Mar 30th 2012 6:15AM Silver-Thread is AWESOME! I have it on my priest and I get comments about it all the time. Many a caster is jealous of my threads. And deservedly so, farming for that chest piece was worse than the Time-Lost Proto-Drake.
Mar 29th 2012 9:42AM @ChrisDin
I understand just fine, thank you. I don't think I indicated in my post that I thought their statement was related to their messageboards, mostly because that's a strange leap to make.
My post is, however, about the qualifier "in an official CCP forum". Without the qualifier, the statement is a corporation's stance against cyber-bullying. With the qualifier, it means "we don't care, just for god's sake don't do it where someone can see".
By saying "hey, we, as a corporation, don't think this is okay, ever" they would make a point to their players. But this way, all they've done is told them to keep up some plausible deniability. I am not asking them to police their players out of game, though a bit of disapproval for what they so lovingly call metagaming would probably not go amiss.
My beef is not with player policing, it's with company philosophy. And that entire dev blog reads like the qualifier I picked out. They pre-approved the slideshow and they didn't stop the panel when it was obviously over the line, and I have a feeling that none of that happened because none of the people in the room actually thought Mittens' actions were over the line at any point. CCP, like drunk!Alex and the audience, only woke up to the reality of human decency when people started picking up the story.
Mar 29th 2012 8:27AM @oddshrub I'm a little unsure what kind of argument we're having here. Are CCP responsible for everything their players do? No. If Mittens goes outside today and runs over someone's kitten with his car, that's nothing to do with CCP. If Mittens uses the game or the metagame as a platform to harass another player, then yes, CCP does have a responsibility to punish him and stop people from doing so in future.
Companies are responsible for harm that comes to people while using their products/services, and if that harm comes to them through actions of other players because the game is designed to facilitate that harm, then yes, CCP has to man up and make some changes.
Mar 29th 2012 2:57AM Wow, you know what, if I ever wanted to get back into EVE, this note from CCP says all I need to know to disabuse me of that notion.
"To be absolutely clear: directly calling for people to pressure someone into suicide, no matter the situation, is not acceptable in an official CCP forum."
"IN AN OFFICIAL CCP FORUM"
Of course, it's okay if you do it privately. It's okay if you call an angry mob to pressure someone into suicide away from prying eyes. Holy shit, CCP, you let that slide through even though you thought, hey, this guy sounds like he might kill himself lol? Instead of, you know, trying to help?
Here's the thing: it doesn't matter if the victim in this is actually fairly healthy, it doesn't matter if he's fine and having a laugh at this, BECAUSE NEITHER CCP NOR MITTENS KNEW THAT HE WOULD BE. They let this go through even though they recognized the suicidal ideation in the publicized mail. The Mittani may have thought that the guy was kidding, but then he called thousands of people to harrass him so he'd do it anyway - that's violence, that's criminal, and it doesn't matter that the player in question was fine then, or is fine now, a targeted long-term campaign against him might just change that in the future.
Depression and suicidal ideation are not logical, they are not rational, and they can not be controlled by the person having them. Yes, how funny. I'm sure we'll all be having a laugh the next time something like this happens and it's a teenager instead, one who maybe can't take the pressure. Ha bloody ha.
Mar 28th 2012 12:08PM @Jef Reahard Supply and demand aren't a function of the PvP system. Overall supply doesn't change based on who holds the goods at the moment, and neither does overall demand increase significantly due to destruction of property.
There could well be a decay system implemented that allowed for the same destruction of property, but based on environment, not player action. People would still buy ammo and equipment to run missions. People would still *want* things. When I played, I always had goals set for me, of ships I'd like to fly one day. Just because people couldn't destroy them would not change my desire for the ship in the first place. A lot of people like to build stuff, to achieve goals that cost time and dedication, without the threat of violence.
In a real market, there are legal protections, insurances, anti-monopoly laws, subsidies. EVE is as close to a true capitalist system as I've ever seen, but it comes at the expense of those who can't defend themselves. And there is no recourse in EVE other than hoping you've managed to find the right Corp before something happens. The political system of EVE limps far behind the economical one and that's a problem when it comes to law or rule enforcement. CCP washes its hands off it and that's fine for them, but there isn't truly a player run system in place that protects the weak - and why would there be when most EVE players revel in the kill or be killed playstyle?
As I said, that's fine for the people who like it - a game for pirates and bounty hunters. But it's a huge drawback when trying to attract gamers who fall more into the "safe paycheck" zone, rather than the adventurous gambler or bank robber. And there is nothing wrong with being a safe paycheck kind of guy, even in our free time.
Mar 28th 2012 11:16AM The problem with EVE is that the few scammers, griefers and all around assholes have far too much power. All it takes is one asshole to ruin someone's day, especially if that someone is just starting out. It's easy to say don't over-invest or don't fly a ship you can't afford to replace, but that usually comes from capsuleers with so much money to spare they can field a couple of freighters as cannon fodder.
This entire article reads like people who've stopped playing just haven't tried hard enough, or put enough work into it, or maybe aren't smart or dedicated enough. And maybe that attitude is what's putting your friends off, more than the gameplay. Personally, I really liked the gameplay, I liked the missions, mining, crafting, even trading - what I hated was the constant fear that someone might destroy all my hard work.
I don't like PvP, but moreso, I don't like the threat of PvP. I've actually done well in competitve PvP in games where it was my choice to engage on an even playing field. Like sports, doing PvP in such arenas was fun. But living in a world of constant vigilance and threat, even harsher than the real world - I found that my stress levels while playing EVE went through the roof.
And sure, for people who enjoy that sort of thing, that's fine. But the game is not for everyone, not even for every player looking for a sandbox. You can't downplay how game-defining the PvP is for EVE. It's in every trade route, it's in every system. And that's just not fun for everyone.
Mar 20th 2012 4:00AM @(Unverified) No, you know what, this has nothing to do with not liking "zee ladies", this scene is just straight up creepy and not in a good way. The player character feels completely zombie-like and unresponsive, like she's in a trance or drugged, which takes the Dragon Lady's actions right into sexaul assault territory.
Doesn't matter what your orientation is, that scene is pretty damn wrong. I was vaguely interested in the game before, but this pretty much nixed any desire I had to play the game.
Mar 1st 2012 1:25PM I like calling it mop. i take my amusement where I can get it :D
Feb 23rd 2012 11:02AM @Shadanwolf Don't salvaging and discovery take care of both parts of reverse engineering in a way?
Feb 23rd 2012 10:59AM @(Unverified) That's how GW1 worked, only you didn't craft the stuff yourself, you brought the materials to NPC crafters who did it for you.