These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The 'Unfairness' of EVE

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nitshe Razvedka
#81 - 2016-05-24 17:43:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Nitshe Razvedka
Mike Adoulin wrote:
Nitshe Razvedka wrote:
yawn


*munches sandwich*

Hmmm?

Oh yeah.

You're the guy everybody ignores.

Vimsy, you know you aren't supposed to respond to the idiots, it just makes them feel special.

*goes back to munching his sandwich*


Vimsy aint gunna help ya Mike Hunt Adoulin. She's stamped her petite little foot n huffed off. Arrow


Now if you were ignoring me you would not have mentioned my name as you entered the thread.Blink Logical as your ganking definitions.


Let me put a steamer in there so you can munch down again.Big smile Enjoy ya lunch break.

Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.

Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#82 - 2016-05-24 17:43:43 UTC
Exaido wrote:
Ganking being permissible and therefore PvP is a logic trap.

"All cats are mammals. Therefore all mammals are cats."

The definition hinges on your concept of 'versus' which doesn't presume context, it presumes the ability to present opposition. Ganking is a scenario, with the party being attacked cannot present any meaningful opposition against the attacking force.

That players are free to attack another player, more or less at anytime (with degree of repercussion depending on security status / sector), allows for ganking to occur, and ganking to be a viable game mechanic.

Ganking is Players Attacking Players (PaP) and that's fine. It's a form of warfare without 'rules of engagement' which is also fine because that is the Eve universe. But to call it PvP implies it is something other than a soft-target.

What is pvp?
Player versus player
What is ganking?
Player versus player
What is pve?
Player versus environment.

Ganking is a subset of PvP. So it's safe to say that all ganking is pvp.
But pvp is not always ganking.
ganking definition
Quote:
Ganking is the process in which a group of charecters gang up on one or more players that do not have a chance to defend themselves

Ganking happens in all area of spaces.
So does PvP.

So;
Ganking=/=PvP
=false
If
PvP=Player_versus_Player

Kthxbai

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist
Mike Adoulin
Happys Happy Hamster Hunting Club
#83 - 2016-05-24 17:47:48 UTC
Exaido wrote:
straw man.



Anything can be 'ganked', soft target or not.

The Veldnaught could be ganked. Skiffs with over 120,000 EHP are ganked.

It's just a matter of bringing enough alpha strike damage.

In all cases, target is attacked, and either target explodes, or doesn't. In hisec, CONCORD kills the attackers, who most definitely explode. Unless reasons.......

Shots are fired, ships explode.

Welcome to PVP. You undock from a station, you can be attacked, whether you like it or not, wardec or not.

So-called 'non-combat ships' have numerous ways to defend themselves, ranging from being aware of their surroundings to armor, shields, EW, bulkheads, speed, cloaking, among others.

Everything in EVE is a trap.

And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)

You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.

Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
Maekchu
Doomheim
#84 - 2016-05-24 17:49:18 UTC
Exaido wrote:
Ganking is Players Attacking Players (PaP) and that's fine. It's a form of warfare without 'rules of engagement' which is also fine because that is the Eve universe. But to call it PvP implies it is something other than a soft-target.

What... the... ****? I don't even. What? Are we just throwing random words together and calling them terms now?

Players Attacking Players (PaP) is not even a thing. But I guess it is hard to argue with someone, who can just come up with random terms on the fly in order to support their arguments.

Gotta love them internet arguments.
Mike Adoulin
Happys Happy Hamster Hunting Club
#85 - 2016-05-24 17:51:45 UTC
Nitshe Razvedka wrote:
yawns



You're going to have to speak louder.

I don't think anybody is listening to you.

And aren't you a Holeysheet alt?

Funny how he gets (hopefully) permabanned from the forums and you pop up again.

I believe using another alt to avoid a forum ban is in itself a bannable offense.

Can we get an ISD to confirm this ain't Holy?

*makes another sandwich*

Everything in EVE is a trap.

And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)

You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.

Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Astral Alliance
#86 - 2016-05-24 18:04:37 UTC
Maekchu wrote:
Exaido wrote:
Ganking is Players Attacking Players (PaP) and that's fine. It's a form of warfare without 'rules of engagement' which is also fine because that is the Eve universe. But to call it PvP implies it is something other than a soft-target.

What... the... ****? I don't even. What? Are we just throwing random words together and calling them terms now?

Players Attacking Players (PaP) is not even a thing. But I guess it is hard to argue with someone, who can just come up with random terms on the fly in order to support their arguments.

Gotta love them internet arguments.


The actual term for Eve Player Combat would be called: 'Free For All'.
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#87 - 2016-05-24 18:12:54 UTC
Exaido wrote:
Maekchu wrote:
Exaido wrote:
Ganking is Players Attacking Players (PaP) and that's fine. It's a form of warfare without 'rules of engagement' which is also fine because that is the Eve universe. But to call it PvP implies it is something other than a soft-target.

What... the... ****? I don't even. What? Are we just throwing random words together and calling them terms now?

Players Attacking Players (PaP) is not even a thing. But I guess it is hard to argue with someone, who can just come up with random terms on the fly in order to support their arguments.

Gotta love them internet arguments.


The actual term for Eve Player Combat would be called: 'Free For All'.

No.

PvP

Holy mama we have some speshul bears in here that don't understand the simplest definition

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist
Nitshe Razvedka
#88 - 2016-05-24 18:14:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Nitshe Razvedka
Mike Adoulin wrote:
Nitshe Razvedka wrote:
yawns



You're going to have to speak louder.

I don't think anybody is listening to you.

And aren't you a Holeysheet alt?

Funny how he gets (hopefully) permabanned from the forums and you pop up again.

I believe using another alt to avoid a forum ban is in itself a bannable offense.

Can we get an ISD to confirm this ain't Holy?

*makes another sandwich*




Sounds like the hamster life style has got you all buthurt Mikey.Roll

No need taking it out on me. Ignoring me is good, so is the cold-shoulder.

But, what you did is what we call a self-inflicted wound.

Suggest you dock up and see a proctologist in the next space station.Big smile

Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.

Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Astral Alliance
#89 - 2016-05-24 18:21:23 UTC
Dom Arkaral wrote:
Exaido wrote:
Maekchu wrote:
Exaido wrote:
Ganking is Players Attacking Players (PaP) and that's fine. It's a form of warfare without 'rules of engagement' which is also fine because that is the Eve universe. But to call it PvP implies it is something other than a soft-target.

What... the... ****? I don't even. What? Are we just throwing random words together and calling them terms now?

Players Attacking Players (PaP) is not even a thing. But I guess it is hard to argue with someone, who can just come up with random terms on the fly in order to support their arguments.

Gotta love them internet arguments.


The actual term for Eve Player Combat would be called: 'Free For All'.

No.

PvP

Holy mama we have some speshul bears in here that don't understand the simplest definition


That criticism cuts both ways. The definition of 'PvP' versus 'Ganking' depends on 'your' definition of the term 'vs'. For me that implies opposition or context, a war-dec for example provides context.

Eve is the rare instance of a game, where 'ganking' is not a dissuaded dynamic, as in most other games it is mitigated by GMs or programmatically, to deter a kill where the opponent cannot present opposition.

By no means, am I saying, 'Ganking' is not a valid form of play-style. Though, CCPs changes to bumping in many senses proves, that a Gank where the player has no means of escape - is not PVP - which makes my point about resistance and PVP.

The best counter-argument to mine, is the one that people can provide defense against the gank through their fit - that's a good point, and it's how I fit my freighters, it's why I use blockade runners through Udema.

'Speshul' people can't discuss a definition, whereas I'm perfectly comfortable talking through a notion and gaining perspective, and accept that fit is a form of resistance to a gank.
Maekchu
Doomheim
#90 - 2016-05-24 18:22:13 UTC
Exaido wrote:
Maekchu wrote:
Exaido wrote:
Ganking is Players Attacking Players (PaP) and that's fine. It's a form of warfare without 'rules of engagement' which is also fine because that is the Eve universe. But to call it PvP implies it is something other than a soft-target.

What... the... ****? I don't even. What? Are we just throwing random words together and calling them terms now?

Players Attacking Players (PaP) is not even a thing. But I guess it is hard to argue with someone, who can just come up with random terms on the fly in order to support their arguments.

Gotta love them internet arguments.


The actual term for Eve Player Combat would be called: 'Free For All'.

Think you are getting several terms mixed together now. The term 'Free for all' is a term that describes engagement rules. It has nothing to do whether a game or aspect of a game is PvP or PvE.

PvE is an overall group of activities. These activities are further divided into subgroups such as mining, ratting, incursion running, missioning, etc. PvE is when you are engaged in conflict with AI characters.

PvP is another overall group of activities. These activities are further divided into subgroups such as Fleet combat, solo PvP, market trading, ganking, awoxing, etc. PvP is when you are engaged in conflict with another Player character.

Seriously, this is not rocket science. But I love the effort and the attempts to redefine well-known terms so they fit your arguments.
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Astral Alliance
#91 - 2016-05-24 18:23:49 UTC
I'll even +1 Mike Aduolin for his comment. So summary, CCPs actions with bumping indicates that inability to provide resistance, is a form of Ganking (PVP) that is not endorsed, but that counter-fit allows resistance to Ganking, may well have changed my view on Ganking as PVP, by virtue of recognition and resistance to the threat.
Maekchu
Doomheim
#92 - 2016-05-24 18:26:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Maekchu
Exaido wrote:
That criticism cuts both ways. The definition of 'PvP' versus 'Ganking' depends on 'your' definition of the term 'vs'. For me that implies opposition or context, a war-dec for example provides context.

No it doesn't. The term "Player vs Player" is a well-known term for gamers with a formulated definition. I linked a book that describes some of these concepts in one of my earlier posts.

You may not agree with the definition of "PvP", but that doesn't change it. Just like my disagreement with the definition of a banana, doesn't change that either.

You may have the OPINION that ganking is not considered real PvP, but that doesn't change its general definition.
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Astral Alliance
#93 - 2016-05-24 18:29:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Exaido
Maekchu wrote:
Exaido wrote:
That criticism cuts both ways. The definition of 'PvP' versus 'Ganking' depends on 'your' definition of the term 'vs'. For me that implies opposition or context, a war-dec for example provides context.

No it doesn't. The term "Player vs Player" is a well-known term for gamers with a formulated definition. I linked a book that describes some of these concepts in one of my earlier posts.

You may not agree with the definition of "PvP", but that doesn't change it. Just like my disagreement with the definition of a banana, doesn't change that either.

You may have the OPINION that ganking is not considered real PvP, but that doesn't change its general definition.


You should go to my last post. The conversation has evolved.

Oh Tomatoes got reclassified as a vegetable. Damn definitions!
Caim Naberius
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2016-05-24 18:31:01 UTC
Man, this thread derailed quickly.

PvP is what it means, nothing more and nothing less. You doing something against someone else in whatever form that may be. Read a dictionary or something before splerging all over these forums. Shocked
Maekchu
Doomheim
#95 - 2016-05-24 18:35:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Maekchu
Exaido wrote:
Maekchu wrote:
Exaido wrote:
That criticism cuts both ways. The definition of 'PvP' versus 'Ganking' depends on 'your' definition of the term 'vs'. For me that implies opposition or context, a war-dec for example provides context.

No it doesn't. The term "Player vs Player" is a well-known term for gamers with a formulated definition. I linked a book that describes some of these concepts in one of my earlier posts.

You may not agree with the definition of "PvP", but that doesn't change it. Just like my disagreement with the definition of a banana, doesn't change that either.

You may have the OPINION that ganking is not considered real PvP, but that doesn't change its general definition.


You should go to my last post. The conversation has evolved.

Oh Tomatoes got reclassified as a vegetable. Damn definitions!

Not really. From what I can see, you still think that your opinion decide what a definition of a well-known term is. But it doesn't. You may have an opinion on a matter, but that opinion doesn't change definitions of reality.

But in honesty, this whole discussion doesn't matter. Whatever your beliefs are have no effect on my reality. If you want to believe the earth is flat, then you go and believe the earth is flat.

I just find it amusing and surprising that you can't understand the concept of a definition.
Nitshe Razvedka
#96 - 2016-05-24 18:39:49 UTC
Hey Mikey your proctologist called to say he found your LemmiwinksAttention


Your Radioactive Hampster Corp will go up to a grand total of 5Attention

Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.

Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
Roenok Baalnorn
Baalnorn Heavy Industries
#97 - 2016-05-24 18:43:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Roenok Baalnorn
The definition of pvp can be argued all the way from trading( you are competing directly with players thus trading is pvp) all the way to consensual duels. The standard definition accepted by the gaming community across all platforms for the last 20 years is " PVP is gameplay in which a player can attack another player". It doesnt matter if one player is armed or not, it doesnt matter if the attacker gets killed by newbie protection forces. It doesnt matter if one side has 10 players and the other has 1( and he is unarmed). None of that matters. The only thing that matters to define something as PVP by the standards of gamers for the last 20 years or so is that game mechanics give you the ability to attack another player.

The conditions in which that attack takes place are completely irrelevant in determining if its considered pvp. In eve you consent to pvp the moment you undock. It doesnt matter if you are in an ibis with 3000 sp or in a leviathan with 100 million sp. You consent to being in a pvp environment where you may be engaged by other players anywhere at any time for any reason.
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Astral Alliance
#98 - 2016-05-24 18:44:43 UTC
Maekchu wrote:
Exaido wrote:
Maekchu wrote:
Exaido wrote:
That criticism cuts both ways. The definition of 'PvP' versus 'Ganking' depends on 'your' definition of the term 'vs'. For me that implies opposition or context, a war-dec for example provides context.

No it doesn't. The term "Player vs Player" is a well-known term for gamers with a formulated definition. I linked a book that describes some of these concepts in one of my earlier posts.

You may not agree with the definition of "PvP", but that doesn't change it. Just like my disagreement with the definition of a banana, doesn't change that either.

You may have the OPINION that ganking is not considered real PvP, but that doesn't change its general definition.


You should go to my last post. The conversation has evolved.

Oh Tomatoes got reclassified as a vegetable. Damn definitions!

Not really. From what I can see, you think that your opinion decides what a definition of a well-known term is.

But it doesn't. You may have an opinion on a matter, but that opinion doesn't change definitions of reality.

But in honesty, this whole discussion doesn't matter. Whatever your beliefs are have no effect on my reality. If you want to believe the earth is flat, then you go and believe the earth is flat.

I just find it amusing and surprising that you can't understand the concept of a definition.


I actually think this is a healthy conversation about Eve and to a lesser extent definitions, that aren't fixed - see tomatoes. To that extent, my position on Ganking has shifted, and shifted in line with the original premise of the discussion.

"James' post deals with the nature of Power in EVE, and explores the arguments rehearsed by many players about consensual and non-consensual PvP; an argument which still drags on, unresolved, apparently."

1) CCP has shown that 'Ganking' that does not offer a valid form of resistance, such as the recently popular bumping that was used by Code is not a valid form of PVP. So to that effect, it is relevant to the very root discussion. This is my classic form of 'ganking', which I don't regard as PVP as there is no mechanism of opposition.

2) By undocking in Eve, one is consenting to risk - so the notion of consent is under taken by leaving station. So consensual and non-consensual once undocked is not relevant. There is no 'gank' there is only PVP.

3) That players can fit their ships to provide resistance to a gank, is a form of opposition and therefore not a hard form of 'ganking'.

From there it basically comes down to, if you think an 'alpha strike' is ganking or not.

By setting expectations for new-players what it means to undocked, what it means to be attacked by overwhelming numbers, what the risks are in Eve, and the means of defence is heathy.


Exaido
Fire Over Light
Astral Alliance
#99 - 2016-05-24 18:48:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Exaido
Exaido wrote:
Maekchu wrote:
Exaido wrote:
Maekchu wrote:
Exaido wrote:
That criticism cuts both ways. The definition of 'PvP' versus 'Ganking' depends on 'your' definition of the term 'vs'. For me that implies opposition or context, a war-dec for example provides context.

No it doesn't. The term "Player vs Player" is a well-known term for gamers with a formulated definition. I linked a book that describes some of these concepts in one of my earlier posts.

You may not agree with the definition of "PvP", but that doesn't change it. Just like my disagreement with the definition of a banana, doesn't change that either.

You may have the OPINION that ganking is not considered real PvP, but that doesn't change its general definition.


You should go to my last post. The conversation has evolved.

Oh Tomatoes got reclassified as a vegetable. Damn definitions!

Not really. From what I can see, you think that your opinion decides what a definition of a well-known term is.

But it doesn't. You may have an opinion on a matter, but that opinion doesn't change definitions of reality.

But in honesty, this whole discussion doesn't matter. Whatever your beliefs are have no effect on my reality. If you want to believe the earth is flat, then you go and believe the earth is flat.

I just find it amusing and surprising that you can't understand the concept of a definition.


I actually think this is a healthy conversation about Eve and to a lesser extent definitions, that aren't fixed - see tomatoes. To that extent, my position on Ganking has shifted, and shifted in line with the original premise of the discussion.

"James' post deals with the nature of Power in EVE, and explores the arguments rehearsed by many players about consensual and non-consensual PvP; an argument which still drags on, unresolved, apparently."

1) CCP has shown that 'Ganking' that does not offer a valid form of resistance, such as the recently popular bumping that was used by Code is not a valid form of PVP. So to that effect, it is relevant to the very root discussion. This is my classic form of 'ganking', which I don't regard as PVP as there is no mechanism of opposition.

2) By undocking in Eve, one is consenting to risk - so the notion of consent is under taken by leaving station. So consensual and non-consensual once undocked is not relevant. There is no 'gank' there is only PVP.

3) That players can fit their ships to provide resistance to a gank, is a form of opposition and therefore not a hard form of 'ganking'.

From there it basically comes down to, if you think an 'alpha strike' is ganking or not.

By setting expectations for new-players what it means to undocked, what it means to be attacked by overwhelming numbers, what the risks are in Eve, and the means of defence is heathy.




For the record, I don't think an Alpha Strike is an 'unfair kill' (gank) in Eve. I do think 'Bumping' on a gate is.
Maekchu
Doomheim
#100 - 2016-05-24 18:55:05 UTC
Exaido wrote:
I actually think this is a healthy conversation about Eve and to a lesser extent definitions, that aren't fixed - see tomatoes. To that extent, my position on Ganking has shifted, and shifted in line with the original premise of the discussion.

Definitions change based on proofs. The reason why the definition of a tomato changed, was because proof of the opposite was presented.

If you can give me proof that ganking does not involve two Player characters, then I will gladly call it whatever you prove it to be. But as it stands, all arguments show that ganking, alpha'ing stuff or bumping is "PvP".