open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked So about blob warfare
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

Author Topic

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.11.10 16:13:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Lady Parity
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
When you figure out a way to turn lead into gold you let us know k?

Until then maybe stop ranting :)


Alchemy Wink

Which in Eve is the reason my alliance now owns the most profitable region in the game. I am down for more of this.

Lady Parity
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.11.10 16:56:00 - [62]
 

So all this NAPing, it truly is about protecting YOUR oil

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.10 21:18:00 - [63]
 

I really don't see the reason for arguing against people joining up. Trying to take away the ability for people to work together is attacking a 'symptom', not a problem. Finn and Ed are right in that if CCP intended to ever put a hard or soft limit on numbers they wouldn't be so focused on their "one server" ideal.

My harping on tactics and strategy is because it's a self rectifying cycle. You can still amass enough force to overcome a strategic advantage, but as the force expands it becomes harder to manage. If the FCs and WCs manage to employ the proper strategy with the larger force then of course they should win. That's why I said the mechanics are necessary, even if it allows the larger, smarter force to be more effective.

I don't know. I just have an issue with fleet warfare seeming like 2 wraith and bc fleets coming head to head. Sure one might have +2/+2 upgrades compared to the others +3/+3, but in the end it comes down to numbers and who focus fires correctly.


FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.11 12:22:00 - [64]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 11/11/2010 12:29:22
Oh, and for the claim that server stability shows us when something is a "blob"...
Quote:
So we made a bit of a record on October 30th, holding some 3242 players in a single system without the node crashing. This far exceeded our expectations on what a node could handle, and I spent an embarrassing portion of my evening excitedly informing my wife about how high the number in system had gone. Impressive as it was though, I'm sure if you were to ask anyone involved, it was not an ideal gameplay experience.

The next day, we had around 1200 players in the same system, on the same machine, fighting. Similarly, the gameplay was not particularly good. Some say it was worse than the day before. In an important way, they're right, and I want to talk a bit about that today because it's unintuitive and interesting. At least to huge nerds like me.


So although neither crashed the node, the smaller fleets were more of a burden than the larger fleets. Go figure.

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
I really don't see the reason for arguing against people joining up. Trying to take away the ability for people to work together is attacking a 'symptom', not a problem. Finn and Ed are right in that if CCP intended to ever put a hard or soft limit on numbers they wouldn't be so focused on their "one server" ideal.


It seems to be part of a trend, but I'm not sure if it's increasing or not... essentially there are a few, very very vocal folks, who have been outmatched by numbers and/or superior firepower, and believe that the best way to deal with it is to have CCP directly intervene to protect them. Hotdropped? Nerf cynos, lowsec cynos, or titan bridging. Outnumbered? Nerf standings, fleet sizes, or the overview. And so on, and so on.

It's... weird.

Especially since most of those whines come pre-packed with the "blob" snarl word as as some of Argument Winner. "What do you mean that if they have twice my numbers I can either adapt, bring equal or greater numbers, or I'll probably lose? What are you, some kind of blobby mcbloberson blobermatic!?!?"

It's like we're being invaded by people raised on World of Warcraft, people who simply do not get EVE, at all.

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.11.11 15:19:00 - [65]
 

Edited by: Camios on 11/11/2010 15:20:10

In every game where territorial control counts, if diplomacy is left alone, the game is going to become a bipolar world.

Game designer can contrast this fate in some way, with world shaping, or more stringent rules of player movement. It is possible, in principle, to change gameplay in order to prevent a "north vs south" scenario.

In EVE it would possibly require too big of a change. Changes in world shaping, nerf of capital mobility, more and more nerfing... And after these things the game may be the same. The game would be more boring, logistics will be more difficult, there would be less pew pew.

In the end, I'm perfectly fine with the "us vs them", "north vs south" scenario. This is the political landscape that can fire the spark for huge and epic wars, that everybody would like if the package Hardware+Software+Gameplay were able to handle it. Small gangs and solo players have lowsec, empire and wormholes to play with.

But in my opinion, small entities should have the ability to live in 0.0 hiding under the radar, with their logistic and industry, without being a threat to bigger forces. Like smugglers, like pirates.
Right now living in nullsec conquerable requires at least a pos, and blue standings. The least object you can own in space has 10mil EHP, reinforce timers, and requires a lot of resources or money to work. That is, it costs a lot to own these things, but you also get a lot.
Why can't we scale down costs and effectivity, replacing defence with stealthiness and little costs? Once I had an idea about this, that would not interfere with territorial warfare but could add a nice slice of gameplay.

Kalle Demos
Amarr
Helix Protocol
Posted - 2010.11.12 01:30:00 - [66]
 

Edited by: Kalle Demos on 12/11/2010 01:34:52
Perhaps if alliances had something rare to compete or fight for maybe blobs wouldnt be such a bad thing, I think the problem is the growth of production and lack of usage thats ****ing people off.

I dont think people have a problem really with blobs I think they just have a problem with blobs continuing to grow, at the rate things are going to quote someone from MC

Quote:
this time next year "field ready" will mean being in a titan or sc


Something of rare value needs to be introduced that will allow alliances to clash

Then again saying that judging by the comments here the bigger blob will always win heh

Minigin
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.11.14 07:48:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: Minigin on 14/11/2010 08:15:43
anyone who considers themselves to be any better or smarter than the rest of the community because they have "figured out blobs win this game" are either bat**** insane or misguided.

the issue has and never will have anything to do with winning eve.

as a video game the priority off the developers (and the community - irony) to maintain a relatively fun environment.

the issue with large scale warefare is that the novelty of it wears of rapidly. sure eve is unique in that how many other games give you an instance where 4000 other people are fighting the same battle, but lets face it these battles are not playable and the influence of individual players on them is negligable.

im not saying nor is anyone else i believe saying REMOVE BLOB WAREFARE! i think the stance people are and should be taking is "yo lets not encourage blob warefare any more than it already is by human nature" these make belief added bonuses to naping gigantic coalitions only make things far worse in day to day gameplay and when wars kick up(and half of eve turns up to the same system to watch a loading screen).

as a game this should not be exclusively trying to mimic rl or provide insentives for people to waste their lives doing things they dispise (see seiging towers etc)

it should promote an environment where individual players have a REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE ON THE GAME, preferably more regularly than they do now. it should also promote a style of play that the servers will be able to handle and sustain with growth.

above all it should promote a style of play which is fun.


edit: clinging to a model of this game that is inherently not fun because you think you have figured out something that everyone else is yet to... is pretty silly, because you are assuming everyone is satisfied being bored out of their minds so long as they are winning.

CCP Zymurgist


Gallente
C C P
Posted - 2010.11.14 16:12:00 - [68]
 

Thread cleaned of some off-topic posts and replies to trolls, please remain on topic.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.14 16:54:00 - [69]
 

Folks can, of course, check EVE Search. Ah well.
Here's a bit of a refresher, however.

Quote:
a relatively fun environment.


Yet again, minigin is trying to pretend that tens of thousands of people have no idea that they're not really having fun (but he knows) and that the game they've been enjoying all this time isn't something that they're actually enjoying. Evidently tens of thousands of people participate in "blob" warfare because they can't be trusted to make up their own minds as to what they enjoy or how they should play the game.

As arguments against "blobbing" go, the "I can read your thoughts and you're not really enjoying what you think you're enjoying!" argument is, shall we say, unpersuasive. The standard troll response, at this point, is that anybody, anywhere, has said that lag/not loading grid/server weirdness is fun.

It's a pretty good sign that your entire argument is completely bankrupt when you're reduced to arguing that you're doing all this for other people's benefits (who don't want your "help" or agree with you), that you know better than them what they enjoy and, more importantly, that your quest for CCP to alter how they are allowed to play the game is more valid than their simple ability to join large-scale combats or refuse to and only engage in small-scale combats.

Quote:
these make belief added bonuses to naping gigantic coalitions


Trying to rewrite reality is, likewise, not a valid argument against "blob" warfare. It is telling that minigin's argument against "blobs", already based on telling tens of thousands of people how they really want to be playing (if they stop listening to what they think they want and listen to what mini says they want), people now have to ignore that there are actual bonuses to having a larger team, while the 'make belief' bonuses like mutual defense and coordinated attack simply don't exist.

Quote:

it should promote an environment where individual players have a REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE ON THE GAME,


SCREAMING IN ALL CAPS MAKES AN ARGUMENT GOOOD!!!!!
Of course, it's almost like this is a game where a Mass of Multiple-players gather Online and those who want to accomplish great things on their own must, who'd a thunk it, actually accomplish them. Of course, rather than going down the GHSC path, or the Haargoth path, or being a really great FC, maybe we should all be hoping that CCP will alter the game to help us.

Then again, I heard that in the near future some game developers are going to create some games that actually don't require a mass of multiple people to play them, and not even an internet connect. I think these may be called "single player" games, in which an individual player not only has an impact, but they're the sole driving force and they don't have to worry about not being significant despite them not doing anything that's significant.

Perhaps when these "single player" games come out, some people will no longer require the games with a mass of multiple-players who are online to let them have substantial influence even if they haven't figured out how to influence anything substantially.

We can only wonder.

There is a fundamental problem when someone's entire argument is based on mind-reading, a denial of reality and a claim that CCP should directly intervene in order to protect people who want to be able to achieve something in EVE without actually being able to achieve anything on their own. The idea that "blob" warfare (remember, a content-free snarl word) has to be dealt with so that people who cannot achieve anything noteworthy as individuals can feel like they're impacting the game world simply misses the point. If you want to be able to impact the game world, you have to be able to impact the game world.

Asking CCP to help you is an absurdity.
If folks want individual impact, and they're unable to impact the game as individuals, it's not CCP's fault, let alone groups cooperating.

Minigin
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.11.14 19:17:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Minigin on 14/11/2010 19:19:54

let me ask you two questions first of which the answers i already know, then i will butcher the consistant and ridiculous thought pattern you have been using to seek to (not defend your own view or galvanize this game into a better one - which should be why you are posting on this forum - but instead to protect your own agenda)

1. do you have any significant impact on the game you play? (would your coalition be any different AT ALL without you?)
2. what do you have fun doing in this game? (aside from mistaken feelings of pride)




the problem with your reasoning finnagain is and always has been that you jump to conclusions far to quickly and seek to use invalid conclusions to support your agenda. in threads gone past your entire argument has been hinged on other people trolling you, being crybabbies to ccp or having serious mental illnesses. now these all may have negative connotations to you, but none of these actually disprove a well reasoned argument. simply restating them over and over will never change that.

in this post you follow some of your previous processes, a mistake MANY people on the internet make, they believe the use of caps is "screaming", i wonder if you really are that convinsed that whenever someone types in caps they are sitting at their computer with veins popping at their heads yelling at you... surely this could not just be EMPHASIS OF AN IMPORTANT POINT! you then seek to use your invalid conclusion of this to spin negative connotations (again not to do any real debate - just to discredit).

ps if i had a dollar of every time you said "yet again" before leading into something i have explained about a dozen times and you keep using the same ridiculous argument for... i would have almost 50 bucks by now.

one more time for the boat man i spose... I KNOW YOU ARNT HAVING FUN BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN YOU! that is to say, i have been in the nc and i still have alts in the nc, so i hear you when you are complaining about the game, i hear you when you talk **** about ccp, i hear you threaten to quit the game if things dont improve.

to me... it sounds like you guys are having loads of fun, so when i come here and say "yo this isnt fun" and am met but such fierce resistance that you are... i can totally understand why.

pss. the fact that your only real examples of changing the game are through what has been heralded by popular thought as the most ******ed game mechanic in existance (insta disband of alliances at directors hands) makes me more worried that you really do want the game to be at a stage where the only changes can occur via such ridiculous means.

Requiescat
Red Arsenal
Posted - 2010.11.14 19:43:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
hurf blurf, sarcasm=internet respect♥


it's funny that you keep hammering on the point that what you're doing must be fun because it seems to me like you're trying to imply that everything else isn't. so silly of me but if that were true then something would be wrong also... whatever.

my main argument against gigantic blob-hugs like the one that kept iron afloat for about 6 months too long is that when you blue up everyone for 100 jumps you aren't playing the game, you're having a gentleman's agreement not to. you're sitting in your little outposts in vale and tribute and tenal and whatever and you're sipping your tea, adjusting your top hat and telling all your friends how much fun you're having - 90% of the time - because there isn't a fleet going on and there's a hostile roaming gang outside your outpost. you two are too busy bleating about how much fun fleet warfare is when you're forgetting the obvious reverse, which is, when you only feel safe leaving home with 600 of your buddies, how often do you undock at all?

Minigin
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.11.14 20:49:00 - [72]
 

btw the fact that so many of the csms got elected on promisses of looking into "blob warefare" (coalition issues/sov issues), i think its fair to say that this isnt a problem that a meer handfull of people are having.


the real question i am here to ask isnt "if this is a problem" because it clearly is, but how csm plans to address this issue, or if they simply plan to let ccp ignore them and the playerbase that elected them.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.15 00:05:00 - [73]
 

Quote:
btw the fact that so many of the csms got elected on promisses of looking into "blob warefare" (coalition issues/sov issues), i think its fair to say that this isnt a problem that a meer handfull of people are having.


1. As already proven, the term "blob" is a meaningless snarl word and arguments advanced for 'fixing it' are baseless.
2. Fixing sov is good. Nobody who understand game mechanics is on the "Stop cooperation!" bandwagon. There is no problem. There is a problem with people who can not or will not adapt and can not or will not vacate a niche once they're no longer able to compete, and want CCP to wave a wand and help them rather than playing EVE to accomplish things in EVE.

Quote:
it's funny that you keep hammering on the point that what you're doing must be fun because it seems to me like you're trying to imply that everything else isn't.


Which is why I've said time and again that there are and should be many valid playstyles and if someone doesn't have fun at one, they should try another. Odd how you made such a mistake.

Do try to explain, though, how "A is fun for some." implies "And thus B can't be fun for anybody!"
There is someone trying to dictate what is and isn't fun. It's not me.

Inappropriate comments removed. Jericho

Quote:
your entire argument has been hinged on


Your argument has been debunked on its merits time and time and time again.
If you're not lying, show the syllogism you claim exists and has a major or minor premise that you suggest. Actual, non-forged quotes, by the way.
Any time now.

Quote:

you then seek to use your invalid conclusion of this to spin negative connotations (again not to do any real debate - just to discredit).


A very odd lie as the actual post is right above the lie about it. There's something like five paragraphs taking your nonsense to pieces and pointing out that your desire for to have CCP help you accomplish things in EVE is nonsensical if you can't actually accomplish things on your own power in EVE.

Quote:
I KNOW YOU ARNT HAVING FUN BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN YOU!


Shrieking, mind-reading and, damn I don't even know what that is...
You are not a spokesman, you don't have a valid scientific sample. And no, if some people complain about lag then you can't conclude that tens of thousands of players must really not be enjoying how they play the game. Talk about invalid and unsound...

No, not even with trolling about how people aren't actually enjoying themselves, and you know better than them that they're just feeling "mistaken" "pride?"
How about you let people decide what they want to do in the game and if you don't like it, you do something else that you enjoy. I know, crazy!

Although there is something truly hilarious about your view that 10's of thousands of people spend centuries of man-hours on a game doing something that they don't like (but only you know that they don't like it, they don't realize that and keep doing it).

Quote:

the fact that your only real examples of changing the game are through what has been heralded by popular thought as the most ******ed game mechanic in existance


Again a lie about something that's just a few inches above the lie. Very strange. Of course, you deliberately conflate the (social engineering), FC'ing, and disgruntled allies ****ing **** up. Because you don't have a point about the first two, and really don't even have one about the third other than that some people don't like the specific game mechanics used in one specific situation, well.

Minigin
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.11.15 04:15:00 - [74]
 

yes i hear having a good fc in a 2000 vs 1000 man fleet through lag is a great example of people making a difference in eve.

Inappropriate comments removed. Jericho

and despite claiming i have no proof that people arnt having fun i have provided you with far more proof than what you have been providing for them having fun. they dont have a great choice atm... they can be bored and "win" or can have slightly more fun and never have the ability to break into 0.0...

lots of people go for the former.

Shiroi Okami
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.11.15 06:01:00 - [75]
 


finnagain needs to stop trumpeting I HAVE PROVED YOU WRONG again and again (Without actually proving anything) and actually read what people are saying before launching into some pro-blob crusade. I think the only person who believes your 'arguments' is you, and I'm not even entirely convinced you know what you're saying half the time. You just spit out the first angry and bitter thing that comes into your head. You appear to have trouble understanding so I'm going to point it out for you again.
80% of the CSM candidates recognise blob warfare as an issue.

A good chunk of the CSM were voted in on the back of their policies on blob warfare

This means the general player base has a problem with blob warfare

Thus there is a PROBLEM


Understand now?

CCP Jericho

Posted - 2010.11.15 06:21:00 - [76]
 

Inappropriate post removed.

Minigin
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.11.15 06:24:00 - [77]
 


Mickey Simon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2010.11.15 06:55:00 - [78]
 

Edited by: Mickey Simon on 15/11/2010 06:57:55
Throughout history, war has been a balance between having power, and being able to use it. Battles required manpower, but also the ability to project it.

One of the largest problems that faced your thousand man armies was that you needed a balance between having men on the line, and spreading the line too thin. If you're 50 men deep at all sections of the line, there's less men who can fight your enemies at one time. If you're 2 men deep at all sections, it's easier for your enemy to drive a wedge and break through. While being attacked from behind is somewhat irrelevant in a game like EVE, the thing to take home from what battles are like in the real world is that when you bring a large amount of numbers, it also takes a large amount of training to use it effectively.

Being killed by a blob (I'd say 4:1 odds, taking into account ship types and experience, but it shifts downwards as you bring more people) isn't fun. Losing a ship 1v1 sucks, but losing it to superior numbers and superior ships makes people wonder why they bother playing EVE at all. The main reason blobs are so popular and so successful is that you can get literally anyone in a blob, and all they have to be able to do is warp to gates, jump through them, ctrl click on things, and hit f1. The amount of skill involved in coordinating blob warfare basically amounts to the FC being able to call targets, and the blob being smart enough to know how to click once or twice and hit f1.

While I can understand that large scale fights are part of the attraction for some to EVE Online, and I personally find them interesting, the fact that there's no downside to bringing 200 people against a single person feels unbalanced. There's no skill or training necessary for fleet members to engage in blob warfare and that's what makes it so easy to do.

While I love EVE for the way it brings people together, EVE should not be a game where all it boils down to is whoever has the most people in their Alliance wins. It's this reason that there are so many power blocs. Why would you join an underdog and be guaranteed a loss when you can join one of the big groups and almost never risk your ship?

EVE is a game about player skill. From playing the market, to knowing how to fit and pilot your ship. I see no reason why fleet engagements should be any different. If a change was made, yes, it would mean that various alliances would actually need to start training their pilots in more then "lock primary, hit f1" but I, and I'm sure many others, honestly believe that large fleet battles would become much more interesting and involved then they currently are with the result being the large majority of players having more fun.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.15 07:30:00 - [79]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 15/11/2010 08:39:17
Originally by: Shiroi Okami
(Without actually proving anything)


You're welcome to show how any argument I've advanced is either invalid or unsound.
The general avoidance, dishonesty and simple obvious lying that some posters have used in order to ignore my arguments is, however, prima facie evidence that if anybody could have rebutted let alone addressed them, they would have.

One might notice you didn't, for example.

Originally by: Shiroi Okami
the only person who believes


Bandwagon fallacy.
Again, you're welcome to actually address the arguments and show how they're invalid or unsound.
Something tells me that won't happen, however.

Originally by: Shiroi Okami

This means the general player base has a problem with blob warfare
Thus there is a PROBLEM


The bandwagon fallacy is not called a fallacy because it's a really, really awesome argument.
If tomorrow 80% of people thought that the sun was made of a gigantic butterscotch candy, it still wouldn't be. If you can address the actual logic involved it'd be much more cogent than "nuhn unh!!!"

Off topic comments removed. Jericho


Minigin
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.11.15 08:50:00 - [80]
 

Edited by: Minigin on 15/11/2010 08:50:56
a second ago you were arguing that the game is fine because many people dont have an issue with it... now you are arguing that many people having an issue with it is just a "bandwagon fallacy"?

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.15 09:04:00 - [81]
 

Originally by:

a second ago you were arguing that the game is fine because many people dont have an issue with it


That is a lie.
I've never said any such thing.
If you claim you're not lying, quote it.

Quote:

now you are arguing that many people having an issue with it is just a "bandwagon fallacy"


Another lie and another one where the actual post you're lying about is right above your lie.
Again, what was actually said:

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

Originally by: Shiroi Okami
the only person who believes


Bandwagon fallacy.
Again, you're welcome to actually address the arguments and show how they're invalid or unsound.
Something tells me that won't happen, however.

Originally by: Shiroi Okami

This means the general player base has a problem with blob warfare
Thus there is a PROBLEM


The bandwagon fallacy is not called a fallacy because it's a really, really awesome argument.
If tomorrow 80% of people thought that the sun was made of a gigantic butterscotch candy, it still wouldn't be. If you can address the actual logic involved it'd be much more cogent than "nuhn unh!!!"


Grunp Trek
Posted - 2010.11.15 09:12:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by:

a second ago you were arguing that the game is fine because many people dont have an issue with it


That is a lie.
I've never said any such thing.
If you claim you're not lying, quote it.

I believe Minigin is referring to this:
Quote:
Yet again, minigin is trying to pretend that tens of thousands of people have no idea that they're not really having fun (but he knows) and that the game they've been enjoying all this time isn't something that they're actually enjoying. Evidently tens of thousands of people participate in "blob" warfare because they can't be trusted to make up their own minds as to what they enjoy or how they should play the game.

Although I can't be sure.

Perhaps it's best if certain parties in this thread took a break and stopped accusing each other of lying and instead focused on trying to make the game better for the majority of people -- as that's the goal of this forum.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.15 09:29:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Grunp Trek

I believe Minigin is referring to this


He might be, but if that's the case then he's lying.

My quote is about how mini was (again)claiming that 10's of thousands of people who've devoted centuries of man-hours to a game and often log on by the thousands in order to play for hours at a stretch aren't actually enjoying their playstyle.

That doesn't touch on, at all, the claim that "the game is fine because many people dont have an issue with it". In fact, it doesn't touch on whether or not the game is "fine" at all, but whether or not people are having fun despite mini's claim that he knows better than they do whether or not they're having fun.

I have advanced numerous arguments about game mechanics and the lack of any objective definition for the snarl-word "blob". They've been scrupulously ignored and, instead, 'honest misunderstandings' like mini's keep getting trotted out, like how he ignores that one of his compatriots has based his argument around the bandwagon fallacy and instead goes on the attack with another fictitious claim.

Originally by: Grunp Trek

Perhaps it's best if certain parties in this thread took a break and stopped accusing each other of lying


I'd be happy to take a break from pointing out that other posters are lying if they'd stop lying. I hardly think it's unreasonable if, when someone lies and invents something that I never said, that I point out that I didn't actually say it.


Grunp Trek
Posted - 2010.11.15 09:41:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Grunp Trek

Perhaps it's best if certain parties in this thread took a break and stopped accusing each other of lying


I'd be happy to take a break from pointing out that other posters are lying if they'd stop lying. I hardly think it's unreasonable if, when someone lies and invents something that I never said, that I point out that I didn't actually say it.



While I respect where you are coming from, I'm not at all impressed that you pick peoples posts apart and respond to small sections that you want to and and less impressed again that you've done the same to my response that was seeking to diffuse the bickering in this thread.

Arguing about whether or not minigin is lying has so far led to you saying he is, and him saying he isn't. There's very little ground to be won here. What I said was that instead of arguing about whether someone is lying we should be talking about how we can make EVE a better, more interesting game. There's nothing gained by constantly attacking other players when the aim of this thread was to bring to the attention of the CSM that people voted for the current CSM because of their priorities, and amongst those priorities was addressing the perceived imbalance or lack of interesting gameplay in "blob warfare".

I like good thread derails as much as the next person, but I'd wager this one has gone on long enough and you start look foolish for continuing it.

Shiroi Okami
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.11.15 10:13:00 - [85]
 

I think you're the one ignoring logic here Finn. The logic is that this is a video game, and at the end of the day the objective is to have fun. If 80% of the player base are saying something needs to be fixed, then obviously logic would dictate that it is not a fun mechanic.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.11.15 11:02:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Shiroi Okami
I think you're the one ignoring logic here Finn. The logic is that this is a video game, and at the end of the day the objective is to have fun. If 80% of the player base are saying something needs to be fixed, then obviously logic would dictate that it is not a fun mechanic.


Please, can you point out this "80% of the player base"?

By name, not "I know a lot of people that want if fixed so it 80% of the playerbase that want it fixed".

Take a poll or ask CCP to take it, knowing that only positive replies (i.e. blob warfare need fixing) against total players number count as abstaining usually mean that the person isn't interested in the issue.

The basic problem is that the players want small group to count and make a difference when they are the people trying to do that, but hate it when they are the large number of players suffering because a small group can destroy what they have done.

Put it another way, we all feel that we are the "hero" of the tale, so we should be capable of fighting and winning against overwhelming odds and all the other players should be the conprimaries in our tale or the enemy cannon fodder.

But that work in a single player game, not in a MMORPG.

Asking for changes in the game mechanics so that smaller groups get "stronger" than larger groups is following the hero mentality.

Exactly because "this is a video game, and at the end of the day the objective is to have fun" you can't pretend to put your "fun" above other people fun and be capable of destroying alone what 10 people had done or that a group of ten could easily destroy what has required a group of one hundred to create, and so on.

Sure there will be less fun for those that want to conquer, destroy and so on but increasing their fun would be at the expense of the fun of the people that want to keep what they have.

So "fixing" the so called "blob warfare" would be reducing the enjoyment of the game for those on the "blob" side to increase it for those in the "non-blob" side, i.e. taking from 100 to benefit 10. Not a good idea.





Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.11.15 11:06:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Shiroi Okami
I think you're the one ignoring logic here Finn. The logic is that this is a video game, and at the end of the day the objective is to have fun. If 80% of the player base are saying something needs to be fixed, then obviously logic would dictate that it is not a fun mechanic.


From a practical business standpoint, this is not quite true. If, for example, the 20% who love committing blobbery would all quit the game if the blobs were destroyed, but the 80% who hate blobs (and want them fixed) would still play even if they were retained, the rational game design team would keep the blobs. It's not just numbers; intensity factors in as well.

Note that I campaigned in part on introducing game design changes that would break up or highly modify blobs, but not to attack blobs per-se (though I personally don't like that kind of fleet experience), but because I felt it was needed to fight lag. Still do, btw...

Minigin
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.11.15 12:28:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Shiroi Okami
I think you're the one ignoring logic here Finn. The logic is that this is a video game, and at the end of the day the objective is to have fun. If 80% of the player base are saying something needs to be fixed, then obviously logic would dictate that it is not a fun mechanic.


From a practical business standpoint, this is not quite true. If, for example, the 20% who love committing blobbery would all quit the game if the blobs were destroyed, but the 80% who hate blobs (and want them fixed) would still play even if they were retained, the rational game design team would keep the blobs. It's not just numbers; intensity factors in as well.

Note that I campaigned in part on introducing game design changes that would break up or highly modify blobs, but not to attack blobs per-se (though I personally don't like that kind of fleet experience), but because I felt it was needed to fight lag. Still do, btw...


spineless like the rest of csm thus far... you get to iceland realise ccp are people rather than things on the internet and you go soft.

i dont feel sorry for you, you should have put your name in so that you can advocate for your beliefs and for those who voted you in. if this was ever more than a free trip to iceland for you, step up and do more. no one cares if ccp ignores you, but you practically arnt trying atm. go do something radical like get all the csms together and refuse to meet again until you are taken seriously, cause some drama cause some scandal, make ccp listen.

until we see you trying you will get no easy relief for "hey guys im for you... but ccp wont listen anyway".

Scary McNastypants
Posted - 2010.11.16 08:55:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul

Take a poll or ask CCP to take it


There's a problem with polls though. Put out a poll asking people to vote for whether or not they'd like 100 billion free ISK an officer fit Nyx and a pony, and a lot of people would say yes. Doesn't mean that the game drastically needs everybody to be given a small horse.




Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.11.16 11:31:00 - [90]
 

Minigin,

I am sorry but I suffer from a particular and rare form of color blindness that makes it hard for me to properly read text in certain colors (I think you are posting in green, but it is hard to tell).

Replying to what I think you said:

Thank you for agreeing with me about everything, but there is no need to offer to pay to upgrade my IcelandAir tickets to Saga Class. I am glad you think I am doing a wonderful job on the CSM, and that you have decided that your army of alts will all vote for me if I run for CSM6.

Hugs & Kisses,
Trebor


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only