EVE General Discussion

A good idea .... but the problem with this will be that those high sp miners will be out in hulks with orca support eating belts and the true new player will have no way to earn the initial income.


I think what should happen is a "gentle forced" training curve that will get each player into a frig with weapon/tanking/fitting skills at the right levels before the ability to get into a barge can be unlocked.

Corey Fumimasa:

I wanted to give M. Morgan some time to respond before responding to your post. He has never asked how these things are for me, but I will endeavor to say something about that. My own sense is that we have arrived at this question of intrinsic and extrinsic by way of asking about other things. The OP (who seems to be long gone) was asserting fixed categories of identity and making an argument based on those, as if they were true. This lead to a conversation about 'griefing' and 'victimization'. My interest was in the models of 'suffering' associated with that and put forth as 'self evident'. My own understanding is that we are now in a conversation deconstructing the nature of suffering. This can be understood in EVE as 'tears'. The nature of EVE creates an environment where this is a recurring theme, or pattern, if you will. EVE is complex, but it is also constrained and so some things like this can be seen more clearly here than they might be elsewhere.

Structures and rules are distinct for me. What are the structures leading to this pattern of 'tears'? Equally, given that EVE is very light on rules, where do all the asserted rules about all this then come from? This eventually leads to a conversation about intrinsic and extrinsic. Underneath all of this is a conversation about the nature of identity and identification. Intrinsic and extrinsic can be meaningfully simplified into 'want' and 'need'. What is implied, is something about the relationship that the origin of meaning or value has to the model of identity. EVE causes this question to surface repeatedly, both individually and collectively. People often arrive at an answer that is functional for them in the context of the game, and then seem to believe that this answer is therefore the answer and seek to apply it universally.

I will say, for myself, nothing about EVE is extrinsic in any way. That is, there is nothing necessary about it. In fact, from my point it is an incredible luxury. The specific process by which EVE functions as a game is for players to take wants and treat them as needs. The great thing about the game is that it really facilitates this process, as you have pointed out. It seems to be the case that some players are somehow not aware that they have volitionally entered into an active process of taking things that are something they want and relating to them as if they were something they need. Amazingly, they seem to have forgotten that they are playing a game. In this case, many of M. Morgan's arguments are true.

Intrinsic can also mean something that has value in and of itself, such as an aesthetic, for instance. I feel that I have noticed many 'aesthetic' play styles in EVE. I believe that EVE is uniquely suited to this. This is related to your post asking the question about 'art or product'. One of the areas of 'conflict' in EVE is when an 'aesthetic' play style, by nature intrinsic, comes into contact with what we might call a 'transactional' play style, which is typically extrinsic by nature.

What people call 'griefing' can then be understood as a play style in which people who are consciously engaged in the emulation of extrinsic value are interacting with people who are unconsciously taking the extrinsic value as given and often fixed. This often also seems to be associated with an assertion of fixed identity, usually also asserted to be self evident in nature. This gives rise to the experience of 'victimization' in the context of EVE. All of this specifically arises from an active attachment to something that is a 'want' being treated as something that is 'necessary', while actively pretending that all of this is passively occurring. There is really very little that prevents or constrains agency in the context of EVE. Lack of agency is therefore produced. There are some exceptions and degrees to all of this, but generally speaking this is the case, it seems to me.

Does this mean the suffering is not real? It is produced, in the context of EVE, by a very active process in which the player has engaged. This includes degrees of suspension of disbelief. When all that is done, the suffering is very real. The player has produced a structural coupling even, as you have pointed out, including there own biophysical reality. Equally, the nervousness, 'rush', jubilation are real in this way. What seems to be consistently deleted is that the player has really actively engaged in a great deal of process in order to experience and perpetuate this sense of reality transported into their own self system and experienced as sweaty palms, racing heart, tears, rage, etc. This is equally true of the strategies to avoid all these things. Without clarity about an engagement in all this, it can seem as if some assertion is being made that the suffering is not real. It is real. It is just unnecessary in the context of EVE, produced as it is by a series of volitional acts from the player. When the player forgets their engagement in these volitional acts the conditions for experiencing 'victimization' are present. Remembering one's own choices is an emancipatory act.

Laying all this out, one way or another, can be particularly un-fun since it can shatter the illusion required for the 'reality' of the game to function. It can sound as if one is saying 'it's just a game'. There is no 'just' involved. It is equally true, however, that remembering one's generation of, and ongoing participation in that illusion is an emancipatory act. That is, in the condition of the actual suffering, really seeing something about this alleviates the suffering itself and even removes the conditions for suffering altogether. One's entire game can shift in such a moment... or not. One of the things that is interesting to see, for me, is that this can have a cyclic nature... A kind of cyclic remembering and forgetting.

Out of curiosity, apart from questions and answers to get an idea, there is no reason to expand on such a level unless it will contribute to this thread as opposed to hijacking it, so why do it?

When you get into the philosophical aspects of WHY someone would do something (without asking them) you are only going to be assuming at that point, which would have 0 value to this thread, intrinsic, extrinsic, or otherwise.

Perhaps your conversation would be better suited to an evemail or ingame conversation?

This game is about pvp, through and through. Except for mission agents, and limited few npc buy orders, everything is interacted with another player.

The problem is that it seems the OP equates "pvp" with "combat", whereas combat is NOT forced or needed.. it is in fact what the game is BASED on. PVP, however, is required at some point, regardless of how much involvement you contribute in-game.

"We"?

I so far, have stayed on point to any and all replies he has made, and have replied to other contributors of this thread who have also stayed on point.

The Reason for this point to be originally from your's truly, is that we have quite a few threads such as this, and whereas people say "not this again", it is because those previous threads get locked from lack of staying on topic, or stops being "constructive".

So instead of having this thread be another "one of those", I am hopelessly trying to keep on point.

You can still have such a conversation with any of the posters here, while also engaging in OTHER conversations mentioned previuously by myself, without degenerating the topic of this thread through that same "hijack".

In short, you do not need to change subjects in order to share a conversation with someone other than the Original Poster, while also still contributing to the thread and maybe even gaining more people of which to share future conversations with.

Point in fact, I mentioned the fact that "pvp" means player versus player" and does not equal combat, but does include it. Where you did say "One is to really try and understand the nature of some model being asserted as if simply universally true, such as 'the entire game is PvP'." is based on INTERACTION, whether it be a barter of goods (contract, market), competition over an asteroid, or yes, even combat.

While combat is the whole point of Eve, it is still possible to do extracurricular activities, and any/all of those activities would be considered pvp unless you were to simply mine the rocks, and only build from blueprints you found off wrecks and never buying anything from a player or marketed transaction.

It would be possible, but that attempt of NOT engaging in pvp would be far more difficult than simply saying you "avoid combat".

This is how it was before. What resulted is that people set up gate camps around Jita and other trade hubs with remote reps. I doubt that is what you really want to happen.

Personally, I'm happy with the way high sec is right now. I believe Null sec needs a bit of a buff with either some more nerfs to high sec manufacturing or buffs to null sec manufacturing.

Forums and online bulletin boards are a wonderful ecosystem all on there own. Each one has a different flow and pace and temperament, much like different places on the Earth. One of the earliest ones I was involved in was a professional forum where the flame wars got so bad the host shut the whole forum down for fear of liability!

This thread is about carebears who will not engage in "flying in space PvP" no matter what.
And PvPers saying "Well what if X?"
The bear responds "No way, because x- x(47) is far less than Z"
Towhich the PvPer responds "Well what if Y!!!? Ha what will you do if Y? tell me that"
the bear responds "No way etc ad nauseum."

Generally speaking most people here are not looking for an answer; the bears deny they will engage in pvp partly as a defense mechanism. As long as the potential doesn't exist then people have no reason to attack them.

And so these threads never get to the real reasons why. And any line of thinking that actually approaches that truth will be interfered, misdirected, rerouted etc. by bears who's primary defense mechanism is to deny that they will ever engage in PvP. And by "PvPers" who are actually not interested in the bears really fighting back anyway.

They usually end with the PvPers proposing various "solutions" to the highsec problem and calling it good.

Personally i dont think high sec, is broken, Eve do advertice miner, industrialist as viable careers, and by such i dont mean any of mentioned using combat ships, ewen if that is a option also, as long as Eve have those careers its a viable path, and high sec, needs to be high security, your safer, just not imune

So instead of looking towards trying to fix high sec, i personally think low and null should be looked to, do the lone wolfs go to high sec couse they cant find >enough< solo combat in low or null ?, is the gains there to small ?, why is those areas deserted, or its hard to find the combats your looking for ?

I see it alittle like alot of types, and all types need their "room" ,you go into highsecurity it have its set rules, wich cater for a certain type of players, you go to low and null, there will be other rules wich other are more interested in, and you cant really stray from that, or you take away the very foundation alot of players yoined Eve for

And as a final note, dosent matter how much you try to change or "force" certain people, they wont do it, its not about being wrong, yes they are wrong in YOUR eyes, but not in theirs, you are as much wrong in their eyes, as you are right in yours. so high sec works it caters a certain playstyle, the question is how do we make PvP better for those that enjoy that, without destroying the base other people enjoy. thats really the quastion that should be asked !

Couse the complexity of this is that if you took away the carebears, Eve would loose about 30%, if not more of its player base, and that would hurt Eve as a company wich would hurt us all ;P actions and consequence

I don't get the underlined part.

Why do you think you are an easy target for PvPers? I have 3 miners yet i have over 1,000 kills and around 40 losses with a 98% isk efficiency . Why is it PvE players think they are sitting ducks when all they have to do is grow some teeth to bite back. Learn tactics, learn what it takes to PvP. Why not? Miners sit afk looking at a screen while their cargo fills up. Look up PvP fits while your mining. Mission runners can fall asleep while running missions and not die. Look up fits and tactics. There is no excuse in this game to not know how to fit or what to do other than laziness. Laziness is the PvEers way. That my friend is why most PvPers don't like PvEers. Just like how a true PvPer looks down on people who sit on gates in nul sec for 9 hours a day waiting for the random rookie ship scout to come by. It has nothing to do with ISK.

Running an ice mining/L4 mission bot is not a "playstyle".