| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1245
   |
Posted - 2012.06.10 06:43:00 -
[181] - Quote
Disregard That wrote:I am positive that nobody in Eve was smart enough to glean the true mindset of the AFK miner. It was completely unilluminated prior to today.
Have a good sleep.
Considering all those threads kept starting from a false premise (miners are greedy, go all yield no tank), I have to say nobody of the forum poasters had a clue, so yes it had to be said.
The false premise makes people go in great lengths at proposing alternate playstyles and defensive small cargo setups therefore they get to the wrong conclusion.
The right premise is that a majority mines for the AFK factor, in full expanded ships with low yield, no drones (micromanaging them would mean less AFK) . The right conclusion is to kill them, only some will forfeit AFK as a main playstyle, the others will switch to something else or even to another game (once they are out of money for their main).
See, three text lines that would make hundred of forum pages immediately redundant and useless.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
916
|
Posted - 2012.06.10 06:49:00 -
[182] - Quote
Why should CCP enable those who do not play the game?
eh |
Makkal Hanaya
Drakenburg
85
|
Posted - 2012.06.10 07:06:00 -
[183] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Why should CCP enable those who do not play the game?
Because you can get a lot of money from people who don't play.
Half-Life 2 is one of the most anticipated and best selling (12 million sold) PC games of all time. Look at the achievements. Only 21.5% of players got Anchor's Aweigh. This is a story-based achievement; if you play the game for 3 hours, you will get it. Yet over 75% of players couldn't put in that 3 hours of work.
You can see this pattern with any game where you can track the activity of players. The *majority* of gamers treat games as a momentary distraction that they're relatively uninvested in.
although my eyes were open
they might have just as well've been closed
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1245
|
Posted - 2012.06.10 07:26:00 -
[184] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Why should CCP enable those who do not play the game?
Another false premise. Who said CCP should?
Let me make another easy example.
A vendor sells apples and oranges.
Many buy apples, many buy oranges.
One day the vendor stops selling oranges.
Those who bought oranges choose: switch into buying apples or find another vendor.
It's so simple, I can't imagine how people don't get this basic concept.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
916
|
Posted - 2012.06.10 09:05:00 -
[185] - Quote
Makkal Hanaya wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Why should CCP enable those who do not play the game? Because you can get a lot of money from people who don't play. Half-Life 2 is one of the most anticipated and best selling (12 million sold) PC games of all time. Look at the achievements. Only 21.5% of players got Anchor's Aweigh. This is a story-based achievement; if you play the game for 3 hours, you will get it. Yet over 75% of players couldn't put in that 3 hours of work. You can see this pattern with any game where you can track the activity of players. The *majority* of gamers treat games as a momentary distraction that they're relatively uninvested in.
Think Paradox Interactive. Their games, for the most part, have very steep learning curves. This is well-known and they have never gone down the path of dumbing their games down. Why should CCP give any advantage to players who do not want to play?
eh |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe
YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1845
|
Posted - 2012.06.10 09:11:00 -
[186] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Why should CCP enable those who do not play the game? Another false premise. Who said CCP should? Let me make another easy example. A vendor sells apples and oranges. Many buy apples, many buy oranges. One day the vendor stops selling oranges. Those who bought oranges choose: switch into buying apples or find another vendor. It's so simple, I can't imagine how people don't get this basic concept.
Except that with CCP it's:
A vendor sells apples.
Many buy apples. Some of them don't really like apples and prefer oranges but buy from him instead of the orange wholesaler across the street for some reason.
One day the vendor stops selling apples and sells Oranges instead.
The people who like apples are unhappy because they like apples, not oranges.
The people who like oranges realize that there's an Orange wholesaler, like right there, because the vendor is now directly competing with the wholsaler
The vendor loses the apple people and probably doesn't steal any orange people from his competitor.
This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
MasterEnt
MGroup9
79
|
Posted - 2012.06.10 14:38:00 -
[187] - Quote
Interestingly only a couple people made the connection between risk and knowledge/acceptance of the final outcome.
One more point of zero risk for the gankers.
Another brought up killing AFK miners.
So... not only are you targeting a non-combat vessel, but a non-combat vessel you ASSUME has no pilot.
Two more points of zero risk.
Dont even get me started on how you KNOW someone is AFK mining, cloaking or otherwise.
Now... im not saying CCP needs to change things to make it "safer" Afterall, this is EVE.
Just saying this new obsession with ganking miners is not really all that risky and EVE worthy.
Hulkageddoners are not nearly as trendy nd badass as they like to make themselves out to be. They are kind of like little boys who say they have this hot girlfriend, who is always "out of town" and end up alone every Saturday night with their right hand. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |