Something with premises and a conclusion, written at an 8th grade English level, would be nice.
PS: please don’t choke on your coffee. The forums wouldn’t be the same without you.
lame
ad hominem…always so good to see from you. they should just add a white flag emoji for you to use. it’d be so much easier for you.
I suppose your post was supposed to serve as wit…such that it is. heavy sigh
It’s not ad hominem if I literally can’t understand what you wrote, dum-dum.
Maybe. But this is
Absolutely, but it’s a very gentle one. No more offensive than what that person routinely uses to describe players who engage in PvP.
Well, despite the fact that the use of “trash” and other insults wasn’t necessary at all, he does have a very good point.
A lot of small-corps/High-seccers sincerely believe they matter in the supply chain.
That is just factually wrong. They could all uninstall the game tomorrow, and the economy would not even feel it.
I just have a laugh everytime one of them write something like “Lol, without us you wouldn’t have ships and ammos!!”.
Yeah, keep believing that, if that makes you feel good. The reality however is very different, and I know for sure they didn’t participate in the ships I’m using.
On the very contrary, it looks like they know very well what they are doing, according to this report.
Their stated goal was to give the economy a punch, because it was too generous and lucrative from their point of view.
This economic report is showing that their attempt is successfull.
Now, you can potentially disagree with their goal, for whatever reason.
But when you have in front of you people who state an economic goal and then manage to achieve it, it hardly makes any sense to pretend that “they don’t know much about economics”.
They know very well. If you don’t agree with what they are doing, that is a different problem.
3 Likes
Indeed, the slack left by anybody that leaves is almost instantly taken up by the multitude of other industrial entities that they shared the market with.
Many of those entities are small industry biased corps and individuals that individually don’t have the resources to fill the gap, collectively they have more than enough product to do so. That’s before we get to the PvP players that support their explosions with industrial operations.
People seem to forget that Eve is a game where specialised characters are almost certainly intended.
Less people playing the game, means less people buying and less people selling. So the market is unlikely to suffer that much.
The game itself might suffer as a lot of those industrialist have been in-game for sometime they’re among the small percentage of those trying the game that actually stayed. I always say where MMOs are concerned people attract people, so games that look like they’re haemorrhaging players tend to not be so attractive to new players. After all why invest time and money into something that looks like its in its twilight years. Of course the die-hard fans would most likely stay no matter what.
It’s easy to say they won’t be missed, but depending on how many leave they could be.
I can’t disagree with any of that, however only a small percentage of people that try a game sticking with it is the norm, obviously there’s outliers like World of Warcraft but even then their appeal is so widespread that a 1% retention rate would still leave them with millions of subscribers.
Unlike WoW Eve has never appealed to a wide audience, despite CCP’s perceived efforts to make it do so; despite that Eve has managed to maintain a daily PCU that exceeds the total player numbers of some other, more mainstream, games “born” around the same time.
People leaving happens, but I’d hardly say that Eve is haemorrhaging player at a rate beyond what could be called normal churn, it’s always lost 95%+ of the people that try it.
Unless established players, especially industrialists, leave in huge numbers, and it’s a sustained loss in that they aren’t replaced by existing players with unused industry accounts or returning players etc, the economy is unlikely to be affected.
IMHO it’s robust enough to soak it up because supply already outstrips demand and some of those that remained have massive stockpiles of goods that they can dispose of in one way or another to counterbalance anything that throws it off; including a strike.
Could this Strike be visual? I kind of want to see a very long line of Haulers & Freighters backed up heading to Jita.
Instead of carrying picket signs, they could be tractor-beaming cans renamed to “carebear lives matter” while chanting “safeties on, don’t shoot!” Certain people have already linked EVE PvP to real-life racial and gender-based discrimination, so it might be fitting.
Obviously it would be very surreal, but then again, this whole concept of an EVE industrialist strike isn’t rooted in reality. Strikes are intended to influence the management of businesses to provide concessions to labor, but in the case of EVE, the people going on strike are those who sign their own checks, and they don’t even pay taxes. It would be like shutting down your business because someone keeps stealing inventory, instead of buying some security cameras and posting a guard at the front door.
Carebears are silly.
2 Likes
This is a really good idea but something else other than “C L M”
On a side note; "A fleet inside a wormhole once, showed how to play jetcan soccer.
On another side note; “I have Ooshies”, do you know what they are? I am searching for “Glitter Elsa”
Now Eve Ooshies would be fun to collect
There’s Space Buzkashi too, Buzkashi is an Afghan game that’s very much like Polo, with a sheep head as the ball.
1 Like
i liked the ending rule “Destroying the referee will result in forfeiture of the match by the offending player.”
IIRC it was Tuskers who did it originally.
Well going on strike has to have non productive activities. Like it is not about how Pilots decided not to log in.
On a side note maybe this coming 14th - 18th GM week something like that Space Buzkashi could be played?
I’m glad you’re so easily amused. Considering I said nothing remotely like this, I don’t take it personally (as I’m sure in the passive-aggressive way it was intended). The “them” was a nice touch, as though you’re talking about a species, or a lab subject. Very telling. Thanks for sharing.
Naturally, THIS would all depend on what exactly that goal is. Your restatement of this “goal” contained several subjective and arbitrary terms…“too generous and lucrative from their point of view.” I’m sure economists would get all wet over language like that being used in their field. And, as you are easily amused, you seem to be easily impressed as well.
However, I think it’s safe to say they haven’t touched the “lucrative” portions of the economy. Their favored players are so deeply invested in these…and they haven’t denied they themselves are part of THIS particular group, there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell they’d actually monkey with it.
No, what is happening is cosmetic at best, fooling around with something the dynamics of which they clearly have scant understanding. Thanks for sharing that this most salient point means little to you, as well. As long as they impress you it matters little if they are helping or hurting their own virtual economy.
Of course in the interest of democratic speech, your view must be respected, such that it is.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/8yipyt/confession_of_a_botmaker/
1 Like
I don’t know if you stated it personnally or not, but the guy you answered with the post I quoted was making this statement. Then, you basically told him that his statement was ridiculous.
To which I then answered back that it isn’t ridiculous because it is at least partially true.
Sorry if for some reason that seems “passive-aggresive” to you, but it seems to make sense to me.
Oh, so the use of “them” means that I’m talking about a species or a lab subject?
Then i’ll be glad if you could teach me how I am supposed to refer to a group of person then, since it is apparently not the right way to do so.
Read their patch-notes and the comments they make about it, then. This is here, readable from everyone, and has nothing to do with my subjectivity.
Really?
So what about the Rorqual nerf, that pretty much only affected the big groups of Null sec?
What about the scarcity period that, no matter how much “the small guys” love to pretend is directed against them, made moon mining much less profitable for everyone, including the big groups?
Or even, what about blackout? They reversed it, yes. But according to this statement of yours I just quoted, they would never dare even trying something like that. Well, as a matter of fact, they did try.
So now, if you will allow me to go back on a previous part of the post:
Lol, what? “Their field”?
But we are not on their field. We are in a video game forum debating of the design of a video game.
And in the context of your quote, we are in a debate between two players. I was talking about “what CCP’s wants for their game”, so using the expression “from their point of view” is perfectly fine.
And to continu on this:
It does matter.
The thing is that, contrary to what you believe, this is not a place for economists, this is a place for game-designers.
We are not talking about a country that they should manage in order to make it as rich as possible.
We are talking about a video game, in which the economy is nothing but a tool, that they can use to make the game as fun as possible for the playerbase.
From an economist point of view, hurting the economy is bad.
From a game-designer point of view, hurting the economy might be a very good thing to make the game more interesting.
Which basically leads us to my original point. They are hurting the economy on purpose because they think it is good for the game.
Noboby gives a ■■■■ if an economist would be sad to see the economy of EvE online being in a worst state than it currently is. If a worst economy means that the game is more interesting to play, this is a good thing.
And surely a game where the economy is in an amazing state, to the point of having so much supplies that war and destructions never matter, while it would be a wet dream for an economist, makes for a ■■■■ game to play.
Oh, and as a final bonus.
I love all your attempts at denigrating my arguments and making me look like someone stupid or childish your post contains. The combination between this, and your little complain about me supposedly being the “passive-aggresive” one in our conversation, is really adding the irony that the whole thing was missing.
2 Likes
Why? 