Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 10:58:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Gsptlsnz "It's only pixels" is just another stupid EvE meme, designed to support the fragile egos of the griefers.
When an expensive ship is lost. the "cost" is the time it would take to replace it. If it was 10 minutes, nobody would care much. If it would take 10 hours to grind the ISK to replace, the loss is of the order of 1 to 10 days of leisure time, depending on the player.
Because the time investment only matters if you let it matter. If you treat EVE as your personal model railroad, where you hand-craft every last tree and micro-detail every last model post box in your little model city, for the sole purpose of having it and marvelling at what you've accomplished…
…then you've missed one of the quintessential truths (and, indeed, main points) of EVE: that it is not only allowed, but encouraged and essential for the continuation of the game that other players will go around and wreck things. People may very well be impressed with what you've built, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the main purpose for your creation being in the game is to be a target for others to shoot at. When you boil things down, that's all it's actually good for. What you've done is put your model railroad on display in the middle of a demolition derby arena, and then expect sympathy when someone reverses over it at full speed. Sure, people may very well say "oh, that was a very pretty model and it must be hard to have it crushed so thoroughly", but that will always be followed by "…so why the hell did you bring it to the demolition derby, you numpty?!"
The whole "it's only pixels" argument is basically that: it's meant to remind you that the stuff is really only there to be destroyed. If you start assigning any value, or form any attachment, to the stuff you have in EVE, you're forgetting this simple fact, and it's not really anyone else's fault than your own if you feel upset about it. To them, it's just another loot/killboard-points pi±ata. The unlucky circumstance that you've had that ship since you were a wee ladd/lass and had named it "cuddles" is utterly and completely irrelevant. It's a reminder that if you suddenly find that it's more than just pixels to you, maybe you should re-evaluate the way you play the game (and/or just mothball the thing and only bring it out for a station spinning session on special occasions). ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Stanya
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 11:09:00 -
[62]
Of course, there is the other side of this whole argument.
The fact that there are a bunch of people who get their jollies by destroying everything in game makes it an even bigger challenge to arually create something of lasting value in this game.
The people who put together long lasting corporations and alliances - groups that can survive and prosper in this actively hostile environment - they get a huge sense of achievment.
Making something, anything, survive in this game is a huge achievement.
|
Melor Rend
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 11:21:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Isabellle Why have so many players essentially taken the pirate role a step further and become straight up terrorist befuddles me, blowing up a noobs ore can in the hopes that the newbie will attack their tech 2 frigate with his/her newbie mining frigate seems childish at best and downright cowardly. Apparhently some huge alliances actually promote and support this behavior. I understand the idea of practice makes perfect but how much practice are you getting by attacking someone you know you can destroy in three volleys of fire. Maybe I'm missing the point, or perhaps my ethics and morals are just such that i cant wrap my head around this behavior. Yes it is fun to blow people up and fight one on one. I for one feel it is more rewarding fighting for a cause, or at the least fighting for some material gain. I would hope/assume the greater EVE community is on the same page as me and doesn't partake in these activities. I KNOW IT IS JUST A GAME, but It is still interesting from a sociological perspective to see so many people/players choose to make such illogical choices such as podding people and destroying wealth for no gain just in the name of fun. This is the same kind of thinking behind sparypainting someones car or running a key down the side of someones car as you pass by on the sidewalk. I suppose i should be glad more people exorcise this inner idiot on a game as opposed to real life. (I hope)
You can't measure peoples real life moral and ethic values by the way they play EVE. Period. I play a soldier that goes around murdering people en masse because my alliance leader tells me to - no questions asked. And while I may not actively go hunting for noobs, if I see an opportunity for a kill then I'll take it - I don't care who the victim is. If they enter 0.0 then they're fair game.
In real life on the other hand I refused to serve in the army because I totally disagree with the idea of solving problems with violence (no matter on what level). I'm also glad to say that I have never used bodily force against a person - at least not since my early childhood. I also try to be fair and honest in real life. If I find a purse on the ground then I won't just nick the money and dump it - something I'd do in EVE without a second thought. It's just no comparison.
EVE just wouldn't be EVE if it wasn't an evil place.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 12:11:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Gsptlsnz "It's only pixels" is just another stupid EvE meme, designed to support the fragile egos of the griefers.
No, it's the objective, provable truth that entitlistas like you refuse to accept.
Funny you should say that. Those usually using the expression "they're just pixels, get over it" are the ones hoarding the most pixels... in the form of killmails to a killboard. A bit ironic and hypocritical. But I'm used to that hypocrisy here.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 12:32:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Gsptlsnz "It's only pixels" is just another stupid EvE meme, designed to support the fragile egos of the griefers.
When an expensive ship is lost. the "cost" is the time it would take to replace it. If it was 10 minutes, nobody would care much. If it would take 10 hours to grind the ISK to replace, the loss is of the order of 1 to 10 days of leisure time, depending on the player.
Because the time investment only matters if you let it matter. If you treat EVE as your personal model railroad, where you hand-craft every last tree and micro-detail every last model post box in your little model city, for the sole purpose of having it and marvelling at what you've accomplishedà
àthen you've missed one of the quintessential truths (and, indeed, main points) of EVE: that it is not only allowed, but encouraged and essential for the continuation of the game that other players will go around and wreck things. People may very well be impressed with what you've built, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the main purpose for your creation being in the game is to be a target for others to shoot at. When you boil things down, that's all it's actually good for. What you've done is put your model railroad on display in the middle of a demolition derby arena, and then expect sympathy when someone reverses over it at full speed. Sure, people may very well say "oh, that was a very pretty model and it must be hard to have it crushed so thoroughly", but that will always be followed by "àso why the hell did you bring it to the demolition derby, you numpty?!"
The whole "it's only pixels" argument is basically that: it's meant to remind you that the stuff is really only there to be destroyed. If you start assigning any value, or form any attachment, to the stuff you have in EVE, you're forgetting this simple fact, and it's not really anyone else's fault than your own if you feel upset about it. To them, it's just another loot/killboard-points pi±ata. The unlucky circumstance that you've had that ship since you were a wee ladd/lass and had named it "cuddles" is utterly and completely irrelevant. It's a reminder that if you suddenly find that it's more than just pixels to you, maybe you should re-evaluate the way you play the game (and/or just mothball the thing and only bring it out for a station spinning session on special occasions).
Cute speech, except that the ones most attached to pixels happen to be... wait for it... killmail hogs. I suppose your speech doesn't apply to them . The players usually spewing this hypocrisy are the ones hogging the killmails (ie, precious pixels on a screen).
And in Eve it is much more challenging and difficult to build. Ganking and destroying is easy. So epeen-waving in the form of killmails really is less necessary than putting sentimental value on something built by someone.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 13:16:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Tippia on 13/11/2009 13:16:51
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 I suppose your speech doesn't apply to them .
It will apply to them the minute we get inundated by "onoz, my pixels!!" posts whenever someone manages to steal theirs (i.e. when people get away). ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
TimMc
Gallente Brutal Deliverance Extreme Prejudice.
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 13:35:00 -
[67]
As many pirates will tell you, explosions are nice and the tears are delicious.
Griefing people in high sec usually produces more tears (angry evemails and conversations) because they aren't expecting to lose stuff.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 13:59:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 13/11/2009 13:16:51
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 I suppose your speech doesn't apply to them .
It will apply to them the minute we get inundated by "onoz, my pixels!!" posts whenever someone manages to steal theirs (i.e. when people get away).
Run through a gatecamp unscathed and watch the tears start rolling down gatecamping pirates.
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 14:16:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Tippia Stuff
You're right, but the whole reason people like blowing stuff up in EVE is that people are attached to it. To not have an attachment is not what EVE is about either
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 14:41:00 -
[70]
Originally by: ropnes
Originally by: Tippia Stuff
You're right, but the whole reason people like blowing stuff up in EVE is that people are attached to it. To not have an attachment is not what EVE is about either
True. Sometimes I wonder how many people would still find Eve "fun" if they weren't able to upset and grief players.
|
|
Lythandra Gloomwing
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 15:29:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Melor Rend
You can't measure peoples real life moral and ethic values by the way they play EVE. Period. I play a soldier that goes around murdering people en masse because my alliance leader tells me to - no questions asked. And while I may not actively go hunting for noobs, if I see an opportunity for a kill then I'll take it - I don't care who the victim is. If they enter 0.0 then they're fair game.
In real life on the other hand I refused to serve in the army because I totally disagree with the idea of solving problems with violence (no matter on what level). I'm also glad to say that I have never used bodily force against a person - at least not since my early childhood. I also try to be fair and honest in real life. If I find a purse on the ground then I won't just nick the money and dump it - something I'd do in EVE without a second thought. It's just no comparison.
EVE just wouldn't be EVE if it wasn't an evil place.
You know at first I was about to disagree with you but after writing what's below I've reconsidered to some extent.
I won't say most greifers are sociopaths because in general the emotions of other people are simply irrelevant to a sociopath since part of the definition of being a sociopath is a lack of empathy for the fealings of others. The sociopath isn't out to cause suffering it's just a byproduct of their activities. Greifers are sadists or at least people acting on their own suppressed sadism.
As to the terrorist idea, terrorism is an active and valid tactic in EVE since terrorism is defined as the use of non-conventional force to acheive a political objective (though in most cases in EVE the objective is economiic but really the difference between political and economic objectives are most oftem more semantic than substantive)someone who finances a suicide gank operation to kill hulks in order to generate demand for their hulks (and possibly profit a bit in the ganking as well) is engaging in economic terrorism and I see that as a valid roleplay reason to perform the activity and I get that.
The person who ganks a week old noob in an indy for the lols and tears is a sadistic ***** and it says something about the persons mental state that they would gain enjoyment from such an activity.
Like most things the line is shadowed and hazy and I wouldn't go so far as to say a person who engages in such sadistic *****ish behavior is a total sadistic twit in real life after all we are all complex emotional creatures with all sorts of supressed and dark fantasies and urges.
But pretending that you are simply playing a game and it doesn't mean anything is rationalization. Roleplaying is always about bringing out aspects of ones own psyche often those that are not open and primary but they are aspects of your personality.
A game like EVE which removes most of the real world constraints and consequences for behavior, essentially bring out people's inner *******. The absence of lasting consequence for misbehavior is the enabling factor.
On the flip side it's this same absence of lasting consequence that keeps such people from completely dominating the game. Ships can be rebuilt implants repurchased.
In a way I do agree to some extend with the defenders of the greifers, they provide a motivator for cooperation between those of us who do not choose to go down the darker paths of our psyche. All I would ask is that CCP provides mechanisms for those who are most often victimized by the sadists to defend themselves on an equal footing.
So I think that insurance should not compensate ships lost in illegal activities . Indys and mining barges/exhumers need more power gride to fit bigger tanks. And Ninja Salvaging should generate an agression flag just as can flipping does. And mission rats should concentrate on the most recent ship to enter a mission space.
|
5pinDizzy
Amarr State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 15:42:00 -
[72]
No surprise you got a blue bar reponse OP being a new player, enjoy it while it lasts.
Once you've been here a couple of months you're classed as one of the regulars and CCP stop caring what you think.
You've got Eve easier now then anyone as ever had it, and if you hold off till dominion you'll get to have it even easier where they do some more newbie friendly stuff like chopping skill prereqs down.
You know my only successful reimbursement petition was when I was still a new character?
Personally I'm convinced by the time I reach 100 million skillpoints, newbies will start with 50 million ****ing skillpoints anyway.
|
Zeba
Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 15:43:00 -
[73]
Whoa! 10/10 for the op simply due to the pages of armchair psychobabble it has spawned.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 16:12:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Lythandra Gloomwing As to the terrorist idea, terrorism is an active and valid tactic in EVE since terrorism is defined as the use of non-conventional force to acheive a political objective
No it's not. You're describing asymetric warfare, which is a far more general concept. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Caldari Citizen4714
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 17:01:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Tippia Because the time investment only matters if you let it matter. If you treat EVE as your personal model railroad, where you hand-craft every last tree and micro-detail every last model post box in your little model city, for the sole purpose of having it and marvelling at what you've accomplishedà
àthen you've missed one of the quintessential truths (and, indeed, main points) of EVE: that it is not only allowed, but encouraged and essential for the continuation of the game that other players will go around and wreck things. People may very well be impressed with what you've built, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the main purpose for your creation being in the game is to be a target for others to shoot at. When you boil things down, that's all it's actually good for. What you've done is put your model railroad on display in the middle of a demolition derby arena, and then expect sympathy when someone reverses over it at full speed. Sure, people may very well say "oh, that was a very pretty model and it must be hard to have it crushed so thoroughly", but that will always be followed by "àso why the hell did you bring it to the demolition derby, you numpty?!"
The whole "it's only pixels" argument is basically that: it's meant to remind you that the stuff is really only there to be destroyed. If you start assigning any value, or form any attachment, to the stuff you have in EVE, you're forgetting this simple fact, and it's not really anyone else's fault than your own if you feel upset about it. To them, it's just another loot/killboard-points pi±ata. The unlucky circumstance that you've had that ship since you were a wee ladd/lass and had named it "cuddles" is utterly and completely irrelevant. It's a reminder that if you suddenly find that it's more than just pixels to you, maybe you should re-evaluate the way you play the game (and/or just mothball the thing and only bring it out for a station spinning session on special occasions).
This.
My advice is, before you undock in a ship that could possibly be lost to pvp, build an identical one just like it so that when its lost, you aren't bothered by it because you were treating it as disposable to begin with, and you've got another ready to go at a moment's notice.
This is a corollary I think, to the golden rule of Eve, which is: Don't fly a ship you can't afford to lose.
If you do that, losses won't mean **** to you aside from messing up your kill ratio. - Support DISBANDING the Alliance CCP Renamed at the Alliance's Request |
Gsptlsnz
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 17:59:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Gsptlsnz on 13/11/2009 18:04:23
Originally by: Tippia Because the time investment only matters if you let it matter. <...>
The laws of logic say that from a false premise you can derive any conclusion, false or true. And you cannot know whether the conclusion if true or false, so the whole exercise is a waste if time.
I'm be very interested to hear argumants to back up the claim that players do not value the time they spend getting stuff done in EvE.
The rest of your post nets out to "don't fly what you can't **afford** to lose", which is certainly good advice, but is itself a sufficient counter-argument. "Afford" encapsulates the concept of relative value - the word is meaningless if nothing has any worth.
|
Lythandra Gloomwing
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:20:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Lythandra Gloomwing on 13/11/2009 18:21:35
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Lythandra Gloomwing As to the terrorist idea, terrorism is an active and valid tactic in EVE since terrorism is defined as the use of non-conventional force to acheive a political objective
No it's not. You're describing asymetric warfare, which is a far more general concept.
Terrorism is a form of asymetric warfare and while it is often employed by the weaker party in a conflict it is not limited to them.
For the record in former life I studied anti/counter terrorism in the Marines.
The primary difference between terrorism and other forms of asymentric warfare is that it's primarily targeted agaist soft civilian targets rather than hardened military targets.
Unless you're trying to make the assertion that a hulk or an unarmed indy is a hardened military target I maintain my assertion that it's terrorism in the context of economic warfare.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:25:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Gsptlsnz Edited by: Gsptlsnz on 13/11/2009 18:04:23
Originally by: Tippia Because the time investment only matters if you let it matter. <...>
The laws of logic say that from a false premise you can derive any conclusion, false or true. And you cannot know whether the conclusion if true or false, so the whole exercise is a waste if time.
I'm be very interested to hear argumants to back up the claim that players do not value the time they spend getting stuff done in EvE.
The rest of your post nets out to "don't fly what you can't **afford** to lose", which is certainly good advice, but is itself a sufficient counter-argument. "Afford" encapsulates the concept of relative value - the word is meaningless if nothing has any worth.
It's up to you of course - if you insist on investing with emotional significance your virtual assets in a game which is explicitly based on asset destruction, no-once can stop you, and no-one can deny that you will feel genuine emotional loss.
Of course the flip side of that is that you can't stop anyone from thinking, stating and acting as if you're a damb fool, and let' be frank: teasing foolish people is funny, because they deserve it.
No-one respects or feel inclined to be kind to a screaming brat in the supermarket who throws a hissy-fit because he wants TWO CANDY BARS NOW. That's pretty much how most people feel about people who expend vast emotional energy raging about their stupid T1 hauler getting ganked. They're acting like stupid, spoilt children, so they get zero respect, and they get teased.
Get over it.
Fake edit: in before you say NO U ARE TEH SPOILT BRATS BECOS I SAYH SO!!!!1. The plain fact is the vast majority PvPers accept that they'll lose ships and they're well aware than in 98% of losses, there was something they could have done to have avoided it. Stop conflating hyperbole with reality.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:56:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Lythandra Gloomwing Terrorism is a form of asymetric warfare and while it is often employed by the weaker party in a conflict it is not limited to them.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that asymetric warfare is terrorism – a classic fallacy of composition.
Quote: For the record in former life I studied anti/counter terrorism in the Marines.
For the record, in my current life, I teach people like that. Now what?
Quote: The primary difference between terrorism and other forms of asymentric warfare is that it's primarily targeted agaist soft civilian targets rather than hardened military targets.
The primary difference is that it uses terror as its primary method to effect political change. The fact that such terror is often more easily evoked among civilians is just a matter of how hard you want to make it for yourself…
Quote: Unless you're trying to make the assertion that a hulk or an unarmed indy is a hardened military target I maintain my assertion that it's terrorism in the context of economic warfare.
No, I'd rather say that it's a highly valued economical asset (both in its own value and production capability), which rather makes attacks against them an example of economic sabotage. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 19:05:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 13/11/2009 19:05:18
Originally by: Lythandra Gloomwing Edited by: Lythandra Gloomwing on 13/11/2009 18:21:35
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Lythandra Gloomwing As to the terrorist idea, terrorism is an active and valid tactic in EVE since terrorism is defined as the use of non-conventional force to acheive a political objective
No it's not. You're describing asymetric warfare, which is a far more general concept.
Terrorism is a form of asymetric warfare and while it is often employed by the weaker party in a conflict it is not limited to them.
For the record in former life I studied anti/counter terrorism in the Marines.
The primary difference between terrorism and other forms of asymentric warfare is that it's primarily targeted agaist soft civilian targets rather than hardened military targets.
Unless you're trying to make the assertion that a hulk or an unarmed indy is a hardened military target I maintain my assertion that it's terrorism in the context of economic warfare.
Terrorism can be defined that way, but it isn't un-problematic, since the protection of civilians and soft targets is bend when it is convenient and the difference between military and civilian operators isn't clear cut.
In conflicts where you don't have the power to achieve a clear military victory, you are forced to attack supporting structures of the opposing military, if you want to have any chance of victory. Even armies fighting directly against each other attack targets, that are in no way hardened. Breaking the enemy lines and attacking the softer support elements is an accepted strategy. Even when those targets might just be civilian contractors just supplying basic services or transporting foodstuffs.
The assosiation of such soft targets with a military organisation seems much more important factor than whether they are soft or hard targets. Leaving such soft targets alone would just be stupid, unless you have an overwhelming military force, that makes such total warfare unnecessary or you share an understanding about rules of engagement with your enemy. It might be terrorism if those targets were just random people who were killed in an effort to influence the behaviour of some other primary target.
|
|
arbiter reborn
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 19:49:00 -
[81]
i like killing hulks and miners because there the people that least want to be killed, and i feed off tears
|
Lythandra Gloomwing
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 20:21:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Lythandra Gloomwing on 13/11/2009 20:26:14
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Lythandra Gloomwing Terrorism is a form of asymetric warfare and while it is often employed by the weaker party in a conflict it is not limited to them.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that asymetric warfare is terrorism û a classic fallacy of composition.
I never said any such thing. Asymmetrical warfare simply means that one beligerent has a significant advantage in resources and firepower. While sometimes a terrorist will be at such a disadvantage that isn't always the case.
Quote:
Quote: For the record in former life I studied anti/counter terrorism in the Marines.
For the record, in my current life, I teach people like that. Now what?
Then you should know that the more precicely you attempt to define this tactic the more biased the definition becomes. You go beyond the basic "use of non-conventional force to acheive political a political objective" you start getting into ideological debates that are a matter of opinion than of objective definition.
Quote:
Quote: The primary difference between terrorism and other forms of asymentric warfare is that it's primarily targeted agaist soft civilian targets rather than hardened military targets.
The primary difference is that it uses terror as its primary method to effect political change. The fact that such terror is often more easily evoked among civilians is just a matter of how hard you want to make it for yourselfà
Any use of violence is intended to create teror to some degree. Terrorist may attempt to enhance their activities by creating fear but terror is not an automatic requirement. It is quite common for "terrorists" to use meathods that are defined as "terrorism" by government and law enforcement yet create no danger therefor result in no actual terror. Such as the much misused concept of an eco-terrorist who only attacks material rather than people.
Often even those who no one argues the definition of defining as terrorist will target their activities in such a way as to remain sympathetic to the public at large as a part of their strategy.
Quote:
Quote: Unless you're trying to make the assertion that a hulk or an unarmed indy is a hardened military target I maintain my assertion that it's terrorism in the context of economic warfare.
No, I'd rather say that it's a highly valued economical asset (both in its own value and production capability), which rather makes attacks against them an example of economic sabotage.
So you don't think that the World Trade centers were a highly valued economic assets?
If the goal of the operation is to affect the behavior of an organization (which all use of force generally are save for compaigns of genocide) then if the tactics used are what are considered terrorism then it is terrorism..
I prefer to define terrorism based on the tactics used rather than the ideological purpose of a given terrorist. I find it more useful and less given to silly ideological spin where my sides guys are freedom fighters yet yours are terrorists.
There for suicide ganking of an enemy corporations assets qualifies as terrorism, to be considered anything else in my mind would require an official wardec. But then it wouldn't be suicide ganking it would be simple warfare and if one side had a significant advantage in force and resources then it would be asymmetrical warfare.
If it makes you uncomfortable that your meathods resemble what you consider to be real world "bad guys" then I'd say the problem is with you not the definition.
Edit: Yes I consider attacking civilian support infrastructure to be terrorism even when engaged under the auspices of "total war" the largest terrorist attacks in the history of the planet were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagisaki.
Weasily descriptions rationalizing such behavior by victors is simple concience soothing propaganda.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 20:41:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Lythandra Gloomwing
Such as the much misused concept of an eco-terrorist who only attacks material rather than people.
Much like a suicide ganker...?
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 21:58:00 -
[84]
Someone has been paying way too much attention to the U.S. propaganda machine.
|
Dennmoth Ferdier
Space Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.11.14 01:38:00 -
[85]
"Some men just want to watch the world burn" ------ Dare to challenge me? |
Junko Togawa
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.14 02:43:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Malcanis Fake edit: in before you say NO U ARE TEH SPOILT BRATS BECOS I SAYH SO!!!!1. The plain fact is the vast majority PvPers accept that they'll lose ships and they're well aware than in 98% of losses, there was something they could have done to have avoided it. Stop conflating hyperbole with reality.
I'd like to add that the rules of the game are pretty well-documented for those who care to take the time to read them and/or ask questions. Becoming angry because of a stupid mistake and blaming it on 'griefers' is just displacement activity. And to reiterate: Yes, they are only space pixels. They do not belong to you; in the sense they belong to anyone, they belong to CCP. You merely rent them for a monthly fee and they can be given and taken from you in any fashion which the game rules dictate.
As Malcanis says, emotional investment into something that isn't really yours to begin with and is not in fact real in any physical sense of the term save as electronic data on a computer server is your own perogative. And personally, I agree: It is quite funny to see someone have an emotional fit over something that isn't real being destroyed. The sooner you get over the sense of entitlement you have in attachment to these unreal things which don't belong to you, the better off you'll be.
Also: Yes, people whining about their loss of ISK over Motherships or w/e are foolish n00bs, and to them I heartily LOL and say 'Adapt or Die'.
|
RabbidFerret
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.14 03:34:00 -
[87]
I like to describe eve as "brutally beautiful".
As in there is beauty in the type of system that such brutality can create.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |