EVE General Discussion

It's nice to see persistence. Everything starts out this way. 'In every revolution, there's one man, with a vision,' to quote a very famous TV personality. I'm sure a lot of you know this, but a lot of good, decent, honorable things, started as a revolution. Countries have been formed from them, one in 1776, for example.

As for the idea that IF people wanted this, they'd have joined a corp and left hi-sec, well, that's false. I'm just extremely selective, due to experiences on some old, now deleted toons, about joining a corp. I want to, in effect, check YOUR full-api keys, because I demand a lot from you. If you can't lead, not being a natural leader, if you're a policy-goon behind a polished desk asking ME for my credentials?

This game goes both ways.

Hey!!, whats happening Jenn, nice to have your input here. You post is interesting and I plan to work through all of your points carefully.

My NPC null ventures required lots of work in order to flourish, It involved lots of people coming out of their comfort zone and relocating to an area that is very dangerous. I agree that it didn't last. We also have to consider the fact that Stain has always been largely barren of life, so it is clear that most pilots view Stain as a difficult area to operate in regardless of my actions.

At no point will I ever blame an actual mechanic for being the root cause of a problem, I only need to be fully aware of the mechanic in order to avoid it. The wardec mechanic is fine as it is I think the issue is in the perception of the people affected badly by the wardec mechanic.

They need to recognise that a valid tactic is becoming NPC for a period of time while they learn/experience the game in a manner which is more suitable to them. I honestly respect and like the mechanics of a corp/alliance, I'm just here doing what the wardeccers do which is understanding the mechanics and using the mechanics to achieve my desired goal.

I will talk about other parts of your post later on. thanks for posting, and it's a pleasure chatting with you.

Ralph, it seems you are the one taking this game too seriously....

From a strictly role playing point of view yes they are victims.

Most of what you see me type is actually role play tbh.

I'd rather you first establish that the term "victim" is even remotely appropriate for the game invoronment.
Edit: specifically a competitive gaming environment.

If I go out in early in poker because I go all in blind am I a victim?
If I get caught in a game of chasing am I a victim?
If I get sniped in the face in battlefield because I sat on a bipod on a rooftop am I a victim?
If I come last in a race am I a victim?

Yeah but there's no victims in sport, least not since the days of the Roman empire anyway.

True, but this is not a sport. At least, so far as I can see.

I admit to ignorance of any sport in existence, now or in the past, where the teams were not equal, in numbers and gear. Only skill set them apart.

That being the case, this is not a sport.

You ignore my point Ralph because it doesn't adhere to your point of view. I asked you if the said people can be seen as victims from a role play point of view?. You even typed yourself that this is a game environment..yet you seem to not accept role playing is a strong part of it.

Role playing applies here. we have avatars and we step into their consciousness. My chosen role is a rebel. My avatar can become a victim of ganking, corp theft or espionage, wardecs....

Lets put this point to bed now, victims can exist only from a role play point of view...agreed?

No you haven't.
I understand exactly what victim blaming is and I'm not disputing anything about it,
from it's definition to it's deeply shameful modern iterations.

What you're failing to accommodate for is that we are playing a competitive game
and this is where the disconnect is happening.

There are no victims in sport or games.
If you play with a poor strategy, or fail to consider mine or anyone else here who plays adversarialy that doesn't make you a victim.

We all have the same tools here and we all play with the same rule set.

Unless you're being subjected to something outside of EULA/TOS then frankly "git gud" is the modus operandi here.

Aaron, in a roleplaying context I'll grant you sure.

I'm only concerned here with the little Madame here trying to whisk up the tropy old moral cartoon of the evil eve player.

C'mon man we've been on this had this dance before, you know the movements

EVE is competitive, interactive and conflict based (nominally).

There are winners, and losers, each according to their own investment/preparation.

i can win an engagement, by investing/preparing more than my opponent.
That does not make them a victim, merely they are a loser.
Noteworthy, that if they invested less, they lost less than I invested.

Thus winning/losing is a result of investing better, rather than more.
A cheap ship can take out a far more expensive one, just as a cheaper deal on the market, can win you the sale, whilst the competitor is left with no profit from that opportunity.