It’s simple, what makes Eve famous? why some article were written ine the mainstream press? Because of mining? No, because of the abundant carnage, the backstabbing stories, the market and it’s influence, the tears and the amount of the losses of the great battles in dollars. Do you think the Wall Street Journal is going to write an article about PI or mining or abyssal space? We need blood, wars and tears, Eve is legendary for this, this is what Eve needs.
Any article in the mainstream press will bring a thousand time more people than a hundred articles in the specialized press. The aura of the game, the legend, this is why the game is still up and running while so many others are gone.
You know where the heart of the game lied? in all those articles in the press where people in the commentaries claimed Eve was the best game they’ll never play, thousands of them, and that they only read about because the stories the playerbase created, some were so good that movies could be made out of them. No one cared about he game, everyone cared about what people could create with it.
I hear what your saying. Your preaching to the converted about what has made the game popular.
I’m just saying eve will always have its hermits who have a different idea about why the game is great and it’s not that they are playing wrong or have bad ideas.
I’ve never said they are playing wrong, in fact no one has ever played wrong because they all were part of the ecosystem. The solo dude, the F1 monkey, the competent solo warrior, the miner or the mogul, the dude that lasted 2 months because meh, they all were part of it. We need them, we need all of them, the griefers, the con artists, the victims, the mass murderes, the thieves, the carebears, the pirats, the good guys, the bad guys, all of them. There’s some place for everyone here and not only the people you like, those you despise must be here too. That’s inclusivity.
Well I don’t think there is a space for the racists and other bigots. I genuinely believe the community is poorer for them and inclusivity doesn’t mean they get to say whatever they like too.
I think the most telling evidence which supports your statement is the current state of the other versions of EVE. The new Chinese server that’ll be opening is explicitly going to have an actually safe version of high sec. EVE Echoes already has a safe version of high sec as well. PvP has a place in the game, but I think it’s pretty clear to CCP that letting the PvP crowd cannibalize the entire game is not a good business practice.
One of the quickest ways to make a grown carebear absolutely livid is to ask them to share. I’ve told stories about some of the interactions I’ve had with carebears while infiltrating their corporations for war target stuff, but I don’t think I’ve mentioned this before. If I wanted to really upset someone, one of the quickest ways to do it was to ask if I could join them in something they’re doing. Whether it’s mining (big organized mining ops aside), or doing some moon stuff (in the old system, at least), or even PI, they always got mad as hell at the prospects of sharing in their activity with someone else. Like I’d ask them where their PI planets are and if I could set up there too, and they’d start raging about how the increased interest would make the POCO owner notice and increase the tax. Then I’d say something like “oh, sorry, I’m new, I didn’t know,” but they’d be upset for like the rest of the evening. It was great.
Haha, yeah. I think I’ve mentioned this at least a dozen times by now. Whenever I dropped a war on a group like that, the new players were always excited (“let’s defend our home, I can bring a Corax!”), while the vets were bitching and moaning and telling everyone to log off for a week and play DotA “until the griefers go away.” And I would secretly pull away these new players into conversations and give them advice to leave their corporations, and join groups like BRAVE.
Genuine carebearism isn’t “just another legitimate way to play the game because EVE is a sandbox.” It’s quite literally mind poison and should be stamped out at every opportunity by force to the extent that these horrible players leave the game and never return. They are the ones keeping it from growing.
I think you might have some considerable misconceptions about how skills are formed.
Have you checked that game’s player count recently?
I have not, but by virtue of being a mobile game, I would assume it makes CCP far more money than our version of the game regardless. Not that our version of the game has a particularly healthy player count anymore either.
And I would love to hear your proposal of how should it work for it to be better to both sides.
Unfortunately, so far all who said something along this line only came up with huge nerfs to the ganking. Which really isn’t “redesign” nor “rebalance”.
Anyway, I agree with most of what you wrote, but I don’t see how is @Shipwreck_Jones wrong in what he said though. I don’t think your points really apply to what he wrote in general.
No. What is built in is the unfairness which result of “no-rules” environment. Victim is a state of mind. I often gank these lowsec or nullsec PvPer, do they cry on forum how unfair it was? No, because they don’t consider themselves to be a victim. They treat them being ganked as screwing up and they will make sure it won’t happen again and will try to revenge up on you. This is the key difference here.
I can understand the motivation behind excluding you (not that I agree with it), but I can’t connect the dots to have any idea why they’d be mad about it with just the asking, much less for any length of time, so I’m having a hard time believing this. How did you know they were mad? And how did you know they were still mad later in the evening?
Couldn’t agree more. The whole idea of Eve is to grow and develop and be able to come back and blap the person who blapped you. Far from being ‘unfair’ or some sort of ‘victim’ thing, losing a ship is a HTFU incentive to do better.
First, I know that this is a wall of text, but I think it’s interesting, and I need to present my evidence. After all, anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. However, I will provide a TLDR for those who don’t want to read a wall of text.
TLDR:
Drac frequently employs certain argumentative fallacies, including tone policing and the Motte and Bailey Fallacy (which is when you argue one position, but when challenged on it, instead assert that you were actually arguing a similar, but more defensible position). In fact, this is the reason why multiple people have gotten frustrated with Drac’s seeming inability to clarify his position -its because he’s doing it on purpose. He want’s to argue his actual position, but also wants to leave himself an out. That way, if he feels like he’s losing the debate, he can suddenly start to argue the more defensible position while accusing you of using a straw man attack against him.
@Io_Koval @Etch_Masuka @Destiny_Corrupted
(iirc, all of you have have encountered this tactic, so that’s why I’m tagging you.)
Now, I can’t tell you if he’s a troll, believes in his position, but is intentionally using argumentative fallacies, an olympic level mental gymnast, or a hunter sock puppet who is trying to undermine the other side’s position with terrible arguments. So, I can’t tell you his nature or intent, but I can explain what he’s doing.
One of Drac’s commonly used tactics is the Motte and Bailey argumentative fallacy. It’s when you argue one position, but when challenged on it, instead assert that you were actually arguing a similar, but more defensible position. It’s kind of like a reverse straw man. Instead of misrepresenting your opponent’s argument as something that is more easily attacked, you misrepresent your own argument as something more easily defended. And, as Drac has frequently demonstrated, this also has the benefit of allowing you to accuse the other person of committing a straw man fallacy it they attack your actual position.
Let’s take a loot at how that works in action.
- In this thread, Dracvlad’s bailey is: the mechanic is unbalanced
- And his motte is: I don’t like the mechanic
The first argument is objective in nature, and can be argued against. The second is subjective in nature, can not be attacked, and need not be defended.
Now for the evidence.
The Bailey- Drac repeatedly saying things that insinuated that he thought that the map providing intel to hunters was unbalanced.
Moreover, he was arguing with people who’s arguments essentially boiled down to them arguing that the mechanic was balanced, as was hunting as a whole. So, he had multiple opportunities to clarify his position before this point, and failed to do so. Thus, it is extremely suspect that after all of that, he’s suddenly accusing me misrepresenting his position and making straw man attacks.
The Motte- Drac asserts that he never said that the mechanic is unbalanced; he just said that he didn't like it.
Note that he edited the second post before I could quote it. IIRC, he was originally more explicit in saying that he “didn’t like the mechanic,” and didn’t include the tone policing. But he might dispute this assertion, and it doesn’t change the crux of my argument. So, I don’t want to get distracted by quibbling over the exact wording he originally used.
But what about those who want to give Drac the benefit of the doubt, and say that this all comes down to a communication error? Well, it’s possible, but consider this. Another position that he has disputed having was that some players were designed to be victims. However, he has both, insinuated it, and explicitly said it.
Drac saying that players are designed to be victims.
So, is this also a communication error? Or did he make the mistake of making his actual argument too specific, and fail to consider that someone would be able to throw some quotes back in his face.
Oh, and Drac’s response to this will be either to ignore it, or to insist that he actually never disputed saying this. He was actually only disputing the first thing, and not the second. And this will be in spite of an initial response that made it look like he was disputing both, and a failure to clarify his position on victimhood by design when I challenged him on it (sorry if that sentence seemed confusing. Perhaps the chain of replies would make what happened more clear, but this post is already long enough).
In summation, Drac loves himself some Motte and Bailey Fallacy. This is why people so frequently get frustrated with his seeming inability to clarify his positions -it’s because he’s doing it on purpose. He wants to argue his actual position, but also wants to leave himself an out if he starts losing the debate.
It becomes easy to tell if you interact with those people for a long time. They become much more “snappy” and prone to arguments. They no longer makes jokes or small-talk, but “business only otherwise don’t bother me,” etc. etc.
Now, granted, this sort of behavior lasts a much shorter length of time compared to when the stimulus is something like showing up to their system on a war target character when they’re trying to grind, or, heavens forbid, actually destroying their ship. The salt can flow for days in those cases.
Like I said elsewhere, I’m starting to suspect we might be dealing with a sick person here. Some of the recent behavior, such as the constant position-switching and public self-justification isn’t “normal” human behavior, especially not to such a degree. Like you can ask him what fruit he likes, and when he says he likes strawberries and you say you think strawberries suck, he will go in a tirade about how you are so wrong about strawberries and that he is right and has always been right about liking them and will list off a litany of positive experiences he’s had with strawberries, whereas a normal human being would just respond by saying “pfft, you don’t like strawberries because you have a palate worse than Asmongold’s” or something like that.
The arguments might make sense (well, as long as actual fallacies aren’t being made), but the way in which they’re presented, and the degree to which they’re pushed are absolutely batshit insane.
He doesnt like me cos I know he ran away to France rather than face Brexit.
And I keep reminding him.
And that is why I blocked him and you all should too. He needs the attention you are giving it to him, if nobody talks to him he will lose interest. Or maybe not, but we won’t have to care, I know I don’t.
Of course not. It was helping push your narrative.
PS: Bet you flag this as a personal attack. You tend to be ironic like that.
Mr Epeen 
This is going to be wildly unpopular and possibly ruin my forum credibility, but my point of view is that he is extremely specific in his intentions. He’s frequently the target of ridicule, and I think he’s reasonably defensive about what he exactly means because people do pick apart his words. I think he could be more diplomatic than to tell people if they don’t like his answer they shouldn’t ask the question when he refuses to give a simple yes or no, but I also think that in his mind he can’t entirely agree or disagree with the statement when he feels it’s got nuance to it.
Specifically calling out another player in the third person instead of confronting them directly does not seem quite right to me, especially if I think of the forum rules. I understand it’s supposed to be a somewhat academic discussion of what is happening, but I think that kind of speculation is something best done in private without provoking the person you’d be talking about. If you want to call them out on something in a public venue, I think you should direct the call to them personally.
i enter a victim mindset wen my posts get deleted
I have proven the rules don’t apply to him in the last thread he pretended to be smart in where everything he “wrote” was copy/paste from reddit and other social media blogs. Just like this one.
Mr Epeen
I can’t believe you get posts deleted. You are far too precious and innocent.
Mr Epeen
EVE is dying and CCP is to blame.