I am trying to figure out in what way it would change anything regardless of which position I accept as true. It seems to me purely semantic and we know what each person means when they say ‘free’, even if their personal definition of the term differs. So what are we trying to prove here, the definition of ‘free’ aside? If you know, please let me in on it.
What I’m trying to point out is that stefnia is making a really strange accusation.
‘Ore you mine yourself is free’ is a common newbie mistake.
People sometimes get made fun of when they make such a claim, because it means they won’t take the opportunity cost of the ore into account when producing items, which often leads to producing at a loss which means the new player could have made more ISK if they sold the ore instead of the end product.
Stefnia is making fun of Vuhdo for making such a claim, while Vuhdo said something completely different:
in response to
… based on the fact that for stefnia ‘value’ equals ‘value’ according to the dictionary, but stefnia forgets to notice that the context in which value is used is completely different.
Just because someone plays EVE for free and spends time on a hobby doesn’t mean they don’t understand the concept of opportunity cost in the game.
Stefnia is comparing apples and oranges and worse, makes fun of Vuhdo for liking oranges when he said he liked apples. Or to be literal: stefnia is using a false equivalence to make fun of someone.
I am not making fun, and I don’t say he made that claim.
I’m using a proof by absurd to show his argument is stupid.
If things that only cost your time are free, then ore that you mined yourself is also free.
But “ore I mined myself is free” is a rookie mistake. Therefore the initial postulate is wrong : things that cost only your time, are not free.
My phrasing is just the short version, because it’s so trivial I did not expect anyone to actually need an explanation - or at least that those who require details would have asked.
Playing without paying a monthly fee, does not.
Claiming that something which requires your time is free, does.
What’s more there was no mention of playing for free at first. Instead there was mention of paying for the game to have SPs required to fly a rorqual for example (and I said caps in general).
It was the same person who claimed that there was no need to pay for the game, and that doing so meant the payer was “bad”. This guy was the one derailing the thread with toxic judgements. But of course Gerard prefers to mis-interpret things he does not understand rather than look at the actual toxic troll. Has it ever happened before ?(yes, it has)
This is probably another one of those instances where taking the middle of the road gets me into trouble. While I do get frustrated with certain people, I don’t tend to think that people are bad actors on purpose and that these tiffs arise from different points of view that both make perfect sense.
Vuhdo and I apparently have it in common that we play the game mainly in ways that are for our entertainment in the present. The ore I mined was free because the time I spent getting it was recreational. I usually couldn’t be bothered to even sell it. I used to also mine ice to make fuel blocks to support my structures, but even though I did all this at a loss of time and isk I still thought it was worthwhile because it was entertaining. I did a lot of things that were impractical for my amusement. For the brief time that I lived in Providence my impractical choice to live on the interstellar highway ‘reds’ would frequent led to some people accusing me of being a spy because they just can’t conceive of why I’d chose to live in a more dangerous space instead of safer, more practical, space.
Stefina, on the other hand, is practical and pragmatic. It’s harder for me to speak accurately to this point of view since I do not share in it, but as far as I can tell the ‘fun’ comes more from the optimization of practical matters and developing an entire system or method of extracting maximum benefit in practical terms. ‘Fun’, as I know it, has minimal effect on this evaluation. I see this in other games, too, where some players spend a great deal of time trying to eeke out a few more experience points or gold coins per hour with the most soul crushing activities I can imagine, but I suppose they and I just have different values. They see my lack of efficiency as a detriment, and I see their practicality at the expense of fun as a detriment.
Anyways, the perception of what is or isn’t a cost in a game depends on the person and these arguments go on because neither person involved is willing to take a moment to consider the other point of view and simply grant that another person can feel differently and it not be necessary that one or the other is wrong as long as we understand what each person means when they say the words that they do.
Both of these people are sporadically helpful in the forums, so I think they mean well, even if at various points I find myself rolling my eyes at each of them for their, shall we say… diplomacy.
2 Likes
Idk how long you played and really dont care. Way back before injectors/extractors it was more common for folks to have specialized characters, strictly mining, strictly pvp, strictly salvage etc whatever. Even through the changes before injectors i dont recall people complaining about things being useless.
Not necessarily.
I totally accept that it’s a game, and that playing for fun is the most important thing.
It’s even more than that, as I consider that always going for efficiency forces people into already-known situations which can prevent them from experiencing more efficient gameplays. Meaning, the search for efficiency is actually detrimental to efficiency.
However this topic was people who invested their time and money to have SP in order to engage in an activity, which was later practically removed by CCP.
The context of this topic is about investment, long term project. And yes in that case one needs to be pragmatic.
So claiming that those SP were free for those people is a plain lie. And then he makes a hasty generalization that “everything that only costs your time is free”, which is wrong and another pathetic derail attempt. It’s just a troll. He first trolled by claiming that an activity that was nerf is still present, while this is completely off topic, and now he trolls by claiming people who paid money for the game are bad, as everything is free including omega.
Personally I was given extractors by CCP, I just don’t care. They are sitting somewhere along with the hypernet things and the skinr things. Even the SP that I never used and that I could move somewhere else, I don’t care. I’m not “investing” money into characters. It’s more about the loss from extracting, but even with 100% moving efficiency I would just not care.
But this is not the case for everybody, and just because someone had a long-term SP goal that he paid for does not mean he does not deserve respect.
Can you give me an overview of activities that have been removed and not refunded, as opposed to activities that had mainly their profitability (practical benefits) adjusted?
Why do you oppose them ?
If an activity benefit is adjusted to 0 (or negative) then the activity is practically removed.
An example is the changes on carrier ratting. If the cost of replacing your ship increases (because CCP added more requirements in the BP), and the income is reduced (because CCP nerfed fighters application), then you can lose more than you gain when you lose a ship. To the point people stopped ratting in carriers. Or even just playing them.
Do you know what is a lie ? xD to claim that anybody said things but they never do …
Only thing i said was " You can play eve for free " nothing else ! If you want to claim i said anything more is just wrong until you can quote me the exact post i said it !
So you just lie about your " discussion oppnent " because you cant handle the truth or even worse, you could habdle the truth but you lie and you know you lied !
Instead of bring some good arguments then you just repead stupid stuff and/or insult other ppl … all at all says youre not smart as you wish to be youre just a liar who wants to spread your alternate facts
1 Like
No its C H A N G E D ! its a very big differnce !
So, when CCP buffed Marauders so that they became the preferred PvE platform instead of Carriers, you are saying CCP should have refunded all carrier related SP?
Even though Carriers were still usable but had fallen out of favour in the meta?
What you propose is that CCP refunds millions of SP any time they make game balances that affect the meta.
People didn’t have to move on to Marauders, they could still have continued using Carriers, so I really don’t see why CCP should offer a paid service (skill extraction) for free any time they make game balance changes.
I aldo fear it’s pretty bad for the game if game balance changes always have to go paired with free handouts. Before you know it, CCP makes even fewer game balance changes and the meta that now is stale for years then becomes stale for decades because CCP loses money any time they improve the game.
1 Like
They should have allowed it before.
But yes, you are right that a change in balance can make a gameplay not directly changed actually impacted by that change.
However, in that case the increase in carriers cost was enough to justifiy it. Marauders were only a small change.
Yes they had to move. No, they could not have continued using carriers.
Yes, I think that shifting the meta too much is enough to allow a partial reimbursement of the invested SP.
Again, if the investment was only a few days/week in SP, I agree that it would be meaningless. CCP already has SP gift. But for caps, those gameplays require intensive investment, in month or years of training.
[racial] carrier V already costs 3M584 SP
fighters hangar + fighter + light fighters V costs 8M192 SP.
11M7 SP dedicated to the sole activity of carrier.
That’s why I wrote “only level 5”, and I agree that this may be too much in some cases.
But, to use a term new to me, the feeling that CCP owes the players “something” when they decide to nerf an activity into the ground, is reasonable .
Other people still being able to use the ships nerfed, or people being able to play alpha, is completely irrelevant. Those are the people trying to derail the topic that you should point at, instead of me.
The activity of killing NPCs with carriers was not ‘nerfed to the ground’ though.
It was still possible, just less effective than another option in the meta.
People need to stop overexaggerating nerfs: unless a nerf literally stops an activity from happening (like when Alpha suicide ganking was made impossible) people can still continue with that activity after the nerf.
The reason people stopped doing things like carrier ratting is because they chose to switch to a more efficient ratting method, not because CCP made Carrier rattibg impossible.
Now if CCP made Carrier ratting impossible I think an SP refund is fair.
But if it is just a nerf that made another method more popular so people chose to stop Carrier ratting that’s a player choice, which doesn’t require SP refunds.
1 Like
NO
The reason is that it was too expansive to actually make money.
This activity was economically killed.
So no, they did not choose it.
That’s just wrong and you know it.
If CCP made it so that in HS your damage is divided by 100 when suicide ganking, then the activity would become practically impossible.
If it’s not enough, divide by 1000 instead.
You don’t need to physically prevent an activity to kill it. You can just nerf it into the ground : increase the cost, reduce the gain until they overlap.
Ccp doesnt owe you ■■■■
It’s player choice to chase only the most efficient methods, but that is not a reason for CCP to owe you SP for changing the meta.
You could still use the old methods, you just don’t want to because the risk is higher or reward lower than the new best strategy.
When people say ‘the update killed X’ they are usually exaggerating. No, the activity was not killed, you can still do it but it is no longer optimal.
For people who only ever limit themselves to use optimal strategies this ‘killed’ the old strategy, but for people who play for fun or non-meta options that old method is still available.
As it is your choice to only use optimal strategies and ignore all the suboptimal strategies you choose to think of the other options as dead, even though they are possible and could even again be viable after the next meta change.
As it is your choice to ignore the suboptimal options, CCP doesn’t owe you SP.
You can still use that SP, you just choose not to use it.
1 Like
So ?
You are completely missing the point.
Are you off-topic on purpose ?
NO
read again.
{citation required}
Why are you repeating what a troll just wrote ?
I see you decide to plain troll now. Has it even happened before (Yes, it has)
Thats exactly the point, the option to move SP at a cost, as OP wants is in the game. Again ccp reserves the right to change gameplay even if it is detrimental to how you played. If you cant adapt to the changes that your problem not ccps
1 Like
Does it really?!?
can i make a car out of it?
How about wristwatch?
a phone?
can we fly to Europe or the moon with this ore?
1 Like
They do if they take my money.