i have answered, several times now.
they say there are two types of people in the world, theres the type that can extrapolate relevant information in order to gain an answer to their conundrum.
1 Like
go away you silly little boy, crying? jesus how young are you ffs
1 Like
Yeah, there are those that know what theyāre talking about and are capable of understanding and answering questions about it, and the rest which are just capable of talkingā¦
1 Like
you seem capable of talking
1 Like
mhm mhm mhm yeh yeh im sure
/me nods head
/me yawns
/me goes to bed
1 Like
See? You missed the ājustā part thereā¦
1 Like
Kidsā¦ someone on the internet has an opinion. How about you leave your computer and talk to someone in real life.
1 Like
Not sure what you mean. I had no problem with his opinion. Itās the āreasonā given that made no sense to me and I was trying to understandā¦
I, too, laugh out loud when i disagree with someone and itās totally not a sign of you being butthurt about someoneās opinionā¦ right? (i donātā¦ itās childish)
Definitely a reasonable approach for a conversation, where you are not putting yourself into the position of someone who is butthurt about an opinion.
Yep. Reasonable.
Either you are lying through your teeth, or you need to talk to real people more often. Count the amount of posts, look at how you were talking to him and please google the classic meme about people arguing on the internet.
He posted an opinion.
You got butthurt.
You felt the need to insult and belittle him.
You went full retard.
If you can not see yourself, then i hope you accept the perspective of someone who sees you very clearly. Please donāt expect that i will reply to you again.
Youāre free to have the last word ā¦ obviously you need it.
3 Likes
I donāt know why or when you laugh out loud, nor do I assume it has to be for the same reasons I would, but I do know I didnāt for the reason you say. What he said in his first post makes no sense at all, thatās what made me laugh. Why would I be butthurt about his opinion on this matter?
You totally misunderstood. I replied that way as a result of him being unable to answer my question relative to his first post and even asking to me why I was replying to him or telling me I should address those questions to the OP insteadā¦
If anything, I was butthurt about being unable to have a rational conversation with him, not about his opinionā¦
Again, why would I be butthurt about his opinion? He even said he thinks killing noobs that are suspect is OK, which is the only case in which Iāve killed anyā¦
Yup. No problem with that one way or another. This is a poll after allā¦
Nope. Well, at least not because of his opinion. If anything, because of being unable to have a rational conversation with him.
I know I would also āget butthurtā the same way if I tried to have a rational conversation with Dryson, for example, which is why I donāt even try in that case, but I didnāt know in advance that was going to happen with this oneā¦
After his fourth and fifth posts, asking me why I was replying to him and telling me to address my questions to the OP instead, yes. Before that, no.
Thatās your opinion, and from what Iāve seen so far, based on misunderstandings and the wrong assumption that I was butthurt by his. Should we make a poll about this too?
I do accept your perspective, even though you donāt see me clearly at allā¦ 
I donāt. And FWIW, I donāt expect you wonāt either. I simply try no never make wrong assumptions.
Not only does this prove you donāt see me clearly at all, but also shows you confuse (at least in my case) having something meaningful to say with needing to have the last word.
You could just check my post history to see youāre wrong on this one too. Or you may just try saying something here to have the last word yourself, and see that whether I reply or not depends solely on whether I have something else meaningful to say. Try repeating something you already said in the post Iām replying to, for example, with different words if you want, but without adding anything new, and youāll see I donāt feel the need to replyā¦ 
Only a few high sec systems are protected. The rest of high sec is open season.
He knew that already. Read his post again. What he was apparently saying in that post is that, because of that, newbies shouldnāt be shot in the rest of high sec either, which makes no senseā¦
I know what he was saying, and I responded appropriately. What he thinks is irrelevant. What the game is, and always has been, is what matters.
5 Likes
but the larger game, is not in highsec.
Your also discounting the fact that the game has moved a long way since the original starter systems sprung up; many people have many toons now, they have a ton of skill points and expertise; when i started it was a more level playing field which is great for newer players to have this sort of thing - NOW however it really is not a level playing field. Its literally high sp long term players picking on nubs.
As a long term player, or paying customer with 3 accounts
Is actually a wrong assumption.
I interact with probably a lot more players ingame than many of the posters here and over a broader range of activities.
Again though, i do of course realise that many of you have no point to make, which is why you attempt to make [poor] insults or backhanded comments.
" When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
2 Likes
Tell you whatā¦
reality is that this is a myth that keeps being perpetuated since UO. Youāre not being rational. if people maliciously shot new players in any capacity that matters, theyād get caught. Old players have always shot new players to test them, recruit them and just play the game withthem.
I respect your opinion, but you really should stop believing this. What actually kept hooking people to this game was the injection of adrenaline that happened when a new player got can flipped and seeked revenge, or just got blown up. or the adrenaline injected when they went to lowsec head on and got killed.
Not an NPE, not protection, but eycitement (WOW YOU CAN DO THIS??) and adrenaline.
You really have no idea. You donāt even differentiate between people who shoot them and give them money, and people who shoot them and make fun of them. You can not put them all into one and the same bucket and you certainly van not prepare them for the game by handling them like lesser beings than all theothers, and thatās what people do when they want them to be protected.
Helicopterparenting children leads to a situation like in the US. Too much protection, too muchwelath leads to a degenerated, overly inflated ego that keeps asking for having its ass kicked as part of an attitude adjustment.
Please start learning something about thetopic instead of continuously spreading this easily debunked myth that people are hurting the game by shooting new players.
onmobile phone, keep the typos.
2 Likes
What you think is irrelevant, just as the ālarger gameā is irrelevant. The larger game is every aspect of the game, but what matters most is the individualās game, and if the individual plays in high sec, then that is the ālarger gameā to them. There is no slander here, just fact, and the fact is, all that matters is what is, not what you think of what is. EVE is not intended to be a ālevel playing fieldā. It gives you tools, and levelling the playing field depends on how you use them. Balance in a player driven game is determined by the players.
2 Likes
I think the main problem we have here in EVE and potentially in other games as well is that for some when they hear ānew playerā they think āchildrenā and then their parenting instincts kick in. Which results in the string desire to wanting to protect them from harm. I think In general they mean well. They want to improve the situation as they perceive it.
The problem comes from the fact that they perceive it wrong. A ānew playerā is simply not the same as a child. If we think for a moment what a new player may be looking for when he tries a new game like EVE online it really should become apparent that equating them to a child is counter productive.
A gamer who encounters EVE for the first time has most likely heard about the big fleet battles, spaceships with lasers, the player driven market, the scams and espionage in a single shared sandbox. In other words they may have some expectations but they are looking for an exciting game to play that entertains them.
I think this makes it pretty clear why shielding them from excitement is the worst we can do.
What people who think of new players as children think those players need:
- Security
- Nurture (free ISK / ships)
- To grow up undisturbed
What a gamer who newly comes to EVE may be looking for:
- Exciting ship battles
- Entertainment
- A challenge to overcome (itās a gamer after all and that is what game in general are)
- To hone their skills to become an infamous space pirate, rich industrial mogul, righteous protector of the weak or a space tyrant commanding thousands of other players etc.
There also seems to be a separate issue older players have with attribution of value to their ships. Somehow they seen to project the feeling they have when they think about losing their bil ISK ship onto the new players. Like they all come to EVE and are immediately invested in their small little pixel spaceship and immediately quit the game if they lose a ship that simply respawns or can be replaced with a fraction of the ISK they earn during the tutorials.
6 Likes
I think this is the major source of the calls to bubble-wrap new players away from the game. There is a huge bias to remember only the losses in a game, and the biggest losses at that, rather than the hundreds of successes, large and small, a veteran player has over the course of their Eve career. Almost everyone who has been playing this game for years has accumulated so much stuff (or killmails) so clearly they have been successful, yet they primarily remember that time they lost a small fraction of their wealth, or a ship when they didnāt expect it. They donāt like that loss even though the cost probably isnāt even noticeable to their wallet or killboard and they go on to somehow generalize that to mean losses are bad for the game and are driving new players away.
The problem is, that without the opportunity for loss you donāt have a game. For there to be challenges and wins there has to be the possibility of failure and loss. Shielding new players from playing the game is the very last thing we should be wanting to do. Yes, they need space to learn the UI and basic mechanics, and yes you donāt want those early losses to be devastating and reset them to zero progression or something, but they need to be able to play the game which means both wins and losses. But the game is already structured like that - you get basic ships for literally free, and frigates can be replaced tens of minutes of game play, even for new players.
Frankly, you are doing a disservice to new players by trying to prevent them from losing these disposable ships. That Venture isnāt the bling-out mission boat you lost to pirates after getting complacent and the T1 hauler isnāt the multi-billion ISK freighter you lost while walking the dog. Getting used to loss and not getting overly attached to ships is a lesson every Eve player should learn early before they have much progress to lose.
Besides, the adrenaline kick from losing a ship seems likely a much better gateway drug to get someone hooked on Eve thanā¦ nothing, so I donāt know why so many people advocate that more new players would stay if you put them into some void, free of content and interaction and excitement. Even the illusion of danger that is primarily all that is left in modern highsec is something to keep people interested and convinced them their choices matter, and is better than the true boredom that would descend on highsec like a blanket if you had perfect safety.
These āhelicopter parentsā and ābubble-wrap advocatesā donāt seem to take the next step and imagine what it would be like to play in a safe zone like they advocate. Without some chance that another player or the NPCs will damage you, this game is incredibly boring for all but small fraction of min-maxers who play this game to solve an engineering puzzle. Maybe some of the advocates to protect new players are of this mindset, but really, most people come here to engage in some big ship battles, or at least experience a challenge of some sort other than just determining the most efficient solution to build something. And even for these players, it would be awfully boring if there werenāt other players around to compete with and influence the shared economy.
Loss is fine. It is a normal and expected part of life New Eden. It provides demand for industrial activity, and is ship combat is the core gameplay that CCP has most of its resources of the years. Shielding new players from that interesting game play is counter-productive, especially give how easy it is to replace what they are flying. So shoot them, inform them what happened, and help them out with some ISK if you want so they can try again.
5 Likes
eta: Iāve just realised I may have misunderstood you, however Iāll leave my original response as itās still validā¦
As one of those āolder new playersā myself (70+) I agree absolutely. First time I lost a ship I was about ready to quit. I had to remind myself just how long Iād waited to play Eve (bandwidth poverty) and that it would be stupid to give it up that easily. Now Iāve been around a few months my attitude has changed completely, but it was touch-and-go for a while - that initial hump isnāt easy to overcome when youāve got set in your (gaming) ways.
2 Likes
Until they realize just how terrible that experience is. Thatās why most of the people (people != characters, a very important difference that CCP lies about, too) who join after a big battle, leave a short while later.
1 Like