EVE General Discussion

Well if you wish to take a standpoint that goes against reality ...
... there is nothing i have to say to you.

I am not wasting my time explaining something so simple ...
... that i even linked as an article.

Your opinion is noted, but irrelevant.
I wrote nonsense here, but that's unfair.

What matters is that the term describes the situation.
CONCORD has the legal monopoly on highsec. "Legal" is ommitted usually (as hinted by the article),
because it's assumed that it is known what is being talked about.

The only ones who are allowed non-consensual combat are CONCORD.
Wardecs are bribery and suspect status only allows people to get shot, not to initiate.

Yes they do, but not when they are in destruct mode. You can't create with a bomb or a gun. 50% of the carebear mindset is the urge to build. That's the half that matters. (The other half, that is damaging to the game, is the OMG! PROTECT ME AT ALL COSTS OR ELSE I'LL QUIT!!!11 1111 1!!!!!!!!1111 !!!! ELEVENTY!11!1!!!!)



I guess you don't know what a gerund is. I said just this. Creation doesn't demand carebears, but it does demand atleast some of the carebearing mindset.

When a PvP'er is in creation mode they are not in destruction mode. And they are more likely than not using a different toon to do it.

Carebears don't have to destroy. Destruction is vastly more efficient than creation. Hence the tremendous disparity between the highsec population and the rest of New Eden. Instead of thinking of it as all those carebears are being given a free pass to avoid combat, choose instead to think of it as, it takes all those carebears to keep up with all the destruction the pvp'ers are dishing out.

As any wildlife ecologist knows, predators can't outnumber prey or the ecosystem fails.

Other people have explored these ideas.
http://www.ninveah.com/2013/03/high-sec-population-dominance-fallacy.html
https://syncaine.com/2012/09/06/eve-the-highsec-player-does-not-exist/
http://crossingzebras.com/building-an-empire/

I particularly like the paragraph from Diana Olympos, "first of all, i need to deal with the first argument people will use. it’s not a question of isk. it’s not a question of making people rat in your space. most of industry is done because people like it. eve, sorry, spreadsheets in space, is calling to the same people that like to play anno, x3 or the settlers. they are not games where reward justifies the means. their gameplay revolves around the creation of complexly functioning systems. they are games where you stop to admire your work after many hours – you play them for the sake of building. speaking as the engineer i am, the satisfaction lies in being able to appreciate the elegance of your creation. you play them because you are a builder. eve industry shares the same game design principles as these types of games. eve economy is complex; it needs players to establish different lines of production, to deal with a lot of different products, to establish advanced logistical solutions, to find the right price from the multiple components and the time and effort needed at each step before reaching a final product. more than that, eve has another element compared to the usual city builder game. it puts all that into a multiplayer pvp environment and forces you to cooperate with others. your logistics are not run by npcs. you can’t handle the whole production line alone. you have to organise a team of real people to create what you need, haul it, combine it and finally sell it."

EvE is many different things to many different people. You don't have the right to monopolize (nor deserve it) what EvE is supposed to be to anyone.

Anyway, I'm not really commenting germanely to your difficulties now. Go on and get back to whining about how you want to force combat on other players but don't like it being forced on you.

Hm, a carebear once created this and also this but he also created this and this.

Is it really true that without creation there can be no destruction? Or is it, that without destruction there can be no creation.
IMHO, there is a small tiny line between the "carebear" and "pvp'er" you mentioned. That goes for RL and ingame as well.

You could always hire one nullsec alliance against another nullsec alliance and laugh maniacally as they buy your stuff to kill each other.

I think I put it in a bit misleading way.

Of course, everything has to be within the PVP frame, as in, whatever gets bought must be destructible tradeable. For example, I'm not keen on the current SKIN mechanic, as it is a kind of 'luxury' item/ISK sink but permanent and non-destruictible, same with the genolution golden capsule. I prefer the old style different ship 'editions' to the current SKIN mechanic.

I used the term PVE very loosely, to describe activity that does not directly classify as space pew pew. What I meant is that there has to be more than 'bling' pew pew ships and mods to buy and stuff - and they should be destructible. Current Fortizar markets are kind of what I had in mind. The idea of having one's own station, market, real estate is very good, and it is absolutely correct that they are vulnerable in space. I think it drew a lot of 'builder types' to spend ISK on and expand their operation, and industrial modules to come are in the same vein.

'Builders' who would not buy AT ships or officer fit pvp ships are spending tons of ISK in citadels, because it fits the 'builder' type of mentality, while staying firmly within PVP realm.

So what I meant was that those types of commodities/structures/etc that's not exactly for 'pew pew', but attract 'builder types' to spend ISK on and risk in space is a good thing. But you could argue that Citadels also have very good roles to play for PVP crowd, so it's not strictly for 'builder types'.

So tl/dr...

I want more types of such items/structures in game that appeals to 'non pew pew' crowd. They would be within the whole PVP framework, but will appeal to pilots who do not have interest in directly shooting lasers missiles whatnot at other ships.

So in this sense, Citadels are good but PI is not. PI was supposed to be able to get attacked and such, so fight for resources and colonies can occur. But now they are just indestructible 'farms'.

I'm notnsure if I make send but I hope you understand k. :p

Sorry didn't mean to derail your thread :p I was just chipping in on the topic of PVE vs PVP player thingy. Because it sounded like some people were putting EVE players to these two different groups. What I wanted to say was,

1. In principle - we are all in PVP game, whether you are 'builder/creative type' or not

2. There are many nice things that PVP (as in explicit pew pew) crowd can buy & spend their money on

3. Many of the non pvp focused stuff (except Citadel example I gave)/ISK sink is a bit meh at the moment - I'm thinking more luxury items such as SKINS and clothing/accessories and such - they fail in that they do not fit into the PVP framework (i.e. being in space and destructible or promoting player interactions)

4. Linking it back to the main theme of the OP - the reason I brought this idea up is because in ideal world we would not have CONCORD or mechanics would be tweaked in such a way that highsec 'bears' cannot live in the false assumption of safety, and CONCORD becomes an entity that can be engaged or challenged, so a whole landscape change would be what I'd support as I initially mentioned.

BUT if CONCORD is going to stay the way it is (which is most likely :p), then we need candies and carrots to get people to risk nice stuff in HS, otherwise what you get is people just mining in cheapest/biggest EHP barge/exhumer while AFK. Give them something active to fly in that comes with benefits and risk.

Well anyways, probably I better just stick to what I know well - social theory instead of game design lol.

I'm being pragmatic here Sole. :p i clearly stated 'in the ideal scenario' we should train kids to eat their vegies, as you say. That is how I wish EVE was too. But in reality we got players who would rather 'die' (unsub) than eat their veggies. So I was thinking how we can keep these people around and slowly nudge them to the path.

If you are talking 'either they get it or if they don't we dun need them anyway' then fair enough. We'd have much smaller player base but game play could makr radical progresses. I'm up for that. After all in some other thread I just suggested silly things like 'hacking pod n draining SP' while keeping a pod bubbled lol. I would be fine with complete removal of CONCORD or change in mechanics so that players can challenge and engage CONCORD in both ways, not just be on the receiving end of game breaking uber weapons and omnipresence.

But how many subs would we lose? Good riddance? Possibly. But will EVE recover enough dedicated players commited to the philosophy to keep it going for another decade? That I don't know. As much as I resent some issues in EVE, I really fo want to see this world continue and thrive. I'm just cautions too radical changes could reduce the player base down to below critical mass.

What you want to tackle is some very fundamental issues here, and it needs radical revisions. If it works out we would have incredible game world. If it fails, that could be the end of EVE. @.@

The problem with the whole "train your kids to eat veggies" argument is these new players are not new gamers. They already think they know what games they like, and for a lot of them eve isn't it. Not a terrible problem since that keeps out the riff-raff, but it doesn't help the game grow.

What you're trying Sol is to take a kid who has grown up not liking veggies, and serving them up a big mountain of veggies. They might be adventurous and make it through the lot, finding out they like it. Or they might get put off and go somewhere else. You have to ease people in to things, which is why there is a highsec.

Highsec should have nowhere close to the income levels that it does, and it should not be one big blob. People need to see that highsec is just the newbie area and that they are expected to move on to dangerous space. This should be obvious from very very early on. As it is now the game mechanics mislead people to think they have to level up their mining barge, or their mission boat. Very little is in the tutorial to challenge commonly held gaming expectations.

Progress is more than what you see on every day in faces of millions.

It is also a faint light in laboratory microscope and faint data signal in particle generator, it is a faint idea in someones head, and it is always endangered by powerful ignorance.

I already talked too much, but just so I don't sign off with personal dribbel, I will chip in a bit on the theory side.

There is an early 20th century social theorist (sociologist/philosopher, etc), called Theordore Adorno. So good in fact my old band wrote a song called 'Theodore Adorno, he's better than a porno'

But I digress, anyways - there is a book called 'The Culture Industry', which is collection of his essays and articles on this field, and especially worh reading is an essay on 'free time and leisure'.

Put it very simply, (as most of you would suspect by now), he comments that our leisure time activities are part of capitalist consumerism driven social/economic mechanism. It encourage us to 'consume' (which by definition is to take something and consume/exhaut its value/meaning/worth) in our free time. We are not to be engaged in challenging, radical or innovative free time. The definition of 'hobby' in modern society makes it that you do not take the activity 'seriously' or as a focus of your life.

'Hobby' is sidelined as a 'past time', to effectively kill the time between work, so as to keep us in better productive condition for 'work', and also to create a hobbist market that the capitalists can benefit from.

Even 'art' is reduced to second class activity to 'serious work'. You are not meant to challenge or break the statuos quo. You are meant to 'consume' art like off-the-shelf products in a supermarket. Its function is to pacify and condition the herd to keep 'passing time' until office hour starts again.

'Past time activity' - what a funny expression. We are not meant to excell and overcome, wr are meant to 'kill time', and preferably spend our hard earned money to mindlessly kill time.

The idea of culture, entertainment, and art - all these merge together under 'culture industry'. It supports the ruling system and keep us occupied (when not at work).

Back when he was writing there was no computer games, but look at the game industry and popular games now. Look at the mainstream (i.e. Most numerous and most commercially successful) games and gamers.

So while it may sounded like I connected RL social theories too much with space pixels, the industry that CCP finds itself in, and the players who pay to play the game as a 'hobby' or 'past time', are not free from the current paradigm of the RL society.

Oh freaking well.