Crime & Punishment

I'd rather keep the newbies happy. As you say, the vets will never quit. As it is, EVEs issue is attrition. People do eventually get bored, and new players aren't coming in fast enough to replace them. A lot of that is because people outside of EVE consider it to be full of antisocial trolls, and they aren't far off.

I hope you are right. the thing is I'm not saying they are going to eventually remove ganking, I'm saying they will eventually redefine what they consider to be "too far" in griefing. Code gank to upset players then they troll them and collect the "tears" to share them with each other and laugh. That's not good image for the community to have and it's not fun for newer players to be introduced into that environment. It's a bunch of people griefing.

It doesn't matter what their vision was or whether you agreed with it. They had a vision, people disagreed and protested, that vision changed. There's nothing stopping CCP making more changes if they feel enough of the community feel strongly about it.

It's not about them being upset. It's about players engaging in actions for the motivation of upsetting them. If you mine asteroids, you are trying to make ISK, not upset anyone. If they get upset, boohoo. The difference is important.
Doing something that happens to get someone upset
vs
Doing something for the purpose of getting someone upset


You were engaging him in PVP gameplay, and he got upset. That's his problem not yours. Even if you shot his ship to upset him, it still shouldnt matter, because its impossible to enforce intent based on gameplay. CCP can never know why you shot his ship.

This isnt the same as loyalmoron spamming local with 20 straight "ufail" comments, then telling people to "cry moar" when they politely ask him to stop. It's not the same as John E Normus telling a player to go biomass himself for asking what betters ways there are to counter ganking besides ECM. Telling a miner hes the "bottom feeder of the universe", convoing a miner and asking him to apologize for autopiloting, not the same either. This is griefing. The intent is obvious, especially when considering the miner bumping blog. There is no other reasonable explanation for this behavior.


Uhhhh Ill have to disagree with both of you on this one. This is the one thinig Lucas is wrong about in this thread. No one should be able to come here and play without being killed. Give them their own server but on TQ they play by the same rules as everyone else, the game is balanced around that in all senses.

Regardless of whether they shoot back or not every player, no matter their playstyle, affects every other player. Some affect others at the end of a gun, some do it via other means; at the end of the day everything in Eve is a form of PvP.

That's just it, some that think they should be allowed to play in peace are saying that those who play otherwise shouldn't be allowed to play the game the way they want to. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Because some believe that they are entitled to stuff, whereas the reality is that in Eve you are entitled to nothing except access to the game itself, everything else is down to you.

Risk vs. reward.

Significant rewards must come with risk, and this drives the player conflict that is the only real content of this game.

Further, the risk forces players to make tradeoffs like tank vs. yield which makes fitting a ship far more interesting than the simple max yield/cargo calculation that everyone would fly in the absence of any risk.

If the ability to make ISK and resources is too safe they become meaningless as everyone can print as much as they like in isolation of other players and you no longer have a functioning economy.

And most worryingly, a 100% highsec would completely asphyxiate low, null and WH space as the only rational choice would be to come back to highsec to do your PvE and Industry as there would be no incentive to go elsewhere. We have already been going down this road with the absurdly high payout of incursions which has drawn much of the population back to highsec reducing targets elsewhere.

Highsec could be made 100% safe so people could "play how they like" but the rewards would have to be cut dramatically, like to zero so that it was only worth staying there if you were a true newbie learning the ropes, or one of the supposed carebears that like just shooting crosses but for no reward. I'm not sure the latter exists (most carebears are primarily ISK-focused despite what they claim about the "relaxing" nature of Eve's mining and PvE combat) and newbies grow up, so it is better to have a highsec with some risk.

So to directly answer your question, in a sandbox game you can do what you want, but when your actions start influencing the greater sandbox the other players get to have a say in what you are doing. It is an essential part of the game, at least as long as highsec is a place worth earning an income although even then, ganking your rival's industrial ships is a key part of a large war in any space.

My personal motivations go all the way back to the functional elimination of PvP from Ultima Online, the first MMO I ever played. It killed that game. And it was all because their devs caved in to exactly the kind of carebear whining that we see people trying to enforce on EVE now.

No one needs PvP visited on them more than the people who try to deny that it should exist. Those people need the abject lesson of the reality of EVE Online more than anyone else.




Because when how they like to play the game is contingent on my playstyle being removed, it's unacceptable. Especially in a stated PvP game like EVE is.

Those backsystem null rats won't farm themselves. Get back to work!

Your playstyle is the virtual equivalent of beating autistic kittens and then showing video of the deed to all your friends with a good laugh. Let the retards have their little sandcastles and go fight people who will shoot back. There are plenty of them. You will survive without your blaster fit civilian shield boosted raven killmails.

Here's where all this is eventually going to lead in regards to hi-sec ganking. This is the way I see it:

1. Ganking has existed for a very long time
2. No one is saying that the solution to the problem of hi-sec ganking is to prevent all or any means of ganking
3. There are people who rage about getting ganked, there are others who accept it's part of the game

To have an open and honest debate about the issue is usally ignored on the forums by the gankers. Their responses always lay blame at the pilots who got ganked, and their solutions are based off of in game mechanics, and it's not that these solutions are not credible. Yes, pilots would be better off with a scout, they would be better off to travel in groups, they would be better off to use JF's.

The problem is that there is no understanding, at least spoken or written on the forums, where all this is going to lead eventually. If gankers ignore the fact that there is an exploitation of game mechanics in regards to hi-sec then eventually CCP will step in and change it. The solution that would allow both sides to continue the game is somewhere in between, and until gankers acknowledge this they are on a path that will take away an aspect of Eve that they find enjoyable, and as they should. This game provides so many different ways to play, and those who are calling for reforms are not saying that ganking shouldn't be allowed, at least not en masse.

I believe that two simple solutions to this current issue is to remove aggro against freighters, allowing they to log off safely, and to reduce the log off safely timer depending on which security status system you are in.

Now, I already see the ganker drivel responses that are coming my way, so go ahead, it's a free forum, respond with blaming 'gankees', etc. like usual. What you have to accept though is that CCP is a business, and if you think for one second that CCP is going to allow the players of their game dictate the ebb and flow of bringing in new business, or cancelled subscriptions, all in the name of "well Eve is being played the way it was intended" then you are incredibly mistaken, and here's why:

1. If game mechanics is being employed successfully on all fronts then why is there hi-sec? There is an implied safety that comes with being in .5 systems or higher.

2. Why is there Concord? There is an element of game mechanics that CCP intended to prevent people from blowing up ships in high sec.

*don't just quote the above two points, you are missing the intent which is below*

I could go on but these two brief points show an intended difference between null/low/high sec systems. To ignore this is going to cause hi sec gankers to be incredibly upset when the business side of CCP kicks in. Yes, this debate has raged on for years, but the one thing no one can ignore is that CCP has changed aspects of the game for the past decade because they do in fact listen to their players. If the end result is going to be do nothing and lose subscriptions then you are mistaken on the intent of CCP, at least the business side of it. CCP has proven they will modify when needed or when they think it will improve the overall experience of the majority of their players.

The last year has seen an incredible change in null sec systems, and the emphasis from Dev posts has been because they are trying to get more people into null sec. Don't be shocked if one day an update rolls out and eliminates aspects of ganking that ganking fan-boys didn't see coming.

I believe ganking should be allowed in hi-sec, I truly do. Modifying small aspects, no aggro for freighters, shorter log off safely timer, would not prevent ganking against bots, or afk auto-pilots.

I don't expect an outpouring of gankers saying, "wow... this post has changed my perspective entirely, thank you!" I know the trolls will come out instead, and at the end of the day the true change will come from CCP, not in game players who decide to no longer gank or change who they gank. With the rise of CODE though ganking has taken on a new form, and it's one that will no longer be ignored by Devs. Remember, CCP is the one who installed the log off safely feature in the first place... do you truly believe that this is the last and final action they are willing to take?

Ram

No, it really isn't CCP aren't going to ban players for legitimately being upset by another player, regardless of the reason. They might not act on the ticket, and might explain to them that it's how the game is played, but they have a right to raise a ticket.

Your rights aren't affected by someone else posting a ticket. They can post a ticket if they feel harassed, it's that simple. The only time it would affect your rights is if CCP deem that what you did was against the rules.

Gankers certainly should be entitled to blow them up. What they shouldn't be allowed to do though is purposely troll people and gank specifically to upset them, which is what code does much of the time. That's why they have a blog for posting tears and a forum with a section devoted to tear collection (among many other forms of trolling). Code grief players and hide behind RP as an excuse, and that they certainly shouldn't be entitled to.

What exploit? Being able to kill people in highsec is fully intended by CCP.



And you call us exploiters? Are you seriously kidding me? Hitting alt+F4 should not entitle anyone to suddenly and safely disappear while flying a billion+ isk killmail. There should never, ever be a one shot, no thought solution to being attacked.

How about you freaks actually fly correctly, if you want to be safe? Tank your ship, bring webs. It is not that hard.




That... is why you fail.

There is no implied safety, in any way, anywhere in New Eden.

Your assumptions are the problem, not the game or anything in it.



Again, wrong. CONCORD exists to punish aggression, not to prevent it.

This is the problem with you people. You get these completely dumbass assumptions, and you expect the game to shift around them, rather than correct your dumbassedness in the first place.

You are sorely mistaken.