EVE General Discussion

No. Eve is about blowing up spaceships. Period. Anything else you do as a meta is an aspect, but not the core. Eve is NOT about mining. Mining by itself is worthless. No bounties, no income other than provided by player market. There is a player market because people NEED minerals to create those ships to further the ongoing cycle of blowing up spaceships. Same with BPOs, same with PI, same with POSs... allll for spaceships. Implants, modules, ammo, hulls.

What Eve does, is provides you many ways to do so while gaining a sense of accomplishment to do that. Be it mining the minerals to build/sell, the blueprints to build/sell, even the interstellar real estate to accomplish your own domain- to blow up other peoples' spaceships!

Combat with spaceships is the equivalent to working at a job. What you do to be a part of that career is up to you.

When 30 bats took on everyone in high sec in our caldari ice interdiction we gambled tens of billions that we could shut down ice production enough to cripple the market. We won and made billions in profit.

Also the war dec system is badly broken, so says CCP. You are not ment to avoid this system so easily.

Some one would have a good corpse collection though.

An awoxer joins your corp, and finds out you have a a corp set aside specifically set to handle freight logistics for your null/low/highsec corp.

Killing those freighters would not only help the aggressors, it would hurt the victims' corps. Ship loss, freight loss, and pipeline would be cluttered/unsafe.

Wardecs bypass the dependency of Concord to allow autopilot. Shuts down supply routes, halts production. Also can cause attrition (npc corp hopping, docking up, shutting down POS/PI/Manufacturing).

Indeed instead of low sec being instead death by camps it'll be the stations in highsec.. awesome

Screw everyone. Any game that tried changing to cater to everyone is gone.

Not scared to pew pew......
I just don't wanna pew pew with you......

Mayhaw Morgan:

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. It is just an impression I have, and possibly an unfair one, but you seem to me to be trying to argue, or argue for something. If so, fair enough. I do not share this intent in any way.

For me, the salient point about the playground is the difference between play and game. For you, what is the importance of it being a playground? What I assume is that the question suddenly puts it in the context of children. This is often the distinction made between play and games.

Let me see if I understand your point of view. Some inference will be involved as you are not always clear to me.

You believe:
- that I imagine life has 'paused' based on some category of voluntary participation in a category of activity, such as 'a game'.
- that EVE, as a category of activity, has extrinsic meaning/value. By extension you seem to believe that 'things' in EVE exist and share this quality.
- that in order for a game company to exist that extrinsic value must be present and that without it people would not play.
- that suffering arises in association with the loss of something valuable. (You also seem to have a lot of beliefs about me and my relationship to suffering and loss based on my having asked you to lay out your model of suffering.)
- that there is some distinction between activities possible 'online' and activities 'offline'.
- that I think EVE is 'just a game'.
- Based on that assertion about me, you seem to also think that I imagine there is no meaning associated with it.
- that there is (extrinsic) meaning associated with it, and that this is why people play. This seems to be attached to your notion of value, your notion of loss and by extension in your model connected to suffering.
- that meaning necessitates a context of win/lose.
- that I am prescribing how other people should feel in various stages of your own asserted win/lose context.
- I am self identified with one of these artificial distinctions people call 'carebear' or PvP.
- I am arguing for something about all that.
- You have some theories about your asserted win/lose model and theories about the -people you place in the artificial categories your are asserting.

More from earlier, but to my understanding this is where we are now. Would you add anything to that, or do feel I have missed something substantial or misrepresented you in some way? I may have got pieces wrong and I have some questions. If you feel my questions are based on some incorrect inference, please let me know.

You have mentioned extrinsic meaning/value. Of course this implies intrinsic meaning/value as well. Perhaps you could say how you understand the distinction? I would be interested to know if you think meaning/value are something pre-given, self occurring, or whether they are constructed? How does that to occur in reference to the distinction you have made between online and offline and with regard to EVE in particular. Please do not concern yourself with becoming overly philosophical on my account. If others are reading this and do not like it, I am sure they will let us know. If CCP feels it is somehow inappropriate I am quite sure they can communicate that in a variety of ways.

You chose not respond to part of my post. I would still like to ask about that part. What if I did experience myself as engaged in an argument with you (which isn't the case for me)? Imagine it were for a moment.

Are you winning the argument? Let's say you are. I now claim that you are 'causing' me suffering. Perhaps I am thoroughly self identified with some view I hold sacred and precious and you have crushed it, maybe additionally accusing me of having a god complex, being autistic, minimizing the suffering of others and generally confused about the basic aspects of reality, that you assert are simply self evident... As a hypothetical, you know. So, I am suffering, in this case. I am clear, let's say, that you are causing my suffering. It is even self evidently the case for me. I am losing, so I experience loss (in your model). I am also pretty upset with CCP for allowing you to do this to me. How would you counsel me in this case, based on the model you are putting forth?


This is hard. I don't think you have understood what I asking. I am asking about how you draw boundaries associated with identity. This criteria about the 'violation' of mental models you suggest is interesting. Do you see the dilemma this raises? In your argument about 'loss' in EVE, whose mental models are violated? In what you have just said, who do you feel should then take responsibility for that violation?

I can answer your question about 'footprint' in detail if you wish. Suffice to say that for me 'reality' is fundamentally and radically interconnected and I act on this assumption. From this you may notice that I am not saying what you seem to think I am saying.


I probably do not know how to play EVE. I will say that I am not playing to win/lose. As to what constitutes criteria for success, I do not view these as extrinsic, which seems to be a fundamental difference from what you are suggesting. Perhaps you could say something about your criteria for success and where you feel those come from?

No, players could replace concord and even do a better job at it but there still needs to be more tools and Intel for those players to do that.

So what you're saying is...basically nullsec.

The place that is too safe, yet too dangerous, too rich, but too poor, totally empty, but full of blobs?