These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

My Views On Hisec - CSM Platform

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#141 - 2015-08-28 19:43:40 UTC
Yong Shin wrote:
I'm all for trying my hand at pvp, but I'd have to be stupid to think we have even the slightest chance of achieving anything meaningful. The logical (albeit cowardly) thing to do would simply drop corp, or hide in order to save my ships and assets from meaningless death. If war dec mechanics gave me some kind of direct tactical combat advantage to compensate for our lack of size, however, I would certainly love to try defending my new corp, especially if some of the incentives mentioned in this thread exist.


I dunno, Vimsy is pretty terribad at PvP. P

Seriously, though, yes, current mechanics promote disbanding the corp. Incentives to stay are preferable over the knee-jerk reaction of nerfing NPC corps into oblivion, though some stick to go with the carrot would probably make sense.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#142 - 2015-08-28 19:44:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Yong Shin wrote:
If war dec mechanics gave me some kind of direct tactical combat advantage to compensate for our lack of size, however, I would certainly love to try defending my new corp, especially if some of the incentives mentioned in this thread exist.


Nevermind that you're shattering verisimilitude by giving a smaller group and inexplicable mechanical advantage just for being small...

But why? If you are small, then you already have the advantage of being relatively difficult to hunt down. If BAW or Marmite decs you, then you typically will have little trouble unless you go to trade hubs with your mains, or you just don't watch local.

I have spent literally entire weeks missioning under a wardec in a faction battleship in the past, and I never lost it once. It is not hard, at all, to just do your normal thing while under a wardec, so long as you aren't a total dumbfuck.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Malt Zedong
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#143 - 2015-08-28 19:45:23 UTC
CCP is not the entity responsible for creating the definition of english words. And CCP as far as I know always spoke in terms of saying it is legal or illegal to do things in game. Saying it is ok to do it, doesnt change the fact that it is by definition a certain kind of behavior defined by a direct word.

The definition of bully as used in its accepted verbal form is the act or effect of :
: to frighten, hurt, or threaten (a smaller or weaker person) : to act like a bully toward (someone)
: to cause (someone) to do something by making threats or insults or by using force

So regardless of what CCP defines as being LEGAL or ILEGAL, the word used to describe the action of a peson who does bullying is correct. CCP cannot rule the definition of the term, they only can rule, as they DID, if it is legal under the Terms of Use and EULA or not.



WorldTradersGuild.Com [WTG] - We are here for the long haul.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#144 - 2015-08-28 19:47:37 UTC
Malt Zedong wrote:
CCP is not the entity responsible for creating the definition of english words. And CCP as far as I know always spoke in terms of saying it is legal or illegal to do things in game. Saying it is ok to do it, doesnt change the fact that it is by definition a certain kind of behavior defined by a direct word.

The definition of bully as used in its accepted verbal form is the act or effect of :
: to frighten, hurt, or threaten (a smaller or weaker person) : to act like a bully toward (someone)
: to cause (someone) to do something by making threats or insults or by using force

So regardless of what CCP defines as being LEGAL or ILEGAL, the word used to describe the action of a peson who does bullying is correct. CCP cannot rule the definition of the term, they only can rule, as they DID, if it is legal under the Terms of Use and EULA or not.





Blowing up your internet spaceship in a game about blowing up internet spaceships isn't bullying. It's probably bullying under English law, but to any rational person it's simply playing the game within the rules.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#145 - 2015-08-28 19:50:51 UTC
Malt Zedong wrote:
CCP is not the entity responsible for creating the definition of english words.


No, just the terms relating to this game.

You see "bullying" anywhere in the EULA regarding wars? No? Then it doesn't exist. Least of all in a situation that is expressly intended by the game itself, such as wars.

Nevermind that video games, and the internet in general in my opinion, are an inherently voluntary participatory medium. Bullying does not exist in any setting in which you can just turn them off with a click of a button.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Yong Shin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#146 - 2015-08-28 20:22:51 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yong Shin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yong Shin wrote:

Perhaps not to you, but that's really for the ones receiving them to say.


It's not for them to say either. It's for CCP to say, and they have said repeatedly that it is not. Under any circumstances.


Oh, don't get me wrong. I think what you guys are doing is great, and creates content and a general spiff of life in high sec. But all of the problems you guys are discussing on this forum, seem to result from many small, pvp-weak corps feeling "bullied" by endless war decs they have little chance to fight successfully. Thus, they avoid them. Making them harder to avoid will make them hate pvp combat even more, which is counter to what you guys seem to be attempting to do.


The mistake you're making is assuming that those people enter into the thought process at all.

If they are not willing to fight in wars, they do not belong in player corps, period. The point of all of this is to improve the lives of people who are doing it right, and give them incentive to fight with one another, rather than handicapping the mechanic for the sake of those who frankly should not be participating in player corps to begin with.


Fair point, but that's the problem I see in this thread. Half the posts want to nerf NPC corps into utter unattractiveness, while the other half want to make war decs more powerful for the deccers. If one of these happen, great. If both of these happen, it's too much
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#147 - 2015-08-28 20:42:31 UTC
Yong Shin wrote:

Fair point, but that's the problem I see in this thread. Half the posts want to nerf NPC corps into utter unattractiveness, while the other half want to make war decs more powerful for the deccers. If one of these happen, great. If both of these happen, it's too much


Both of them should happen. Wardecs are toothless right now, that should be changed. NPC corps are far more valuable than player corps, they break risk vs reward because they eliminate fully half of all risk, and that should also be changed.

If you only change the first, you have devalued player corps still further. If you only change the latter, wardecs are still broken and dec dodge allows people to have their cake and eat it too.

Both, at once, are vital to any rebalance of highsec.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#148 - 2015-08-28 20:53:23 UTC
Malt Zedong wrote:
CCP is not the entity responsible for creating the definition of english words. And CCP as far as I know always spoke in terms of saying it is legal or illegal to do things in game. Saying it is ok to do it, doesnt change the fact that it is by definition a certain kind of behavior defined by a direct word.

The definition of bully as used in its accepted verbal form is the act or effect of :
: to frighten, hurt, or threaten (a smaller or weaker person) : to act like a bully toward (someone)
: to cause (someone) to do something by making threats or insults or by using force

So regardless of what CCP defines as being LEGAL or ILEGAL, the word used to describe the action of a peson who does bullying is correct. CCP cannot rule the definition of the term, they only can rule, as they DID, if it is legal under the Terms of Use and EULA or not.





Note: This isn't directed at you but at the "Ganking is bullying" crowd in general.

So if I shoot you in Call of Duty I'm a bully? Cause from what is said there, there answer is yes. I would argue that the rules within a game are defined within the context of the game. In CoD shooting people is part of the game. Likewise in Eve, shooting people is perfectly permitted within the rules of the game, as is ganking, scamming, lying, stealing, extorting, blackmailing, etc etc etc. As they are part of normal behaviour in the game, they would not fall under the English definition of bullying.

An equivalent example is that checking isn't assault in Hockey. Tackling isn't assault in American Football. Punching isn't assault in Boxing. It comes down to consent. Those things are allowed in those contexts because participating in that activity requires consent that those activities may or will take place

Undocking in Eve is consent to PVP. By loading the game you are agreeing to the TOS and the EULA. Those set the rules of the game. Anything that isn't in violation of those rules is consented too upon loading the game. If you wish to avoid those activities you are welcome to do so, that is also permitted under the rules of the game, but it will be up to you to manage to avoid them.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Yong Shin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#149 - 2015-08-28 21:01:06 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yong Shin wrote:

Fair point, but that's the problem I see in this thread. Half the posts want to nerf NPC corps into utter unattractiveness, while the other half want to make war decs more powerful for the deccers. If one of these happen, great. If both of these happen, it's too much


Both of them should happen. Wardecs are toothless right now, that should be changed. NPC corps are far more valuable than player corps, they break risk vs reward because they eliminate fully half of all risk, and that should also be changed.

If you only change the first, you have devalued player corps still further. If you only change the latter, wardecs are still broken and dec dodge allows people to have their cake and eat it too.

Both, at once, are vital to any rebalance of highsec.


Perhaps, but there I doubt there is even a slim chance for a strong NPC corp nerf & meaningful wardec buff happening around the same time. The protests would be thunderous.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#150 - 2015-08-28 21:19:28 UTC
Yong Shin wrote:

Perhaps, but there I doubt there is even a slim chance for a strong NPC corp nerf & meaningful wardec buff happening around the same time. The protests would be thunderous.


Which is why we need our own CSM member, to advocate for finally making highsec subject to risk vs reward for once.

Anyway, CCP didn't mind the thunderous protests when they finally banned ISBotter, so they've proven that they have the spine to slay the sacred cows of the carebears. And since they've recently discovered that highsec conflict is the highest driver of positive player retention, they have little choice anymore. One way or another, if CCP still cares about the game at all, highsec will be on the chopping block.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Captain Phil
Miner's Revenge
#151 - 2015-08-28 22:22:48 UTC
Quote:
So if I shoot you in Call of Duty I'm a bully?


No. CoD is a completely different game; you respawn a few seconds after dying, nor do you lose anything permanently. If you're playing against vastly superior opponents, you can quickly quit and join into another match. Every player who joins a match is there to kill and be killed.

It becomes bullying when a bully is involved. If you would wardec Marmite or Noir. just as quickly as you would wardec a podunk mining corp, then you're not a bully.

Quote:
Undocking in Eve is consent to PVP. By loading the game you are agreeing to the TOS and the EULA. Those set the rules of the game. Anything that isn't in violation of those rules is consented too upon loading the game. If you wish to avoid those activities you are welcome to do so, that is also permitted under the rules of the game, but it will be up to you to manage to avoid them.


I agree. Anything that isn't a violation of the TOS and the EULA is consented to upon loading the game. This includes 11% NPC corp tax and wardec dodge mechanics.

EvE has PvE content that runs parallel with PvP content. Some are here to do the PvE thing; if that wasn't ok, the content wouldn't exist. These players are already vulnerable to suicide ganking. That's more than enough. It would make more sense to remove PvE completely than to make NPC corps worse.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#152 - 2015-08-28 22:29:51 UTC
Captain Phil wrote:
These players are already vulnerable to suicide ganking. That's more than enough.


No, it's not. Suicide ganking is sharply limited in scope, sustainability, and target selection. Wardecs exist to provide additional elements of risk, and that is intentional.

There is no such thing as "bullying" in EVE Online. Only people trying to apply a real life label with negative connotations into an activity they dislike in a video game. And I for one do not buy into the narrative of the space justice warriors.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#153 - 2015-08-28 22:50:26 UTC
Guys I just died in DayZ to some bully with a sniper rifle. I lost 20 hours of gear permanently. Can I report him to my local police for bullying since this loss is permanent? Cause that's written into the bullying code somewhere that if the loss is permanent it's not ok right?

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin
Yong Shin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#154 - 2015-08-28 23:02:34 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Guys I just died in DayZ to some bully with a sniper rifle. I lost 20 hours of gear permanently. Can I report him to my local police for bullying since this loss is permanent? Cause that's written into the bullying code somewhere that if the loss is permanent it's not ok right?


There is a reason that game, along with Rust, died.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#155 - 2015-08-28 23:07:58 UTC
Yong Shin wrote:
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Guys I just died in DayZ to some bully with a sniper rifle. I lost 20 hours of gear permanently. Can I report him to my local police for bullying since this loss is permanent? Cause that's written into the bullying code somewhere that if the loss is permanent it's not ok right?


There is a reason that game, along with Rust, died.

Still alive and vibrant every time I play it Blink

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin
Yong Shin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#156 - 2015-08-28 23:12:09 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Yong Shin wrote:
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Guys I just died in DayZ to some bully with a sniper rifle. I lost 20 hours of gear permanently. Can I report him to my local police for bullying since this loss is permanent? Cause that's written into the bullying code somewhere that if the loss is permanent it's not ok right?


There is a reason that game, along with Rust, died.

Still alive and vibrant every time I play it Blink


Is it?? The last time I tried playing about 4-5 months ago it seemed pretty dead. I was pretty bummed out. Would be good news to hear it's vibrant again.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#157 - 2015-08-28 23:23:50 UTC
Yong Shin wrote:
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Yong Shin wrote:
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Guys I just died in DayZ to some bully with a sniper rifle. I lost 20 hours of gear permanently. Can I report him to my local police for bullying since this loss is permanent? Cause that's written into the bullying code somewhere that if the loss is permanent it's not ok right?


There is a reason that game, along with Rust, died.

Still alive and vibrant every time I play it Blink


Is it?? The last time I tried playing about 4-5 months ago it seemed pretty dead. I was pretty bummed out. Would be good news to hear it's vibrant again.

Well 3-4 servers with max pop and 30-50 other choices is vibrant for au Blink. not sure what other areas are like

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#158 - 2015-08-29 00:19:59 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Captain Phil wrote:
These players are already vulnerable to suicide ganking. That's more than enough.


No, it's not. Suicide ganking is sharply limited in scope, sustainability, and target selection. Wardecs exist to provide additional elements of risk, and that is intentional.

There is no such thing as "bullying" in EVE Online. Only people trying to apply a real life label with negative connotations into an activity they dislike in a video game. And I for one do not buy into the narrative of the space justice warriors.



Help! The Sansha are bullying me because they blew up my incursion ship!

Help! The hacking minigame is bullying me, it told me I failed then blew up MY loot!

Help! My chess opponent is bullying me, they killed my queen!

Online bullying is real, it's serious, and it is an insult to people that actually face it to trivialise it by saying that things like this are bullying.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Captain Phil
Miner's Revenge
#159 - 2015-08-29 00:28:08 UTC
Quote:
No, it's not. Suicide ganking is sharply limited in scope, sustainability, and target selection. Wardecs exist to provide additional elements of risk, and that is intentional.


Incorrect.

https://zkillboard.com/kill/38447775/

Scope, sustainability, and target selection are covered. While I can't say with certainty that I wouldn't have undocked the Orca during a wardec, there's a chance I might not have.

Let me put it another way. If I need to kill a carebear's freighter, I will not wardec them.

Quote:
There is no such thing as "bullying" in EVE Online. Only people trying to apply a real life label with negative connotations into an activity they dislike in a video game. And I for one do not buy into the narrative of the space justice warriors.


After my Orca loss, a few things happened. Severals players in Jita local made comments about my intellect (with negative connotations). I received a Violation Notice in the mail, reminding me to purchase a mining permit for 10m so I can help " save the High Security Space from itself and the carebears".

I agree that bullies are not real. How can something be real if ignoring causes it to go away? However, I do recognize that people with "low self-esteem" exist, and they are relatively easy to spot.


Back to business: Bronson, do you believe any of your proposed changes will encourages players to group up more? Can they be mitigated/avoided by players sticking to one man corps? For instance:

Quote:
Maybe we could come up with similar modifiers for other corp activities? Want max ore refines? Do lots of refining in a player corp and you can get slightly higher than you can now. Want cheaper job costs? Install lots of jobs in a corp and they can get slightly cheaper than they are now. Trade costs? Contract fees? Heck, maybe even have a modifier for wardec fees so that the longer a merc corp exists and the more wars it fights, the lower its wardec fees get.


Could this be circumvented by using alts to maintain CEO ownership while members jump from corp to corp?
Avvy
Doomheim
#160 - 2015-08-29 01:56:18 UTC
My initial reaction after reading through your proposals are

1B - no
2A - no
2B - no
3 - no
4 - probably no
5A - no
5B - no
5C - no

I'll give my reasons when I have some more time.