/biomass
–Gadget will start over tomorrow
1 Like
Noooo!
1 Like
Careful here, even in “hard” sciences there is quite a bit of subjectivity. When two “hard” science scientists have different views it is often down to subjectivity. After all, they each can see each other’s data…yet they have competing hypotheses that explain why we that data is the way it is. There are plenty of examples in the “Hard” sciences where a hypothesis was rejected, rejected, rejected…and then (often when enough people have died due to old age, etc.) the new hypothesis is accepted.
Example: Helicobacter pylori
This explanation for certain types of ulcers was rejected because there was a belief that no bacteria could live in the acidic environment in the stomach.
Example: Symbiogenesis
The credit for this goes primarily Lynn Margulis, but there were earlier hypotheses put forward in 1950 and 1910. Again, rejected, rejected, rejected until finally it was accepted.
Part of the problem, IMO, is that for many people they see science as some sort of endeavor that is not done by people. People form beliefs, even ex ante beliefs. And when the evidence contradicts these beliefs they often will reject or explain away that evidence.
You are right that the natural sciences can often do controlled experiments and/or that their subjects of study do not often respond to being studied (watching the motion of celestial bodies is probably not going to cause those celestial bodies to behave differently). So in that sense one can claim some degree of objectivity. But we are talking about people looking at those data. People who are interpreting those data relative to their preferred hypotheses and theories. And people do behave in subjective ways…even when they do a “hard” science.
3 Likes
Ofc, nobody has disputed that or claimed otherwise.
However, as Gadget explained, bodies of science are classified as either “hard” or “soft”.
That was common mistake. In reality you could lose few days of skills independent of hole between your SP amount and size of your active clone. 200k SP of something about it.
At least this is what some dev wrote not long ago.
@March_rabbit corrected you above.
Regardless of that, do you want to return SP loss to EVE?
Is that your position?
I have no position, you have spent to much time living under a bridge.
Fine.
You have no position.
Just making useless noise then, not to mention being wrong about the extent of SP loss before.
TLDR: You have nothing except wasting forum space.
I don’t care either way about sp loss, or how it used to work. Hence when i say i have no position i mean it. I simply do not care, and the fact you keep on approaching and trying to goad me through pointless drivel will no work. No how many cherries you want with that we are up to four cherries on top.
1 Like
Fine.
Matter dropped and removed as an argument that it somehow “dumbed down” EVE.
Gankers and nullbears would crap their pants violently if SP loss was returned.
I still stand by my statement that Eve is easy, as for gankers and null bears worrying about SP loss if CCP were to return it, is laughable at best. People who gank or those in null are not the ones that would have issue with so called SP loss, its the new players who would have issues not the older players.
1 Like
Why would CCP reinstate SP loss? We had it, they found it promoted risk aversion, lead to people not flying ships cheaper then their clones, and didn’t work with the newer alpha/omega clone model.
Jist because someone thinks it would be a goid punishment doesn’t mean CCP will change. I think giving out free carriers would be great… Yet CCP’s not going to do that.
1 Like
I never said CCP was going to introduce SP loss back into the game why would they? I said Eve has been dumbed down thats it. Mr Salvos is the one going on about SP loss i was using it as one example as to why I think Eve has become easier. Other than losing large amounts of isk this game carries no risk whatsoever.
With Alpha accounts SP loss would result in even greater risk aversion now then it did earlier. If you’re an Alpha and lose SP that’s a much bigger deal then an Omega losing SP because you don’t automatically get it back over time unless you have less then 5,000,000.
You really are clueless about EvE?
FYI, gankers didn’t give a ■■■■ about clone costs. When your gank alts dont have high SP, it wasn’t expensive.
1 Like
It was @Wavemistress_Moidel that was wrong in how SP loss was implemented in the period she referred to. @March_rabbit corrected her.
Go ahead and call her clueless.
Ahem. BattleCruiser V. Three times. 
@Wavemistress_Moidel Your example for “dumbing down” was bad. Clone costs add a penalty for death, which makes it harsh. Removing it did not dumb down the game, though it did make it less penalizing when you made a mistake … aka pod death. Mistake, because anywhere but nullsec it is usually rather simple to save the pod, unless you sit in a cloud of exploding smartbombs.
The wording is more of an issue than anything else. We could argue that the warning, telling you that you forgot your mission cargo, is “dumbing down”, but in the end that too is badly worded. That part, too, was to remove penalty for mistakes. It is something that should have stayed in, but … oh well. vOv
If you want to have your arguments to stand, you should avoid “dumbing down” and call it more of what it is. People are easily triggered by “dumbing down” and it usually does not really hit the nail on the head anyway.
2 Likes
Exactly.
We can talk risk vs reward, safety etc
But its false to claim EVE isnt harder to learn and more complicated now than ever before.
Hasnt been “dumbed down”.
I think you guys are way overshooting this article lol CCP has had fair play in the game for the longest time. The Fair Play Alliance isn’t intended to make gameplay fair and equal for all, it actually has nothing to do with gameplay don’t read too much into the name of the coalition. It is actually to monitor and enforce social behaviors. Smack talking and trash talking is NOT considered harassment or abuse but the moment you bring that person as a real life person into the convo then it becomes borderline online bullying.
There is a fine line here, telling someone they suck and they should go play something else or that they fly ships like a tard is not really violating fair play because you are negatively making fun of their gaming skills. The moment you tell them they suck at life because of how bad they suck in game or that they should go harm themselves in one way or another because they are worthless…now THAT is considered violation and this has been CCP’s stance since as long as I can remember including the “vet players” days as well.
This policy isnt to be “soft” to other players, its to not use the game as a means to belittle or negatively affect their real lives. After all it is just a game and you should play it as such, yes trash talk them and joke how bad they suck in the game but leave their personal lives out of the comments and to be honest I suspect a lot of new and older players alike respect that as a gamer despite the comments to the contrary.
I KNOW HOW TO SOLVE THIS !!!
ALL THAT THE PEOPLE NEED IS A SAFE WORD! As soon as someone screams the safe word, every hostility ends immediately! “But how do we enforce this, Sol??” Well, d’uh, lack of compliance gets you thrown into jail !
Boom, problem solved! 
I’m SOOOOO proud of myself!
OH OH OH and I even know a really good safe word!!
■■■■ !
*sips coffee*
^ _ ^
Alternatives could be:
PLEASE DON’T !
NO !
WAIT !
WHY ???
Or variations!
1 Like