I don't like how EVE is run, and the pay-to-win mechanics added over the years to entice the whales.
I'm looking at the problem with the eyes of a prospective game dev, and saying that there should be more games focused on free market economy, which is often just a half-arsed mechanic on the side, not the core game.
Problem with EVE is that they did not have a solution for the problem of resource accumulation from the start. It was mitigated to some degree by great wars of old, and then wormhole space, but then they a) sold out to koreans with their interesting approach to MMOs, and b) merged the chinese shard. This did not help at all.
Now.. Py3 is nice, and I guess that move signals that at last they pay attention to engine instead of bolting on useless p2w crap, but to really revive eve this is not it.
In my opinion (joined EVE in 2006, still own a JF and few carriers there), what is needed is a massive sink for all the accumulated assets. Idk, expand the universe like tenfold. Then it would be fun again.
edit: also ditch all the nullsec sov mechanics and revert to something resembling the pre-TCU state. I can't for the life of me think of a reason why they chose to die on the hill of not adding more systems.
While I broadly disagree with much of this, I have been advocating for years that expanding the universe would indeed dispel much of the issues with the power disparity between groups, as well as encourage more involved logistics and stuff like that.
I played EVE for many years, and I really hated the addition of skill injectors. When I first started playing, the only way to get your skills up was to spend the time training them. Now it just takes real money cash.
There's a legitimate argument for some P2W mechanics, though. To keep a game going you need new players, and if you're looking at losing every PvP encounter for years as you skill up your character you probably won't stay.
The thing with EVE is that, even with all the ISK and SP in the game, you can't just buy your way to a win - you can't buy skill. You can have perfect skills and buy the best ship and modules and all that, but if you don't know how to fly, you're going to lose your ship immediately and it won't even be a fight.
That, coupled with your second paragraph (the new player experience being so rough) and I've never really been too upset about the stuff CCP sells.
> Mandate that any fresh new currency be apportioned and distributed to only living citizens
> Giving everyone fresh currency, and taxing those of significant wealth to sop up inflation (corporations and individuals), is how business entities get forced into serving the people again.
I don't agree with the mate's weird ideas, but capitalism is fairly adaptable and works reasonable well even in fairly weird systems. Have a look at eg Germany's social market economy.
I'm not sure we can blame the Stasi. Well, at least not blame them alone. West Germans were protesting and boycotting a census when East Germany was still her own country.
I don't really get this. This is how it should work, no? The point is to type the word correctly; if you miss a letter or mistype, and keep typing, then yeah, it's several mistakes in a row?
Say I type out the Iliad absolutely perfect, but on the first character I accidentally type an extra 'R'. Would you say that I typed it 0% correctly? Because this, and many other typing testers would score it that way, simply because every character after that is now shifted over by one. Ironically, later on missing a character would actually improve your score.
No, the point is to type the word a you'd do in real life, that is, make the mistake, finish word/sentence/thought and then correct. And the correction would be changing just the first mistake
> the point is to type the word a you'd do in real life,
I don't really know about that. I think the point is to practice typing, and that may or may not reflect how you type in everyday life. For example, most people don't spend their time typing random words without numbers or punctuation :)
In any case, are you saying that if you correct a word during one of these tests, it simply should not count as a mistake? Because if not, then I don't see what the problem is again - typ.ing and most other sites note corrections, and distinguish between corrected and uncorrected mistakes.
If so, I guess we might just disagree on what the point of these exercises is.
I don't see how this can be so difficult to understand. If the second word in my first sentence were misspelled, does that make every other word or letter that comes after wrong?
> Point being, a world where children are not made to suffer is a world that can't exist as long as humans are humans.
> I'm not sure it's able to be stopped? It seems part of the human condition.
The most important part of human nature/the human condition is our ability - or perhaps even need - to reflect and grow and change. It happens slowly, but it inevitably happens.
Any way though, I'm not really sure what your point is. That we shouldn't care or try to stop it because it's "part of the human condition"? That we must care about all these injustices equally? That if we can't address all these injustices equally, we mustn't address any?
I understand what your position is. I addressed that already.
I don't understand what the point in taking that position in this thread is. Someone mentioned some injustice in the world. You point out many others, and suggest there might always be such injustices in the world. Why? What now? I just don't understand where the conversation is supposed to go after this, or what the person you're replying to is supposed to do with what you're saying - particularly as you haven't replied to my or the other comment's reply to your point on human nature.
The point was that we can’t change the fact that horrible things will befall children today. You’re making the argument that human nature could change in the future. My argument is that human nature has shown no particular evidence of being able to do so since the Toba event.
Time will tell which of us is right, but my money is on kids being victimized 10,000 years from now in many of the same ways they are today. (Adding of course whatever new and innovative methods adults come up with to harm children along the way.) Why? Because I believe human nature will not change in essence. That you believe it can doesn’t make my argument false. It means we disagree. (Though, I believe, a dispassionate analysis would find that the balance of contemporary and historical evidence is overwhelmingly on my side.)
reply