He can't separate fantasy from reality because he's not into roleplaying?

I think it'd be more interesting to puzzle over why you're compelled to be a psychopath in a game that does its best to approximate real-world social interaction.

The other guy can always shoot back. He can get a gang of folks, enter through a different pipe, and jump on them, particularly since you won't even have to look for them. If they fight, good. If they run, well hey! You just cleared the gatecamp.

Because it's just a game? That's like asking if people who play Mario games hate turtles and munch on shrooms in real life.

I'd love to know why pixels are worth getting so upset about.

Because it's just a game? That's like asking if people who play Mario games hate turtles and munch on shrooms in real life.

But why this game and why this persona? Mario, in stark contrast, is intentionally fanciful

Incidentally, I don't know who you think is upset or why.

I knew you'd come at me with that point. I also play Team Fortress, where I delight in mowing people down with my Rage Inducing Minigun.

Different game. Different possibilities. Different expectations. Different rules. Different behaviours.

Also, and this is most important: there are a whole stack of different servers you can choose. You're not stuck on the server that's always got the idiot who deliberately switches his teleport entrance and exit, just to **** off the team.

You really don't know who is upset? Maybe the guy posting Punisher jpgs and fantasizing about removing people he considers psychopaths because of in game actions from the gene pool?

I'd have to say that he is very mad, bro.

Why this game? Because this is one of the very few games that gives you that kind of freedom to play. You can do pretty much whatever you want in EVE, consequences aside, and in this universe murder is only slightly more illegal than double parking. That's how they set it up. I am playing the game the way it was designed to be played. Why is that a problem?

The problem is that people's expectations of EVE are wrong.

I dislike psychopaths, which is why I play eve, so I can remove them from our gene pool.

That's your personal value judgement. Like, you know, "I don't want to live in a Police State, so I hereby consent to the possibility of being violently attacked when I walk out of my front door" kind of value judgement. The point is I undock, so in theory I can be attacked, but I don't give my consent, no.

You really don't know who is upset? Maybe the guy posting Punisher jpgs and fantasizing about removing people he considers psychopaths because of in game actions from the gene pool?

I'd have to say that he is very mad, bro.

Why this game? Because this is one of the very few games that gives you that kind of freedom to play.

You can do pretty much whatever you want in EVE, consequences aside, and in this universe murder is only slightly more illegal than double parking. That's how they set it up. I am playing the game the way it was designed to be played. Why is that a problem?

You're playing the game wrong.

Whatever floats your boat; I read his posts very differently.

Nah, there are lots are sandboxes. Most have less realistic social interaction so the question remains, why do you value realism so much in your griefing?

This thread is about subtle modifications to, as you put it, how things are set up. Would you suddenly fault Eve for its sandbox nature if the rules didn't swing disproportionately in your favor?

This isn't about me. I know how to play the game. I've been doing it for 10 years. I rarely get caught in low sec or null and when I do, meh, I don't fly what I can't afford to lose so I don't really care. We're talking about noobs here.

Not really. A proper sandbox multiplayer is really starting to become a thing of the past. Anyway, how do I value realism in my griefing? If I kill someone in real life, their ghost doesn't stand up and pitch me a delicious convo full of whining. That only happens in a video game. Nothing realistic about that.

No. EVE's rules swing in the favor of the prepared, the knowledgeable, and the clever. They have no bias towards anyone. They have a bias against those who choose the play the game the wrong way, though. If you stick your head in the sandbox, you will find that people tend to cut it off when you're not looking.

most new players, also have the comon sense to not go into low security space until their ready, even if they dont have that comon sense they still should.

You don't kill people in Eve, you waste their time and resources; very analogous to real life. I have to agree with Victoria though, you get boring really quick. I guess you can't directly derive anything interesting about someone's psyche when they're nothing but defensive.

Then you have no problem with the OP's suggestions then? -

"Increase the Size of Low-sec gates so they are not as easily camped
Create a Jump timer where folks changing "sec" get a 30 second invulnerability timer to warp off, making camping inter-sec gates profitless."

These merely swing the burden of knowledge and cleverness onto the gate camper; specifically, they can't just sit on the obvious funnels without more advanced tactics.

You mistake defensiveness for attempting to get you to actually define a position. Both Victoria and yourself, and let's not forget the "remove from the gene pool" guy, have been all over the place. I'd love to define a discussion with proper context.

No, all of those are nonsense, and were just meant to start a flame war. The OP, unless you missed the last week or so of the forums, has been trolling almost every day with a new topic. That, or he is a seriously hardcore advocate for dumbass casuals.

The invulnerability one in particular is hilarious. The gate cloak already exists for that purpose.

Meta-defensive as well?



So to reiterate, you don't like these suggestions because they would make your experience harder?

No, I dislike those suggestions because they are laughable, and exist purely as attempts to troll the forums.

The invulnerability thing, already exists in the form of the gate cloak. It is a powerful defensive tool available to anyone and everyone. There are ways to specifically counter it, yes, but those require teamwork and specific fits.

But 30 sec of immunity is, while overlapping, on a whole order of magnitude higher than a gate cloak. 30 sec of immunity is tantamount to total and complete safety when not on autopilot. EVE is not about safety. The suggestion flies against the core design philosophy of the game.

It'd basically be like someone getting on and saying they should cut mining laser output by half. "Oh, well you're only complaining because it would make your life harder" applies equally well. Both are laughable suggestions, and equally unfeasible.

But 30 sec of immunity is, while overlapping, on a whole order of magnitude higher than a gate cloak. 30 sec of immunity is tantamount to total and complete safety when not on autopilot. EVE is not about safety. The suggestion flies against the core design philosophy of the game.

God you're whiny. "Ganking people with a safety window for warping off border gates too huuuuuurd!" Nevermind that you could smart-bomb them while they're landing, catch them in the next system, ect. ect. ect.

Incidentally, halving mining laser output would just double your disposable ship cost in the long run.

Let me be quite clear, low sec should be dangerous.

But let's face it, gates are pretty crappy. Gate camping is a snooze fest, Blind session changes are pretty crappy too. Too often Eve PVP resembles a surprise mugging. Might as well get an over buffed sniper rifle in some FPS and camp spawn points.

Water is wet, and the Sun rises in the East Rick Romero.

Also: --> Features & Ideas Discussion

You just asked me about total immunity for 30 seconds.

Then you told me that I could just smartbomb someone who has... total immunity.

Or go to the next system and try again through... total immunity.



What are you on?

Also, to paraphrase:

"fitting for travel through lowsec is too hard! Nerf gatecamps! I shouldn't have to be bothered to look before I leap!"

Same thing. Except the thing is, you are the one arguing against the status quo, so the onus is on you to provide a reason for change, not just pointlessly ridicule the opposing side with insults that apply equally as well, if not much better, to your own side.

Which is why too bad is the answer.