You still don’t get EVE. Why are you even posting? Don’t you have to grind something in some regular themepark mmo?
2 Likes
In terms of the OP Eve is very much like a Content Management System. Eve is the framework that defines on a wider level what objects exist, how they interact with each other within this framework, and how we ‘see’ and control these objects.
Players create content in many ways by interacting with the framework provided by EvE. We instantiate objects based on the framework content and then fly them, fit them, sell them, use them to instantiate other objects ( ISK from bounties, minerals, loot modules etc).
Alongside this players create interactions within this framework that effects thd player generated content, with the interactions becoming content in themselves (trades, sales, lossmails etc).
Add to this player fiction, player created assets like websites, spreadsheets etc, these forums etc, then yes players do create most of the content. This is of course based on, and sits within the confines of the framework that CCP provides and maintains.
Yes right there and also in BDO, in the meantime I already bought my territory in the Dual Universe. There I will have my home territory where I will do what I want and where no one will be able to attack or endanger me.
To bad Eve don’t want my money …
i do that in real life. why do ya need a game for that?
there’s only one other poster on this forum who keeps putting passive aggressive lines on the end of his posts, ending them just like ye just did.
1 Like
Oh you are that dual universe troll that vanished when I offered you a bet if suicide ganking is still around in a year. What happened, got that other character banned?
Despite that, many of your posts, especially the pedantic ones, look like what a troll would write.
oh i get yer game now, ye just flame and troll people with run-on sentences with no capitalization or logic.
Still looks like a spelling mistake to me.
1 Like
While this is certainly true, the lexicon-keepers do not usually legitimize misuses of words. For example, “irregardless” is not considered a word irrespective of how many people use it. Similarly, I don’t think the word “whenever”, as misused by people in a certain geographical area, will ever be understood to substitute for the word “when”.
As in, “my dog died whenever my girlfriend got pregnant”.
Another annoying fake-word on the topic of games is the word “meta” when used as a noun. Give me a break.
Hate to be a pedant (I lie. I love it) but irregardless does now have entries in both Oxford and Merriam-webster dictionaries. Although it seems to be included rather grudgingly since both entries take pains to point out that it has been controversial since the 1790s and that it is widely considered to be improper.
However they do both recognize it as being a word.
I’m so gonna get those
1 Like
Obviously was it a simple-minded person. You, too, then say “things” as in “things we do in the game”, and as such do you yourself describe our actions as things. I do it too sometimes, but in the light of this thread am I choosing the word “action” to more accurately differentiate between objects and actions.
Personally am I content with the creation of drama. See what I did there? Yeah, I did that. 
That part was in quotes, meaning I was quoting the words of others.
Oh, I do know what a quote looks like.
Not at all, that is some fine pedantry. You have me there.
You are the one who suggested that when we say “content” we mean “action”. I explained that this is not so. When we say “content” we mean “content”. A battle or a fleet or a gank is not an action, but a result of actions. Content creators create that battle through their actions. That battle or that fleet is contained in the game. If it weren’t it would be a real world civil war.
It should be obvious, really. When people talk about content in the game, then they usually refer to the content being “created” or “provided”. Creating something is an action, as is providing something. And what is created or provided? Content.
Don’t assume that we mean something that we don’t, and then claim that we are wrong based on that false assumption.
I asked you before, but so far you didnt: Could you please tell us where you get your definition of the word “content” from? When we break this mess of a thread down to the basics, then you claim that players cannot create content, since content has to be created by CCP. And I would like to see the source of that belief. Where in the definition of the word “content” does it say, that content has to be created by a certain group to count as such, or that it cannot be created by another group.
That may be the case for yourself, but a number of people are specifically referring to their actions as content. That definition is the one I am objecting to.
I’m sure if you scroll up you will be able to locate where I provided a definition of the word, lifted from a random Google search. The definition is a common one.
It isn’t about validity, it is about ability. Players do not generally have the ability to affect what is in the game, other than by using the tools explicitly provided them by the developers. Can they put planets in? Jumpgates? New systems? A giant orange effigy? No, they cannot. They can, in limited fashion, deploy entities which they have been given control over by the developers. Ships, stations, etc.
What does the game contain at rollover? Only what the developers put there, or permanent structures the players were allowed to place. That’s the content of the game. Player actions are ephemeral and can not be considered “content” by the definition of the word.
Definition of the word is that content is what’s found inside of something else. Literally everything that happens on the servers is content. Debating player actions as content is stupid. It’s contained behind a login server. It’s contained in a database. It’s contained in the processors at the facility. Literally everything in the universe (the actual universe, not just the game) is literally content, because it’s contained in the literal universe. I can’t believe how full of stupid this thread is.
What might be a more interesting discussion is if out of game stuff is EVE content. After all, it takes place outside the client. So, is the concept of EVE strictly the physical and intellectual property of CCP? Or is it something more abstract, such as what players experience in relation to EVE? Am I, sitting in these forums without the client even open, “playing EVE” because I’m interacting with EVE stuff in general? If I read an EVE blog, am I, in a way, playing EVE?
Close, but not quite. Try looking up a few definitions, and you will find that they mention “things”. Actions are not a thing, and can not be “contained” within something. They are ephemeral, and once they take place, they are gone.
I’ll repeat it again so you can understand: You can have a box of hats, but you can not have a box of swimming.
No, they can obviously not put planets, jump gates, star systems or giant orange effigies in the game. But those things are by no means all of the content there is. It would be a rather bleak game if those were the only content. Most players would not still be playing this game if it weren’t for things created by players: Battles, ganks, gatecamps, wars, grand campaigns, fleets, corporations, alliances, coalitions, …
Players are the ones that turned Rancer from just another system into a death trap for unwary travelers. They are the ones that turned Jita from just another system into a trade hub. They are the ones that put stuff for you to buy in the market, and they are the ones buying the stuff you sell. They are the ones building the ships you use, and they are the ones giving anything you do in the game any value.
You won’t deny that battles, wars, ganks, camps or trade hubs exist in the game, right? Yet, CCP didn’t create any of them. They would not be in the game if the players didn’t make them happen. In other games where players have less freedom, your reasoning might have some merit to it: In World of Warcraft, for example, Blizzard creates a capital city for the current expansion, and they also create a “trade hub” by putting an auction house there, and only there. However, in Eve, CCP made the market accessible in every system. Yet, not every system is a trade hub. Trade hubs only form where players go to buy and sell their stuff.
Sure, players need to use the tools given to them by CCP to create a battle or a trade hub or an incursion fleet. But again: Where in the definition of the word content does it say, that tools cannot be used to create it?
Let’s say for example that I have a box. Inside that box is a knife and a chunk of limewood. These two things are undoubtedly contents of the box. Let’s assume I took them, and using the knife carved a sculpture of dickbutt out of the chunk of wood, and put them back in the box. Now a sculpture of dickbutt is also a content of the box, right? And I made it, not the woodcutter who felled the tree, not the toolsmith who made the knife, and not the vendor who sold me the box.
If however you really want to argue, that something isn’t content if you need to use tools provided by someone else to create it, then nothing is content. Let’s follow this line of thought:
You say players do not generally have the ability to affect what’s in the game, other than by using the tools provided to them by CCP. (implying that this makes it “not content”) But CCP does not generally have the ability to affect what tools players have available, other than by using the tools provided to them. (i.e. by Autodesk or the Python Foundation or Microsoft). But wait, Autodesk doesn’t have the ability to affect what tools CCP has available put things in the game, other than by using the tools provided to them either. And that’s a ridiculous line of thought that we could keep following until we reach the big bang. So, by that reasoning, nothing is content.