EVE General Discussion

Nope, getting Concordokken is a consequence of initiating PvP in a specific area of space, under specific conditions; PvP still happened.

This is where I interject that the term "PvP" is general enough in a game like EVE to be essentially meaningless.

Essentially, EVE is about players interacting with other players. That includes, but is not limited to, what is conventionally considered "PvP."

There are enough different forms that appeal to enough different people that it's worthless to lump them all together. If EVE is a PvP game, where do I get my 8v8 balanced team PvP? Nowhere, because that's not how EVE works, and EVE is simply never going to appeal to people who want sports-style PvP.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of (nerfs) is for good men to do nothing.." - Edmund Burke

The paradox being content creators and asshats in EvE are actually the good guys protecting the sandbox, while carebear CSM's (and court-jester trolltards like yourself) empower the slow creep of nerfdom evil done in the name of 'player retention' (or 'social justice' in the real world...).

F

:Veers:

This is a really irritating line of argument that keeps popping up. How the hell is anyone playing in a sandbox with a player driven market NOT engaged in PvP, all the time, everywhere. You don't need to shoot another player to compete with them for resources, to have an impact on the economy, or to engage in the metagame. Look at Dinsdale and Gevlon. FFS I can't believe I just had to state that to a CSM. Thank gawd I forgot to vote this year, you were on my list.


Why bring religious rhetoric into it, other than to derail the topic? We're not fanatics, and the implication is an unnecessary insult. The topic polarises opinion but that doesn't mean the participants can't take on board the arguments other people present. Don't pat us on the head on the one hand for the quality of the discussion then be so condescending towards those whose viewpoint diverges from yours.

Non consensual combat makes little sense to a certain portion of the playerbase, as does allowing scams. To a lot of people (particularly those who have been playing 5 years or more) removing highsec awoxing - with whatever justification - is simply not a small change. It matters to us and it has wider implications if it's part of a trend to pacify people for the purposes of sub retention at the expense of player driven content. It's not just us who are concerned about what the game IS, CCP reiterate it from time to time, because it's an important thing to protect - and it's been under almost continuous attack since launch.


We don't need to convince you, and I'm not sure they listen to CSM demands any more than they do us. We can shout over here at CCP just fine.

Erm.. both are, thats the point isn't it.. that all activities are forms of PvP

impunity: exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss

Not being attacked by CONCORD is a case of impunity. And this thread is full of whiners who don't want it to go.

Concern trolling detected.

You'll excuse me if I don't get all weepy and hysterical until proposed changes actually make it into the game.

Articles with comments from the designers like this New York Times one, or statements from the Eve site that this game a competitive sandbox in which "[my] actions in the Sandbox can lead to the destruction of starships" make it quite clear what type of game this is at least marketed as.

A sandbox is a sandbox is a sandbox. This continual nerfing of risk and buffing of rewards will eventually cause everything to come tumbling down.

Ironically, one of the reasons I chose this play style, straight out of the gate. Because while I may end up being the "bad guy," I have taught a valuable lesson, not easily forgotten by incompetent corp leaders, or their line members. Yep, such a horrible, horrible thing to do.