|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |

Jythier Smith
WATERSHIP HOLDINGS Harmonic Convergence
121
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 00:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
You're supposed to teach newbies that they can trust you, and only you, not that they can't trust anybody. Terrible move.
If my CEO shot at me I'd drop corp too. Why would I stay in a dumbass' corp?
I wouldn't join a new corp, though. I'd join FW and go PVP. :P |

Jythier Smith
WATERSHIP HOLDINGS Harmonic Convergence
121
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 12:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
Nantwig Mutbrecht wrote:just dropping by to point out that the past tense of of 'to quit' is 'quit' not 'quited', so the threadtitle ought to be corrected.
Irrelevant. The past tense of 'ragequit' is 'ragequited' |

Jythier Smith
WATERSHIP HOLDINGS Harmonic Convergence
122
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 15:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
Oraac Ensor wrote:Jythier Smith wrote:Nantwig Mutbrecht wrote:just dropping by to point out that the past tense of of 'to quit' is 'quit' not 'quited', so the threadtitle ought to be corrected. Irrelevant. The past tense of 'ragequit' is 'ragequited' Nope. Adding a prefix doesn't alter the conjugation of the root verb. Past tense of "forego" is "forewent" not "foregoed" and "overspend" goes to "overspent" not "overspended" etc etc. In any case, even if adding "ed" was correct, which it obviously isn't, it would require two "t"s, as "ragequitted". 0/10.
I am so glad you wrote this post. Grammar tears. |

Jythier Smith
WATERSHIP HOLDINGS Harmonic Convergence
124
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 17:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
Investing yourself into pixels in an unforgiving game is a terrible idea and probably all who are that invested have as many issues as those who want to destroy other people's things for no reason. |

Jythier Smith
WATERSHIP HOLDINGS Harmonic Convergence
124
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 18:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
I'm still here. |

Jythier Smith
WATERSHIP HOLDINGS Harmonic Convergence
126
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 18:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
Why are we worried about our pixels when natural disasters have happened?
Because I can see my pixels. |

Jythier Smith
WATERSHIP HOLDINGS Harmonic Convergence
126
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 19:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
Leonardo Diom wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:
Don't even try to pretend that **** that happens in a video game is going to cause real misery. And yes, I've been backstabbed in this game myself. I got together with some friends and sacked the wormhole and two poses that those guys that backstabbed me had, stole over 30bil worth of stuff, and got over it. I would have got over it even if that didn't happen, because it's just a game.
The people you play with are real though and they could very well cause real misery. Easily getting over being backstabbed might simply mean you don't value your friendship as much as others do. I don't intend to say the reaction of the noob player was justified but I do understand how he might have gotten upset: he valued his friendship with someone and trusted that person, who then went on to do something which reduced that trust.
I'd be more put off by someone refusing to talk to me after a brilliant game move than someone who pulled it off and kept being friends with me. IE, the relationship isn't shattered by what happened in a game. If they're my actual friend, they'll still be my friend after a move in a game that hurts my position and helps theirs - that's the POINT of gaming.
But if they stopped talking to me afterwards, then I would be upset, because the relationship is over - either it never existed to start with, or they are taking the game way too seriously.
IE, I convoed the guy who killed me last time (forgot to say gf though, but it was an amicable chat) just to find out what I did wrong and what I could do better, and if my fit was crap or not. Why? Because he's playing a game too and I need to learn from EVERYBODY I can, and make friends everywhere I can, even if it's by fighting and getting killed (some people respect that). |

Jythier Smith
WATERSHIP HOLDINGS Harmonic Convergence
126
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 19:06:00 -
[8] - Quote
That is, giving people access to things that help them more than they can be helped going forward by continuing with whatever agreement you reached is DUMB.
If the other person you're giving access to is going to be benefitted more by continuing the arrangement where you can both benefit, then you can give access rights. If they will be benefitted more by stealing your stuff, expect that and don't give access. |

Jythier Smith
WATERSHIP HOLDINGS Harmonic Convergence
127
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 19:45:00 -
[9] - Quote
Leonardo Diom wrote:Jythier Smith wrote:
I'd be more put off by someone refusing to talk to me after a brilliant game move than someone who pulled it off and kept being friends with me. IE, the relationship isn't shattered by what happened in a game. If they're my actual friend, they'll still be my friend after a move in a game that hurts my position and helps theirs - that's the POINT of gaming.
But if they stopped talking to me afterwards, then I would be upset, because the relationship is over - either it never existed to start with, or they are taking the game way too seriously.
IE, I convoed the guy who killed me last time (forgot to say gf though, but it was an amicable chat) just to find out what I did wrong and what I could do better, and if my fit was crap or not. Why? Because he's playing a game too and I need to learn from EVERYBODY I can, and make friends everywhere I can, even if it's by fighting and getting killed (some people respect that).
I don't think we can compare the two situations, but I can't say so with certainty as I don't know your situation quite well enough. The difference lies in the relation with the other person. If you are in a position in which you trust someone to help you, it'll hurt a lot more than when you are not in such a relation to start with. The latter would be the case if you're friends but occasionally have duels or such. At that point we wouldn't be speaking of your trust being damaged when you get killed while in the former situation we would be.
I am able to take a very mechanical approach to gaming. Gaming is a chance for me to be completely self-centered with no real-world consequences for it. The point of a game is for me to have an outlet to be completely selfish within. IE, the idea of a game is to win, so whatever goal I set for myself, it is my task to get to that goal utilizing all available methods.
This works a lot better for board games where the idea is to accumulate some sort of victory points in order to win the game (my favorite is money). I transferred some of this over to this game - my goal is not outright collection of ISK, but to set up profitable industry and mining opportunities involving other players as primaries. In order to achieve that goal I need trust from other players, or at least relationships with them, so I build those relationships and do my best to make sure they're well maintained. If, within playing the game, I also make some friends, so much the better. And maybe I do have other more secret goals that involve impacting people in real life, but that is how I live life, not play EVE.
So I play EVE selfishly and I give no credence to whether you succeed in your goals or not - in business, it's obviously relevant as far as a non-profitable partner becomes no partner soon enough. But my purpose isn't for you to succeed as such, it only is my purpose so far as it suits my own purposes.
I expect the same from other players as I respect them enough to expect them to maximize their own goal-reaching potential. The problems only come up when I do not realize what the other's goal is - then it is very difficult to predict what they would do.
At least in board games, everyone has the same goal (most of the time). So I know what actions to expect from people. EVE is a lot closer to life in that way. |

Jythier Smith
WATERSHIP HOLDINGS Harmonic Convergence
132
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 20:00:00 -
[10] - Quote
To put it more succinctly and in better words:
"In competitive games, I get to approximate the platonic ideal of an entirely selfish and self-centeredly manipulative creature, one bereft of every social grace and principle, and to thereby learn to solve interesting problems. What's not to like?" -JC Lawrence |
|

Jythier Smith
WATERSHIP HOLDINGS Harmonic Convergence
132
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 20:01:00 -
[11] - Quote
In other news, I have no idea how to put in a signature. |

Jythier Smith
WATERSHIP HOLDINGS Harmonic Convergence
132
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 20:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
Leonardo Diom wrote:Jythier Smith wrote:
I am able to take a very mechanical approach to gaming. Gaming is a chance for me to be completely self-centered with no real-world consequences for it. The point of a game is for me to have an outlet to be completely selfish within. IE, the idea of a game is to win, so whatever goal I set for myself, it is my task to get to that goal utilizing all available methods.
This works a lot better for board games where the idea is to accumulate some sort of victory points in order to win the game (my favorite is money). I transferred some of this over to this game - my goal is not outright collection of ISK, but to set up profitable industry and mining opportunities involving other players as primaries. In order to achieve that goal I need trust from other players, or at least relationships with them, so I build those relationships and do my best to make sure they're well maintained. If, within playing the game, I also make some friends, so much the better. And maybe I do have other more secret goals that involve impacting people in real life, but that is how I live life, not play EVE.
So I play EVE selfishly and I give no credence to whether you succeed in your goals or not - in business, it's obviously relevant as far as a non-profitable partner becomes no partner soon enough. But my purpose isn't for you to succeed as such, it only is my purpose so far as it suits my own purposes.
I expect the same from other players as I respect them enough to expect them to maximize their own goal-reaching potential. The problems only come up when I do not realize what the other's goal is - then it is very difficult to predict what they would do.
At least in board games, everyone has the same goal (most of the time). So I know what actions to expect from people. EVE is a lot closer to life in that way.
While that is all very well, that is your approach to this game. I would say the noob player probably had another, possibly more altruistic one. This approach to the game is what makes your reaction to an event in the game different when compared to another player who has a different approach. Now that I think it's clear why the noob reacted the way he did, I would like to ask a question: Do you think there are wrong approaches to games? If so, was the noob's approach an incorrect one? I would say there are no wrong approaches to games as long as you accept the consequences your approach might have. Following that thought I'd say that the noob did no wrong when he abandoned the player who attacked him. While his probable loss of money might not have been the greatest thing to happen to him, he did not get on the forums (as far as I know) to complain about what happened. In not doing so, I'd say he took responsibility for the consequences of his approach to the game.
Well, there are really two types of gamers here. There's the social gamer, who is playing a game in order to socialize, and there is a gamer who plays to win. And I believe that a social gamer is going to react very differently than I would to the same situations, because their primary purpose is different than mine... ie, to socialize. So it's really all wrapped up in the original manifesto, it's just that there are so many different purposes you can have in EVE that the reactions are equally varied. |

Jythier Smith
WATERSHIP HOLDINGS Harmonic Convergence
132
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 20:10:00 -
[13] - Quote
This thread has totally helped me come to terms with ganking.
Thanks, thread. |
|
|
|