Yeah, you do realize that by linking the map, I wasn’t trying to offer counter evidence to the claim that players fall into either a PvE or PvP dichotomy. You made several assertions that I dispute, and even told you which particular assertion that I was disputing with the map -namely, that HS players are purely PvE players.
In fact, just examining this one particular assertion, it appears that you have failed to account for gankers, people who play station games, suspect baiters, HS wardeck groups, POCO wars, and people who participate in NPSI communities, and/or go on roams.
HS might have more than it’s fair share of carebears when compared to other areas of space, but it is not “purely PvE players.”
Translation, I am having difficulty defending my position. Therefore, I will accuse you of being intellectually dishonest and disruptive, and declare my intent to not to engage with you further.
No, you’re not required to defend your position. But is it a position that you should hold or promote if you are incapable and/or unwilling to defend it? And should you be making suggestions based on that position.
I mean, one way to look at it is that you are rejecting peer review.
basically, if you want CCP to read it, you should email them, if you don’t want the community to chime in… you posted on a public forum your topic title even asks for thoughts on this… you just don’t like the answers being provided.
CCP states this is where you should post. It’s CSMs job to consider and/or open an official debate as they see fit.
If/when they do so, I’ll be glad as it opens the door for structured discussion in which intentionally disruptive and political agendas are not welcome nor tolerated.
Until then, I’ll merely continue to point out that acting as if someone’s disagreement is incumbent upon me is not only laughable, but telling.
Anyone wishing to have a discussion is welcome. No one would look at those posts and call them other than dismissive.
I reserve the right to dismiss those who dismiss me.
Hm. Maybe not blue but not sure. Def someone whose smoking that crystalized quafe tho.
Not really or else this entire post is meaningless LOL. Why else bring it to the forums? You remind me of someone whose trying to say smart things to convince people they are smart but not really knowing how to use the jargon…
That’s a nice opinion you got there I don’t call them dismissive. So you’re already wrong
Well, a lot of players, myself included, believe that the game doesn’t need more incentives to krab or cooperate, but more incentives to fight.
Now, I’m not saying that they’re right just because a lot of people believe it. After all, I disagree with the crowd on certain issues myself. However, I think it’s easy to see why they think that, even if you don’t agree with it. And that’s because their desire is not based on some sort of objective truth, but upon their values and priorities. Eve is sandbox game built upon competitive, player driven content. This, in turn, attracted and retained players that value competitive, player driven content. Of course, the player base is not a monolith, but because so many players value competitive, player driven content, they will naturally push for changes that reflect those values and priorities. Naturally, this results in a general push for conflict drivers, and not “cooperation drivers”.
Now, don’t get it twisted, I’m not saying that we need to rid of cooperative or PvE game play. Or that any play styles or player values are without value (in fact, I value the entire player ecosystem). However, I do believe that there are already sufficient incentives and protections for cooperative and PvE game play, and not enough for competitive and PvP game play. Which is why I say, no, there isn’t a problem -at least, not as you define it.
That being said, I don’t think that there is anything inherently wrong in your desire. It reflects your values and priorities. However, since it conflicts with mine, I am inclined to speak out against you.
Maybe next time you’ll bring your A game
In fact, looking at my posts, I think I could have argued better. So, you better believe that I’ll be stepping up my game.
I have some candid feedback: It makes no sense to define a player by an activity and therefore try to paint them with a “value system”. Words like “miners”, “gankers”, “PVP-ers”, “PVE-ers”, “mission runners”, “abyss runners”, “market-makers”, “haulers”, “arbitragers”, “pod racers”, “gate jumpers”, “warp-initiators”, “planetary-interaction-ists”, “industrialists”, “manufacturers”, “explorers”, “scammers”, “contractors”, “mercenaries”, “ESS robbers”, “CRAB deployers”, “gate campers”, “pirates”, “bumpers”, “anti-gankers”, etc are reflective of this kind of thinking.
A single player can do multiple activities. Activities are like clothes, a single player can go out and try on or wear multiple, sometimes at the same time. Trying to put a straight-jacket on everything and declare “players that do X activities think blah” is unnecessary stereotyping and, well, wrong, because there’s too many individuals to know all their values.
If I can suggest an alternative way of thinking: the alone and not-alone dichotomy.
There are players that want to play alone in the sandbox world and get very upset when unable to. I also include the mentality of “it-must-be-played-my-way” in the alone category. Fundamentally, the alone bucket is about denying the agency of peer players to engage the sandbox however it allows them on their own terms.
Non-alone players recognize the equality afforded to everyone to engage the sandbox on their own terms. That means sometimes there is tough luck: someone else decided to ruin whatever plans you had that day, or refuses to behave in a “logical-metawise way”, or refuses to behave according to the self’s ideas of what the rules should be. Recognizing that innate freedom and equality afforded to each other in the sandbox is what characterizes this group.
Note that “alone” and “not-alone” play says nothing about solo/group play: there are groups that get mad when other people just won’t behave in a manner that makes sense in “the meta” or “according to their rules”; and there are solo players that engage the sandbox fully expecting the pain and hardship and limitations and challenges associated with being 1 person up against the universe.
Please don’t try to associate people with activity-labels, reality is more nuanced than that.
This is true. At the same time, I have noticed there is a significant tendency of the types of players who DON’T do multiple activities to spend most of their time in only one area of space.
Sure, and the vice versa is true too: even players that do multiple activities, can spend most of their time in only one area of space. A nullsec group can entrench a pocket whose members really only go to high sec for the markets, there’s mining and ratting and ESS defending and WH rolling and filamenting invaders and hotdropper defense, etc. Wormholers can fortify a WH and exploit it as much as possible through various activities, have fun in J-space, and generally ignore the rest of EvE. And so on.
The only difference is that in high-sec, you can get away with doing the same thing day in and day out with limited opportunities for corp mates / coalition leaders to yell about “not pulling enough weight” to project power. Any other space, requires engaging the sandbox more in order to do the same activities because power projection is required to establish the time & space to do them safely. In neither case is there a requirement that one has to live in multiple different “areas of space”.
I get CCP is trying to do the whole “each region is economically unique” to drive “cross-region” or “cross-styles” gameplay, but all it’s doing is further increasing the gulf between the alone type of folks and not-alone type of folks because the latter are engaged enough with the sandbox to react to it. Instead of widening the gulf, if the goal is to reduce the alone type of mentality, then in my humble opinion a very different approach would be needed – and I don’t really want to make concrete proposals because 1) my opinions don’t matter, and 2) I don’t really want to deal with hearing the cries of people that would be upset by them.
People who say “highsec is pve players” are counting only pvp-averse krabbers as “highsec players.” Everyone else is somehow intruding on others, as defined by what they think hs is supposed to be.
Thise who say “null players are all pvp” have never lived in nullsec.
I feel like while we call a lot of highsec players carebears, most of them are probably just alts of nullsec and lowsec pilots cause you can make more isk in highsec doing incursions/abyss than you can in low/null and even burning L4s is decent isk for the relative safety of highsec
the big mistake a lot of 0.0 people make is to see high sec players as some sort of single carebear entity, containing solo players with lots of alts.
Yes you have people who live in dead areas playing with themselves, and then you have people who live near hubs and it’s like chalk and cheese.
Hub miners are all connected, it’s like a web of blues spreading out with deals and information being shared between them and yes, that does extend out into low sec. You think it’s only 0.0 that can see you coming 5 jumps out? In 2022 when you got twitch streams on jita gates? It’s easy to forget that some of the industrialists in high sec have been playing their game this way for as long as the PvPers have, and they have got very very good at it.
We don’t need industrialists forced into a play style they hate because they will just quit, we need more industrialists to come play in the hubs with other people.
Given your continued misconstruction of my words, I don’t think you know what “an A Game” looks like. I shall not hold my breath waiting for you to prove me wrong, either.
I hate to be the one, but the entire industry is defined, segmented, and approached just like this. Go look and see for yourself.
This argument does not stand.
Meanwhile, THIS is how most consumers in today’s market actually feel.
CCP knows their own numbers and the patterns in them better than you and I ever will. This has nothing to do with the suggestion nor with seeking to provide a better one.
By CCPs own words, they are seeking ideas to either entice the market or to redefine in a way to encourage more cross-over in play choices. Personally, I think they’re chasing the wrong rabbit. But I dutifully offered up several ideas for how they might achieve it.
I find it telling that people are much more focused upon dismissing the ideas (and the person?) than simply according them their place and space.
As if they choose. Or should.
Fascinating.
I’ve said my piece and it remains to be seen if anyone in CMS or CCP can see the value potential.
I suppose you just accept that it isn’t a real post until the monkey pen goes by flings the obligatory poo. (chuckle)
I don’t call them dismissive. So you’re already wrong 
