You can stick with your definition, and I will stick with mine, as long as we’re clear what we individually mean when either of us uses the term.
Among other things, such as having only a limited amount of time to devote to gaming, sure.
To proactively engage in PvP (and expect success) requires a good degree of investment, I agree. However, that doesn’t mean that (by your definition of “carebear”) that there aren’t players who attempt to PvP casually.
It also doesn’t mean that it takes more than a casual amount of effort to be able to deal with PvP as a defender (e.g., to spend a few minutes reading about ganking in order to gain the knowledge to fit shield extenders to your haulers/mining barges in order to deter ganks).
To clarify (due to our individual definitions so of the term “carebear”), I believe that players who ask for nonconsensual PvP to be removed so that the game caters to their tastes is a good riddance. I don’t believe that players who are only interested in engaging in PvE leaving the game is good riddance. However, once again, the categories can overlap.
Never said I did, so I don’t see why you felt inclined to bring that up.
That’s moot.
The EVE that I believe exists is an EVE in which it’s possible to attack anyone at any time, to declare war on other organizations, to be able to infiltrate other groups in order to steal from them, to be able to force players to pay ransoms under the threat of violence, etc. etc. Am I right? I think that I am, but maybe I’m not, so I hope that someone can set me on the right path if that’s the case.
Other people believe that the EVE that exists is one in which they are allowed to farm PvE activities without other players being able to interfere, unless they specifically choose to allow the interference. Are they right? I don’t think that are, but once again, I could be very much wrong, so maybe someone else can chime in and set me straight.
To me, a care bear is actually just a merciful player. As a vet I could easily pick on a new player or mess with them but usually I would choose not to and help them instead. And, yes I know that killing them and teaching them a lesson can be a form of help. But, I am a merciful player overall which is why I self identity as a care bear sometimes. Plus, I have a 5.0 security status which is the trademark of all care bears
That’s just my 2 cents and everyone is gonna have their own ideas of what a care bear is. Don’t wanna get too off topic since this is about war decs not care bears so I will leave it at that
That’s completely unrelated.
One can be a casual player, and play a lot.
What defines the casual players, it the priority he gives to the game.
“attempt” being the key word here.
You attempt, you fail, you stop.
You can try again later.
You just poke at it and then “well not fun”.
That’s completely wrong.
The amount of things you need to learn, in order to “be able to deal with PVP as a defender”, is HUGE and casual players can’t just learn everything. It’s just not worth their time to imagine all the possibilities of action an aggressor could come with.
Those are the people that allow CODE. to have a gameplay. Because other people will thing through the game and do the optimal action : fly procurers and orca, or retrievers in higher sec.
Many of the fits are bad. Many people still use auto pilot to move their orca with a lot of things, after years.
If everybody was actually invested in the game, there would be a lot less interactions between players in HS, and especially no ganking. Gankers would not have any target.
But that’s what you claimed, when you said that people leaving the game when being wardecced had to leave anyhow.
Yes, they could have easily just created another corporation. But this already requires too much effort in regard to what the game is bringing them. They are here for social interaction, the sense of personal achievement - not to compete with people who invest a lot more time into a game than they will ever be willing to do. Because they are casual players : they invest little energy, have fun.
Because you are claiming there is a good way to play (yours) and a bad one (the others).
No.
You are right that they may ignore facts. But the way you perceive the game, with your experience, is not more real than the way they perceive the game. I’m not saying that your experience is not worth. I’m saying that Eve is too complex for you be able to have a correct grasp of it ; just like they can’t. Yes, your vision of the game may be more accurate in some aspect, and maybe their can also be more accurate in other aspects.
What we don’t agree about, is that casuals are a good thing for the game. If casuals are good for the game, then arbitrary war decs, which were removing casuals and only casuals, were a bad thing for the game.
They removed only casual, because people who were not casual, were able to leave the corp for the time of the war, and/or use neutral alts, and/or were asking and told that there was no point in it.
So according to me, your request for more wardecs, would just lead to the removal of more casuals. But the devs don’t want to have less casuals. Casuals are what makes the game be complex, they are the bottom of the food chain, and without it the game is just filled with risk-adverse robots doing optimal tasks.
That is one acceptable interpretation of “casual” in terms of gaming. However, the industry definition leans much more toward the amount of time that people spend playing games, and the context in which they play them (e.g. on their cell phone while on the train to work).
After enough attempts, their skills will improve, and they’ll start seeing more and more success. It might take longer to get there without blitzing through PvP sessions, but is still quite possible.
They can’t learn them (quickly, at least) only if they’re “casual” in terms of play time limitations. If they’re “casual” by virtue of not being willing to spend time and energy on the game when they otherwise can, then they can learn, but choose not to.
No, I’m saying “good riddance” to the players who, upon being subjected to nonconsensual PvP, proceed to whine about it, and ask for the game to be changed in a way for it to no longer be possible.
Then they’ve chosen the wrong game. You don’t go to McDonald’s to have your tires changed, right? Why are players who seek only social interaction, and have no desire for any sort of competition, choosing to play a game like EVE? It just doesn’t make sense.
Now, I think that they’re still welcome to try, but they definitely shouldn’t expect this game to give them what they want. At best, they’ll heave to accept the fact that they’ll have to stay in NPC corporations, engage in PvE away from centers of activity like the major trading hubs, and learn some rudimentary PvP defense skills.
Or get killed repeatedly.
If they don’t like any of these alternatives, then EVE definitely isn’t the game for them, and they should seek their entertainment elsewhere. There’s no shame in that.
No, I’m claiming that there’s an efficient way to play (in which you learn about the risks inherent in the game, and prepare for them accordingly), and an inefficient way to play (assuming that nothing can, or should happen, and taking no precautions whatsoever).
It just so happens that efficient things are usually categorized as “good,” and inefficient things are usually categorized as “bad.”
I kept my vision of the game limited to activities that are physically possible to perform in it.
According to your definition of “casual” (that is to say, players who aren’t willing to spend energy and effort on the game by choice), I do not think that casual players are good for EVE.
According to the definition of “casual” that I lean toward (dealing with temporal and contextual limitations), I think that casual players are completely fine and acceptable.
Someone can’t be at the bottom of the food chain if they can selectively exclude themselves from it.
You are referring to casual games, not to casual players.
Casual games refer to games made to be played in short sessions, casual players refers to people not investing their energy in a game. You can mine in Eve online 2H a days and you still are a casual player. Or do one hour of mission every day in a shitfit raven, for a ■■■■ LP corporation, in a high truesec system, and still be a casual player.
They’ll just leave the experiment at what it is, because they see no improvement wrt the energy invested.
Which is the same. They can’t learn complex things because they don’t play a game to invest energy in it. I don’t mean it as a physical impossibility, but a logical one. People who don’t want to invest energy in Eve can’t learn PVP.
Here you’re just arguing semantics.
Sorry, I thought you were saying “good riddance” about the people who left the game after being wardecced. Seems I mixed several posts together.
You don’t go to Mc Donalds to get robbed or killed either, even when it can happen.
To you. It makes sense to them. As I wrote, you are not the one making the rules, of what is acceptable or not in Eve.
Casual players don’t play the game for its PVP. Carebears don’t want to play PVP. And it’s fine with them playing the game, even if they don’t have the same vision of it that you - or I - have.
You can avoid PVP interactions in Eve, to some degree. If it was not the case, a LOT of people would just leave.
That’s just wrong.
Just a simple example : systems with truesec >0.45 are labelled as “high security”. That term alone is wrong. You don’t have security in HS.
It’s not about the game being made for them or not, it’s about the way it is described from inside the game.
With such a name, there is no reason to learn “rudimentary PVP defense skills” in it if he is a casual player.
That’s nonsense. People who play for the social part will leave once the social part is removed. That’s exactly why I told you that you WANT to remove the casual players.
You CANT if you are a casual player.
Having to forcefeed a newbro all the details of Eve online will just make them puke.
You are claiming that casual players are “bad”.
They are required to make the game “alive”.
Sure, once upon a time, briefly, a LOOOOONG time ago.
For the vast majority of the life of that system though it was a way for people to camp the Jita undock and not get CONCORD’d for shooting people.
Hence the cost going up per person in the war-dec’d corp rather than the people declaring the wars. That was changed from the old system based on number of wars after Eve Uni broke that system hilariously and found a way to charge itself something like 40m a week to charge anyone who declared war against it something like 1b ISK.
Sure, but in practice wars like this were maybe a half dozen a year, total, across all of High Sec (exageration, but still).
The vast majority were declared on small corps of new players who were just like “oh, this is like guilds, I want one of those, oh and they’re easy and cheap to set up, great!” and then suddenly people were shooting them and they left the game by the next week.
People who actually understood the mechanics made a forum for their group and stayed in newbie corps. Which killed the feeling of community and any of the mechanics around it.
Problem with war decs its just too easy to declare war versus another corp/alliance just because you can. No reason why you want to start a war but just because you can. Basically make the reason you declare war on sombody else mean something. Somebody earlier in the thread mentions objectives for the war to be successful which I thought was a good idea. To many hi sec bullies who are just bored.
Except i discussed the causal link with you the last time.
And articles and academic studies look at log ins and play time as a measure of retention. Both of which are captured in some way by eveoffline.net
You are the only one that doesn’t see a relationship between log ins and retention. And not only don’t see it, you vehemently deny it without any logical reasoning.
There are players that don’t engage in pvp but understand that it’s a necessary and even enjoyable part of the game. I would not call these carebears.
A carebear selfishly wishes to reduce pvp to a point that it is completely optional and/or detrimental to the game.
The problem with that is that hi-sec still needs risk and destruction. It is as absolutely necessary to hi-sec as it is anywhere else.
And npc’s don’t cut it.
The problem with that is the game cannot possibly incorporate into the ui all the reasons players want to fight.
Stole my ore, bumped my ship, said nasty things.
The game should not, and cannot, dictate what is a good reason for a war.
Instead you are given the option of being in a non-wardeccable corp. But being in such a corp must come with real concessions or there is no meaningful choice.
It’s the definition.
A carebear does not partake in PVP in a PVP environment.
That’s all there is to it.
So yes in Eve online every player that does not partake in PVP is a carebear, because PVP is everywhere. And actually every one can have a carebear alt to do incursions.
What they wish is unrelated. Especially since what they wish, you have no idea. I met people who enjoyed competition in the game, through market, through sites stealing. and still considered the system of HS ganking to be garbage.
