|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
262
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 06:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
Why is it that people think this game is for everyone?
EVE is clearly fueled by competition and cannot survive without it. You don't need to spend 15$ per month to look at nebulae and 3D ship models.
Anyone who uses "forcing me to do this" in their argument intrigues me; I have no idea why they are spending money on this game in the first place. The only thing really forcing you to anything is your own brain. If you are tired of getting your progress slowed, it's nobody's fault but your own that you do not use the tools given to everyone.
If you don't like shooting ships, that's your problem. Just don't try telling me those who shoot ships have an unfair advantage when it is clearly an advantage. In fact, anything you do in this game gives you an advantage over those who don't.
That is just as crazy as people moving to a different country and asking for laws to accommodate their personal needs or beliefs. |

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
266
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 19:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Azumi Zimu wrote:You guys waged a campaign against high-sec miners. You used early 20th century Anti-Semitic propaganda. You said you hated what they stood for.
You would be a fool to think this was anti-semitic. Paragraph structure has nothing to do with religion. There were the ones who read James 315's manifesto literally, like you. There were the ones who saw the bigger picture.
Lutin Ballista wrote: Perhaps, shock/horror they play the game for different reasons to you. Why should your way be the right way?
"The right way" is the way the game allows you to play. It's one thing to question balance and it is another to claim your 15$ per month supports your argument.
Tali Ambraelle wrote: This is not a game about pvp, it is about a sandbox.
Your very presence in a true sandbox is competition, because I said so. As soon as anyone acknowledges your presence, you have participated in human interaction. You have affected someone else's decisions. It might have been a simple "give me 5 secs to look at your ship", yet I have won fights because reinforcements arrived 5 seconds too late. To claim you can play this game completely devoid of human interaction (a.k.a. pvp-less) is quite presumptuous.
Malphilos wrote: Now apply that line of reason to say, incursions. Or high sec missions. Or any of the myriad other whines about activities that are supposedly too profitable.
This game does not meant to reward you. Quite the contrary, it punishes you for trying to make ISK. The whole idea is about finding ways to succeed, against all odds. "Activities that are supposedly too profitable" are usually the ones abused by loopholes generating risk-free income. |

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
266
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 05:35:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sarmea Moon wrote: Yes, let's turn on Concord in low sec and null sec. How about that?
The whole point of the sandbox is having the least amount of NPC interaction. Hence the term "sandbox" as opposed to "themepark". EVE's selling point has always been it's sandbox approach, thus moving away from it you might as well ask for a completely new game. Your idea is stupid because it is a bad idea disguised as a "completely equivalent opposite". CONCORD needs to be removed when the right tools are given to players who want to play space-sheriff.
Bane Necran wrote: The industrialist came before the PvP player in this game, and industrialists know they need the PvP aspect in order to sell more ships. If anyone is just showing up and not understanding how the game works, its the PvP players who think they don't need industry.
"PVP" players, you meant all of us? I think what you mean is specifically those who specialize in ship-to-ship combat. I think those that play different playstyles are the best at commenting on those particular ones, especially when two playtyles they play are directly dependent of each other.
I for one have traded, mined, manufactured, hauled, suicide ganked, missioned, gate camped, AFK cloaked, roamed, structure bashed, PI'ed and rented.
Sarmea Moon wrote: Now, what risk do bumpers take? Oh right, nothing, absolutely no risk of anything right now. They don't even get flagged for it like can flippers. Yeah, real risky that.
The risk you will get recruited by a 0.0 entity. I don't see much bumping happening in 0.0. I see people shooting, and shooting back. That is the solution EVE provides you, it's your fault if you do not like it, not mine. |

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
267
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 06:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: I find it rather ironic that in this game, you can do whatever you want, yet people choose to be ass hats.
What is ironic, is that you have no idea what ironic means.
I think the word you were looking for was "surprising". However, there is nothing surprising here; it's called human nature. Additionally, those "ass hats" give value to good actions and without them there would be no contrast between good and evil. |

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
267
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 07:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
Katran Luftschreck wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yet the high sec bears continue to try to get rid of playstyles they dont like. And this is different from null-bears how, exactly?
Those null-bears crying for nerfs to AFK cloaking? None whatsoever. Apparently 1 stealth bomber can terrorize a pack of ratters just like 1 catalyst can terrorize a pack of miners. |

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
267
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 07:44:00 -
[6] - Quote
Touval Lysander wrote:Thor Kerrigan wrote:Additionally, those "ass hats" give value to good actions and without them there would be no contrast between good and evil. I read a book about this once. In chapter 1 it discussed the theory of burning your house down to redecorate the lounge. It even talked of killing people to make them better persons. In chapter 2 they discussed people who deliberately caused harm to others and then rescued them to appear good. In chapter 3 they discussed how people break the law to test that the law makers are doing their job. In chapter 4, they discussed using conscription to fight for liberty. In chapter 5, they discussed using nuclear weapons to preserve humanity. It was a great book. Want the title?
Are we talking about exceptions or general trends? One can easily get lost when he gets those two confused. |

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
271
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 16:49:00 -
[7] - Quote
Katran Luftschreck wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:This game is not and has never been for everyone, I say love it or leave it. [...] So let's get this through everyone's heads once and for all, okay? CCP is a business. A business is an organism designed to acquire money from people. If it fails to do this, it dies. The way CCP makes money is through subscriptions, preferably long subscriptions that last for years. [...]
The issue is that when it comes to working for their accounting department, neither do you. CCP can decide to close their game. CCP can also decide to make their whole game highsec. CCP can decide to create a completely new game.
This game stands out with two key features:
a) - Conquerable space thousands can call "home". b) - Complete loss of your ship and modules and sometimes implants when KIA.
What I'm saying is that for us **customers**, asking the game to move away from these key features under the pretense that "I will unsubscribe" is paradoxical. It would be easier to ask CCP for a new game called VeV which would move away from these two features as much as possible.
Highsec is usually bashed because it it fails to offer a) and gives a false feeling there is no b). Highsec is meant to be a newbie land, which is something this game needs. What often happens is that some people can never "level-up" from being newbies in EVE, and others figure out some highsec rewards are on-par with other secs.
But this "forcing me to..." argument does comes not only from highsec. Take a look at AFK cloaking in 0.0. Take a look at lowsec gatecamps. People don't like the tools given to them to counter these, so they demand a CCP counter (nerf). |

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
271
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 17:01:00 -
[8] - Quote
Tali Ambraelle wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Pro-tip: It's all about the demographic. Pooping all over your current audience in a desperate hope to gain a different audience is nearly always suicide, especially when you already are a very niche product. Because the vocal minority of anti-miner tards and pvp tards on the forum is clearly a representative sample of the customer base as a whole.
It's not the quantity, it's the quality.
The fact is you have no idea what the real demographic is. The only thing that matters is the quality of your arguments, not how often you can repeat them.
When it comes down to it, you are arguing with me. We both pay the same fee per month and we both have the same tools provided by the game. What makes your 15$ more valuable than my 15$? Nothing really. This is why "forcing me to..." arguments fail as they only show your lack of creativity and adaptation. |

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
272
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 17:26:00 -
[9] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Thor Kerrigan wrote:What I'm saying is that for us **customers**, asking the game to move away from these key features under the pretense that "I will unsubscribe" is paradoxical. It would be easier to ask CCP for a new game called VeV which would move away from these two features as much as possible. Unfortunately, CCP have made it quite clear that they're moving in that direction.
And they can do what they want with their game. They won't force me to subscribe though. When the game stops being appealing to me, I can just move on. No need to tell the world or demand CCP anything.
I have played this game for 3 years because it delivers what it advertised to me. And it sure did not sound like WOW back then.
|

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
280
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 13:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
Lutin Ballista wrote:Thor Kerrigan wrote: "The right way" is the way the game allows you to play. It's one thing to question balance and it is another to claim your 15$ per month supports your argument.
Forgive me but if you are suggesting that the game isn't set up for industrialists then you clearly need to learn what a lot of new aspects about this game. I always presumed factories, research, PI etc were all elements of the game rather than mindless PVP. I'd suggest that the economics of this game is the sole reason why there is PVP.
The game is set up for industrialists to go boom unless they have half a brain, really. Successfully evading other players is PVP, and thus discussing the balancing behind it makes sense. Claiming that "being forced" to dodge other players is against the EULA a.k.a. "griefing" is silly. It's part of the chosen path, a path where ships are weak in ship-to-ship combat.
Lutin Ballista wrote:Thor Kerrigan wrote: To claim you can play this game completely devoid of human interaction (a.k.a. pvp-less) is quite presumptuous.
To claim the alternative is also presumptuous don't you think?
Please tell me how you can play this game without interacting with another human bein- oh... did you just use the market? Yep that's PVP. If you are going to attempt to sound clever, at least try to support your claim with an argument, yes? |
|

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
282
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 04:36:00 -
[11] - Quote
Dar Manic wrote: You don't want PVP, go to hi-sec.
False. You have access to the player-controlled market even in highsec. |

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
295
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 13:37:00 -
[12] - Quote
Maxpie wrote:Whenever I explain Eve to my friends who have played other games, I always tell them "you probably won't like it, this game is not for everybody" and unfortunately, most of the time it is true. That said, I can't play any of their boring, meaningless theme park games.
It took me 3 trials to finally subscribe. Being able to pay with PLEX is what made it attractive down the line. Although my income started paying for them when I moved out of highsec, I doubt the people in high who pay with PLEX like it when proposed changes nerf their income as their "regular playstyle" won't afford the monthly fee. |

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
299
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 04:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
Dar Manic wrote:Thor Kerrigan wrote:Dar Manic wrote: You don't want PVP, go to hi-sec.
False. You have access to the player-controlled market even in highsec. Wat? You just left the earth's orbit with that tid bit. If shooting and blowing up peeps (and/or having them do it to you) is not your thing then go to Hi-sec... hrm, not sure where the market has anything to do with it. I see the 'player-controlled' bit which means you are part of the panic'd 'miners are ruining the game and it's communism' crowd. I'm not talking about anything to do with markets... simply talking about shooting ships and blowing up.
In a game where every action you take (i.e. partake in market transactions) affects other people, the only way to stop "PVPing" is by not playing the game.
One player trained to excel at seeding the market (mining), the competition trained shooting guns. Who is the winner is a matter of perspective, as the ammo/modules/ships used could have been seeded by the very person you just shot down.
I could reply to your snide comment about me being part of a specific "crowd" you obviously look down upon that you appear to be part of the willingly oblivious crowd slash uneducated... but I won't. |

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
299
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 04:37:00 -
[14] - Quote
White Quake wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:The belligerent undesirables will be pushed out and then the game will be for everyone.  no it wont the industry and pve players will leave and the market will crash and the game shortly after that if any of u idiot pvp pilots think otherwise your a damn fool
you define yourself as a "pvp player", but i'm sure you mean "ship-to-ship pvp combat player". I don't think your line of work deals with supply and demand.
if all indy players leave tomorrow, the demand will grow so high that new industrialists will come replace the hole. Imagine T1 ammo becoming so scarce you can sell it for 1000x it's manufacturing costs. Trust me, if it ever gets to that, the market will re-adjust itself as all of us can manufacture and seed the market. |

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
299
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 19:35:00 -
[15] - Quote
Justice Comes wrote:It really just depends how many players (money) CCP wants. [...] So again, it just boils down to how many players they want
The whole point of this thread is that I see no value in this argument. Would you support EVE becoming a medieval-fantasy MMO if it meant we would get our player-base to 2 million subscribers? According to your logic, you would.
All I'm saying is, why not just create a new game from scratch then? |

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
302
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 17:52:00 -
[16] - Quote
Khergit Deserters wrote:leave people alone and let them play how they want. Or go ahead and bump them, and call it PVP or extortion. But don't say it's because you don't approve of how the victim plays the game, or write non sequitur manifestos about it.
There is a difference between roleplaying and out-of-game discussion. No matter how you spin it, asking CCP for changes is never roleplaying.
Dar Manic wrote:Oraac Ensor wrote:Thor Kerrigan wrote:Why is it that people think this game is for everyone? A better question would be "Why do some people think this game is only for them?" There's the winner!!!
You do realize this goes both ways? You seem to think that what you call "pvper's" (read your sig) want carebears gone, when all they really want is to break their illusion of perfect safety. Just because it's entertaining to do so as well should not be a reason clouding your judgement. They also want a more balanced risk/reward distribution for everyone. When carebears say it's not worth leaving highsec as the risk/reward does not justify it, I totally agree with them. This is why incentives need to be added outside until we get a better player distribution. Would this "stealth-nerf" highsec income? Absolutely. |

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
302
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 18:19:00 -
[17] - Quote
Dar Manic wrote:Thor Kerrigan wrote: You do realize this goes both ways? You seem to think that what you call "pvper's" (read your sig) want carebears gone, when all they really want is to break their illusion of perfect safety. Just because it's entertaining to do so as well should not be a reason clouding your judgement. They also want a more balanced risk/reward distribution for everyone. When carebears say it's not worth leaving highsec as the risk/reward does not justify it, I totally agree with them. This is why incentives need to be added outside until we get a better player distribution. Would this "stealth-nerf" highsec income? Absolutely.
They don't have perfect safety in hi-sec. There are plenty of ways to grief people there. Using carebears so much really taints your thread. Shows a weakness in your arguments. There are plenty of incentives out there now. Not everyone wants to play the way you do. Some people... dare I say it... have fun playing Eve rather than making it a job. I prefer 'the leave it the f*ck alone' perspective. I'm not trying to dictate anything on anyone. I'm not saying the game is only for me. I'm not saying the game is only for hi-sec players. I'm not saying the game is only for low-sec players. I'm not saying the game is only for WH players. I'm not saying the game is only for null sec players. I'm saying LITFA before you screw it up.
So you partake to this discussion only to finish by saying "I could not care less if people say they will leave the game". From suicide gankers to AFK cloakers, I would also say "LITFA before you screw it up".
I'm glad we agree.
|

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
306
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 07:25:00 -
[18] - Quote
Ranzabar wrote:Listen, if I want to let CCP suck $15 out of my account every month so that I can sit and spin little imaginary spaceships, that's my business.
But if you say CCP should nerf the outside because it would cause less stress on the servers, that would be the problem. |
|
|
|