Again, don't take me out of context. You fully deserved that comment with your little tirade about how much of a "liar who lies" I was [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.86745.1301592]. It was, if anything, substantially slap worthy. If you don't believe me, print it out, find a random stranger, and read it off as applying to them within arm's reach. It might even work if you try a mirror. Your enjoyment of the evil eye is similarly unhealthy.
I guess some people don't like the idea of having to take risks,but all of life is a risk.
Get a job? You may get fired,or generally or sexually harassed.
Get a house? It may be broken into,it may get burnt down,or tornado'd or any number of events.
Get a car? same deal!
If you truly find this all that exciting, perhaps you should try cutting off a toe every time you fail to jump to the next platform in Prince of Persia.
By this, of course, I'm trying to make a point, not actually suggest you maim yourself:
Despite the added excitement involved, there's a reason why pain and suffering are rarely employed in enjoyable games.
Being a grown-up law-abiding citizen of a civilised nation in the 21st century, I don't assault people because they call me names.
The OP has already asked you nicely to stop defiling the thread with whiny posts complaining that we only think your positions are retarded because we don't understand them. Actually, we do understand them, they just aren't tenable positions.
You are ridiculous, nobody is listening to you, and I for one am done arguing with you.
Being a grown-up law-abiding citizen of a civilised nation in the 21st century, I don't assault people because they call me names.
The OP has already asked you nicely to stop defiling the thread with whiny posts complaining that we only think your positions are retarded because we don't understand them. Actually, we do understand them, they just aren't tenable positions.
You are ridiculous, nobody is listening to you, and I for one am done arguing with you.
In case I wasn't clear before, that makes two of us.
Really, I think I would accept my ridiculousness at this point, as I'm certainly a central part of a ridiculous situation. A fellow can explain himself again and again, but forums are rarely a place where anyone ever changes their mind. You say people aren't listening to me and they find my position untenable? Well, perhaps you understand more of the situation than you know.
I've left my position open, but outside of a few posts from paulgruberman (for example, this one [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.86745.1301718] and this one [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.86745.1301901]) few of you could stop being offended and attacking me long enough to provide a good argument. Cheese_pavilion got close, but he got mired down in having never played the game and (like that) being really too lazy to delve deeper into the subject matter of his argument, and that ultimately proved frustrating when we tried to bridge the gap from abstract concept to the exact differences.
You, however, have tried my patience from your very first post by going immediately into personal attacks with very little substantial subject matter between them. You don't try to win arguments legitimately so much as intimidate your opponent into submission - you glare at people as a point - and there's few words for how truly contemptible that is. Especially to an academic discussion. Sorry, I don't hate you as a person, but this behavior of yours immediately made you rather unpleasant to deal with. On top of that, it seems you carry on the same kind of airs that I do when it offends others, and ironically this annoys me too.
Maybe, by attacking the viability of EVE Online, it was inevitable I offend several players of EVE. However, if a person can't attack the subject matter without offending you, how do you expect to be objective? Perhaps I was given an impossible task given the environment. However, if news related to the destruction of a major player organization in EVE Online isn't dragging that carcass into the middle of the living room as a conversation piece, what is?
Stop responding to him. I know how you feel but he's not subject to rational argument, and nobody agrees with him so there's nobody else to convince. He needs to get the last word so just let him have it.
Sure, lets go with that. Frankly, I'm just tired of the whole thing, and maybe a little sick.
A fellow can only endure so many deliberately obtuse nitpicks before remembering that there's really no breaking through to people who are working against them. I stuck it through long enough to realize I was fool to think I was involved in anything resembling an academic discussion. Academics listen and extend a hand: you were simply fortified for a fight.
Congratulations, you've "won" through the sheer power of running me ragged through exasperation. Put that trophy in your mental trophy case with your other life achievements, you earned it. Me, I'm just glad I'm no longer wasting my energy shouting over your mental walls foolishly thinking you're capable of dropping the drawbridge anymore. As I was only defeating myself, everybody wins.
In summary: A man's convictions are the walls of his castle. Stagnate in them.
I guess some people don't like the idea of having to take risks,but all of life is a risk.
Get a job? You may get fired,or generally or sexually harassed.
Get a house? It may be broken into,it may get burnt down,or tornado'd or any number of events.
Get a car? same deal!
If you truly find this all that exciting, perhaps you should try cutting off a toe every time you fail to jump to the next platform in Prince of Persia.
By this, of course, I'm trying to make a point, not actually suggest you maim yourself:
Despite the added excitement involved, there's a reason why pain and suffering are rarely employed in enjoyable games.
Pain and suffering only ensue if you don't have contingency plans.
If you use the in-game "anti suffering" tools,it isn't as bad as people say.
The horror stories about having a fully loaded industrial with all your money invested with no backup plan a pirate at your throat and getting ready to pod you isn't nearly as much a problem if.....
A:you use the Ship insurance policies available.
B:use use the cloning system to keep yourself covered so you don't lose skills.
C:you don't fly solo in a ship slower than the death star,only with weenie guns.
You can join a group and get escorts,or just hire escorts. (1/2 to 3/4 the pay on delivery of course)
Find someone IRL that you can trust with your stuff,you'd be surprised how much tougher two men on ventrillo are than one.
You could also,if you work in one area. Get the local clan to protect you for a set fee per run.
Get to know the local big time pirates! if you know the local big man,he might be interested in knowing about some smaller time pirate working his space.
After all,pirate saturation means more security. If the small people get through clean they tell their bigger friends..
When you fail to plan,you plan to fail.
Not getting to know local strong arms/guilds only a PM away is like punching yourself.
It gets you nowhere and it hurts where it counts.
Research is part of the game,yes. if you don't like spy games this isn't for you.
I agree it is kind of pointless,but then do you want people stealing your ISK?
Even if it's theoretical,look up the traders/miners in your area. find out their routines.
Sell them out! lol.
It's probably not even correct to call EVE a game in the truest sense of the term. If the most intriguing thing to happen in a long time has to do with player social interactions, it's more accurate to refer to EVE as a soap opera rather than a game. I think it would be a goldmine for sociological experiments/research though.
Pain and suffering only ensue if you don't have contingency plans.
If you use the in-game "anti suffering" tools,it isn't as bad as people say.
The horror stories about having a fully loaded industrial with all your money invested with no backup plan a pirate at your throat and getting ready to pod you isn't nearly as much a problem if.....
A:you use the Ship insurance policies available.
B:use use the cloning system to keep yourself covered so you don't lose skills.
C:you don't fly solo in a ship slower than the death star,only with weenie guns.
You can join a group and get escorts,or just hire escorts. (1/2 to 3/4 the pay on delivery of course)
Find someone IRL that you can trust with your stuff,you'd be surprised how much tougher two men on ventrillo are than one.
You could also,if you work in one area. Get the local clan to protect you for a set fee per run.
Get to know the local big time pirates! if you know the local big man,he might be interested in knowing about some smaller time pirate working his space.
After all,pirate saturation means more security. If the small people get through clean they tell their bigger friends..
When you fail to plan,you plan to fail.
Not getting to know local strong arms/guilds only a PM away is like punching yourself.
It gets you nowhere and it hurts where it counts.
Research is part of the game,yes. if you don't like spy games this isn't for you.
I agree it is kind of pointless,but then do you want people stealing your ISK?
Even if it's theoretical,look up the traders/miners in your area. find out their routines.
Sell them out! lol.
Maybe what bothers me about BoB going poof in EvE Online is that because one director suddenly decide to take a change his plan, a lot of unrelated players had to deal with the consequences.
In this particular case, one of them was scamming this BoB director, and after the scam was complete and the director was slapped with not getting his credits back, the director laughed and said, "You know what? I'm actually a director, and I've grown to hate the people I know in BoB who trust me with that access. Put me on with your bosses, lets see if we can use my access to destroy them." The chat log is here [http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=991219], though the authenticity is impossible to determine.
Why I'm bringing this up is because your telling me that is very much a "prepare or face the consequences" situation. Sure, that might work if you're doing something like mining into jetcans or something. However, it doesn't seem to apply to this.
[li]You could say they shouldn't have given the director the keys, but why wouldn't they? They're not mind readers. What basis was there for them to intelligently prepare?[/li]
[li]I could go so far as to say that a lot of former BoB players were able to minimize their losses because of their preparation beforehand. That's true. However, it seems quite a bit of loss will be inevitable, and it's completely out of their hands.[/li]
There was no "decision leads to consequences" here. As players, they were completely invalidated - what losses incurred were earned through no real action of their own.
On an unrelated note, I was looking over at Scott Jenning's interpretation recently [http://www.brokentoys.org/2009/02/06/doubt-thou-the-stars-are-fire/], and I was reminded of something.
The Goons are dedicated Internet absurdists - SomethingAwful is basically an Internet absurdist humor site. Any time they're in a game, it's pretty much to have fun at the expense of said game. If all they can do is enjoy the game, that's fine. However, if they can tear the game apart by its own rules, that's considered a pinnacle of their art, it gives them something to brag about back on the forums. The people who join them without being aware of their primary motivations, helping them achieve chaos by being orderly, are just part of the joke.
EVE Online really attracts them because of the amount of damage they can do. However, that's the same reason it repels me. Well-designed dynamic content should have checks and balances to prevent it from invalidating players. As a deliberately hostile force hoping to destroy the game, any time the Goons succeed at their primarily objective is pretty much proof of a flaw in EVE exists.
Instead of seeing this and counteracting it, CCP attempts to incorporate them into the game. Like any other uninformed associate of the goons, CCP is just making themselves part of the joke. Or, on the second thought, maybe not. Maybe it's a symbiotic relationship where CCP keeps the Goons around for the subscription money, and the Goons keep playing CCP's game because they enjoy trying to undermine it. It's hard to say. Not only can't I tell if it's a "fool or a fool that follows" situation, I can't tell which is leading.
shadow skill said:
It's probably not even correct to call EVE a game in the truest sense of te term. If the most intriguing thing to happen in a long time has to do with player social interactions, it's more accurate to refer to EVE as a soap opera rather than a game. I think it would be a goldmine for sociological experiments/research though.
Pretty much. But, you know, so long as the social experiments are having fun and paying subscription, no harm, no foul, right? At least, that's what the EVE fans usually say in defense. I can understand that argument -- I don't agree with it insofar as jumping at a chance at being part of an expensive time-absorbing social experiment myself, but I understand it.
Hang on, let me get the spreadsheets and the lube.
Oh, and this guys huge post above me sums up why I won't touch EVE. Frankly all these stories scare me- I gave up playing NWN because of stupid net drama. Thats all this is, stupid net drama with stupid net turds, only your losing real money in subscriptions and time. DEATH TO THE SOAP OPERA!
PS: Internet + Serious Fucking Business = Failure, every time.
Each player controls a team of dragon hunters (two knights, a thief, and a wizard). Like all dragon hunters, they only have one goal: the gold, silver, the jewels, and the magic objects. Actually killing a dragon? It is a piece of cake. But the most difficult part comes after the dragon is dead: the adventuring party has to figure out how to share the spoils.
Ever watched A Beautiful Mind? Game theory? Prisoner's Dilemma?
Games, in the truest sense of the term, are about forming strategies and anticipating what the other player(s) are going to do. That's pretty much the whole game of chess. Of course in chess you have a mandatory opponent; there are no opportunities to ally or betray. The Prisoner's Dilemma on the other hand is entirely about anticipating whether your 'ally' will betray you or remain faithful.
You develop strategies to deal with this uncertainty. The best strategy in an iterative Prisoner's Dilemma is tit-for-tat - betray once every time the other player betrays, otherwise cooperate. What's the best strategy for protecting your corporate assets from turncoats and scammers in Eve? Well that's a bit too involved to go into, but it involves permissions, multiple hangars, secure containers, passwords, a strong grasp of the game systems and a healthy dose of common sense. This is good, deep, long-term strategic gameplay.
It's not a soap opera because events in a soap opera are determined by a script, not by the interaction of different strategies.
TsunamiWombat said:
stupid net drama with stupid net turds, only your losing real money in subscriptions and time.
So play with people you like, is that so hard? I had as much personal interaction with BoB as I did with those kobolds with candles on their heads in WoW.
What do you mean by losing real money? If you play any MMOG you lose the time and subscription cash you invest (unless you're some sort of gold farmer). It's a game, played for entertainment. Granted you might not feel as though you've had your full entertainment value if the game doesn't pat you on the back and tell you how awesome you are, but I always find it patronising when other MMOGs pretend you're the chosen one - Age of Conan, I'm looking at you.
As an aside I didn't pay for my Eve subscription after the first month, I quickly became wealthy enough that I could pay for it in isk.
I was a pirate on the side. I realised that my business plan was such that I pretty much never needed to undock or get into a fight. I'd go with fleet battles and the like but they were lagfests at the time and you don't really learn about PVP when you're firing at a target along with 50 other people.
So I read up and fitted an autocannon Punisher. I could have afforded practically any ship short of a carrier but I didn't want to waste money learning and besides, I like to be the underdog. I flew around scanning belts until I saw one of those really ugly Gallente cruisers that look like the ship out of Alien. My heart was pounding as I warped in and tackled it.
It took a while to grind through it's armour but there was no escape. I'd killed a cruiser with a frigate. Of course the next day I saw the pilot again; he'd just joined the same corp as me. We had a laugh about it.
Later I started using Arbitrators. The arb is an interesting ship, tough, not many guns but decent electronic warfare slots and a large drone bay. I hardly had any gun skills so I focused heavily on drones (necessary to get carriers anyway, which in turn are great logistics vessels.) I went in search of larger prey in Groothese.
Once I got into a fight with an obnoxious greek pirate in a sniping battleship. His first shot got me down to 14% of structure. Then I got my transverse up and started disrupting his tracking sensors and he started to miss. I burned all the way up to close range and started tearing into him with my drones. He escaped in the end but it was always satisfying to do more with less.
One time a small group of us in cheap cruisers fought another pirate in an absurdly expensive rare Blood Raider vessel. After an extended game of cat and mouse we ran him down and beat him. I tried to ransom since I didn't really fancy destroying a work of art, but it ended up exploding anyway. Must have cost him 300 million or something.
Afterward he doffed his hat to us and congratulated us on the fight, and we congratulated him on his sportsmanship. He was curious about my Arbitrator so I gave him the fitting. The Mittani would probably consider this a security breach but he can go suck on a suggestively renamed bookmark, the whole thing left me with a warm glow. That's what PvP should be like.
Each player controls a team of dragon hunters (two knights, a thief, and a wizard). Like all dragon hunters, they only have one goal: the gold, silver, the jewels, and the magic objects. Actually killing a dragon? It is a piece of cake. But the most difficult part comes after the dragon is dead: the adventuring party has to figure out how to share the spoils.
You seem to be missing something here, what the players decide to do with the gold has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game itself. I can refer to various "meta-game" aspects of other types of games, does not mean that those human interactions are a part of the actual rules of the game.
Let's take Fighting games for example, in those games you have to anticipate and formulate a strategy to defeat the other player. But the act of anticipating and formulating attack and defensive strategies based on player action is separate from the mechanics of the game itself. What you are trying to argue is the equivalent of saying that people bailing out of an online match of SFII HD Remix before they lose is a game mechanic.
No, I'm not missing it, it's my whole point. Dragon's Gold is a game about bargaining.
What you are trying to argue is the equivalent of saying that people bailing out of an online match of SFII HD Remix before they lose is a game mechanic.
By definition quitting the game to avoid losing is a meta-game tactic, because it takes you outside the game. Changing from one side to another within the game is not.
All I can say is that Eve is the most fun I've had playing a game (online/offline, Multi or Single Player) in years...
I like playing a game where you can play it (mainly) single player (Hi-Sec mission runner) all the way out to Mega-Multi play (0.0 Alliances) and anything in between...
If there is no risk, the reward for succeeding is irrelevant.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
>
