVE is no longer EVE.

I flat out reject this assertion... However, rather that trying to prove the assertion, you continue to make arguments based on this argument that I have already rejected.



I believe that EVE has MANY key factors setting it apart from other games, and that suicide ganking in high sec is a fairly minor one of these many differences. I believe that suicide ganking could (not should) be removed, without significantly altering what EVE is.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#158 - 2013-05-08 20:28:45 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:


Slippery Slope logical fallacy.


Then you need a critical thinking course. A slippery slope is an action that could lead to other (unintended) bad conseqeunces down the road. Removing non-consensual pvp isn't a slope, its the cliff from which EVE ceases to be EVE. pointhing that out isn't a Fallacy.

Which means you committed the Fallacy Fallacy.....


Apologies. I misread your post.

I thought you were saying that removing suicide ganking from high sec could lead to its removal everywhere. On re-reading, I see you were simply stating, one more time, your assertion that I have already rejected... that being that "danger everywhere" is a key aspect of EVE.

Rather than a key aspect, I see this as a minor aspect. And, in fact, one that is pretty easy to avoid by simply using a well tanked, cheaply fit, ship and not transporting expensive cargo without being VERY smart about it.







Quote:

Absolutely not. I've never suggested suicide ganking should be removed. I've simply asked "what if"?


i've never suggesting you take a long leap off a short plank, but if i ask "what if Tarawa took a long leap off a short plank", you could probably discern my intent.....
[/quote]

Look at your comment. "Suggest". I've never suggested suicide ganking be removed.

To be equivalent to my comments on suicide ganking, your question should have been "What would happen if LHA1 were to leap off a plank?" The obvious answer would be that it depends on how high and what is below. I in fact, frequently leap off a short plank. That is, the plank that I call a diving board that is attached to the decking around my swimming pool in my back yard.



The argument as to whether CCP "could" remove suicide ganking, I think we have pretty accurately boiled down to the real root question. Is the ability to suicide gank, a KEY aspect of EVE, which would fundamentally undo that which makes EVE unique, successful, and in my opinion, better than other MMOs.

I think no. You think yes.

Dance around it all you want. That is the fulcrum around which this argument pivots.


To me, EVE has many key differences from other MMOs, with suicide ganking being a very minor one.

To you, all your arguments are based on the assertion that suicide ganking is a KEY, core, the fundamentally defining apsect of the game that makes it unique and better.


If I were to be arguing "Should" I would be focusing on the number of people whom suicide ganking attracts to the game, vs. how many it drives away from the game.

In which case, I'd argue both numbers are inconsequentially low. I think, despite all the nosie, suicide ganking is a fairly rare occurrence. I base this on the limited number of times it has happened to me and the people I play with, combined with the circumstances of the gank that caused it.

Since I believe suicide ganking is fairly rare, I do not see it as attracting many player nor driving many away, and therefor have no opinion in it being removed or not. Quite frankly, I see many other aspects of the game as being more worthy of my time and interest than whether or not suicide ganking "should" be removed from the game.

As an example, I find the conversation as to whether it "could" be removed more interesting, because rather than focusing on how many players it effects on the giving and receiving side as the "should" argument does, the "could" argument cuts to the core of what really are the key defining aspects of EVE.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#159 - 2013-05-08 20:33:09 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:


I believe that EVE has MANY key factors setting it apart from other games, and that suicide ganking in high sec is a fairly minor one of these many differences. I believe that suicide ganking could (not should) be removed, without significantly altering what EVE is.




So why do you post in every single gank thread about how bad ganking is and that we should be hammered into the ground so hard CCP mightas well remove the ability to pirate in high sec space?
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#160 - 2013-05-08 21:14:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:


I believe that EVE has MANY key factors setting it apart from other games, and that suicide ganking in high sec is a fairly minor one of these many differences. I believe that suicide ganking could (not should) be removed, without significantly altering what EVE is.




So why do you post in every single gank thread about how bad ganking is and that we should be hammered into the ground so hard CCP mightas well remove the ability to pirate in high sec space?


Not sure I do.

I'm far more concerned with other things that effect high sec carebears like me. Specifically, local NPC corps, CONCORD, sec standings, and mechanics like those that allow me to escape war decs and keep suicide ganking to a minimum.


In short, i like the high sec mechanics exactly as they are.

And, the reason I care about high sec mechanics is because of the cloaky camper mechanics that have repeatedly pushed me out of null back into high sec.