So let me get this straight: your nitpick about “everything is exposed to combat PvP” is that you personally aren’t exposed to it because you have someone else do the part that is exposed to combat PvP? Seriously?
Except that’s not true. The process of trading, taken as a whole, is exposed to PvP. You’ve just paid someone else to take the PvP risks while you do the safe parts. It’s like claiming that holding sovereignty in nullsec is “not exposed to PvP combat” because you RMT a bunch of PLEX and pay other players to fight the battles to claim and defend it.
You’re the one trying to argue about it so that you can justify hurling abuse at players who play the game differently to you.
Stop repeating this lie. I have told you over and over again: I am not objecting to people who play PvE elements in a PvP-focused game and are fine with the existence of PvP threats. I object to the people who lobby to destroy EVE by turning it into a mindless AFK farming game, and that is not merely “playing the game differently”.
We don’t want to “abuse” other people for playing differently.
We’re just pushing back against the idea of changing the foundations of EVE to suite a very vocal and whiny minority.
I haven’t attacked anyone or told anyone to leave.
I admit this is a difficult concept to grasp
@Lucas_Kell no one is trying to dump on PvE minded players by denying them any sense of fun or accessibility. The argument is literally “Don’t ■■■■ with what makes Eve online unique”.
Again, only by paying someone else to take the PvP risks for them. Is nullsec sovereignty “not part of combat PvP” because you can pay someone to do all of the fighting for you and never undock yourself?
Every time anyone says anything about improving PvE you show up and start hurling abuse at them.
Stop lying. The only people I attack are the ones whose sole concept of “improving PvE” is to make it easier and make the numbers in their wallet go up faster. Nowhere have I attacked people who, say, want to improve mission AI to make it more challenging and interesting.
That’s correct… and as long as they understand and acknowledge that due to the nature of the game they are open season for combat, even in Highsec.
If someone wants to “improve pve” by creating an impenetrable veil which they can play and hide behind, then yeah they don’t “belong”. However if they want dynamic and more engaging pve and other neat features, then hell yeah! I imagine plenty of people are in favor of those things.
And the complex player run economy only exists because of PvP. Take away PvP and the economy collapses, and you’re left with farming missions until you get bored and quit.
Imagine an Eve Online where you can partition yourself in isolation and mindlessly engage in PvE content to your hearts desire… is that a feature that is unique to Eve Online? No, not at all.
I agree that the player run economy is a huge sell and is really neat, but I can assume confidently that no one says, “wow the pve in Eve online looks cool - I wanna play”!
Instead I imagine it’s the promise that you can be who you want in the game - bad or good.
You can forge you own stories and have a meaningful impact on others. Yeah you can have an impact on others even if all you ever fly is a Mining Barge, but your story of flying a Mining Barge providing minerals and resources for you and your friends to utilize ought to be tied into a story that involves conflict and overcoming trials to have gotten where you are.
How well do you think a movie or tv show would do without some bad guy or trial to overcome? This is what we like about the game. It’s existed this way since the inception of the game and it ought to not change because someone wants differently. Just go play a different game… simple.
Lol it’s implied that the person would acknowledge this if they choose to undock. Jesus Lucas…
But Lucas, I do! I can totally tell someone that they don’t fit in with this kind of game if they are attempting to make the game conform to them…
Either provide an example of me attacking someone for genuine PvE improvements, not “make my AFK farming easier” or STFU.
But that doesn’t change the fact that other people have every right to disagree with that position.
Other people have the right to be wrong. They can also go play some other game because EVE is not changing to meet their demands. It’s just like flat earthers: they have the legal right to speak, but the rest of us are going to correctly call them a bunch of idiots and tell them to STFU.
Because EVE is not the game for them. If you want a no-PvP farming game where you can sit there mostly AFK and farm the same menial task with zero challenge or risk of failure then EVE is not meeting your desires, and it never will. Rather than trying to destroy EVE with ideas that blatantly go against its fundamental design concepts the only rational decision is to leave EVE and play a game that does meet that player’s desires.
He doesnt consider calling people who disagree with him sub-normal to be an insult, so you aren’t going to get anywhere with that.
He’s also of the opinion that he gets to decide what is considered offensive.
So really, as he is the great arbitrator of the human condition, you have no right to interfer with his highness’s judgement.
IOW, you have no examples to post and admit that you are lying.
So you’re going to lob personal attacks at people and tell them to shut up? And you feel that’s positive for the community do you?
I feel that anything that encourages these people to leave EVE and reduces the chances that CCP (or, more accurately, their PA bosses) listens to their demands and kills the game is a good thing. They don’t belong in EVE and their continued presence can not lead to anything good.
It encourages the no-PvP players to leave, so yes, it does lead to something good. And if you think the things I’ve said are “absolutely horrendous insults” then damn you’re pretty sheltered.
PS: I note you still don’t have any evidence to support your dishonest accusation against me.
I am not surprised that you can’t separate facts from a person you dislike and let emotions affect your judgement.
For PVP to be possible in the game, people need to be playing the game. PVPers aren’t trying to drive people away. We want more people playing the game.
However, we also realise that the core game drives people away. CCP presented stats a couple of years ago about the poor new player retention and more than 95% of those that left never experienced PVP in the game (so much for the game is so much harder for new players now. Not according to CCP).
They went through the NPE and then went on to PVE…and then left.
How many of those would have stayed if they had experienced PVP?
We don’t know, but what we do know is that just as much as there are players who join EVE for it’s vibrant industry, for the market and economy, to play the PVE game, etc., there are players that join EVE and who would be hooked by the PVP, but never have that experience and they get bored.
So just as much claiming pro-PVP players make people question the direction, the exact same thing can be said for the anti-PVP players, who are also just as much into driving people away from the game.
At the end of it, both PVP and PVE, consensual and non-consensual, solo (anti-social) and group (social) play are catered for in this game and screw anyone who tries to say that as a pro-PVP player I am the reason the direction of the game should be questioned.
I want more people playing and my view of that is that we need to give as many people as possible, the PVP experience, because it’s far better in my view than the anti-social “EVE should be single-player like” version of the anti-PVPers.
We are telling specific people who are not compatible with EVE to leave. We are telling many other people to please stay and enjoy EVE.
Oh geez, a liberal. No wonder he wants a safer EVE. Probably wants Universal Basic ISK for everyone, too.