Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Nucflash wrote:
Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasent there. But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...

So why don't you just play chess instead? If you don't care at all about the fluff or the painting or anything other than the rules why spend time on a game that is less competitive and balanced than chess? You have to have some appreciation for the fluff/models to give a context to the game mechanics, and I really doubt you'd play the game if you replaced all the models with cardboard counters ("piece #1", "piece #2") and removed all the fluff description of rules (characters are now "most important model type 31", their special abilities are now just "ability #1", etc).

PS: EVE player?

Nucflash wrote:I care as much about the backstory of my models in Warmachine/hordes as I do my chess pices. I dont really get the fluff stuff, whats the point? If I want to play make believe I play pen and paper RPGS.. Boardgames are for competitive play and nothing ells for me and my friends.

I agree to an extent, if you're into story-telling and narrative play then you should really be playing RPGs, they're better-suited for that style of play and from what I hear FFG's 40k-themed games are pretty good. That said, I don't see the point in playing a competitive wargame if you literally don't care one iota about the fluff or even regard the models as anything more than better-detailed chess pieces. The game play matters a lot, especially if you want people to keep playing your game, but personally I like being able to get into the background of a game and reading about heroic characters and their deeds, etc., and personally I think cool models don't really need any explanation.

The models are usually the biggest draw of tabletop games like these, and probably the only reason why people even think about playing 40k anymore, because the game itself sure is a waste of fething time. I'm glad you find Warmachine a lot of fun, but I have to wonder why you bothered wasting your money on expensive models at all if you literally don't see any value in the hobby side of things. Wouldn't you have been better off just sticking with chess and spending the money on other worthwhile pursuits?

[ "broken", especially when GK came out merely half a year after DE) but sure as hell not anymore.

The first part of your post explained exacly how I feel. I get sick and tired of people who play 40k/WHFB and try and justify it or say that "the game is just fine, you're just not playing it right", to the rest of us when we point out that it lacks balance and is poorly updated. I do like to paint Miniatures, but I keep my painting seperate from my gaming. I personaly dont think that the models of a game should come before it's rules when deciding to pick it up. That is why I brought up the Chess thing. In the end the game stops being "fun" for me when the rules get broken. And me and my friends really dont care about the lore. But for the die hard 40k/WHFB player this looks to be the reason for why they keep playing the game. And both the deathwatch RPG and 1st and 2nd edtion Warhammer fantasy roleplay games are exellent if you want to have fun with the LORE. But the Table-top games 40k/WHFB should not be the place where lore and setting trumps the rules.

And when you want to play competetive you get told " you are doing it wrong"... Because I cheese and destory others fun.. and instead of asking HOW I could do this. I get blamed and not the rules. I cant Chees and destroy in chess and I its much harder to cheese and destroy in warmchine. And when you play on time and with Steamroller 2013 rules the game is as fair as it gets.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:
Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasent there. But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...

So why don't you just play chess instead? If you don't care at all about the fluff or the painting or anything other than the rules why spend time on a game that is less competitive and balanced than chess? You have to have some appreciation for the fluff/models to give a context to the game mechanics, and I really doubt you'd play the game if you replaced all the models with cardboard counters ("piece #1", "piece #2") and removed all the fluff description of rules (characters are now "most important model type 31", their special abilities are now just "ability #1", etc).

PS: EVE player?

Yes I play EvE.. done it since 2004. I make people cry there too.... I like Mind Games... Where you have to outsmart your opponent

I play chess , But Warmchine is also a good game to be honest.. it has a few flaws but its well balanced and can be played on a timer.. So why cant I play both? I have zero issues with Warmachine. My Issue is with 40k/WHFB and the people who keep defending it like it's the second comming of christ.

As I have stated before I do like to paint models. But the Models do not make or break the game for me. And What I am getting at is that to some people the Miniature is the draw and not the game. So then the rules dont mather so much. But when a competetive player (like myself) spots cracks in a systems, if they just agreed and said you are Right, the rules suck, but we like to paint models, and build cool looking armies. I would keep my mouth shut. But that is not the case, instead you get lots of whining and crying and defending.. And then we find ourselfs here.. you understand what I am getting at?

And for most of my buddies the lore comes secondary, and painting is not the top priority for them..

There is a reason why Games Workshop has drawn away its suport for competative play you know. The game is broken and they know it.... Its just heartbreaking that some of the fans themselves have not cought up jet :(

On another note I have a few chess sets, One in stone, one in Marble.. A few finly carved from diffrent types of wood. And I have made and painted a few myself. I take great care that my chess sets look Nice. And I take great care that my Modells on a wargaming table look nice. That dosent change the fact that I dont care about the lore behind the model. The stats on the Queen on a chess board is what counts. And what my Warbeast do in Warmachine/hores is more important then if it looks like a wolf or an elephant, If its pose looks like crap, or the miniature isn't as good looking as another games models. It all takes second place to the rules for me.

So all I am asking is this; if you picked the game because of the models and the lore and not the rules. Own up to it, dont defend it with comments like " you are playing it wrong". or "winning dosen't mather to me so it should not mather to you etc".. or " we like to play cinimatic games"... It just wont fly... Becuause I cant undestand logic like that..

Part two is up.It's not nearly as thought-provoking as the original, and may not resonate as much with wargamers since I was a WAAC player before discovering wargaming. However, I hope you guys still enjoy it in all its long-winded glory!

I don't really get the point of difference between FAAC and WAAC. Or I actually doubt that FAAC is a meaningful term as an opposite of WAAC.
WAAC are FAAC, they just have a different definition of "fun".

I see the difference between someone who is WAAC, playing Cheese, using rules gaps or even cheating to win, and someone who is a bit more relaxed, who plays the game for more than one reason (being in a social situation, getting to know the game, trying some weird stuff, presenting and looking for nice paintjobs/conversions/tables on the way etc etc etc).
But in competitive games, by definition of the word, both players play to win, and to win against the opponent.
(There are some pure "race games", i.e. where you do not need to confront your opponent at all in order to win the game (you play in parallel), but those are rare.)

It seems to me that some competitive people think when someone is not a WAAC, than the problem lies with the "W", when in fact it is with the "AAC".

I have never met someone who would actively sabotage a game (other than by being a cheating WAAC). I have met a lot of people who did not know how to play correctly, or who preferred a fluffy list and went to see what they could do with it, or just played with what they had at hand, or who showed an certain amount of laxity when dealing with rule conflicts, but neither of these cases qualifies as "FAAC".
I understand that highly competitive players feel that casual, newb or "fun" players do decrease the amount of pleasure they gain from playing (they would expect an equally competitive player who can give them a challenge - just not enough to make them lose, of course!), but so do they to them.
Because lamenting over wrong or slow moves or lack of rules knowledge, for example, or being pushy, sneering and negative, is nobody's idea of having an enjoyable pastime.

The best thing one can do is being open about ones motivation and goal in playing upfront, and find a gaming partner/opponent who shares these motivations. Otherwise it will be no fun for either one.

You clearly dont know any FAAC people then.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Deldar Beastspam disagrees.

In what edition? Because Dark Eldar anything in 6th is only worthy of being laughed off the table.

Maybe "beast spam" was playable in 5th (wouldn't ever call anything the DE codex could put out "broken", especially when GK came out merely half a year after DE) but sure as hell not anymore.

If you're going to knock something, at least know what it is the person if referring to.

If I win I like to win because I out played someone, not due to a crappy rule or luck, if I loose due to him having obscene luck or cheesy list it sucks as it takes the skill out of it. Maybe at some point I'll get jaded and do a WAAC list of GK or guard or something..

 RayofPaintStudios wrote:
Part two is up.It's not nearly as thought-provoking as the original, and may not resonate as much with wargamers since I was a WAAC player before discovering wargaming. However, I hope you guys still enjoy it in all its long-winded glory!

I think that's a fairly bold foot to put forward with such an admission of wrong doing. But i also think that the WAAC mentality that you describe affects only a small portion of gamers and even then it is infrequent. I know I went through some growing pains as well. It's a very frustrating thing when you spend so much time before gaming to get to a game and feel that luck is kicking your ass. It hurts even more when you don't have emotional or social support to fall back on as can happen with our community. I think there's something to be said for the root causes of WAAC behavior, rather than just the outcome. I think much of it can be tied back to social/emotional problems that aren't addressed and we just don't care to ask questions. We would rather judge and label. But I'm postulating from observations and personal introspection.

I've met WAAC players, and while they exist, they're far more uncommon than people think. Usually, you will see "WAAC" used derogatively to refer to competitive players, which is somewhat ironic, since both player types are largely exclusives.
If you enjoy competition, you want challenge and the satisfaction of winning because you've outplayed your opponent, not because you used an exploit or a loophole to turn the battle into a one-sided affair. A one-sided win is just as boring for a competitive player as a one-sided loss. If you can call the game before it starts, why even bother with actually playing it out.

Having said that, while WAAC are fairly easy to spot and ignore, FAAC players are far sneakier, and just as toxic for a community, if not more. I speak from experience. We're talking about people who basically think reading the rulebook before playing the game is cheating. You may think I'm exagerating, and I am, but not as much as you'd think.

 HudsonD wrote:

Having said that, while WAAC are fairly easy to spot and ignore, FAAC players are far sneakier, and just as toxic for a community, if not more. I speak from experience. We're talking about people who basically think reading the rulebook before playing the game is cheating. You may think I'm exagerating, and I am, but not as much as you'd think.

I've definitely met a few people who play bad but 'fluffy' lists, and are quite proud of that, then get a little grumpy when their fluffy list loses to a competitive list but I haven't yet played a guy who has tried to tell me not to use a rule for the sake of fun or anything along those lines.

 RayofPaintStudios wrote:
Part two is up.It's not nearly as thought-provoking as the original, and may not resonate as much with wargamers since I was a WAAC player before discovering wargaming. However, I hope you guys still enjoy it in all its long-winded glory!

After reading that I feel sorry that you needed to "soft cheat". Reason I prefer chess to all other games in the world is becuase the cheating potential is ZERO. The luck Factor is Almost Zero, and depends on a mistake by your oppnent (if you can even call that luck).

Winning games by exlopting rules, or finding loopholes in the system is "NEVER OKEY" in my book. Reason i throw so much crap Towards Games Workshop is because they allow this to happen. Often when we play in my gaming group we have a third person watching the game. Because people do miss things, and you need a neutral third party to point out stuff sometimes. In Warmachine/hordes, this can be anything from keeping an Eye on Control zones for frenzy cheacks. To watching that Focus is dealt with correctly, and that noone does a mistake by accident.

Keeping Games clean and keeping all forms of cheating away, is very Important in my book. Being able to Exploit flawed game design is never okey.. And that has brought our hole gaming group to abandon Warhammer 40k and WHFB...

We like to play competative, but I think we need to clear up what competative is... Winning at all cost, in my book does not mean you have to Cheat to do so. Or exploit the fine lines in a rulebook. Sadly my experince is that WAAC thing is a symtom of Games Workshop games. Sabotaging the FUN for your oppnent can only happen if you do some Cheese thing that totaly Ruins a game. I think its hard to explain to people who have limited experince of diffrent Table-top systems, that if there is no real Way to Power Game and Cheese your way to victory the hole WAAC thing becomes a non-issue.

Also having 11 and rolling two dices and you need to get over say 15.. and you can use an ability that makes your base value go up by +2... So now you have 13 and can only miss on snake Eyes.. Takes away alot more randomness then Rolling 20 six sided dices and trying to get 3+ to hit on them. If you compare systems the Randomness of Warmachine/hordes and many other Table-top system has much less "Luck factor" then the heavily flawed games workshop system..

So my reasoning is this.. Play better wargames and the "WAAC" issue will become non-existent

 jonolikespie wrote:

 HudsonD wrote:

Having said that, while WAAC are fairly easy to spot and ignore, FAAC players are far sneakier, and just as toxic for a community, if not more. I speak from experience. We're talking about people who basically think reading the rulebook before playing the game is cheating. You may think I'm exagerating, and I am, but not as much as you'd think.

I've definitely met a few people who play bad but 'fluffy' lists, and are quite proud of that, then get a little grumpy when their fluffy list loses to a competitive list but I haven't yet played a guy who has tried to tell me not to use a rule for the sake of fun or anything along those lines.

Personally, WAAC players fall into a description similar to Jonolikespie has, only the opposite of FAAC players....

I have an extremely fluffy (ish) Nurgle marine army, a somewhat "net listed" parking lot guard army (I came up with the list, and first time I run it in the lgs, I am accused of pulling the list off the net... really I based it on my first ever actual unit in the army), etc.

To me, the WAAC player is the one that, while playing their "tourney net list" or "uber cheese list" that they bring, when your squad of grots kills their ultimate deathstar combo unit, they get all pouty... Or as soon as you knock them off of an objective from some very luckily good dice rolls. Basically, if they dont FEEL like they are winning, they arent having any fun whatsoever. Just like FAAC players can get mopey if they are getting roflstomped, truly WAAC players are almost only happy if they are roflstomping their opponent.

If you don't like Warhammer for the models or the fluff, then why not play the game with cardboard pieces? I honestly don't understand why you wouldn't.

If "WAAC" is an issue I think it reeks far more of an issue with the game's rule set, balance & general design that it does about the player base or particularly individualizing "WAAC"ing. In order for a term like this to exist your rules either have to be confusing/ambiguous enough that they can change readily depending on who is interpreting them, or the game has to be so unbalanced nothing outside some very approaches can win.

Seriously, if degenerate rules or models aren't running rampant people trying their hardest to win isn't going to result in feel-bads outside minority of mechanics and large skill gaps.

Saying that there should be constraints on how you try to win within the legal rules of the game, that is you need constraints other than "Don't Cheat" in order for the game to "work" or be enjoyable, means your rule set isn't robust enough to support a game with a "Win" and a "Lose" condition.

Read both your articles. I applaud your journey of trying to find balance. However, I think you fail to really take into account the other player. You don't have to force yourself to be WAAC, casual, or strictly down the middle, you just need to find out what kind of game your opponent is looking for.

-There are lots of players out there who want a game that is tooth and nail, with every rule in the rulebook open to exploitation and the most meta-mini-maxi-death-net-crafted lists are par for their course.

-There are a fair number of players who want a fluffy game with lists that come from codex fluff sections and BL novels, player created scenarios and a/or just a good laugh.

-There are of course others that want a middle of the road game. Either because that's who they are, or maybe they just can't afford to trick out their army with all the trimmings.

All 3 kinds of gaming are equally valid ways to play, but when mismatched can someties result in fun for 1 or neither player.Of course this means that you may have to take 2 lists, or have some deck-mods or alternate decks. However this kind of ability to accommodate your opponent is the real key to balanced gaming and gaming where all players find enjoyment in the experience.

Of course this requires actually discussing with your opponent what kind of game you want to play BEFORE you start playing.

Eilif wrote:
Read both your articles. I applaud your journey of trying to find balance. However, I think you fail to really take into account the other player. You don't have to force yourself to be WAAC, casual, or strictly down the middle, you just need to find out what kind of game your opponent is looking for.

-There are lots of players out there who want a game that is tooth and nail, with every rule in the rulebook open to exploitation and the most meta-mini-maxi-death-net-crafted lists are par for their course.

-There are a fair number of players who want a fluffy game with lists that come from codex fluff sections and BL novels, player created scenarios and a/or just a good laugh.

-There are of course others that want a middle of the road game. Either because that's who they are, or maybe they just can't afford to trick out their army with all the trimmings.

All 3 kinds of gaming are equally valid ways to play, but when mismatched can someties result in fun for 1 or neither player.Of course this means that you may have to take 2 lists, or have some deck-mods or alternate decks. However this kind of ability to accommodate your opponent is the real key to balanced gaming and gaming where all players find enjoyment in the experience.

Of course this requires actually discussing with your opponent what kind of game you want to play BEFORE you start playing.

Just steal the thunder of my final post, why don't you

@nectarprime.
At our games club we often proxy minatures .(Kings of War was played with cardboard units for a while, until got around to buying minatures.)
IF the rule set delivers great game play we invest in minatures for the game if required.

If 40k did not have such a strong asthetic appeal , it would be dead in the water IMO.
The current rule set is over complicated, diffuse and counter intuitive.(Yet the game play is very restricted and lacks complexity.)

The rule set is the instructions on how the game is played.
This can be objectively assessed , and compared to other game mechanic and resolution methods...

The asthetics are just subjective, which will be based purely on personal opinion.

When the rule set is developed based on opinion not objective comparison the game is in trouble...

@Eilif.
It is important to talk with your opponent about how you playstyles and objectives.

However, most other games tend to have far more focus on game play than 40k does.So the difference in play style is less of an issue.

 RayofPaintStudios wrote:

Just steal the thunder of my final post, why don't you

Hi Eilif.
I tend to view game play as the amount of options/interactions ' in game'.

If a game relies heavily on 'having to pick a specific unit for a specific task' .To the point where the list you bring to the table has more impact on the result of the game than what you do with the units during the game...

The then focus is more on 'promoting the sale of toy soldiers' than creating a game people want to play, IMO.

But I tend to play more historical /generic rule sets, where there is not as much 'For our game you MUST use our minatures...'
Also most other rule sets tend to imply the type of play style the rules are written for.

Warmachine, is quite clear at saying its mainly for competetive play..So the option to narrate and customise is a bit more limited, than some games.

Stargrunt II is obviously more for narrative play , as it does NOT have any points values!And the rules introduction makes it quite clear that its for narrative co-operative play.

It was obvious to the fan base that 40k was ' a sandbox for you to play in...'.
When the dev team was in frequent contact with the players...and WD actually had game supplements in it...

But as the '...we had a slight problem with some escaped Snottlings in the word processors at the GW Dungeon, so the following corrections should be made to page X..'

Sounded less '' professional'' than the prices GW corperate management wanted to charge for rules ...

The studio staff were silenced beyond .'Here are the latest Erratas & FAQs.'

And without implied play style direct from the devs , and the enthusiastic sales men in the stores.

Every players assumes their own personal play style is the 'right' way to play..

My point is most games tend to be more open about what sort of play style is more suitable for the game..40k appears to try to hide this to maximize sales IMO.

The imbalance in the 40k rules is purposely used to promote short term sales.
As the more competetive players easily find the most cost effective units and combinations, and try to 'belittle ' everyone else for picking 'less than optimal units'.

With the effect the other players stick to the 'less than optimal units' simply trying to prove a point...

And the division in the player base rolls on, and 40k rules get worse and worse.
(In the respect of balance and ratio of game play to pages of rules.)

 Nucflash wrote:

 RayofPaintStudios wrote:
Part two is up.It's not nearly as thought-provoking as the original, and may not resonate as much with wargamers since I was a WAAC player before discovering wargaming. However, I hope you guys still enjoy it in all its long-winded glory!

After reading that I feel sorry that you needed to "soft cheat". Reason I prefer chess to all other games in the world is becuase the cheating potential is ZERO. The luck Factor is Almost Zero, and depends on a mistake by your oppnent (if you can even call that luck).

Winning games by exlopting rules, or finding loopholes in the system is "NEVER OKEY" in my book. Reason i throw so much crap Towards Games Workshop is because they allow this to happen. Often when we play in my gaming group we have a third person watching the game. Because people do miss things, and you need a neutral third party to point out stuff sometimes. In Warmachine/hordes, this can be anything from keeping an Eye on Control zones for frenzy cheacks. To watching that Focus is dealt with correctly, and that noone does a mistake by accident.

Keeping Games clean and keeping all forms of cheating away, is very Important in my book. Being able to Exploit flawed game design is never okey.. And that has brought our hole gaming group to abandon Warhammer 40k and WHFB...

We like to play competative, but I think we need to clear up what competative is... Winning at all cost, in my book does not mean you have to Cheat to do so. Or exploit the fine lines in a rulebook. Sadly my experince is that WAAC thing is a symtom of Games Workshop games. Sabotaging the FUN for your oppnent can only happen if you do some Cheese thing that totaly Ruins a game. I think its hard to explain to people who have limited experince of diffrent Table-top systems, that if there is no real Way to Power Game and Cheese your way to victory the hole WAAC thing becomes a non-issue.

Also having 11 and rolling two dices and you need to get over say 15.. and you can use an ability that makes your base value go up by +2... So now you have 13 and can only miss on snake Eyes.. Takes away alot more randomness then Rolling 20 six sided dices and trying to get 3+ to hit on them. If you compare systems the Randomness of Warmachine/hordes and many other Table-top system has much less "Luck factor" then the heavily flawed games workshop system..

So my reasoning is this.. Play better wargames and the "WAAC" issue will become non-existent

Yeah, Nucflash - every one of your posts point to you being a very risk-adverse player. Someone who has to stack the cards in their favor as much as possible and can't cope when something "unexpected" happens. Like whiffing an attack.

Since dice-based games like GW's can force you to constantly form and reform your strategies based on inherent risks, I can see how you deem them unplayable. Stick to chess. Or challenge yourself instead.

Swan-of-War wrote:
Since dice-based games like GW's can force you to constantly form and reform your strategies based on inherent risks, I can see how you deem them unplayable. Stick to chess. Or challenge yourself instead.

You kind of missed the point there.

Good dice-based games involve randomness, but done in such a way that the randomness follows a nice bell curve (for example, shooting bolters with a full tactical squad) which allows you to intelligently make decisions based on risk vs. reward. The outcome of a given individual event is in doubt, but complete surprises are rare and in the long run everything converges on the average with the player who makes better decisions winning the game.

Bad dice-based games involve randomness with wild swings (which threaten to impact the game more than player decisions), lack of predictability (you can't make strategic plans beyond "roll the dice and hope they like you"), or things that should be player choices (picking warlord traits). The stronger these elements are the less player skill and decisions matter and the more the game becomes little more than an exercise in throwing dice and seeing what happens.

Unfortunately GW thinks that the latter kind of randomness is "cinematic" and has been moving strongly in that direction with 6th edition. This is not a good thing.

No Peregrine, I think you and I are on the same level - balancing risk-management through strategy and manuevering while still playing with a level of randomness. The type of player I'm reading Nucflash as is someone who can't tolerate ANY sort of randomness or risk at all and to put yourself in a situation that requires it is ludicrous.

I.E. - I MUST always have this exact spell so I MUST always take Teclis / Balthasar and I can't comprehend why someone would ever take anything else...

I.E. - Unit A will ALWAYS perform better than Unit B and anyone who takes Unit B simply because they like the models or want the challenge should never be allowed to sit at the table...

I also agree with you on the "over-randomness" of 8th Edition, but that's another tangent.

Alright DakkaDakka folks, the final post is up. If there are any parts that literally make no sense, please let me know. I wrote this while I was down with the flu, and when I went back to edit, some things were a bit... oddly worded.

Thanks again for the great discussion in this thread. I know casual vs competitive gets a bit heated, but I appreciate the overall respect you have brought to this conversation!

 Nucflash wrote:
Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasent there.

I can’t get my head around why you’d only play competitive games. Seems like it would lose its allure after some time (I know it did for me – my days of list-tweaking and playing all games as if it were a life-or-death tournament have long since passed).

I prefer the lore, and using games to tell stories. It’s why I play so much of FFG’s 40K stuff these days.

But chess clocks? Timed turns? Seems you’re adding in extra things to make it more interesting. That speaks to a weakness in the game more than anything else.

Nucflash wrote: But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...

You’re going to need to explain that one.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Nucflash wrote: But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...

You’re going to need to explain that one.

Carebear = a person who plays EVE Online, a PvP-focused game, but refuses to ever engage in PvP and often whines on the forums about how much PvP ruins the game and how the developers need to make even more changes to protect them from unwelcome PvP.

I've never played EVE, but does that mean there's no PvE in EVE?

Uhh... PvPPvEEVE... *head explodes*

I do not know about a care bears on EVE online but The Battle of Asakai is something interesting.
http://kotaku.com/eve-online

As far as the writings of the OP? I find them interesting to say the least.

Just don't be a motherFAAC'er

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've never played EVE, but does that mean there's no PvE in EVE?

There is PvE. A carebear isn't just someone who enjoys PvE sometimes, they're defined by refusal to ever PvP and (usually) demands to take away any element of risk (one of EVE's basic principles is that everywhere is a PvP area and you're never 100% safe) that might get in the way of them grinding PvE and getting rich.

 Nucflash wrote:
Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasent there. But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you don't read books?

Games with storylines or otherwise worlds to immerse yourself in are akin to reading a book. It's escapism entertainment. For a single player videogame with a story, such as Uncharted, you're playing the story through. In the case of an MMO, usually devoid of story, you are immersing yourself in an online world. Don't get me wrong, there's entertainment value in purely competitive games. I love a good few rounds of Counter Strike to offset immersing myself in Tyria for a few hours or playing through Nathan Drakes latest exploits. Tabletop games are the same - you obviously get your fun out of being as competitive as possible. People with a tad more imagination might be visualising an ongoing story with their game, playing the game for the same reason one might play through the story of Uncharted 2 - to play out a narrative.

There' no reason to start bringing derogatory terms for either players into the discussion.