|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
132
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 15:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:the "bittervets"...
fear anything that challenges the established order.
As they should.
|
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
132
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 15:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
BearJews wrote:Can someone explain to me why a sandbox game (as many claim) is supposed to be just PVP? My understanding is Eve plays out according to how you want to play it, not how someone else wants your experience to be.
Because in the classic sense there's no "supposed to be" in a sandbox. It's just a toolset to be used according to the player's whim.
This is one of the many reason EVE isn't really a sandbox in the classic sense. |
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
132
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 15:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: Now, what have we got? 30,000+ of you?
No, U. |
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
132
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 17:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:are you unironically trying to say that EVE, a game which is notorious for its steep learning curve, ...
EVE's "steep learning curve" was mostly a matter of it's notoriously deficient and inaccurate documentation.
Evidence the number of "vets" complaining that new tool tips and tutorials are "dumbing down" the game.
Even Checkers can be hard if you refuse to tell people where the board is. |
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
132
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 17:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tippia wrote:We're talking about being alive, which is what the subscription numbers amply show.
Yep, if one person held 500K subs and no one else played at all, the game would be even more alive and well than it is now by your standard.
Well, alive at least. Which is why you deliberately restrict the discussion.
|
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
132
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 18:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Malphilos wrote:Tippia wrote:We're talking about being alive, which is what the subscription numbers amply show. Yep, if one person held 500K subs and no one else played at all, the game would be even more alive and well than it is now by your standard. Well, alive at least. Which is why you deliberately restrict the discussion. EVE is growing while the new TOR MMO has bled 700k subs in less than 6 months. Which is heathier?
So you're saying that if one person bought 700k subs to TOR it'd be healthier (and thus we imply better) than EVE?
Or is this just the straw tangent?
I don't much care, my point is that standard is nonsense and it's being used that way for a reason.
|
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
132
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 00:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Malphilos wrote: So you're saying that if one person bought 700k subs to TOR it'd be healthier (and thus we imply better) than EVE?
Or is this just the straw tangent?
I don't much care, my point is that standard is nonsense and it's being used that way for a reason.
Gonna have to say yes. But a growing game is heathier than a shrinking one. Which means EVE is doing better than just about any of it rivals.
I recognize you have to say that, I just thought you might recognize it's silly.
MMO.
And you think one person with thousands of accounts is "healthier".
It's silly beyond reason.
|
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
132
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 03:09:00 -
[8] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Malphilos wrote: I recognize you have to say that, I just thought you might recognize it's silly.
MMO.
And you think one person with thousands of accounts is "healthier".
It's silly beyond reason.
Its also not going to happen. So it still stands a growing game is a healthy game.
Again, if that dude keeps buying subs at or faster than the rate other people are leaving, you're forced to call it a "growing game".
It's beyond ridiculous.
And yet you'll cling.
|
|
|
|