Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1804
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 07:08:00 -
[391] - Quote
Roime wrote:One argument for keeping local in k-space is the "sense of local life" it creates. If you live in an area for a while, you start to recognize familiar names, your neighbours. It also promotes social interaction with strangers, and can offer some pretty funny moments. W-space feels lonely and desolate in comparison, perfect for some people but perhaps not for everybody.
Another thing I felt so much in WHs was the lack of any station at any distance (you really need to be in vastly dead end 0.0 to feel the same), it's like being an hermit with no backup, no civilization nothing.
But I can also see how this hard mode far west is a very good change for the so inclined players.
I actually feel colonizing sov 0.0 should provide the same far west "unknown lands" feeling. Maybe make delayed local until you gain sov and anchor something? That something could grant say 2-3 manufacturing slots so it'd also entice people to live in those systems. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Rakael Kateloda
State War Academy Caldari State
70
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 07:13:00 -
[392] - Quote
Posting in 'back in my days Eve was actually hard and we were forced to walk on broken glass' thread. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8939
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 07:13:00 -
[393] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Which matters with your "PVE expansions = drop in playerbase" how? It matters because you're creating a strawman argument by not reading what I'm writing and assuming for no good reason that I'm talking about the summer of 2011 and that I'm drawing causal relationships like that.
Too bad that the drop had already started by the time you predicted it. You posted that in April. The decline started in earnest in January and actually had its roots before that. Again, the problem is that you're not reading what I'm writing but instead assuming that I'm talking about something you wish I'm talking about.
I'm not talking about the Incarna summer. I'm talking about the drop that happened just after Incursion was released. At this point, eve was into month 12 of :18 months: and they released a PvE-focused expansion that, to no-one's surprise, grabbed a lot of initial attention but then (as PvE content always does) quickly drops off. Attention was already petering out and Incursion managed to create the standard short-term boost that you see in PvE games: initial high numbers, quick drop-off, and ending up with lower numbers than before. In other words, that kind of expansion does not have the effect that some people think it has.
My point is that, unlike what Ansio is claiming, appealing to a different audience by going all out on the PvE has already proven not to work. Yes, you can prop up some already-sagging numbers with it, but it's a very short term fix and it will not hold. His vision of doubling the numbers by focusing on a different segment than the core gameplay will have the exact opposite effect, and we know this because it has already happened onceGǪ
Quote:Because Incarna was Yeah, I'm going to stop you there because nothing you say after it is relevant to anything I said and only further reinforces the fact that you're piling up an immense straw man. I'm not talking about Incarna. Read what I write, not what you hope I'm writing. Incarna and the numerous other fsckups that happened around it were just the last straws GÇö the whole thing started waaay before that (and way before you GÇ£predictedGÇ¥ something that was already happening).
In short: you're barking up the wrong tree. The biased fallacy is entirely on your end since you failed to read what I was saying and instead attacked a strawman argument built on noting but your own preconceptions of what I was saying (which is especially odd since the quote you used to start it all off very clearly stated where the problems started).
Stop being prejudiced about what I'm writing, or shush. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1804
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 07:26:00 -
[394] - Quote
Tippia wrote: In short: you're barking up the wrong tree. The biased fallacy is entirely on your end since you failed to read what I was saying and instead attacked a strawman argument built on noting but your own preconceptions of what I was saying (which is especially odd since the quote you used to start it all off very clearly stated where the problems started).
Stop being prejudiced about what I'm writing, or shush.
Like this is the first thread where you make your anti-PvE statements.
I have played a disturbing number of MMOs (mostly PvP ones) and all those which had awful PvE fared worse than those that had a decent PvE. People are not always up only to kill stuff, certain days one wants to relax or got no time to chase the elusive prey.
Also, looking backwards is always easy to say "numbers already started plummeting before my prediction", go look at the threads that were born exactly in those days (expecially on Market Discussion) to see how much I got flamed for my so obvious predictions.
Moreover, you magically reduced your "PvE expansions" to Incursions. How does *1* expansion make a viable statistical platform to come out with statements about PvE being the cause of players drop?
I find my own theory much more reliable than yours. Incursions came *after* the most fail patches of all time (Dominion and Tyrannis) it was a cascade trigger along with the fail Incarna (fail in the sense it failed to deliver the promise BY LARGE plus all the stuff I wrote above) more than the proven cause.
Finally, it's not prejudice. I am sure we could have a poll to see how much your posts are seen as a sort of self repeating loop, an insurance into getting a thread to 20+ pages long. This predictability HAS its profitable uses of course so keep posting. Just don't predend people want to waste time playing your permanent same points repetition game.
BTW you still have to reply me on the other thread why am I meant to extensively use and like the terribad new UI while you hated it. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8943
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 07:59:00 -
[395] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Like this is the first thread where you make your anti-PvE statements. OookGǪ it's going to be one of those. No, you're still just reading too much into things.
I'm not anti-PvE. I'm anti-anti-PvP. I'm anti PvE:er-entitlement. I'm anti GÇ£we are the majority, hear us roar (but don't ask us to prove any of it)GÇ¥. I'm anti-let's-turn-EVE-into-something-it-is-not-and-into-something-that-bajillion-other-games-already-offer.
In this case, I'm against the notion that going for the GÇ¥mass appealGÇ¥ and throwing huge amounts of resources at PvE content will be the saviour EVE, given that the last time anything along those lines was tried, it had the entirely predictable effect of creating a nice peak with no (or even negative) long-lasting effects.
Quote:Also, looking backwards is always easy to say "numbers already started plummeting before my prediction", go look at the threads that were born exactly in those days (expecially on Market Discussion) to see how much I got flamed for my so obvious predictions. Yes, it is. The point is: that's when it started. You may be very proud of having caught it early, but the fact remains that it was already happening by then. I know it, and you know it, so don't come spouting your nonsense about how I blaming Incarna for something that started months (hell, even a year) earlier, because that's just dishonest.
Quote:Moreover, you magically reduced your "PvE expansions" to Incursions. How does *1* expansion make a viable statistical platform to come out with statements about PvE being the cause of players drop? There is this little word class called GǣconjunctionGǥ. You should look it up. There's more to it than just PvEGǪ if only you stopped being so prejudiced and considered what I actually wrote.
PvE caused a very short-lived peak in players because it has no long-lasting hold GÇö in EVE or elsewhere, which is why other games have to spew out costly expansions at such high rates or go under. The attempt to do something similar in EVE drew resources away from other, much more needed attention to core gameplay. Consequently, while the PvE expansion propped up the numbers for a while until everything had been figured out and rendered routine, the base numbers were sagging at an increasing rate. When the PvE interest died down, as it always does, we have a sharp dip in numbers from the PvE-ennui combined with the previously hidden lowered numbers from general game abandonment that suddenly were lain bareGǪ et voil+á GÇö the start of the population crash of 2011.
Incarna then came along and managed to combine this on-going drop with its own brand of GÇ£let's change our customer-baseGÇ¥/NGE-style abandonment; the :18 months: coming to full fruition; the entire MT d+¬b+ócle in its many many forms (Fearless, Hilmar's letter, the Ishukone Scorp); the GÇ£let's screw our fansite and third partiesGÇ¥ d+¬b+ócle, and thus we had the final avalanche made ready by that earlier thaw.
The funny thing is, my theory of what happened is fully in line with yours, but for some reason, you absolutely must believe that I'm only blaming Incarna, or that I'm only blaming PvE, when I said something quite different from the very start. This is why I'm calling you prejudiced: because you get so angry over what you think I'm saying that you fail to notice that we're largely in agreement.
Quote:I am sure we could have a poll to see how much your posts are seen as a sort of self repeating loop, an insurance into getting a thread to 20+ pages long. WeellGǪ it's not really my fault if I have to ask repeatedly for people to produce facts to prop up their fantasies, and if they continuously fail to do so.
Quote:BTW you still have to reply me on the other thread why am I meant to extensively use and like the terribad new UI while you hated it. Link? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
456
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 08:09:00 -
[396] - Quote
On the subject of PvE, it could really do with some new missions. I normally only play missions for 7-10 days a year but they are so repetitive and boring.
How full time mission runners are not just insane, I have no idea. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
XJennieX
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 08:11:00 -
[397] - Quote
good riddance to op and whoever else quits for same reason. less gankers the better. |
Biomass MeNOW
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 08:26:00 -
[398] - Quote
Mors Sanctitatis wrote: But that's not what Eve is about. Eve is about PVP.
Incorrect.
World of Tanks is about PvP Counterstrike is about PvP (and hacks) Modern Warfare is about PvP
Those games have zero industry, zero manufacturing, no grinding PvE content to buy the next gee-gaw. They're about PvP, solely and nothing else.
Eve is about every thing else, and PvP. The PvP just happens to be a side junket for the few and the bloodthirsty... I should know, I have played eve for 9 years now and for many of those I was a hardcore PvP junkie.
As PvP became less about cat and mouse and more about hiding until you had overwhelming force, station games, bubbles, and any of the dozens of PvP eliminating features I looked into other aspects of the game.
Because, why? They're there because Eve isn't solely a PvP game.
Until Eve became more of a second job than a game. That's when I hung up my hat.
Now I've put down my scram and my web and chill doing exploration or manufacturing with my dozens of T2 BPOs; or go play any of a host of real PvP games when the invariable wardec comes along. |
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
76
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 08:32:00 -
[399] - Quote
I understand what Tipia is talking about here. Much of it makes sense but there is one point which I will never concede because I think the data that supports it is overwhelming and that is the undeniable fact that the large majority of Eve players don't participate in "combat" PvP. Thats not to say Eve is not a PvP game, but it offers tremendous amount of PvE outlets and this attracts a lot of players. This large player base seeks to play Eve's economic model be it mining, industry, research, invention, trade, transport and many player created services. These are legitimate players and if they seek more controls over their ability to avoid PvP, like it or not, CCP will ultimatly respond and in many ways already have.
That said, I do agree that creating artificial safety for PvE players is not a good approach for this type of game, but I also think that the state of the game right now is such that it has artificial risk free ganking which is also very hurtful to the game. For example using cheap throw away destroyers to blow up expensive large ships (Hulks) with what amounts to zero risk or pentalty. This is no more realistic than an artificial no fighting mechanic in High Sec.
Mind you I don't have anything against the concept of suicide ganking in Empire, I mean, I don't even think of it as ganking but rather simply a crime that exists in the game because it makes sense for it to exists and its a part of the game that should be there. I just don't believe the penalties for being a criminal are in line with the severity of the crime. Its really no different if the penalty was so high that no one does it.
Neither extreme is good, their needs to be more of a middle ground where their is a proper risk vs. reward.
Unfortunatly im not sure how a mechanic would work to acomplish that, and hence all Im doing is pointing out a problem without offering a solution. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8943
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 08:40:00 -
[400] - Quote
Biomass MeNOW wrote:Those games have zero industry, zero manufacturing, no grinding PvE content to buy the next gee-gaw. They're about PvP, solely and nothing else.
Eve is about every thing else, and PvP. GǪexcept that the Gǣeverything elseGǥ is also PvP in EVE, and that all of it is rather dependent on combat to have any meaning or purpose. Eve is about PvP through and through, and offers it in a huge variety of forms to appeal to almost any kind of mindset (except the Gǣleave me alone and let me grindGǥ one).
Kryss Darkdust wrote:there is one point which I will never concede because I think the data that supports it is overwhelming and that is the undeniable fact that the large majority of Eve players don't participate in "combat" PvP. They may not participate in it, but according to the studies made it is the most liked activity in EVE (source). Granted, it's unclear exactly what people put into the word GÇ£PvPGÇ¥ when they answered that, but still. The whole notion that combat is something only a few people do is not particularly well-supported. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
456
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 08:40:00 -
[401] - Quote
Kryss Darkdust wrote:I understand what Tipia is talking about here. Much of it makes sense but there is one point which I will never concede because I think the data that supports it is overwhelming and that is the undeniable fact that the large majority of Eve players don't participate in "combat" PvP. Thats not to say Eve is not a PvP game, but it offers tremendous amount of PvE outlets and this attracts a lot of players. This large player base seeks to play Eve's economic model be it mining, industry, research, invention, trade, transport and many player created services. These are legitimate players and if they seek more controls over their ability to avoid PvP, like it or not, CCP will ultimatly respond and in many ways already have.
That said, I do agree that creating artificial safety for PvE players is not a good approach for this type of game, but I also think that the state of the game right now is such that it has artificial risk free ganking which is also very hurtful to the game. For example using cheap throw away destroyers to blow up expensive large ships (Hulks) with what amounts to zero risk or pentalty. This is no more realistic than an artificial no fighting mechanic in High Sec.
Mind you I don't have anything against the concept of suicide ganking in Empire, I mean, I don't even think of it as ganking but rather simply a crime that exists in the game because it makes sense for it to exists and its a part of the game that should be there. I just don't believe the penalties for being a criminal are in line with the severity of the crime. Its really no different if the penalty was so high that no one does it.
Neither extreme is good, their needs to be more of a middle ground where their is a proper risk vs. reward.
Unfortunatly im not sure how a mechanic would work to acomplish that, and hence all Im doing is pointing out a problem without offering a solution. Personally I don't see ganking as a profession unless payed by a 3rd party. Ganking someone should cost you money. Now the amount it should cost you should simply be weighted against the Gankee's paranoia. They have a huge tanked ship it will cost you a lot more than if they are foolish and have no tank at all. But the current penalties for the crimes are good enough, it is more the enforcement of the negative status that is worrying. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lexmana
668
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 08:56:00 -
[402] - Quote
. |
Lexmana
668
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 08:57:00 -
[403] - Quote
Biomass MeNOW wrote:Mors Sanctitatis wrote: But that's not what Eve is about. Eve is about PVP.
Incorrect. World of Tanks is about PvP Counterstrike is about PvP (and hacks) Modern Warfare is about PvP Those games have zero industry, zero manufacturing, no grinding PvE content to buy the next gee-gaw. They're about PvP, solely and nothing else. Eve is about every thing else, and PvP. The PvP just happens to be a side junket for the few and the bloodthirsty... I should know, I have played eve for 9 years now and for many of those I was a hardcore PvP junkie. As PvP became less about cat and mouse and more about hiding until you had overwhelming force, station games, bubbles, and any of the dozens of PvP eliminating features I looked into other aspects of the game. Because, why? They're there because Eve isn't solely a PvP game. Until Eve became more of a second job than a game. That's when I hung up my hat. Now I've put down my scram and my web and chill doing exploration or manufacturing with my dozens of T2 BPOs; or go play any of a host of real PvP games when the invariable wardec comes along. You are not seeing the forest for all the trees. PvP in EVE is much more complex than your standrad FPS. PvP in EVE is not just about combat but also about all those activities needed to support combat and warfare.That is what makes EVE PvP unique.
Yes even missioning can be a crucial part of PvP because the one that bring in the most ISK will also be able to spend more time on the battlefield with stronger ships helping to win the war. The corp with a strong mining wing will have access to minerals to produce ships and modules for their ship replacement program. Tech moons is basically a PVE source that major wars are fought over and market alliances such as OTEC ar formed around.
Just like in RL wars are not only fought and won on the battlefield. That is EVE PvP! |
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 08:57:00 -
[404] - Quote
Been reading 20 pages now, quite a read~ Sorry to see you go OP |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
109
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 08:58:00 -
[405] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Personally I don't see ganking as a profession unless payed by a 3rd party. Ganking someone should cost you money.
You realise that ganking haulers with 100s of millions onboard is insanely profitable, right?
Amat victoria curam. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1019
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 09:33:00 -
[406] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: I actually feel colonizing sov 0.0 should provide the same far west "unknown lands" feeling. Maybe make delayed local until you gain sov and anchor something? That something could grant say 2-3 manufacturing slots so it'd also entice people to live in those systems.
I like this idea! There should be some sort of infrastructure to provide the local communication channel. Nice! Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
94
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 10:43:00 -
[407] - Quote
Anslo wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Anslo wrote:Give me your stuff before you leave.
Seriously though, get over it. People play games as ENTERTAINMENT, something FUN to do. Not to get griefed. What? I should play something else then? No. I want to play a science fiction game, and people like YOU aren't going to ruin it for me. The wallet of the carebears has spoken. Deal with it. if your idea of "fun" is watching your mining lasers hit a rock, well, have fun >implying anyone who doesn't PvP mines. Like I said before, get over it. If I want to explore low sec with probes, go into wormholes, engage in industry or trade in lowsec, or even rat or do missions to relax, I shouldn't have to deal with griefers all the time. I play this science fiction game for FUN, not life.
Why shouldn't you? They are just doing what they want just like you. I guess a sandbox is only a sandbox if only you are allowed to play in it huh?
|
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
76
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 10:59:00 -
[408] - Quote
Deise Koraka wrote:Mors Sanctitatis wrote:
But that's not what Eve is about. Eve is about PVP. And until CCP fixes that, it's not worth subbing. Such a waste.
That's funny, I've been on EvE for a while now, and never PvP'ed once. I think what you meant to say was: "But that's not what Eve is about for me. Eve for me, is about PVP. And until CCP caters to what I want, it's not worth subbing. No one will miss me."
BINGO
Any gamer who talks in absolutes when refering to a game and what its about hasn't got a clue, in particular in a game like Eve which is so diverse its absurd to assume that its only about one thing. I understand where the poster is going, but his voice is the polar oppossite of "they blew up my hulk, I quit until they fix suicide ganking".
Frankly, the less players we have like that the better, from both sides of the fence.
If there is a definitive thing Eve is about, than its about adapting to opertunities. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
94
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 11:00:00 -
[409] - Quote
Biomass MeNOW wrote:
As PvP became less about cat and mouse and more about hiding until you had overwhelming force
Interested to know exactly what you think "cat and mouse" means since that is basically the stupidest statement in a very stupid thread.
In any case Eve is all about pvp. Without pvp there would be no economy to reward people for their pve nor a need for sci and industry. Everything would be essentially worthless and people would only do things for the enjoyment of doing them. As eve's pve content is very lacking in depth and variation (as it was designed basically to fund people buying ships for pvp and so is very easy to min/max) no one would enjoy doing them for long. As it stands the vast majority of pve in eve is funded by pvp. |
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
76
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 11:02:00 -
[410] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Biomass MeNOW wrote:
As PvP became less about cat and mouse and more about hiding until you had overwhelming force
Interested to know exactly what you think "cat and mouse" means since that is basically the stupidest statement in a very stupid thread. In any case Eve is all about pvp. Without pvp there would be no economy to reward people for their pve nor a need for sci and industry. Everything would be essentially worthless and people would only do things for the enjoyment of doing them. As eve's pve content is very lacking in depth and variation (as it was designed basically to fund people buying ships for pvp and so is very easy to min/max) no one would enjoy doing them for long. As it stands the vast majority of pve in eve is funded by pvp.
Really and where would you get your ships if industrial characters werent mining the resources and manufacuring them for you? Or is it like your moms house where you wake up and your laundry is done presumably by the laundry fairy? You are utterly clueless. |
|
Nevermore Akiga
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 11:09:00 -
[411] - Quote
The pvp and navigation mechanism is so limited that no human being is smart enough to reverse the tide in the foreseeable future. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8944
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 11:12:00 -
[412] - Quote
Kryss Darkdust wrote:Really and where would you get your ships if industrial characters werent mining the resources and manufacuring them for you? You're assuming that industrial characters aren't engaging in PvPGǪ
GǪand even then, you're forgetting the other part: what would those industrial and miner characters do with the stuff they create if there was no market for it? They're not being picked up by the buying fairyGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
78
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 11:16:00 -
[413] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kryss Darkdust wrote:Really and where would you get your ships if industrial characters werent mining the resources and manufacuring them for you? You're assuming that industrial characters aren't engaging in PvPGǪ GǪand even then, you're forgetting the other part: what would those industrial and miner characters do with the stuff they create if there was no market for it? They're not being picked up by the buying fairyGǪ
My point is that the existance of one is only possible by the other. And no Im not assuming industrial characters don't PvP, I do it, Im sure others do as well. But one is physically no possible without the other, to claim otherwise can only mean that you cant grasp the most basic of concepts about how this game works.
Come on Tipia, your pretty smart, I think your splitting hairs now, you know what Im talking about. Eve is not just or all about PvP, thats a stupid thing to post. |
Lexmana
668
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 11:24:00 -
[414] - Quote
Kryss Darkdust wrote:Doddy wrote:Biomass MeNOW wrote:
As PvP became less about cat and mouse and more about hiding until you had overwhelming force
Interested to know exactly what you think "cat and mouse" means since that is basically the stupidest statement in a very stupid thread. In any case Eve is all about pvp. Without pvp there would be no economy to reward people for their pve nor a need for sci and industry. Everything would be essentially worthless and people would only do things for the enjoyment of doing them. As eve's pve content is very lacking in depth and variation (as it was designed basically to fund people buying ships for pvp and so is very easy to min/max) no one would enjoy doing them for long. As it stands the vast majority of pve in eve is funded by pvp. Really and where would you get your ships if industrial characters werent mining the resources and manufacuring them for you? Or is it like your moms house where you wake up and your laundry is done presumably by the laundry fairy? You are utterly clueless.
Haha. Good luck being industrial character in EVE if there was no PvP. Who would buy your ships? |
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
78
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 11:26:00 -
[415] - Quote
Quote:ha. Good luck being a PVP character in EVE if there was no Industrial Characters. Where would buy your ships?
Fixed it back for ya. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8945
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 11:29:00 -
[416] - Quote
Kryss Darkdust wrote:My point is that the existance of one is only possible by the other. GǪand that is pretty much what he said too. Your objection makes it sound like you're saying that this is not the case and that the game would be lost without the non-combat pilots. I can admit to having jumped the gun a bit, but that particular argument comes up so often and is so ridiculously wrong every time it does that it's become a reflex by now.
In reality, you could lose every last one of the self-proclaimed non-PvPers and the game would go on just fine because the PvPers would just pick up the slack (whereas the opposite wouldn't be true since the GÇ£non-PvPersGÇ¥, by their very nature, refuse to fill in that obligatory third part of the game). CCP might think it's no longer worth it and shut its doors, but the game itself would still work.
Quote:Come on Tipia, your pretty smart, I think your splitting hairs now, you know what Im talking about. Eve is not just or all about PvP, thats a stupid thing to post. No, it's really not. EVE is all about PvP. Combat PvP generates demand on the PvP market which is then supplied by the PvP industry sector. Call it splitting hairs if you like GÇö I call it being precise: the game is not all about combat (but massive amounts of combat is an absolute requirement for the game to work), but it is all about player-vs-player in its many many forms.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Lexmana
668
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 11:29:00 -
[417] - Quote
Kryss Darkdust wrote:Quote:ha. Good luck being a PVP character in EVE if there was no Industrial Characters. Where would buy your ships?
Fixed it back for ya. Industry IS PvP. See the logic? |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
459
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 11:31:00 -
[418] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Personally I don't see ganking as a profession unless payed by a 3rd party. Ganking someone should cost you money. You realize that ganking haulers with 100s of millions on board is insanely profitable, right? You failed to quote the bit where I said based on the pilots paranoia. If they are idiots they are unguarded if they are paranoid it would be an unprofitable gank. As you would fail to kill the freighter.
So as I said it should be unprofitable unless the gankee is an idiot. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
459
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 11:34:00 -
[419] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kryss Darkdust wrote:Really and where would you get your ships if industrial characters werent mining the resources and manufacuring them for you? You're assuming that industrial characters aren't engaging in PvPGǪ GǪand even then, you're forgetting the other part: what would those industrial and miner characters do with the stuff they create if there was no market for it? They're not being picked up by the buying fairyGǪ Selling to the PvE guys who would loose ships or other miners both of who with no-pvp could easily go into the insane anoms of null and WH space freely.
So yes a market exists without PvPers.
PvPers do not exist in this game without miners and Traders.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 11:35:00 -
[420] - Quote
EVE is all about industry, there wouldn't be any ships without it!
Sounds pretty stupid right?
. . .
EVE is all about PVP, what else would the ships be used for?
JUST. AS. STUPID. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |