Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
|
ISD TYPE40
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3101
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 20:42:00 -
[31] - Quote
I have cleaned some posts from this thread, some for trolling and others for linking to threads that were locked for breaches of forum rules, please note that both of these things are not allowed. I would also like to ask people to steer clear of making references to politics, religion and Anti-Semitism; such things only lead to discord and serve no purpose other than to antagonise other members of the forum.
I look forward to seeing where this thread is going, just remember to keep it within the rules, thank you - ISD Type40. ISD Type40 Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
60
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 20:43:00 -
[32] - Quote
Here is where you go way off track....
You start out okay. You point out that burning high sec won't move the carebears to low or null. They will just quit playing.
(though, I will have to admit that the CSM notes indicate this is not completely true. CCP claims that burn high sec did, in fact, result in less mining in high sec, slightly more mining in 0.0, and lots more mining in low (of course 100% increase from near 0 is still pretty near 0 in the case of low sec). On the flip side of this, CCP was seeing enough carebear drops that they had to re-balance barges to create barges that are gank resistant to stop and reverse the drops that were being caused by burn high-sec.)
Here is where you go badly off track.... "Equally misguided are the narrowly focused vocal hi-sec uber alles types who just wish that all the drama-llama nullsecers and Jack Sparrows in lo-sec would just go away."
I've not seen a single post from a carebear asking that the PVPers be removed from game. In general, we carebears all seem to realize and accept that it is the boom that creates the demand.
The posts I see from carebears are basically, "both carebears and PVPers can co-exist within the same game, via game mechanics that set up different areas of space that have different rules, that allow different play style".
" They want CCP to endsolung the problem with a server split or, failing that, PvP-flag hi-sec. They believe that, no longer trammeled by the demands of PvPers, EVE could be happily balanced into an eternal "
Hmmm... The people I see calling for sharding are those that want to go to 0.0, but not have to live under the yoke of goons/test and the other ubber large alliances with fleets of supers. They want to be able to start over, on equal footing, in a new shard, as all players would be insta-noobs there... I guess they do not realize that the goons/test could just insta create alts on the new shard, and still be the largest alliance on the new shard, in a heart beat.
High sec already has criminal flag that gets you concorded, so I have no clue what you are talking about with your " PVP-flag high sec" comment.
The bottom line is this. CCP wants max subscribers. They are going to do whatever is necessary to create environments where both PVPers and carebears can enjoy playing the game the way they enjoy playing the game.
It doesn't matter how loudly one side or the other calls for removing the other, CCP is going to ignore that. CCP will watch subs and unsubs, and make game changes necessary to keep as many (of each type of player) playing, and paying. |
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
235
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 20:51:00 -
[33] - Quote
No More Heroes wrote:Ioci wrote:Considering the source, I think the point might have been to suggest certain people back off on their crusade. Tippia wrote:What source would that be, and why would that affect the point? People keep equating Malcanis with goon because he writes for mittens.com even though we've been hostile to Malcanis and his fellows for a long time.
So as I was saying, they pantsed him.
It was published because Mittens thought SA would get a chuckle out of it. R.I.P. Vile Rat |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10388
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 20:53:00 -
[34] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:I've not seen a single post from a carebear asking that the PVPers be removed from game. I'd say you haven't been paying attention, then. They're around and they do indeed often come in the form of requests for PvP switches or locking people out of highsec or completely new shards (not just for restarting, but for a completely different game that is not EVE). When the mention of GÇ£allowing different play stylesGÇ¥ comes along, it often actually means GÇ£disallow certain play styles GÇö specifically the ones that interfere with meGÇ¥. EVE already allows for all the play-styles people are asking for, and that request have a nasty tendency of ultimately trying to hide a restriction of play styles behind shallow rhetoric of allowing it, and pointing this out gets you shouted down as being a close-minded nullsec zealot who's trying to keep people from playing.
Quote:High sec already has criminal flag that gets you concorded, so I have no clue what you are talking about with your " PVP-flag high sec" comment. He means it in the classic MMO sense: a flag you can turn on and off for yourself that marks you as being available for PvP.
Ioci wrote:So as I was saying, they pantsed him. No. It was published because he's an established writer of good opinion pieces GÇö exactly the kind of thing the site wants to provide. 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¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan. |
Dr No Game
Android Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 20:55:00 -
[35] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:High sec already has criminal flag that gets you concorded, so I have no clue what you are talking about with your " PVP-flag high sec" comment. I think the intent there is that all of Hisec would be PvP-free except systems specifically flagged as PvP-friendly. Yes, it is ridiculous.
|
Myriad Blaze
16
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 21:00:00 -
[36] - Quote
Good article and well written. Just the "people are rational" part should be taken *** grano salis maybe. You see, I have to admit that I once did something because I was stupid.
. . .
Well, maaaybe twice.
Edit: seems there are certain latin words that are not allowed here: "*** grano salis" - "with a grain of salt". |
Qin Tawate
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 21:00:00 -
[37] - Quote
Cant remember, who said it:
Mittani would be a pseudo-educated douchebag. This text delivers to this line. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10388
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 21:10:00 -
[38] - Quote
Myriad Blaze wrote:Edit: seems there are certain latin words that are not allowed here: "*** grano salis" - "with a grain of salt". Only the ones that happen to coincide with colloquial names for bodily fluids.
Qin Tawate wrote:Cant remember, who said it:
Mittani would be a pseudo-educated douchebag. This text delivers to this line. EhGǪ ok? How is he in any way relevant to the topic at hand? 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¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan. |
Qin Tawate
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 21:15:00 -
[39] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Myriad Blaze wrote:Edit: seems there are certain latin words that are not allowed here: "*** grano salis" - "with a grain of salt". Only the ones that happen to coincide with colloquial names for bodily fluids. Qin Tawate wrote:Cant remember, who said it:
Mittani would be a pseudo-educated douchebag. This text delivers to this line. EhGǪ ok? How is he in any way relevant to the topic at hand?
I corrected my text. Read again.
|
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
759
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 21:18:00 -
[40] - Quote
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:Berendas wrote:Good read, but I think you need to add a footnote to section (4). Some people are just there to annoy, incite argument, and get their yucks at the discussion's expense. They may be completely logical people (most legitimate trolls are) but they will not allow their logic to be visible and will make posts that are incorrect or intentionally uninformed. Not everyone is wise to their game so these detractors may be obvious to some but not all of EVE's forum-goers. This is a must read interview with a Troll related to the topic at hand: http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/nov/09/confessions-of-an-internet-troll
He looks quite old for an annoying nine year old boy. This is not a signature. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10388
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 21:19:00 -
[41] - Quote
Qin Tawate wrote:I corrected my text. Read again. It makes even less sense now.
Why should it cost him anything to point out that the rhetoric of demonisation makes for lousy reasoning? 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¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
60
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 21:20:00 -
[42] - Quote
Tippia wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:I've not seen a single post from a carebear asking that the PVPers be removed from game. I'd say you haven't been paying attention, then. They're around and they do indeed often come in the form of requests for PvP switches or locking people out of highsec or completely new shards (not just for restarting, but for a completely different game that is not EVE). When the mention of GÇ£allowing different play stylesGÇ¥ comes along, it often actually means GÇ£disallow certain play styles GÇö specifically the ones that interfere with meGÇ¥. EVE already allows for all the play-styles people are asking for, and that request have a nasty tendency of ultimately trying to hide a restriction of play styles behind shallow rhetoric of allowing it, and pointing this out gets you shouted down as being a close-minded nullsec zealot who's trying to keep people from playing.
Now we may be moving into the realm of splitting hairs in semantics.
Real world, the saying goes... your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Unless, of course, we're in the boxing ring (or MMA octagon).
If my play style is carebear, and your play style is PVP, then "no interferance with each other's play styles" would dictate that your right to PVP ends at my ship, unless I step into the ring.... that is, low/null sec.
Now, I would not go nearly that far, since I realize there are limited resources that even carebears are going after. How am I going to pay for my army of alt by mining fatty belts, if you have mined up all the belts and bought up all the PLEX from the market to fund your army of alts. AND, if I'm getting too big for my britches... moving around billions of ISK worth of goods in a freighter, and not even scouting and using the friendly web trick... well... I should get blown up for profit.
I actually pretty much like EVE as it is. High sec relatively, but not totally safe. Revitalize low sec with FW. Strong null sec.
What EVE needs is more PVPers that are content to PVP with other players that enjoy PVPing, and fewer sociopaths that want to blow up the ships of carebears.
What's the matter griefer? Can't win a fight against someone that is ready and looking to fight back, so have to take out your frustration by beating up on the people that are not ready for, not looking for a fight?
Pathetic losers, those people are.
Oh... look at me... I'm such an awesome PVPer that I logged off in a belt during a war, then put an out of corp, cloaked up alt in the belt. When a WT came in, I used the out of corp alt to bump the WT while I logged in my PVP toon, and blew up the defenseless miner....
Did you do it to prevent them from mining the belts so you could mine them instead? Nope... just wanted to pad my kill board sats with easy kills to inflate my epeen, and to feast on tasty carebear tears....
Sociopath! |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
658
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 21:21:00 -
[43] - Quote
Well written and entirely relevant to the current state of GD...
o7!
Interdict Hi-Sec - it's the only way to be sure... |
Zhade Lezte
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 21:24:00 -
[44] - Quote
Berendas wrote:Good read, but I think you need to add a footnote to section (4). Some people are just there to annoy, incite argument, and get their yucks at the discussion's expense. They may be completely logical people (most legitimate trolls are) but they will not allow their logic to be visible and will make posts that are incorrect or intentionally uninformed. Not everyone is wise to their game so these detractors may be obvious to some but not all of EVE's forum-goers.
Yeah, general discussion got a lot more entertaining when I realized that something like 50-75% of the people being idiots were just trolls on alt or gimmick characters. |
Nexus Day
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
124
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 21:25:00 -
[45] - Quote
I accept the writers opinion as truth.
Others will treat it as an opinion.
Thereby validating the writer's opinion. (Although they may not realize it)
But this is just my opinion. |
Zhade Lezte
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 21:27:00 -
[46] - Quote
Man get your relativism outta here and go observe some people. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10388
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 21:27:00 -
[47] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Real world, the saying goes... your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Unless, of course, we're in the boxing ring (or MMA octagon). GǪand we're in such a ring right now. You stepped in the moment you logged in GÇö highsec is as much a part of the ring as low and null. At most, it's a corner where the padding on the gloves is a bit thicker (which, as it turns out, is not always a good thing for the parties involved).
Someone else's play style as a PvPer does not disallow your play style as a carbear. The game already allows for both. The game just puts it on your shoulders to ensure that you get to play the way you want. Or to use a different Malcanisism: [playing EVE] does not mean you get to succeed at anything you want to try GÇö it means you get to try anything you want to succeed at.
Quote:What EVE needs is more PVPers that are content to PVP with other players that enjoy PVPing, and fewer sociopaths that want to blow up the ships of carebears.
What's the matter griefer? Can't win a fight against someone that is ready and looking to fight back, so have to take out your frustration by beating up on the people that are not ready for, not looking for a fight?
Pathetic losers, those people are. Ok. At this point I'd suggest that you go and re-read the article and see if you can spot what you just did and why it's a bad thing. 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¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 21:28:00 -
[48] - Quote
+1 Alex, Mittani, Gianturco
Lin would say /bow fot this interesting piece of thought and humility. |
Bud Austrene
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 21:31:00 -
[49] - Quote
If you look around you in RL, you will see "The Big Lie" is still alive and doing well in just about every facet of life. But it seems that few really seem to be aware of it. I think it is a little bit of wishful thinking and ignorance. Your article was good but i think it would be better if the message were shorter. It seems that people's attention span is short and i have found that it is more effective to keep it short and add to it a little at a time. But keep in mind, there will always be a new crop of the "wishful thinking and ignorant". And of course, there are always those that are just trouble makers at heart and are immune. "The Big Lie" is never ending and will always be with us.
But recognizing it makes it so that we can protect ourselves from some of the consequences and maybe use it to further our own agendas. |
KrakizBad
Eve Defence Force Fatal Ascension
1110
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 21:34:00 -
[50] - Quote
Poor OP, this is why you can't have nice things. www.minerbumping.com - because your tears are delicious |
|
Sara XIII
The Carnifex Corp
113
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 22:06:00 -
[51] - Quote
Well done Malcanis. One of the best articles I've read over there. I mean you're no James 315 but that was pretty damn thought provoking!
Between Ignorance and Wisdom |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1097
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 22:08:00 -
[52] - Quote
The forums are not an RSS feed. User has been put on probation for 6 hours. Crimewatch 2.0: Protecting stupid people & rewarding lazy people. This hurts the smart & industrious people by making their intelligence & industry provide them with less benefit over the stupid & lazy people. ~ Ruby Porto |
JitaPriceChecker2
State War Academy Caldari State
184
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 22:09:00 -
[53] - Quote
I call this BS.
I dont need a single Hi-Sec player. What he is good for if i cant shoot him.
|
HollyShocker 2inthestink
State War Academy Caldari State
58
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 22:23:00 -
[54] - Quote
Tippia wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:Real world, the saying goes... your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Unless, of course, we're in the boxing ring (or MMA octagon). GǪand we're in such a ring right now. You stepped in the moment you logged in GÇö highsec is as much a part of the ring as low and null. At most, it's a corner where the padding on the gloves is a bit thicker (which, as it turns out, is not always a good thing for the parties involved). Someone else's play style as a PvPer does not disallow your play style as a carbear. The game already allows for both. The game just puts it on your shoulders to ensure that you get to play the way you want. Or to use a different Malcanisism: [playing EVE] does not mean you get to succeed at anything you want to try GÇö it means you get to try anything you want to succeed at. Quote:What EVE needs is more PVPers that are content to PVP with other players that enjoy PVPing, and fewer sociopaths that want to blow up the ships of carebears.
What's the matter griefer? Can't win a fight against someone that is ready and looking to fight back, so have to take out your frustration by beating up on the people that are not ready for, not looking for a fight?
Pathetic losers, those people are. Ok. At this point I'd suggest that you go and re-read the article and see if you can spot what you just did and why it's a bad thing.
This is where I disagree with you Tippia. The ring as you want to call it is where both parties are shiped up and trained up for pvp. Two parties looking for a fight, not a miner in a ship that cant fight back.
Killing miners in hi-sec is not consensual pvp it like clubing baby seals on the beach with a bat.
When fighters step into the ring they both know what they are there for they both trained to be there. Ones not there to fight and the other to do laundry.
Like I have said before most will try to justify killing miners as pvp to make themselves feel better about their actions. Killing miners in hi-sec is for people that fail at pvp where it should be done not hi-sec. You can argue all you want about sandbox but if they wanted you to pvp in hi-sec they would not have Concord at all. Think about it. |
Ginger Barbarella
State War Academy Caldari State
250
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 22:25:00 -
[55] - Quote
Saw it's on the website of the disgraced lawyer, stopped reading. |
Some Rando
University of Caille Gallente Federation
106
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 22:28:00 -
[56] - Quote
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:Killing miners in hi-sec is not consensual pvp it like clubing baby seals on the beach with a bat. Which is actually pretty hilarious in a video game, if you think about it. Miners, baby seals, the same thing... Makes sense. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
435
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 22:32:00 -
[57] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:You start out okay. You point out that burning high sec won't move the carebears to low or null. They will just quit playing.
(though, I will have to admit that the CSM notes indicate this is not completely true. CCP claims that burn high sec did, in fact, result in less mining in high sec, slightly more mining in 0.0, and lots more mining in low (of course 100% increase from near 0 is still pretty near 0 in the case of low sec). On the flip side of this, CCP was seeing enough carebear drops that they had to re-balance barges to create barges that are gank resistant to stop and reverse the drops that were being caused by burn high-sec.)
I'm not convinced that the move of miners to low or null actually created more ship boomage, or just PVPer rage at local and station/POS games where miners safe up as soon as any non-blue enters local.....
Here is where you go badly off track.... "Equally misguided are the narrowly focused vocal hi-sec uber alles types who just wish that all the drama-llama nullsecers and Jack Sparrows in lo-sec would just go away."
I've not seen a single post from a carebear asking that the PVPers be removed from game. In general, we carebears all seem to realize and accept that it is the boom that creates the demand.
The posts I see from carebears are basically, "both carebears and PVPers can co-exist within the same game, via game mechanics that set up different areas of space that have different rules, that allow different play style".
" They want CCP to endsolung the problem with a server split or, failing that, PvP-flag hi-sec. They believe that, no longer trammeled by the demands of PvPers, EVE could be happily balanced into an eternal "
Hmmm... The people I see calling for sharding are those that want to go to 0.0, but not have to live under the yoke of goons/test and the other ubber large alliances with fleets of supers. They want to be able to start over, on equal footing, in a new shard, as all players would be insta-noobs there... I guess they do not realize that the goons/test could just insta create alts on the new shard, and still be the largest alliance on the new shard, in a heart beat.
High sec already has criminal flag that gets you concorded, so I have no clue what you are talking about with your " PVP-flag high sec" comment.
The bottom line is this. CCP wants max subscribers. They are going to do whatever is necessary to create environments where both PVPers and carebears can enjoy playing the game the way they enjoy playing the game.
It doesn't matter how loudly one side or the other calls for removing the other, CCP is going to ignore that. CCP will watch subs and unsubs, and make game changes necessary to keep as many (of each type of player) playing, and paying.
This whole post MUST be a test lol, because just reading it makes me want to break Mittani rule #5 lol.
It kind of seems like the article was Mittani trying to put foward a middle ground posistion, in the spirit of a U.N. of EVE. Welp, these kinds of post kind of demonstrate the weakness of the article. If everyone was reasonable it would be different' but everyone isn't, so joining hands and singing kuumbayyaa (so to speak lol, not saying this is what the article suggested) with people who don't particulairy like EVE isn't very realistic.
CCP Gargant:-á this game requires a certain amount of simply going out there and chatting with people. You will get scammed, destroyed, cheated, trolled, and blown up but that is just a part of the essence of this game. -á |
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
57
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 22:35:00 -
[58] - Quote
JitaPriceChecker2 wrote:I call this BS.
I dont need a single Hi-Sec player. What he is good for if i cant shoot him.
0/10 wumbo |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10389
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 22:36:00 -
[59] - Quote
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:This is where I disagree with you Tippia. The ring as you want to call it is where both parties are shiped up and trained up for pvp. Two parties looking for a fight, not a miner in a ship that cant fight back. No, it's the same old ring. It just happens to be challenger night and anyone who stumbles in gets to throw a punch (and take a few in return).
Quote:You can argue all you want about sandbox but if they wanted you to pvp in hi-sec they would not have Concord at all. No. It's quite the opposite. If they didn't want people to fight in highsec, there would be no CONCORD.
CONCORD is there specifically because they want people to fight because if they didn't, CONCORD would serve no purpose and in its place would be the impossibility to fire at other players. Instead, the actual purpose of CONCORD is to ensure that aggression costs GÇö it is not in any way there to make it not happen.
Ginger Barbarella wrote:Saw it's on the website of the disgraced lawyer, stopped reading. You really should read it. It's about you. 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¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan. |
Some Rando
University of Caille Gallente Federation
107
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 22:37:00 -
[60] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:It kind of seems like the article was Mittani trying to put foward a middle ground posistion Articles on that website are written by a wide variety of authors, who are credited at the top of the article.
I mean, I know everyone is an alt of James 315 who is an alt of The Mittani, but, you know, just saying... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |