That assumes all predators check intel…some don’t so that statement is incorrect as predators will still be drawn-in…
That is contrary to what Karak Terrel
You are starting to piss me off…Here is what he said followed by what I said…
“Jita is the center of all of trading for EVE, logically it is the focal point of what remains of piracy left in EVE.”…“Hubs are focal points of NE and Jita is the busies so it would logically follow that you will find a lot of carnage there…”
Please explain to everyone here how those two though processes are “contrary” to each other…We’d love to hear that one…If you are referring to something else then post BOTH comments please…
Why is more destruction an outcome CCP should tailor gameplay to produce? Why is more booms good?
This game is built solely on concept of conflict in space (aka combat). More BOOMs means more everything. If you were purely an industrialist feeding the war machine, you would still want more BOOMs. I’m shocked this even needs to be covered.
We’re not talking speeds so that was pointless
Becasue you have twice as many people doing what was being done before? If no new roles were created then they are limited to what was being done before and that means pretty much the same # of BOOMs relatively speaking.
“drawn-in” ← that’s not what this word means. If I take a wrong turn and end up at Starbucks because I got lost, that doesn’t mean I was drawn-in to Starbucks. And predators read intel. They look at tracks. They pick up scent trails. They visually scan. If a bear stumbles upon a moose when he’s looking for mushrooms, that’s not being “drawn-in”. That’s an accident.
Accidents happen.
That’s fine, but don’t let it make you stupid like some of the other participants in this thread.
Karak Terrel has repeatedly asserted that high sec is a boring wasteland and that CCP has nerfed “emergent gamplay” or whatever he wants to call it. Just scroll up. Damn.
Do you agree or disagree?
I didn’t say you disagreed with the comment of his that you posted.
It is your right to believe this, but once you start asserting it as fact, you become what is sometimes referred to as “wrong”. More creation occurs in-game than destruction. What does that tell you about what the game is “built solely on”?
War is peace? Freedom is slavery?
IF.
What IF I’m someone who doesn’t care one way or the other whether more or fewer ships are destroyed? Does that still mean I want “more BOOMs”?
Then what kind of process are we talking about? Prove that whatever it is is a linear process.
If you have twice as many people doing something, it gets done twice as fast. Therefore, there should be less violence in Jita and less violence as population climbs higher? Now, you tell me what I left out and explain how it affects the overall circumstance.
Oh, I didn’t try to convince you, you asked a question and I answered with my opinion. You also didn’t give me any reason to change it with your accusation and extremely angry response bare of any actual argument.
It was lower and now it is higher. Do you actually have anything of your own to say or is it just more questions? I know I’m quite the authority here, but this starts to feel a bit strange.
I already answered why it is Jita and so did @Runa_Yamaguchi. If you didn’t understand that very simple and easy explanation I don’t really know why I should try again. Maybe go back and read the first one again?
I think one of the problem is knowing those sorts of channels exist at all isn’t part of the tutorial.
–
There’s so many other things that probably could be simplified. For example half the ships in the game (which add their own complexity by share number) could be decommissioned–heck even make it part of the role play as empires prepare for the invasions.
huh? Not even close. In fact classic ship versus ship pvp has never been done by anything close to a majority of players–a sizeable minority even among the most pvp large groups. Part is disinterest by the majority of eve population, part is there’s so so many other ways to enjoy Eve.
(thought I made that clear) To simplify the game. Having over 300 ships, when most of them are seldom used, just adds unneeded complexity for newer players.
Yep…or random event or bad luck or chance encounters bla bla bla…the point is that you said “Prey animals that don’t die to predators don’t draw predators” and that’s incorrect as you yourself just said.
Some…all…none…A hunter might see a Venture on DScan and warp to it hoping to land on top of it and get lucky. That also goes against your “Prey animals that don’t die to predators…” line…
I highly value what Karak says but in this instant no I don’t agree fully. BUT he is not stating a fact, that’s his opinion (the boring wasteland bit). You were playing with population and violence which are fact base but now you are pointing to an opinion of his…these are not compatible for a debate.
As for the nerfing part, yes, CCP has made HS way safer over the years and IMO that’s not a great thing at all. It’s not all bad though…
Why was it created? For combat or in-order to help facilitate combat. An artist creating a beautiful cammo pattern for tanks is STILL in the MIC. There are very few roles in NE that are non-combat or MIC related.
This is a game…
Probably not but then you probably would also be in the tiny majority…
Prove that whatever it is is a linear process.
I said “most likely linear in nature”…If I could prove it then I would have stated a pure fact without the out…
What? Again you are creating situations that I never said.
No…are you not reading what I and others are saying? Jeezz…
Already did so no, I’m not wasting more of my time…
Because I reject your premise that it’s based on any “one thing.” If anything Eve is constructed and celebrates it’s the share variety of game play styles players might pursue.
It has many different play styles yes. But they are not isolated and happen all in the sandbox where you compete against other players in various forms. This is why it is called a Player vs. Player (PvP) sandbox. PvP isn’t constrained to ship combat here.
That’s a fair characterization, though sandbox infers it’s not an open beach without parents. It’s also much broader than the original quote I objected to by another poster “This game is built solely on concept of conflict in space (aka combat).”
But PVP is covered in my “conflict” bit. I know know it’s simplistic but really that is what EVE is. Conflict covers fighting, the markets, manufacturing, diplo, mining etc etc etc…it is what it is…
A sandbox infers a sandbox, not a beach. No idea why you said parents…
(sigh) Just read the thread. His statement. Mine. He says quite clearly it’s about ship to ship pvp–and ONLY about that (hence his use of the world “solely”. Not the other types we’d both agree make up the game.
No, you take it to literally. Sandbox referes to the characteristic that the content in the game mainly comes from what players build compared to a themepark MMO where the content is some story or questline fabricated by the developer. That is where the analogy ends.
But this quote is true. The foundation of the game is conflict. And even if you don’t take directly part in it, it still has influence on your gameplay. Conflict is basically the engine of the game where various other things are built on.
Now that doesn’t mean you have to be directly involved. But lets say you want to stick only to mission running or mining. If you sell your loot, salvage or ore, the resources you gathered will be used to build new ships, create new modules which will be used in different conflicts all over EVE. You directly compete with other people who produce this resources and the price will change depending on how much is produces and how much is used up by ships exploding. This is what we mean when we say that the engine of the game is conflict.
This game is built solely on concept of conflict in space (aka combat)
…and I then went on to talk about industrialists and why they are also part of the “conflict”. I never said PVP or used the word “ONLY” so…
The “c” word was used in the broadest of terms to cover (almost) all activities in EVE while at the same time stating that it’s the sole driver of the game (with minor exceptions).
However, a powerful authority will also protect themselves in layers of defense, such as legal administration and socially conditioned behaviour that act as both a primary expression of power, and a projected impression that their position is unassailable.