EVE General Discussion

This is why we shoot rookie ships.

Moot point. If he decloaks before he has identified the ships on the gate, either:

A) He is a window licker who doesn't know how to play, so you need not worry

B) He is an extremely slow counter, you need not worry

C) He is on autopilot to his scouting destination, you need not worry

Alternatively, if everyone decloaks to kill a noobship, and give away your numbers, lol gtfo.

There were a few sincere individuals with some good posts here and there. But I think this is not only the best post here, but possibly the best post I've read on these forums.

+1. Cheers.

Actually, player corps, or even players do try to take control of low sec systems. I've even heard of corporations hiring mercs to take control of high sec belts and prevent other miners from mining there.

Another good reason is often times it is always best to shoot first. Sometimes by the time you have checked the ship, double clicked their profile in local to check their corp history etc, then it's too late. So shooting first becomes a natural reaction to a lot of players.

Control of resources is also another issue. If a noob ship is entering a system, then if nothing kills it then it may think it is safe. Next the pilot will be bringing in ventures and perhaps other ships to mine the resources from the system.

Generally I have a strict policy of only attacking reds, and a few others also have this policy, although it can put you at a disadvantage in certain situations and most people will simply shoot anything.

Some men just want to watch the pixelated world burn.

Equating what people do in a game that is all about violence to their real life mental state is pushing things a bit far. Certain real life groups have been pushing the fallacy that violence in films and games encourage violence in the real world for at least 30 years, fortunately for those of us that enjoy games like Eve or watch films with violence in them they have yet to provide any correlation or concrete evidence to back up their outrageous claims.

Certainly there are people in the world that can't separate reality from fantasy, luckily they're in the minority. The great thing about Eve is its mature player base, and as mature players I would hope that the majority if not all Eve players are capable of separating an online fantasy world from reality.

I will quite happily inflict death on another player in a video game, I wouldn't dream of inflicting the same on a person in real life unless it was my duty to do so for example members of the armed forces, or police officers in certain circumstances, because to do so would go against everything I believe in, and everything I am.

Saying that our ingame actions reflect our true self is ridiculous. People who say such things really need to step back and take a good hard look at themselves, they're the ones who have problems separating reality from fantasy.

Our ingame persona is an act, we are all actors in a living production. For example Sir Anthony Hopkins played a cannibalistic psychopath in Silence of the Lambs, does that make him a cannibalistic psychopath in real life? Marlon Brando, Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger etc have all played extremely violent roles in films, does that make them violent in real life? Are Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez raving lunatics because they have directed and produced multiple bloodthirsty movies that have a cult following?

The answer is a resounding no, and that is how it should be. People violencing your space pixels are not axe wielding nut-jobs with murder on their minds, they are actors in a grandiose production that just happens to be freeform and has no script.

Think you may be over analysing this in a Freudy sort of way.

The truth is that gatecampers are scholars asking deep questions in Eve Online. They put these questions to travelers passing through their Gates.

-are they a threat? Shoot the ship and see if they survive and fight back.
-what cargo are they carrying? Shoot the ship and you will find out.
-what sort of character is the pilot? Shoot the ship and engage him in conversation afterwards to find out.

Miners are a bit like this too. They just talk to rocks instead.

Actually, you should take your own advice, and try reading between the lines, tears are more often than not the result of pixels being killed, the people who produce the tears are the ones with the problem, not the people that find them amusing.

The tears are amusing because the person who produced them actually takes the game entirely too seriously, it's only pixels, why spout endless reams of vitriol just because someone deprived you of some pixels, it's not like they stole your car, punched your baby or kicked your dog.

These are two different groups of people with two different sets of issues. I knew both groups existed. I simply addressed one group previously, not the other.

Of course a person who takes a game so seriously that he sheds 'tears' (real, virtual, whatever) is a person with serious issues and no life. Probably an overweight person who lives in his mom's basement, never had a girlfriend, never will have a girlfriend, etc. His whole life therefore revolves around a game. Of course such a person is pathetic. Not evil, not malevolent, but certainly pathetic. Worthy much more of pity than scorn/derision.

The other type is a person who gets off on someone else's suffering or 'tears' (real or imagined), shed by someone with no life (the person described above) or someone with a life.

The first type isn't a sociopath or psychopath or sadist. He is some other type, with a different set of issues (self esteem, etc). The second type most definitely is a sociopath, psychopath, sadist, etc.

We were talking about people of the second ilk, not the first.

I simply speak the truth and let the chip fall where they may. And to be perfectly honest, I could care less if a psycopath/sociopath/sadist takes offense at anything anyone says. Most people in the real world are in my camp here.



In and of itself, not enough data to draw any conclusions.



I'm not calling you anything, but it seems to me that you are putting yourself in a particular camp. "If the shoe fits, wear it" I guess.



No, I'm "pigeon-holing" people by how they act in real life. If someone gets off on someone else's misery and pain, then blah blah (you know the spiel). We aren't talking about someone playing the part of someone who gets off on such a thing - that would be like calling Anthony Hopkins a psycho because he played the part of Hannibal Lector. We are talking about people actually getting off on such a thing "in real life," although what causes the "getting off" are events occurring in a video game.

Nobody has said or meant "these people are playing the roles of people who get off on such things." They have said that these people actually do, in real life get off on these things, and that's what motivates their particular actions in game. They either "know" or "imagine" that someone on the other side of the keyboard is shedding tears or is experiencing pain or suffering (even if they shouldn't, and even if it means they are pathetic because they do), and they get off on it.



You are confusing the fact that just because this is a game, everything that occurs actually occurs in the game and you therefore can't "judge" or "pigeon hole" someone personally for that behavior. That's wrong. Yes, there is in-game role-playing that you can't judge - being some ruthless maniacal corporate CEO, or assassin, or whatever. Then there is out-of-game stuff that you can indeed judge - the very real, non-virtual "getting off" over someone else's pain/suffering, either real or imagined, either pathetic (in the case of someone with no life who takes a game too seriously) or not.

(Ran out of available quotes, so using [ ] to denote further quotes)

[On a side note, you do know that CCP was formed by people that you placed in the second group? CCP originally consisted of players from Ultima Online, that ran around killing other players for the fun of it, and for the tears.]

I have no comment, as I haven't studied this issue and don't know anything about it. If they are in the second group, then that's bad. If they aren't, great.