EVE General Discussion

In his latest Ten Ton Hammer article, The Mittani writes about many players' entitlement to "opt out" of PvP. Some even believe that this game does allow you to "opt out" by living in hisec, where the game's tutorial taught them how to shoot an NPC and mine an asteroid. Many believe that suicide ganking is an exploit, that CONCORD exists to protect them from all harm, and that nonconsensual PvP does not have a place in hisec. Many seem to agree with this notion - "suicide ganks drive away new players," they say. Or "it's bad for subscriptions." Whatever the reason, one thing is clear - they wish to destroy the philosophy behind the design of EVE, that competition is not optional, and the niche of the MMO world where it reigns - the PvP-centric MMO.

The Mittani writes:


Read on: http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/231736/

I always enjoy a good read, thanks for the link. Beats the 'I demand a pvp opt-out because highsec is a safe haven & ganking is an exploit' stuff that seems to be appearing everywhere on the internet.

IBFT whining

Edit: Bugger I wasn't

He totally didn't post a thread earlier today that has stayed on top of the General Discussion subforum and will stay on the first page for weeks to come. He's obviously permabanned.

No one has ever said they should be protected from ganking. They have said the consequences are not balanced. And, this argument has been very eloquently stated from several corners. It's also true Mitt and his minions haven't bothered to try to respond to that argument. Rather, they try to characterize the dispute as he does in this article - claiming the "others" want no consequences, when it is them all along. If they are summarily made to pay a real price for their activity, they cry like carebears. Such disingenuousness is not unknown for Mitt. It's his hallmark, along with obfuscation and distortion. That he can get a bevy of people to follow him while offering no more than that speaks more of them than it does of him.

How long will he be able to mischaracterize in order to cultivate his imagined position as an MMO rock star, who knows, and really, who cares? Being a big fish in a small pond may have its perks. That's something I'll never bother to discover. However, the entire thrust of what he said in this "article" in this "publication" of some imagined importance is as significant as is the speaker. Broadbrushed histories replete with histrionics on the story of gaming is nothing new. He seems to have repeated the litany well enough. Though, it's said in every general chat function in every game online today; not too original.

That this publication would bother to print what he said speaks more to their lack of potential content than the veracity or stature of the one interviewed. Games always, and will always, rely upon their quality as such from the inventors and developers of the games. Players like to present themselves as more than just players. Wannabees abound. If a game rises and falls, it will always be the responsibility and doing of the management. As for EVE, it may be listening to the players...or player...will become the biggest mistake they'll ever make. Time will tell.

Mitts come and go. There's nothing new to that. Good games? Good luck. Egos aren't gifted with the intelligence required to design a good one. At this point, egos rule EVE, but the corporate mentality will be making the decisions. The first goal of a corporation is to make money, not create a good game. They are mutually exclusive.

Nice try, Mitt. No cigar.

sorry, I hadn't seen that, I just poke GD every once in a while. I normally stick to F&I and OOPD.
the reason I asked about him being permabanned is that there was someone posting on the forums shortly after he was banned, and there were people saying that it was him, and I think there was some affirmative comment about this by a CCP member. mind you I could be completely wrong, and have just taken a few too many blows to the head.

You ignore the fact that we are in a sandbox. Of course there's a place for people in the other corner. But the very nature of the sandbox means that The Mittani and friends can come over to that corner, punch you in the Internet face, and steal your Spacesandpail.

Sandbox does not mean safe room.




Do go on. I'm curious as to how beating people out in finding exploration sites, how popping the mothership in an Incursion, how undercutting your opposition on the market, how mining all the good 'roids out of a belt - isn't the exact same thing as blowing up an opponent's Internet Spaceship.

All of these things - all of these things - result in loss to other players. Is it the explosions? Is that the real problem here? People are butthurt over violent flaming non-death?



There is a world of difference between being a 'super fan' and having a clue about a game you've paid money for.



Violated? Suicide ganking has never been a violation of anything. The purported scale does not matter. It is a legitimate tactic, period, end of story.

To ignore this is to ignore everything CCP has ever said on the subject. And you want to "have a discussion" about it?

They're already being ignored, FFS.

IMHO referring to Eve these days as a "sandbox" is not entirely appropriate, given what has happened in the past couple of months.

I think Eve is more like a petri dish, waiting for a catalyst to be dropped into it to spark some change (or blow it clear out of the lab). Therefore, in the petri dish concepts such as "griefing", "ganking", "safety" and "risk" have no relevance other than being the catalysts for the change.

If the change involves the exodus of players who have been "mislead" into believing that Eve is a game for them, then so be it. We shall see where that road takes us in the future. And if it doesn't do anything to impact the Eve universe itself, well, nothing will have changed and we will all be waiting to see what new catalyst will be added to the petri dish that is Eve.

Why, pray tell, would Sony be concerned at all about a game which they do not own?



CCP has allowed this gameplay for the entirety of EVE's existence - why would it suddenly become a problem now?



Good to know that you're "unsubbing" but continuing to give CCP your $15/month just to post on their forums.

Presumably, a "good game" is what is needed to "make money" in the video game industry. So much for your argument!