EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2008-12-27 02:55
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-09-14 13:38
  • Number of Posts: 11,118
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Jenn aSide

Security Status 5.0
  • Absolute Massive Destruction Member since
  • Test Alliance Please Ignore Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • How many more players must we lose to bullying in EVE Communication Center

    Mr Mieyli wrote:


    Touchy.

    "treats players like they can think for themselves", I suppose thats why they've added, citadels, safety settings, simplified scanning, simplified map, and a simplified tactical overlay, as well as skill injectors. I know you don't want to see it, but CCP is milking eve for all its current players are worth with the endless introduction of microtransactions. What I want is not to turn eve into McDonalds, whatever that means, but to make it appeal to more than only the narrow niche that currently play it.


    That part I highlighted is the important part. All the BS you mention like safety settings and simplified stuff. That was CCP trying to broaden the appeal of the game. That was CCP giving people like YOU what you said "the new players" needed.

    What I and others have been telling you is that it doesn't work. CCP has failed to attract new players while systematically pissing off and pushing away those who actually liked it. That's the stupid part.

    And make mo mistake, a dumbing down of EVE is what you want, you know, so that you can "relax" in the game....in the name of the children of course.


    Quote:


    The reason eve has stuck around so long is because its player base has become so incredibly cut off from the outside world, that player feedback essentially means you getting your way. CSM for example and the heavy null representation. You are holding this company hostage whether you admit it or not. If you weren't you'd be interested in seeing eve grow and would try to do that in a way that doesn't hurt what you like about eve now.


    You don't have a clue of what you are talking about. And I don't have anything to do with the CSM. It's not nulls fault that high sec people can't take their heads out of the sand long enough to vote.

    I'd like to see EVE grow. There has to be a lot of people out there that would appreciate a sci fi game that expects a player to have some common sense. What I do know is that it's just plum insane to think that the path to EVE growing is with people who can't even handle so much as a unfriendly glance from another player, and yet these are the people CCP have been trying to get to play EVE.

  • How many more players must we lose to bullying in EVE Communication Center

    Mr Mieyli wrote:
    Zarek Kree wrote:
    Kaeden 3142 wrote:
    GTFO is not a good business incentive for CCP. Such elitist meme is bullying which is why Eve has a toxic community.


    GTFO then. Lol


    No u. Are you enjoying holding a game company hostage and watching them slowly starve to death?



    Expecting a game company to stick to the spirit of the game they made rather than turn it into the McDonalds/Justin Bieber friendly BS folks like you want is not "holding a game company hostage".

    It's frankly hoping that said game company stops selling out and maintains one of the very few MMOs left that treats players like they can think for themselves.

  • How many more players must we lose to bullying in EVE Communication Center

    Scipio Artelius wrote:
    DRDNOUGHT wrote:
    I... Im not suggesting big changes here just idea's on improvements that may help to keep some of those players in game who otherwise would move on.

    There is a cliched saying a lot of us bring out when these sorts of points are made; that being - HTFU or GTFO in its shortest and most aggressive form.

    Putting the cliche aspect of it aside - "EVE is what it is and it's up to players to adapt, not the game" - there are at least two fundamental questions:

    1. What change should CCP make to chase a group of players that don't currently stick around, that will also keep the existing player base happy?

    2. How far is far enough? Where is the line that CCP should stop at if they were to make changes to chase more players, since the motivation to stay with the game is an individual thing, not a group thing?

    No change is one way positive. Players already have 100% perfect safety from wardecs if they want. What more do they need that won't fundamentally change what EVE is and not necessarily for the better depending on your point of view?


    This 100%

    You can tell the people who believe what they believe for purely ideological reasons and personal preference, because no amount of evidence ever changes their toon. Since my 1st day in game (June 24, 2007) I've heard the same thing: "griefers are killing the game, CCP needs to do something about it!!!". The game was growing then and people know that the fringe complainers saying that were just mad at some aspect of the game and was using "new players" as leverage.

    Then the game stopped growing (after a couple years of CCP backing off the things that made EVE great, the whole 'easy to learn, hard to master' mess), and that same eternally malcontented fringe got much louder. It would never occur to them that their success in nudging CCP towards a safer and thus more boring and less dynamic game was WHY it stopped growing. They can't understand that EVE is a game (not an alternate life) and unlike real life adversity is a GOOD thing, it give you a reason to be emotionally tied to the game, and a reason to learn how to fight back.

    1 of 2 things will happen. CCP will wake up, and adjust their development efforts away from the hand holding they've been aiming at for the last 7 years (and treat it's customers like adults again, rather than children with tender child like sensibilities), or they will go further down the rabbit hole of "it's so safe, you can't have fun even if you tried!"

  • How many more players must we lose to bullying in EVE Communication Center

    Am I late for "will someone just think of the children New Players, and by children New Players I mean me!!!" thread # 1,905,312?

  • Have Multiboxers and Botting ruined Eve Online? in EVE Communication Center

    Trebon Luap wrote:


    With Eve being as long lived as it is, a player needs to spend more time in H.S.than they used to for the simple fact that the player base in low and nul sec have been around for so long and have more skill points trained up.
    So a person needs to be viable before they enter those regens. Why would some go there just so they can be cannon fodder for a player with way more time and skill.


    This is wrong now, and it's always been wrong. I was told the exact same thing in 2007 in the 1st player corp I was in.. "There are people playing that were here during the beta, you better not leave high security space until you get x amount of skill point". I wasted a YEAR + in high sec until Faction Warfare was introduced and I met players that didn't suck.

    Many groups take players right out of high sec as they are 'born' , throw them some isk and a quick start like skil plan, and take them out to null. Notice you don't see people like that complaining on the forums (they are too damn busy having fun). Back then it was EVe uni and Agony and Goons, later it was Brave Newbies , Pandemic Horde and others.

    It's utter nonsense to say you have to stay in high sec. It's excuse making of the absolute worst kind. The only place people should advise caution is wormhole space because those mechaaincs take some getting used to.

    Quote:

    So people will spend more time in H.S.building up some isk and skill points before they venture forth.
    But, when they encounter these large multiboxing bot fleets, this is an issue that does not really tie In to game mechanics. It is a. "Outside" obstacle that they find a game breaker.

    How many other MMOs out there are plaged by this issue as well?

    This is a real issue facing Eve and not just Eve.

    To reiterate, I am not against some one running a couple three accounts at once; for me it's the Large and the Massive multibox fleets that are becoming the norm.


    You are pretending that this thing that you (personally) don't like is a wider general problem. It is not, it's simply your personal dislike. made worse by your "but I have to stay in high sec" excuse making.

    And don't think I didn't notice your little implication that I must be some hugh multiboxer. I sometimes use 3 characters to farm anomalies in high sec, or 2 to run missions, but that's it. I'd lose my mind trying to control any more characters than that.



    My motivation for replying in this awful thread is my distaste for excuse makers who post threads with titles that appear to be asking a question when they are actually making a statement. I wonder if that is some kind of new Millennial thing or something, why wasn't it "I think Multiboxing is killing the game" instead of a fake and annoying question?

  • CSM: A Publicity Stunt Or Actually Useful? in EVE Communication Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:



    Just because you personally don't like something doesn't make it a bad decision on CCP's part. Just because the CSM isn't publicly clamoring for dev skulls in response to a change doesn't mean they didn't give feedback on it.

    Feedback does not just mean "do you like this or not", quite often it means "can anyone offer any substantive objections to this or reasons why we shouldn't make this change for X reasons?" That's what the CSM exists for, to get to see some or all of CCP's reasoning or advanced plans so they can test the waters and get feedback ahead of changes being made.

    If you're expecting the CSM to just go "players won't like that!" you're going to be disappointed. Someone has disliked every single change CCP has ever done, that people won't like something getting nerfed (or buffed for that matter) is not surprising to CCP.

    It kinda seems like you have bigger expectations of the CSM than is realistic. Go talk to some of the CSMs, message them in-game or on Reddit. Most are pretty happy to talk about what the CSM does and how they feel it contributes, you'll get a better answer that way than you will from a bunch of Very Important Opinions on here.


    Well said. People are so sure they are right, that when CCp doesn't instantly surrender to their wants, it turns in to "CCP isn't listening to feedback!!!".

    I say this as someone who has from time to time given warnings to CCP about consequences they may not be considering Sometimes I've been right and the bad consequences happened.
    I don't think that means CCP doesn't listen, it means that CCP are different people form me, with different thought processes and beliefs and knowledge (the last part is important, I never let myself forget that CCP has more information about everything than I do).

    It doesn't help that in those feedback thread a sizeable chunk of asocial nerds will be screaming at the developers and talking about how they should lose their jobs because they took a low slot off an imaginary spaceship or something lol. If I were an EVE DEV I wouldn't post much here either Evil

  • Have Multiboxers and Botting ruined Eve Online? in EVE Communication Center

    Trebon Luap wrote:




    This is a discussion on a subject/issue.

    You seem to be the one "complaining". I don't know if it's because you don't like the topic or because you don't like the idea of people expressing their own independent thoughts on the subject.

    Either way... to each their own.

    If you want to add to the discussion, I welcome you and your individual point of veiw.


    Wait, how am I the one "complaining"? I didn't start a thread about multiboxing. I'm explaining that you are wasting your time. I suspect that you are wasting your time because that's easier than actually doing the things you could be doing right now to solve the problem you are having.


    That's the thing i don't get, not just talking about you but all the complainers that run to this forum. The in game solutions aren't just faster than coming to the forums and begging for CCP intervention, they are WAY more satisfying too. Knowing that YOU (yourself), as an individual and player took what tools you had (including social skills, which help bring people in to help with a solution) and YOU made the problem go away.

    But the complainers (again, not just you) don't even try. They see something they don't like, and BAM, straight to the forum. IMO it's a really weak way to think.

    It's also selfish, that multiboxer is playing within the rules and you want to affect his gameplay externally rather than facing him in game and beating him within those same rules.

  • Have Multiboxers and Botting ruined Eve Online? in EVE Communication Center

    Trebon Luap wrote:
    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Trebon Luap wrote:


    At what point t does multiboxing become "wrong" to allow? Five, Seven , Twenty accounts all at once?


    It never becomes wrong so long as the multiboxer is obeying the rules ie no broadcasting software, not botting. Instead of complaining people should be finding ways to deny the hated multiboxer his content, like paying someone to gank/disrupt his activities, or organizing real miners to out mine his ass and force him to move along (when he can't plex his accounts, he will move).

    EVE is a game about figuring out problems, not coming to the forums and begging CCP to do it for you.



    Every new player to Eve starts in Highsec. When new players come up against tbis wall they become disenchanted with Eve at a critical point in their Eve careers. This affects many new players and they leave. I know some of the long time players scoff at thins Iidea simply because they can't remember way-back when they were first starting out. The game was way different back then. There where not as many of these fleets when they where making their way through Eve.
    Just because you don't feel it is an issue that needs to be discussed and brought to attention does not make it a non-issue.
    CPP wants more new people playing a subing to Eve? Don't simply ask and listen to the old time, jadded player base for their sugestions, they have their own agenda to maintain controll over other payers.

    This is not by any means a new topic, but it is a topic that needs constant supervision, because it does affect Eve on some level.


    The problem with citing "new people" when you have and INDIVIDUAL PROBLEM is that it exposes the fact that you aren't in the least actually concerned with new people. You'rr simply looking for leverage to get other people behind the idea that some change needs to happen, in the false belief that if enough people do that, CCP will change it.

    They won't. They are a company that likes money and they like multiboxers (most of whom plex , each plex briging in more money than any other way to subscribe). Hell, there is even an optimized setting in your escape menu that helps multiboxing work better.. So the idea that CCP is going to change it is stupid.

    That leaves you two options. Quit (if multiboxing is too much for you to deal with) or fight back. "Complain on forums" is a non-starter.

  • Have Multiboxers and Botting ruined Eve Online? in EVE Communication Center

    Trebon Luap wrote:
    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Trebon Luap wrote:


    At what point t does multiboxing become "wrong" to allow? Five, Seven , Twenty accounts all at once?


    It never becomes wrong so long as the multiboxer is obeying the rules ie no broadcasting software, not botting. Instead of complaining people should be finding ways to deny the hated multiboxer his content, like paying someone to gank/disrupt his activities, or organizing real miners to out mine his ass and force him to move along (when he can't plex his accounts, he will move).

    EVE is a game about figuring out problems, not coming to the forums and begging CCP to do it for you.



    Are you are saying that Eve is a game made for multiboxing as one of it's core fundamentals?


    No. But it's not prohibited (as long as it's not added with things like broadcasting), which means its fine. Your complaint is that someone is taking the time to multibox and taking some resource you want to have access to. What you should be doing is thinking, planning, scheming even, and if as you say it upsets people you should be organizing them to in some way fight against the multiboxer (out mining his ass does work, my old corp did it all the time)...

    ..rather than wasting time on a forum impotently complaining about it.

  • Have Multiboxers and Botting ruined Eve Online? in EVE Communication Center

    Trebon Luap wrote:


    At what point t does multiboxing become "wrong" to allow? Five, Seven , Twenty accounts all at once?


    It never becomes wrong so long as the multiboxer is obeying the rules ie no broadcasting software, not botting. Instead of complaining people should be finding ways to deny the hated multiboxer his content, like paying someone to gank/disrupt his activities, or organizing real miners to out mine his ass and force him to move along (when he can't plex his accounts, he will move).

    EVE is a game about figuring out problems, not coming to the forums and begging CCP to do it for you.

  • I didn't vote. Here's why. in EVE Communication Center

    Cristl wrote:
    Brian Paone wrote:
    The Council of Stellar Management is quite the interesting concept. (At least to me - I had a thing for politics back in the day.) But after looking it over, I decided not to participate for a few reasons:

    * Lack of serious candidates: In my opinion, too few people took the idea seriously. There were more joke candidacies than most American presidential elections. If the candidates (in general and overall, not as a totality) can't take themselves or the process seriously, it's very difficult for me to do so.

    * Weighted concept: As a concept, the CSM is weighted far too heavily in favor of large groups. There doesn't appear to be any kind of viable mechanism for small groups to have their voices given equal weight. I realize no form of government is perfect, but I feel more work can be done to give smaller, less visible groups a more equal place at the table. I also feel NPC corporations are badly underrepresented, to the point of even possible derision.

    It's a great concept, but ultimately seems to be rubber-stamping. I'd like to see the process and candidates (again, overall, not in totality) mature a bit more before participating. Keep up the progress! o7
    Why not ignore the silly candidates and vote for the serious ones then? Your rationale is completely arse-backwards: your inaction may contribute to genuine candidates being trumped (ahem, no capital T, lawyers).

    Also, what do you mean by weighted too heavily in favour of large groups? Isn't that how democracy works? I mean, a hypothetical scientology party wouldn't get many votes because most people view them as (the lawyers are here again, complete this sentence as you see fit).

    Finally, NPC corps are underrepresented? What the hell are you on about?!


    I read your reply, and I noticed that your tone is the exact same as mine. Where you going "WT ever loving F" the entire time you were typing...like I did lol Big smile

    I mean, the part where the poster said something about small groups being given equal weight to small group. How does being in a 'small group' make you special?

    And how in the hell does being in an NPC corps stop you from voting. Hell CCP makes POP UPS in game telling EVERYONE CSM voting is going on. Is it 'big groups' fault that people in small groups and NPC corps don't give enough of a damn to spend 15 seconds voting for a csm candidate.

    Why is their laziness somehow a problem CCP needs to fix?

  • CSM: A Publicity Stunt Or Actually Useful? in EVE Communication Center

    Infinity Ziona wrote:
    Jenn aSide wrote:
    I never understand the criticism of the CSM and 'organized' groups. If you don't like organized groups of people voting against what you think are your interests, why aren't you organizing your own group?

    (Rhetorical question, everyone knows the answer, which is that "impotent rage is easier than positive action")

    So your answer to the issue of blocs outvoting non-blocs is to create more blocs? That's as smart as saying people who don't like criminal gangs should start their own criminal gang.

    Better solution is to eliminate the manipulation from the vote.


    Which is why I use the term "impotent". You're literally saying "stop people from doing people things". That's stupid and undoable, if you believe what you are saying, why not find others who believe the same? No one says you have to fly with them.

    I know, another rhetorical question, because damn near no one agrees with you so why would they ever vote like you lol.

  • CSM: A Publicity Stunt Or Actually Useful? in EVE Communication Center

    I never understand the criticism of the CSM and 'organized' groups. If you don't like organized groups of people voting against what you think are your interests, why aren't you organizing your own group?

    (Rhetorical question, everyone knows the answer, which is that "impotent rage is easier than positive action")

  • EvE's Ecology in EVE Communication Center

    Mr Mieyli wrote:
    You do all realise that arguing 'a safe space that can generate income will ruin the economy' is surely admitting 'eve players would live in safety if they could but they aren't allowed'. I think a suitable level of income would be one where it took some time to buy and fit a T1 cruiser or battlecruiser. Yes there is much more ships out there you can experience if you dip your toes in the real game but that's a choice for you.


    This is the problem with selfishness, it makes wrong things look "ok" to people who want unreasonable things.

    No, you do not and should not get to affect the EVE Economy from safety. Every mission one runs, every bit of Ore someone mines, every npcs they kill, every market order they place, these things affect every.single.other player. Every ISK or Loyalty Point you generate lowers the relative value of every isk or LP that I and everyone else holds.

    EVE is the most equal game I know of, because at it's base it says "if YOU can negatively affect someone else, THEY can negatively affect you too". What you (again, selfishly) want is for CCP to give you a safe space so you can have an impact on others (by generating income) but they can't have an impact on you.


    The forum rules prevent me from really and truly telling you exactly which personal physical orifice your wants should be firmly and forcefully shoved into.

  • EvE's Ecology in EVE Communication Center

    Mr Mieyli wrote:
    What is the reason it is impossible for you guys to imagine having a space that is not full time pvp? Yes eve currently is 100% pvp everywhere, and eve is about conflict to make your goals become reality. Removing conflict from the game would be bad for near every player here currently, so let's not remove anything. Let's just add something, something that might have no effect whatsoever on your gameplay, but that might open up this game to people not interested in full time pvp.

    I'll say again, encouraging players to go find what they want somewhere else is not good business for CCP.


    CCP's business is not your business, it's theirs. You are one customer, you do not speak for others.

    For 13 years we've had people trying to "appeal to CCP's wallet" like you are, and for 13 years people have been seeing right through it. Your concern isn't for others, it's that YOU want to be left alone. Sorry, but no, EVE has universal non-consensual pvp as a core feature. A core feature that has defined EVE since day one. If you don't like that feature it's fine, but your dislike is no reason to change something.

    We like EVE's unforgiving nature, and anyone who wants to partake in EVE has to at least be able to tolerate that unforgiving nature, or go somewhere else. The most annoying thing in the world (in game or out) is someone who goes to a new place and expects that place to modify itself to suit them, rather than that person either adapting to that place (or finding another place they actually like).

  • Ending Mooning from Towers replacement of MI. in EVE Communication Center

    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Brb.

    Checking if I can change my avatar to my butt.


    It worked.

    Wait, what do you mean that's your face?

    Twisted

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Lunarstorm95 wrote:
    Jenn aSide wrote:
    I love this, mainly because of all the tears from "passive income elites" who are now going to chase to either be poor OR (*GASP*) make room in their elite PVP only alliances/coaltions for dirty dirty Mining guys they will need protecting.

    Did I mention that I love this?


    Yeah ur gana love this until you realize you will be mining weekly only for all ur moon roids to be going to the alliance, alliance is not gana let you keep the goo....

    Alliance is not gana spend money on the fuel and refinery only to launch the roids into space and let the miners take what they can mine and go spend it on more crystals... alliance will need all the money it can get from the rocks to supplement srp and infrastructure costs. Even more so since it wont be able to mine nearly as many moons as they do now, so it will need every isk from the moon meaning you wont be getting a decent, if any, cut.



    I won't be mining at all lol. I'm a Ratter. But don't let that stop your whining.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    I love this, mainly because of all the tears from "passive income elites" who are now going to chase to either be poor OR (*GASP*) make room in their elite PVP only alliances/coaltions for dirty dirty Mining guys they will need protecting.

    Did I mention that I love this?

  • R.I.P. POS's and LowSec - TEAM FIVE O READ THIS in EVE Communication Center

    Why do people post nonsense that they know will just get locked? They provided an area to talk about this.

  • EvE's Ecology in EVE Communication Center

    Teckos Pech wrote:
    Mr Mieyli wrote:
    Right now eve is just confused as to what it wants to be, it has been since incarna, the buzzword is sandbox and to me that means, do what you like.


    Yes, do what you like...but you cannot completely insulate yourself from some degree of interacting with others. You are playing in an MMO, a competitive MMO so some how other players are going to have an effect on you even if it is via the price system in game. What you are talking about is mechanically preventing or limiting interactions and that is not this game. If you want that, there are plenty of games, I'm sure, that will give you that....just not this one.


    Well said.

    I've seen a bunch of people on the forums (though few in game, I guess the forums attract folk like this) who have asked the same question. I always use the Vegan analogy:

    "it's perfectly fine that you don't eat meat and don't like the consumption of or use of meat and others animal products. Totally valid way to be, it's really ok...

    What's not OK is the fact that you vouluntarily came with me to this Steakhouse style restaurant then decided to act all surprised that meat was being served.....at a mother ******* steakhouse! And no, the fact that they have a single salad on the menu does not make it less of a STEAKHOUSE".