5 char
I think it’s clear neither of us have evidence one way or the other, so making the claim is pointless.
I doubt even he does. There are too many variables.
No, it’s not.
I agree, so stop making comparisons to products where variations are created alongside the primary product.
The main problem with the argument that EVE has always been a certain way and therefore should stay that way is that when taken as an absolute it means that nothing will ever change at all. Things have to change for the game to evolve so what it really comes down to is whether or not the things CCP want to change fit your preferences.
No they don’t. Once again you are inventing a totally bogus narrative. Nothing ‘has’ to change or ‘evolve’. And certainly not to the point where it is no longer recognisable as the original.
Generally if developers want to go down a totally different route they create a new game. They don’t alter the core mechanics of an existing game and turn it into something it never was.
The whole ‘evolve’ thing is just pure nonsense. There are people out there still playing Space Invaders and Brick Out precisely because they are retro and have not ‘evolved’. I still play the original Team Fortress Classic online…25 years old. When people play a game they want to play that game…not some ‘evolved’ 2023 version that is nothing like the original.
Is this your opinion or a statement of fact?
So what change would make EVE unrecognizable as EVE? And why have previous massive changes not made it unrecognizable?
CCP have changed loads of core mechanics throughout the game’s history.
Then you go ahead and make an MMO then freeze it in time. CCP clearly doesn’t share that view which is why they still pay developers to continue to improve and modernize the game. I’d wager that most of the mechanics you play with and enjoy either didn’t exist when EVE launched or didn’t look anything like they look now.
1 Like
Pirates have existed since Man first took to the sea. It isn’t a stretch to assume they would also exist in space controlled by galactic empires.
The nobility back then also used to call pirates ‘idiots’ but it was ok to hire them as Privateers wasn’t it? They were then ‘ok’ weren’t they?
Why not? How do you know they wouldn’t exist in a few thousand years? Fact is no one knows so dwelling on that ridiculous line of questioning is not only a waste but also a lack of imagination.
I guess you’re psychic then.
How do I feel this very moment?
The world of EVE was better than fathomed, it was imaged then created in a virtual environment. Not very difficult for people with imagination.
Getting attacked in space is part of that adventure. There is no ‘adventure’ without thrills and risks.
Look at the biggest adventurer of all time, Indiana Jones. He gets the sh- beat out of him throughout a movie by “psychopaths” and faces risks, often mortal danger but always manages to come back to his class in one piece. That’s adventure. An adventure in EVE without risks is akin to walk in the park. PvP and Ganking are essential to have an adventure in EVE.
Yes.
First, cloning isn’t science fiction anymore.
And second, if my body can be reconstructed like new it’s clear that I would take a lot more deadly risks than I’m disposed to do now.
I personally want my brain and nervous system meshed into a cyborg but I think that’s just me.
The rest of your post is disorganized ranting that makes about as much sense as a cow driving a tractor.
2 Likes
Like that makes any difference when you go stating pure nonsense as fact ?
NO previous change has altered the fundamental ’ dont undock what you cant afford to lose’ ethos of the game.
Oh here we go…your amazing psychic powers again.
Well of course they do. Not least for things like graphics updates. That is NOT the same thing as altering the core dynamics of the game. But given that your entire style of arguing is so utterly dishonest…I’m not holding my breath on any concession of that.
Calm down.
You’ve stated it like a fact but it’s definitely your opinion. I asked because if I pointed out that it sounds like a fact you’d start screaming at me that I’m putting words in your mouth, so I gave you the opportunity to clarify.
That’s a very bold statement. There have been countless changes that affected safety in far greater ways than any changes to ganking ever could.
So you think basic observational skills require some sort of telepathy? If CCP don’t think it’s a good idea to evolve and change EVE why are they paying developers to continue to evolve and change EVE?
But they are altering the dynamics of the game. Adding new ships, changing old ships, changing faction warfare, changing security status mechanics, etc. All of these recent changes. Upcoming are changes such as a complete change to the way skills are obtained.
You keep saying this but it’s clear the opposite is true. If I make a statement based on what you’ve said you scream at me that I’m putting words in your mouth, if I ask a question, you refuse to answer it. You lie constantly and every single response you make is filled with hate and vitriol. And it’s not just with me, this is pretty much every conversation you get involved in. I’m not the problem here.
1 Like
You must like it very much because you’ve been engaging Altara for many days now. Or what you say about her isn’t true. It’s one or the other unless you’re senseless.
1 Like
What’s funny to me is the type of folks who bust out the word “evolve” conveniently forget how to make things evolve. That would be called “survival of the fittest”, a phrase referring to natural selection, which is the mechanism that drives evolutionary change. It is somewhat ironic that the folks that use rhetoric like “evolve” instead want to introduce artificial rules to protect the people that would not be able to survive playing the game otherwise.
Gamers used to use the term “cancer” as a metaphorical insult to refer to this ironic mentality: the fake promise of “popularity” was analogous to the cancer cells that endlessly propagate and “survive when they should not”, and that cancer actually winds up parasitically harming the host instead. Analogous to Eve Online making changes to cater to players that would not survive otherwise, and in the process destroying itself.
That term is probably not politically correct to use anymore – because people who have gone through actual cancer have to suffer some of the worst of any disease and awful treatments – but on the flip side people still get away talking about “evolving”, so those folks exploit this asymmetrical rhetoric.
5 Likes
I’ve not asked for mechanics to come in to protect people.
But to your point, that would be right if we were talking about the players evolving, but since we’re talking about the game evolving, it’s the mechanics themselves that are going through the process. It’s more like how a language evolves than how organisms evolve.
You may have used that term but there are plenty of gamers who have absolutely no problem with the continued development of games. There certainly are some who think all change is bad though.
1 Like
Blah blah blah. The entire forum knows your silly semantic games and how you twist everything around.
1 Like
The entire methodology of the ‘evolve’ crowd is an endless succession of ’ so you’re saying that…?’ aimed at you and ’ that’s not what I was saying’ from them. There’s never any open, honest, rational discussion. Everything is obtuse and slanted. You have to provide evidence…but they never do. Everything is wrapped up in twisted semantics designed to obfuscate. Everything they say is fact…whilst everything you say is just your personal opinion. They roll out ad hominem after ad hominem, then whine about ‘personal attack’ if you merely disagree.
There is no other word to describe this endless dishonest charade except trolling.
2 Likes
Well, stop engaging with it.
He’ll get board, trash the “not an alt” spin up another and start the dance all over again.
4 Likes
Judging by the books he reads (and mentions in his talks sometimes), he’s most likely familiar with Ockham’s razor.
In conclusion: you admitted you don’t have any evidence. Which means you would like to use “doubt” as an argument in a discussion, for “reasons” 
. I won’t even ask what makes you think that evidence for gravity is any different in its nature from evidence in the case of EvE’s success. After all, they do call themselves Crowd Control Productions.
1 Like
That’s a strawman. My argument is that we’re just talking about having different opinions.
1 Like
I gave you a like as I agree with dscan with you, in fact I already made a thread about it in features and ideas part of the forum (where nobody but idea-shutdown-ers are visiting).
Can you however explain the quoted part? Is this an irony or how does this differ from how the game works ever since?
Iceacid Frostpacker > please let me AFK outside 4-4 in peace
Cargo
Clicked undock and was afk for a good 20 minutes to return to see someone inviting me to conversation.
Why would I want to chat with someone with a pilots name such as that?
Ganking in Y125? What would that conversation be about anyway?
2 Likes
What I mean is at -0.1 you become flashy red, enabling other players to attack you in highsec without CONCORD intervention. Currently, you need to be -5.0 or lower for this to be the case.
Additionally, beginning at -2.0 and depending on the system security, CONCORD will pursue you in highsec even if you don’t have a criminal timer. What I’m suggesting is to remove this mechanic and rely solely on the 15m criminal timer for CONCORD intervention.
Then people will just have to tag up all the way instead of to -2.0 or so. This would add a further cost to criminal activity, but not change the underlying system of social interaction around it.
CONCORD already doesn’t pursue you when you don’t have a criminal timer; faction navies do.
1 Like