Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
103
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 22:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
Guttripper wrote:I've always been curious about something - has anyone ever been known to go to the Fanfest, found a particular person that ganked or scammed that person, and then broke that person's nose right there and then in real life revenge? So you're saying that someone who is deathly terrified of losing some imaginary spacepixel items in a videogame, would have the fortitude to put his real life well-being at risk in a violent act against the person who caused him the loss of said imaginary spacepixels? Does that not in the least bit seem absurd to you?
Anyway, these new battlecruisers are going to be great; exactly what this game needs. I hope that the useless whinebears get nuked completely out of existence. Then my friends and I will have a reason to re-sub dormant industrial alt accounts so that we'd have something to do when we're not pvping. That, and maybe I could actually convince some friends to give EVE a shot, who haven't done so already because they're hesitant to run mandatory mining bots on top of their TF2 hat idlers.
PS: Even if the Tornado is nerfed, suicide-ganking will continue as usual. Suicide-gankers will just resort to using more smaller, cheaper ships. Face it, you bears have no way out. We will adapt while you continue your whining. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
103
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 22:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
Obsidian Hawk wrote:dust put a damage control 2 and some tank mods on your hulks. more than likely you will survive. Though this definitely works, they will never do so; tanking barges means they will make less ISK/hour.
Carebear greed is the one constant that can always be counted on. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
342
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 22:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
Metal Icarus wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Metal Icarus wrote:Renan Ruivo wrote:Metal Icarus wrote:Make the tier 3 bc's only flyable in low and nullsec. No reason for them to be in highsec anyways. Look at stealth bombers, they have bombs illegal in highsec for a reason. If one tornado can destroy 2 hulks before concords shows up, it is too powerfull to be in griefers hands. (Like a .22 cal mini pistol in a 5 year olds hands)
Its a purpose built ship that should only be used by responsible adults in null/low who will actually use it for its intended purpose.
Just like bombs.
That will make everybody happy... well everyone that matters... You're new to these parts, aren't you?! Yeah, when it comes to highsec i think I have spent a grand total of a about a month of my eve career in highsec. So when it comes to carebears getting ganked I know nothing about it. I am used to people actually having scouts and people having backup in the next system waiting for you to agress. So yeah, I'm new to highsec, what of it? The precedent has been set with bombs, why not illegalize T3 BC's in highsec? or could it be... if this would happen.... you would be..... MAD? Bombs are area of effect weapons capable of harming far more than a single ship or two per attack, this would be the difference. That is true, but still. When I first learned about these tier 3 bc's i first thought of how null sov combat will change. With the super cap. nerf coming up along with these ships, it will even the game up a lot in regards to supercaps against sub caps. I guess to me, these ships do not mean so much of ganking, rather the liberation of null from the Red's. So, pardon me for being willingly ignorant but these tools of destruction exist for a reason and when people use them to create pain for people who cannot fight back, I get a bad taste in my mouth. I have no sympathy for the victim, but I do have malcontent for those who grief.
Let's not lose focus.
While these ships are a very nice tool for the suicide squads, that won't be their primary use... despite what this thread would seem to indicate.
Primary Use: Roaming gangs. These ships are ideal for that purpose, and will be heavily used in that capacity... with a side order of fast locking gate camp firepower.
Secondary Use: Cap ship assault. These ships will be difficult for fighters to hit squarely, and punch well above their weight, while being fairly vulnerable if the Cap ships have a support fleet to defend them.
Use as a gank boat is third on the list. I'm not saying it won't be the tool of choice for suicide ganking, but compared with the numbers that will be used for the other two purposes this use will be minor in comparison.
I do have to point out one thing though, and I know you meant it with sincere intent, but if losing ANY ship in EVE (be it a hulk or a titan) causes someone pain that is a strong indicator that the victim is a little too emotionally invested in their hobby. To kill the enemy and break their toys!
It's not so much a mission statement,-áit's more like a family motto. |
Causalitii Eullon
C.A.S. Assisted Living
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 22:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Though, this makes me a bit sad for the Tempest. After years of neglect and suckage, it finally found a role as a prime suicide ganking boat. Made me so happy to see them suddenly lurking around every high-sec gate, SEBOs pulsing. The highwaymen of old, delivering pain and crushing dreams in an instant.
Who told you tempests suck?? You can make those things fun as hell with a nano fit and ninja boosts. |
Brusanan
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 22:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
Forget the Tornado. You are all overlooking the fact that a T2 fit Catalyst will now put out enough damage to solo gank a Hulk. |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 22:34:00 -
[6] - Quote
Brusanan wrote:Forget the Tornado. You are all overlooking the fact that a T2 fit Catalyst will now put out enough damage to solo gank a Hulk.
yep. viz post no. 2 |
Cynter DeVries
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 22:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jowen Datloran wrote:Now, after having laid off 20% of its workforce, CCP plans to lay off 20% of the player base too. True story.
Nah, seriously, maybe it is about time for a revision of the criminal flagging system, from an age long gone, to the benefit of all parties involved. Aye, the real trouble with Concord is that they're absolute. The only way to defend yourself from a gank is to shoot first, and if you do that, well shame on you, goodbye ship. Hi sec and Concord enforce helplessness more than anything else. You might as well mine in low, null, or WH space where your corpmates are allowed to shoot first. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
342
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 22:43:00 -
[8] - Quote
Cynter DeVries wrote:Jowen Datloran wrote:Now, after having laid off 20% of its workforce, CCP plans to lay off 20% of the player base too. True story.
Nah, seriously, maybe it is about time for a revision of the criminal flagging system, from an age long gone, to the benefit of all parties involved. Aye, the real trouble with Concord is that they're absolute. The only way to defend yourself from a gank is to shoot first, and if you do that, well shame on you, goodbye ship. Hi sec and Concord enforce helplessness more than anything else. You might as well mine in low, null, or WH space where your corpmates are allowed to shoot first.
Then the obvious solution is to remove Concord To kill the enemy and break their toys!
It's not so much a mission statement,-áit's more like a family motto. |
Brusanan
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 22:44:00 -
[9] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Brusanan wrote:Forget the Tornado. You are all overlooking the fact that a T2 fit Catalyst will now put out enough damage to solo gank a Hulk. yep. viz post no. 2 I am not complaining.
Miners are going to hate life when this expansion comes. I can't wait. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
103
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 22:58:00 -
[10] - Quote
Cynter DeVries wrote:Aye, the real trouble with Concord is that they're absolute. The only way to defend yourself from a gank is to shoot first, and if you do that, well shame on you, goodbye ship. Hi sec and Concord enforce helplessness more than anything else. You might as well mine in low, null, or WH space where your corpmates are allowed to shoot first. The majority of barge ganking is done by characters who are already -10.0. This means that they can indeed be shot first. However, because this would require some effort and expenditure on the part of the carebears, you will rarely see this happen. Carebears exist for the sole purpose of maximizing immediate ISK/hour ratios. Hiring a few pvpers to stand guard with insta-lock setups to remote-repair their barges and pop gank Thrashers is a big no-no for them, because it would mean their wallet count would go up slower.
When they get ganked, their wallets will go down anyway, but...Surely that's just a fluke, right? All they have to do to get that problem sorted is file a reimbursement petition and make a tearful post on the forums, right?
...Right?
|
|
Cynter DeVries
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 23:02:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Cynter DeVries wrote:Jowen Datloran wrote:Now, after having laid off 20% of its workforce, CCP plans to lay off 20% of the player base too. True story.
Nah, seriously, maybe it is about time for a revision of the criminal flagging system, from an age long gone, to the benefit of all parties involved. Aye, the real trouble with Concord is that they're absolute. The only way to defend yourself from a gank is to shoot first, and if you do that, well shame on you, goodbye ship. Hi sec and Concord enforce helplessness more than anything else. You might as well mine in low, null, or WH space where your corpmates are allowed to shoot first. Then the obvious solution is to remove Concord
Given the current mechanics of the game, yes. Granted for new players you'd have to make it so that they can play in systems where Concord actually has a lock-out mechanism on your guns.
I'd prefer, however, to have some means of throwing a body in the way of an incoming shot, so to speak. Give us some mechanic to interpose my ship between the ganker and my friend in the Hulk. My presence on the field means you have to go through me to get him. There needs to be a way for this to occur without triggering aggression.
The easiest way to do this with existing vectors in the game might be to make e-war not trigger a Concord response. There are all manner of consequences to that where you have jamming stand-offs, and neutral party games (the further fix to that is to consider continued jamming an act of aggression the moment shots are fired, but this quickly gets too complicated). It seems to me that there should be some way of offering passive protection, like projected shields as was suggested in another thread. |
Cynter DeVries
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 23:07:00 -
[12] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Cynter DeVries wrote:Aye, the real trouble with Concord is that they're absolute. The only way to defend yourself from a gank is to shoot first, and if you do that, well shame on you, goodbye ship. Hi sec and Concord enforce helplessness more than anything else. You might as well mine in low, null, or WH space where your corpmates are allowed to shoot first. The majority of barge ganking is done by characters who are already -10.0. This means that they can indeed be shot first. However, because this would require some effort and expenditure on the part of the carebears, you will rarely see this happen. Carebears exist for the sole purpose of maximizing immediate ISK/hour ratios. Hiring a few pvpers to stand guard with insta-lock setups to remote-repair their barges and pop gank Thrashers is a big no-no for them, because it would mean their wallet count would go up slower. When they get ganked, their wallets will go down anyway, but...Surely that's just a fluke, right? All they have to do to get that problem sorted is file a reimbursement petition and make a tearful post on the forums, right? ...Right? Had forgotten that, thanks for pointing it out. Looking forward to Tornado chasing. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 23:52:00 -
[13] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Guttripper wrote:I've always been curious about something - has anyone ever been known to go to the Fanfest, found a particular person that ganked or scammed that person, and then broke that person's nose right there and then in real life revenge? So you're saying that someone who is deathly terrified of losing some imaginary spacepixel items in a videogame, would have the fortitude to put his real life well-being at risk in a violent act against the person who caused him the loss of said imaginary spacepixels? Does that not in the least bit seem absurd to you? Careful. That sword of yours can cut both ways. Can I also claim that someone willing to suicide his ship in game has a death wish in real life? Or does this theory of yours only apply to carebears? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1625
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:03:00 -
[14] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Careful. That sword of yours can cut both ways. Can I claim that someone willing to suicide his ship in game has a death wish in real life? Or does your theory only apply to carebears? To be fair, it's those carebears who insist on in-game behaviour reflecting real-life intentions and motivations, and who keep accusing gankers of being sociopaths. So it wouldn't be much of a stretch to believe that those carebears would indeed do something as stupid (and, contradictory enough, sociopathic) as to let out-of-game behaviour absolutely mirror in-game behaviour, whereas those who insist that it's just a game and that the carebears shouldn't get their panties in a wad, and who can separate that game from reality, are less likely to make such trivial in-game matter spill over into real lifeGǪ
So yes, it wouldn't be particularly strange if the theory only applied to the carebears in questionGǪ GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
103
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:08:00 -
[15] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Guttripper wrote:I've always been curious about something - has anyone ever been known to go to the Fanfest, found a particular person that ganked or scammed that person, and then broke that person's nose right there and then in real life revenge? So you're saying that someone who is deathly terrified of losing some imaginary spacepixel items in a videogame, would have the fortitude to put his real life well-being at risk in a violent act against the person who caused him the loss of said imaginary spacepixels? Does that not in the least bit seem absurd to you? Careful. That sword of yours can cut both ways. Can I also claim that someone willing to suicide his ship in game has a death wish in real life? Or does this theory of yours only apply to carebears? My theory is that someone cowardly enough to decry pvp combat in a pvp-combat-oriented game is less likely, not more likely, to risk harm to his own person in real life. Assuming this individual is of sound mind, of course. Granted, my theory is highly flawed, and doesn't take into account the myriad details and quirks that make up a person's psyche.
What's truly troubling, however, is that someone would bring real violence upon another over intangible videogame possessions (once again, assuming they were destroyed via legitimate gameplay mechanics and not, say, password theft). |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:11:00 -
[16] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Careful. That sword of yours can cut both ways. Can I claim that someone willing to suicide his ship in game has a death wish in real life? Or does your theory only apply to carebears? To be fair, it's those carebears who insist on in-game behaviour reflecting real-life intentions and motivations, and who keep accusing gankers of being sociopaths. So it wouldn't be much of a stretch to believe that those carebears would indeed do something as stupid (and, contradictory enough, sociopathic), whereas those who insist that it's just a game and that the carebears shouldn't get their panties in a wad, and who can separate that game from reality, are less likely to make such trivial in-game matter spill over into real lifeGǪ So yes, it wouldn't be particularly strange if the theory only applied to the carebears in questionGǪ Except that plenty of gankers have orgasms and get frothy at the mouth over "tears". Do these idiots seem well-adjusted to you? If they're just playing a "game" why get so excited over making people mad and quit? Do you find that enjoying making people miserable even if it's by using a game as the tool is considered to be well-adjusted? |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:14:00 -
[17] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Guttripper wrote:I've always been curious about something - has anyone ever been known to go to the Fanfest, found a particular person that ganked or scammed that person, and then broke that person's nose right there and then in real life revenge? So you're saying that someone who is deathly terrified of losing some imaginary spacepixel items in a videogame, would have the fortitude to put his real life well-being at risk in a violent act against the person who caused him the loss of said imaginary spacepixels? Does that not in the least bit seem absurd to you? Careful. That sword of yours can cut both ways. Can I also claim that someone willing to suicide his ship in game has a death wish in real life? Or does this theory of yours only apply to carebears? My theory is that someone cowardly enough to decry pvp combat in a pvp-combat-oriented game is less likely, not more likely, to risk harm to his own person in real life. Assuming this individual is of sound mind, of course. Granted, my theory is highly flawed, and doesn't take into account the myriad details and quirks that make up a person's psyche. What's truly troubling, however, is that someone would bring real violence upon another over intangible videogame possessions (once again, assuming they were destroyed via legitimate gameplay mechanics and not, say, password theft). So then we agree that someone that "plays" with the intention of getting people upset likely a sadist in real life. As I said, that sword of yours cuts both ways. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1625
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:16:00 -
[18] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: Except that plenty of gankers have orgasms and get frothy at the mouth over "tears". Do they seem well-adjusted to you?
As well adjusted as any monopoly player who fans himself with his wad of cash with a broad smirk on his face. GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
103
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:18:00 -
[19] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Except that plenty of gankers have orgasms and get frothy at the mouth over "tears". Do they seem well-adjusted to you? If these idiots are just playing a "game" why get so excited over making people mad and quit? Using a game as a tool to ruin people's fun is well-adjusted to you? They quit by their own volition. It is not our intent to make them quit. However, if they do, we will laugh and ridicule them. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:21:00 -
[20] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: Except that plenty of gankers have orgasms and get frothy at the mouth over "tears". Do they seem well-adjusted to you?
As well adjusted as any monopoly player who fans himself with his wad of cash with a broad smirk on his face. Do you know what ill intentions are? Can you figure out how ill intentions make your example irrelevant to mine?
You were so quick to claim carebears likely carry their behavior into real life but so reserved in making the same claim about players that intentionally seek to upset people (ie collect "tears") in a game. Why? :). |
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:27:00 -
[21] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Except that plenty of gankers have orgasms and get frothy at the mouth over "tears". Do they seem well-adjusted to you? If these idiots are just playing a "game" why get so excited over making people mad and quit? Using a game as a tool to ruin people's fun is well-adjusted to you? They quit by their own volition. It is not our intent to make them quit. However, if they do, we will laugh and ridicule them. But that's not what I'm asking you :). I'll ask you again because you bypassed my question:
Do you think that someone that plays with the intention of hurting and making someone mad is well-adjusted? Or do you think, that it is likely they're a sadist in real life? You certainly make the claim that this is the case for carebears. So I'm curious if you think that you're theory only holds for that one play style you hate :). |
Cambarus
Clearly Compensating
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:31:00 -
[22] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Tippia wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: Except that plenty of gankers have orgasms and get frothy at the mouth over "tears". Do they seem well-adjusted to you?
As well adjusted as any monopoly player who fans himself with his wad of cash with a broad smirk on his face. Do you know what ill intentions are? Can you figure out how ill intentions make your example irrelevant to mine? You were so quick to claim carebears likely carry their behavior into real life but so reserved in making the same claim about players that intentionally seek to upset people (ie collect "tears") in a game. Watching someone rage and walk away/flip the board in a game of monopoly is 10 times more satisfying, and infinitely more hilarious, then simply beating them.
EDIT: to clarify:
While IRL it may be considered a bad thing to enjoy the suffering of others, that's usually only when referring to a matter that actually has some sort of seriousness to it. Throwing a tantrum and leaving over a board game (or any game for that matter) will get you labelled as being poorly adjusted MUCH faster than laughing at someone who does. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
101
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:33:00 -
[23] - Quote
I think that making judgements about people based on their actions in a role playing game about spaceship violence in which espionage, betrayal, theft and random violence are intended features that are regularly advertised as major selling points might lead you to some pretty biased conclusions. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
103
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:35:00 -
[24] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Except that plenty of gankers have orgasms and get frothy at the mouth over "tears". Do they seem well-adjusted to you? If these idiots are just playing a "game" why get so excited over making people mad and quit? Using a game as a tool to ruin people's fun is well-adjusted to you? They quit by their own volition. It is not our intent to make them quit. However, if they do, we will laugh and ridicule them. But that's not what I'm asking you :). I'll ask you again because you bypassed my question: Do you think that someone that plays with the intention of hurting and making someone mad is well-adjusted? Or do you think, that it is likely they're a sadist in real life? You certainly make the claim that this is the case for carebears. So I'm curious if you're theory only holds for that one play style you hate :). I can't speak for everyone, only for myself and my close friends, whom I know well. We don't play EVE with the intention of hurting and making people mad in real life. We do, however, play EVE with the intention of being absolutely ruthless to anyone whom we don't consider to be friendly. If they get hurt or mad in real life as a consequence of our actions in the game, that's their problem. We play within the confines of game rules, and don't cheat or exploit to gain our advantages.
I'm sure there are people out there who play solely for the sake of causing real-life aggravation. However, I'd venture to guess that they are the outliers, and not the status quo. However, it's important to note cause and effect. Such people have been ill-adjusted well before they bought their EVE accounts. EVE is but one of the outlets for their maliciousness, instead of being its root cause. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:36:00 -
[25] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Tippia wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: Except that plenty of gankers have orgasms and get frothy at the mouth over "tears". Do they seem well-adjusted to you?
As well adjusted as any monopoly player who fans himself with his wad of cash with a broad smirk on his face. Do you know what ill intentions are? Can you figure out how ill intentions make your example irrelevant to mine? You were so quick to claim carebears likely carry their behavior into real life but so reserved in making the same claim about players that intentionally seek to upset people (ie collect "tears") in a game. Watching someone rage and walk away/flip the board in a game of monopoly is 10 times more satisfying, and infinitely more hilarious, then simply beating them. And I will ask again, because we keep avoiding the question:
Do you think that someone that plays with the intention of making people upset (ie collect "tears") is likely a well-adjusted human being?
Come on, guys. I'm not asking a trick question. Tippia and Destiny Corrupted seem to think that carebear behavoir most likely transcensds to real life. I'm using your same logic to see if you feel the same should apply to in-game tear collectors.And if not, why not? |
Brusanan
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:39:00 -
[26] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:Watching someone rage and walk away/flip the board in a game of monopoly is 10 times more satisfying, and infinitely more hilarious, then simply beating them. This.
I get quite a bit of satisfaction out of seeing grown men cry over a video game. It is quite funny. If they happen to quit over it, we are doing them a favor. They clearly take this game too seriously. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
103
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:42:00 -
[27] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Come on, guys. I'm not asking a trick question. Tippia and Destiny Corrupted seem to think that carebear behavoir most likely transcensds to real life. I'm using your same logic to see if you feel the same should apply to in-game tear collectors.And if not, why not? No, I never stated that. I simply stated a theory that dealt with one specific element of real/virtual world interaction. It was an opinion rooted in deductive reasoning, and not a statement of fact.
I never said that videogame behavior directly translates into real-life behavior, or vice versa. I simply stated that I think a rational person who is afraid of losing imaginary items will be more likely to avoid risking actual, tangible things, like his real-life well-being. |
Silence iKillYouu
The Innocent Criminals
61
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:43:00 -
[28] - Quote
Epic |
Brusanan
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:45:00 -
[29] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Do you think that someone that plays with the intention of making people upset (ie collect "tears") is likely a well-adjusted human being?
Come on, guys. I'm not asking a trick question. Tippia and Destiny Corrupted seem to think that carebear behavoir most likely transcensds to real life. I'm using your same logic to see if you feel the same should apply to in-game tear collectors.And if not, why not? I'm not going to play psychologist, even if it is the cool thing to do on the internet these days.
The answer to the question doesn't matter to me. Even if it makes me a psychopath, it's not going to change the way I play the game. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:45:00 -
[30] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Come on, guys. I'm not asking a trick question. Tippia and Destiny Corrupted seem to think that carebear behavoir most likely transcensds to real life. I'm using your same logic to see if you feel the same should apply to in-game tear collectors.And if not, why not? No, I never stated that. I simply stated a theory that dealt with one specific element of real/virtual world interaction. It was an opinion rooted in deductive reasoning, and not a statement of fact. I never said that videogame behavior directly translates into real-life behavior, or vice versa. I simply stated that I think a rational person who is afraid of losing imaginary items will be more likely to avoid risking actual, tangible things, like his real-life well-being. Here:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:So you're saying that someone who is deathly terrified of losing some imaginary spacepixel items in a videogame, would have the fortitude to put his real life well-being at risk in a violent act against the person who caused him the loss of said imaginary spacepixels? Does that not in the least bit seem absurd to you? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |