EVE General Discussion

I wouldn't be surprised if the "skill training completed" dialogue triggers that very same reward centre. It even works the same way as WoW. Frequent meaningful boosts from skill training at the start, but then it takes longer and longer to get smaller and small boosts.

exploitation of the addiction mechanic in humans

same principals as with gambling addiction.

and if given a choice between winning and losing, people will always take winning

I think its rather daft to never even try that vast bulk of things you can do in EVE. Cant say you don't like it if you have never done it before.

Ok, I couldn't resist. Shooting a tree with lasers IRL is definitely possible, and is surprisingly inexpensive. The difficulty lies in dealing with the fire department and police later. You just have to select your target area with care. And unless you want serious trouble, don't aim at people, aircraft, buildings or vehicles!!

More on topic: Doing anything just about anywhere IRL involves dealing with people who feel it their mission in life to "supervise" your actions and cause you grief if you don't measure up to their expectations. Who needs that in an online game, too? The OP should expect some pushback from those who perceive a bias in his question. I suspect that those he is inquiring about, if they really exist, don't really want others to catch on to their way of playing the game, anyway.

I do not really meet your criterion as I do go into low and W (in fact this pilot lives in W, but all my others are in high sec). Also I do interact with corp and alliance members, help them, and so on.

But I also have been closely following the discussions between those who like non-pvp type play and those that do, and tried to find the difference. The best Ive figured out is some people get The Rush, and some do not.

The Rush is a good felling one gets with and after a burst of adrenaline associated with an exciting experience, like PvP combat. Not everyone gets The Rush. Some get no pleasure from adrenaline, and some actually feel bad or sick from it. According to Dr. Drew Pinsky, the difference between these people is genetic. You are born to get The Rush, or you are not. The result is some players will not enjoy PvP and actively seek to avoid it, and no amount of game tweaking will change that, because game tweaking will not change their genes. After all this is a game, people will tend to avoid game activities that make them sick. Instead they do cooperative activities, industry, missions and the like, or just play as solo players.

People who do not get The Rush can also enjoy activities like fishing, a sport that is more popular that any computer game, even WoW. Or puzzle games, or solitaire, or Golf (one of the most popular pastimes on the planet). These players like an activity that occupies the mind, is relaxing, and gives one a gentle feeling of accomplishment as they watch the isk pile up. For them, a certain amount of repetition is not boring, its reassuring and relaxing.

OP wasn't directed at you, at least as I read it.

You answered an unobtrusive question in a direct and polite manner, others get completely ******* unhinged at the mere suggestion that someone might judge their playstyle, probably because they can't really think of a reason why they do those things in the first place.

I agree, but who is knocking it? You don't see carebears telling people to stop killing each other. Although they tell people to stop killing them(I think we all can get behind that, nobody enjoys getting owned). Also, what if they tried it, and just didnt care for it at all? Now they just sit in Dodixie and run missions all day.

It's a video game FFS, let people do whatever the hell they want. As long as it's not against the rules.

Maybe just playing a game you like and relaxing after the hassles of the day IS the goal, without having to worry about everyone else. I'd wager that if there was a single player version of the game, a lot of people would play that instead.

It's kind of like Black Ops...sometimes I don't want to be bothered with multiplayer, so I would play Combat Training instead. When I didn't have to worry about the morons sprinkled in for flavor, I could screw around and have fun. Fun is the goal, and each person plays his or her way to achieve that. Trying to make it just about isk, ships, pew, without taking any other possibility in mind, and you will never understand every person's reason for playing the way they do

It most certainly is. Platonic Idealism has very little to do with anything. He mistakenly identified abstracting with purifying and concepts with entities....that's it really. He inverted the relationship between his Forms, which he thought were a pure form of the objects in this world that were missing something compared with that form; truth of the matter is that abstracting is the taking away of details and so the form is less than the real object.

As to the idea that there's a world of forms with an omniscient entity ruling over them all...that's pure religion, not philosophy. It doesn't help anything, it only invents new shadows and new chains. It's only arrogance that then allows one to claim that people not buying into your inventions are saddled with preconceptions and illusions, unable to break beyond.

I don't know if Plato spent his time in a useful manner or not. Creating a University seems like a useful pursuit to me. What I do know is that his treatises are a lot more about what's wrong with everyone else than any real inward looking. Perhaps it is difficult to blame him after watching an entire populace turn on one of the greatest thinkers of all time and murder him, but still--inventing Form World and implying that everyone ELSE is in chains and blinded by illusions is not very self-reflective.

Blaming it on Socrates isn't exactly legit either. There is a very clear difference between Socratic philosophy and Platonic. That Plato wrote words into Socrates's mouth should not imply that he actually said those things. It was a common practice of the age to make your arguments in the character of philosophical leaders; many still do it when they pit Socrates and Plato (or others) against each other in argument. The main difference you can see between the two versions of Socrates, the probably real one and Plato's characterization of him, is that the former asked a lot of questions while the latter had more answers. Socrates wouldn't have invented "forms" and other woo but instead shattered the preconceptions of his day by asking irritating questions. So no, Platonic Idealism and Form World cannot likely be "blamed" on Socrates, especially since his other students didn't all go down the same path as Plato.

Well, it's not driven by the Internet, but yeah...duh!