We already covered NPCs and you declined to respond. I’ll ask again though:
NPCs are not players. If you consider the loss to players and the loss to NPCs to be identical then I’d ask why you need PvP at all. If NPCs and players and equivalent then you should be just as happy to only be able to shoot NPCs as you are shooting players, right?
Either they are the same or they are not. You can’t claim they are equivalent when it comes to the loss of a ship but totally different when it comes to killing.
@JT_Krieger
Lots of people have that view, because it’s true.
@Xeux
I’ve been doing a lot of research into what the game used to be like. It seems like most people who complain about “core principles” and demand that the game never changes only have a memory that goes back 4 years or so.
So the argument is:
Since NPCs and Gankers both cause players to lose isk,
Gankers shooting at NPCs and gankers shooting at other players are equivalent actions?
This is my main. You’re accusing me of being other people because you are a troll. You aren’t trying to understand opposing positions you just insult and attack me for not agreeing with you.
You say “core principles” is the arguing method of a troll, but I’m not the one who raised that argument, that was Snowflake Tem. I’ve made it clear that I believe games do change over time and I would not expect any game to be trying to immovably cling to decisions made nearly twenty years ago.
@Xeux
No, the argument is that if Altara is going to keep saying “Ganking is fine because NPCs kill players too, and what’s the difference between losing to an NPC and to a player?” then she’s making an equivalence that should apply to PvP too. By that logic shooting red triangles will satisfy PvPers.
My opinion is that her logic is flawed and that there absolutely is a difference between being killed by a player and killed by an NPC, and there is a difference between shooting NPCs and shooting players. That’s not something she’ll accept though, so here we are. NPC = Player according to Altara.
Don’t be so daft. What I pointed out as a core principle literally says:
“The essential core concept…”
There’s nothing subjective about that.
There’s also nothing subjective about core principles not changing since 2003 versus mechanics changing as part of balance passes.
As for “supporting ganking”, that’s a common misconception. I support anything that encourages more destruction in the game, no matter what playstyle it affects. I’m very much against weak minded, selfish carebear thinking, also no matter which playstyle it involves.
But you’ve conveniently left out parts where they talk about PvP not just meaning combat. A lie of omission is still a lie.
Let’s put that aide though, so according to that document there is only that single core principle then. So deathmatch EVE, without PvE, without the market, without industry, that would be fine by you because it still sticks to the core principle of PvP?
And just so I understand your overall position, do you think games should refuse to budge on decision they made nearly twenty years ago regardless of what state that leaves the game in going forward? So in this case, should CCP not do anything about a niche form of PvP used by a small number of players to affect thousands which CCP have said is affecting their ability to keep players playing?
I think the argument “I think it’s a core principle so it should never change” is nothing more than an attempt to shut down discussion.
You say you support more destruction but you are supporting a playstyle which reduces the number of players in the game, engaged in by people who actively tell people to stop playing. Less players means less destruction.
What CCP meant by “the” is really “a” because “the” would imply “one” but what makes more semantic sense is “one of many” instead because they listed multiple principles and not just one.
What CCP obviously meant by “essential” is not “absolutely necessary “ nor “extremely important” but instead the medical definition of “without external stimulus” because these principles were created in a vacuum by someone random 20 years ago which doesn’t matter anymore because people today forgot it. Anyone can obviously see that’s the definition intended.
By “core” they meant the hard center of fruits, duh.
By “concept” CCP meant the philosophical concept of a class of identities since this is a very philosophical text.
So really what CCP meant was “without an external stimulus a class of identities about the hard interior of a fruit”. As you can see it is indeed entirely subjective you just lack the imagination to see past your bias
WTF are you on about now? That hasn’t even been part of our discussion. To be clear, yes PVP involves more than only shooting. Resource competition, market trading, industry, etc. all involve opportunities for pvp.
Nope.
No one has said that, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Show me the numbers (ie. objectively show how significant it is either way).
Of course it’s part of the discussion. CCP says “PvP is core” and also says “mining is PvP, trading is PvP, everything is PvP”. And you lot all come along and say “CCP said that shooting people is core”.
What a ludicrous cop out. Typical of your utterly dishonest arguing.
Given that the entire complaint is that noobs are losing ships they supposedly cannot easily replace ( never mind the fact that a Venture can pay itself off in a single trip to the asteroids )…a loss is a loss regardless of whether it is due to an NPC or a player.
Yet more of your mindlessly ludicrous arguing. If PvP is not a requirement then why even have Eve as an Massive Multiplayer game ? Why doesn’t CCP just mail people CDs they can single play PvE on ? What is the frikin point of logging in to a game with zero interaction with anyone else ?
I seriously don’t think you have any idea how utterly clueless your stance is.
Nope. A mindless argument as I am playing a multiplayer game…duh !! As you clearly need it spelled out, a multiplayer game MEANS shooting other players.
You’re supporting the claim that ganking is a core principle of EVE. It’s not. I’ll have to take you word for the whole “I speak for myself” thing. So far I’ve not seen it. So far about half a dozen of you here could all be alts of the same person.
@Altara_Zemara
Calm down. When you are clam enough to engage in a civil discussion without all that vitriol I’m more than happy to engage. Until then I’ll continue to wait for you to answer that question.
Though you can answer this one: Why is it that you think the game ceases to be multiplayer if one form of PvP is removed? It’s still multiplayer. Even if it was entirely PvE but people could still socialise, join corps and fly in fleets, it would still be multiplayer.
The very definition of a troll is someone who comes on and endlessly argues stuff that 99% of the audience knows is just deliberately contrarian nonsense. Oh…and chiming in with half a dozen alts who pretend to be independent people but are so easily given away. I don’t see any of the ‘discussion’ that is claimed to be going on…all I see is trolling.
You don’t ever engage anyway. As with your post you just invent excuses for not responding to perfectly valid points. Frankly, it is way past time I simply treated you as the troll that you are.
You have allegedly been playing EVE for 46 days (since this is allegedly your main character albeit with no kill history whatsoever). If you don’t like the game after playing it for 46 days why are you still here, and why are you trying to change OUR game? The entitlement. JFC.
There are plenty of other games that could cater to your preferences. Just do us all a favour and move on.
