Jizzmaster Mckenzie
Az'Suran Nation
15
   |
Posted - 2013.04.22 14:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
Arancar Australis wrote:Reading both sides of the supposed argument is amusing to say the least. One side has the viewpoint that their playing style should not be interfered with, while the other views this playing style as the downfall to eve and ultimately their preferred playing style.
LOL, no. It is nothing of the kind.
One side (the highsec dwellers) believes their "style" (i.e. endless accumulation of wealth through "hard work") should not be interfered with. To this end, they petition devs, push their agenda to CSM, and are generally very successful in changing the game to agree with their vision.
The other side, the self-styled "bad guys", does not participate in the above game-changing activities to the same extent. Even when they do, they are not as successful, as these people are a less homogeneous, less organized crowd; they do not have a unifying "play style"; they have less avenues to make their voices heard; and, let's face it, they are not as numerous as the guys running L4s or AFK mining.
Arancar Australis wrote:This game was designed to appeal to a wide range of people who wish to play the game as they see fit. It allows people to disagree on what the "best" playing style is and allows them to show why they believe their style is the best for Eve. But the playing style is opinion based and not an absolute truth.
A thousand times yes.
Nobody on the "bad" side (including James 315) would tell you that mining or missions should be removed from the game. And it is always funny to hear the argument that "PvPers" (whatever that word means) want to have no mining/PvE in EVE. It is a strawman argument.
Problem is, the risk-averse majority pushed this game (quite successfully) to the point that risk has been completely, entirely eliminated from significant parts of it. That has nothing to do with "bad guys" trying to destroy anyone's "play style".
In fact, the only "style" that was removed from the game was canflipping, with the introduction of ore holds. It was a very targeted, very specific change that was requested by the risk-averse majority. It has diminished the game, and it was done by CCP solely to gain (or retain) subscription numbers among "mainstream" MMO players.
The same thing happened to UO, and the result was not pretty.
Arancar Australis wrote:Eve is about allowing you to explore the game in a way that you see fit, to acheive the potential you want in this game. Will others dislike and not agree with your style? Yes of course they will and it will be shown via action or word. But the openess of the sandbox allows this to occur.
Yes, and when you don't like something in the sandbox, you petition, and the sandbox gets new rules. Which benefit you, of course.
Arancar Australis wrote:Hi Sec has enough risk for both sides of this arguement.
LOL?
Risk has been completely removed from highsec, what with Orcas, ore holds, Concord buffs, nerfs to "boomerang" mechanics, changes to fleets/gangs/wardecs, changes to sec status loss, Crimewatch 2.0, and a thousand other papercuts. This is just the stuff I remember without even trying.
All of this was player-driven. Driven by the risk-averse among us.
To be honest, I cannot come up with a single example of a change that made lowsec or 0.0 *more* rewarding in a way comparable to the highsec buffs above. Not one.
Arancar Australis wrote:People should be worried more about how the game is proceeding, the content that is being delivered so that we are not losing players due to boredom or that the game (yes keyword) has become a grind.
This thread, minerbumping.com, and James 315 are NOT about mining or miners.
The argument is that the risk-averse majority was very successful in changing the basic game mechanics to benefit their "play style" (as you call it). They want everyone else to just leave them alone, and are very vocal and pushy towards that goal. The two sides of the argument are not in any way equivalent. |