EVE General Discussion

this is basically carebearism at its finest: you don't want your choices to bring you the slightest bit of inconvenience

Thank you.

About griefing... If anyone is reading this you are likely about to get deluged with a bunch of posts about your determination of 'value'. (I had a meeting and am probably too late.) It's the same problem you got into about your photographer. Perhaps you might preemptively short circuit that and say just a bit about how you arrive at your value calculation? Additionally, you could maybe say something about whether you view your designation as self evident and universally applicable, or if perhaps it is based on some other assertion?

Personally I think EVE is quite unique in that, with very, very rare exceptions griefing is not possible. You have not mentioned what I would consider to be an exception and CCP actually polices those (actively and structurally), not as CONCORD, but as CCP.

Your definition of 'victim' differs greatly from mine. For me victimization hinges on whether or not I understand myself as a willing participant in the action. In your own example of RvB, when Red wins an engagement, do you suppose Blue feels 'victimized'? Victimization requires that my participation is not voluntary. I am forced. You have already argued that you cannot be forced to do anything in the game. There are RW instances of people being forced to play games. I am assuming you are not a political prisoner working for your guards to generate RMT. This means that your participation in the game is at all times voluntary. You state this in your own arguments when you 'threaten' to leave.

Perhaps there is something you understand about your voluntary participation that has as of yet eluded me. If not, what this means is the the experience of victimization is a self generated narrative. Again, with the exception of a tiny portion of the game, this is always the case. The next question is, 'do you have the capacity to generate your own narrative?' If so, why are you choosing a narrative of victimization, unless you value it in some way? One way this is often valued, and so chosen, is that it allows me to maintain an abdication of responsibility for my own actions, through blaming another. I get to maintain my own world view. If am am 'happy' with my narrative of victimization, i.e. it is giving me what I actually want, there is no need for me to engage in inconvenient and troublesome processes associated with learning or change.

EVE is a finite game attempting to emulate an infinite game. With very limited special cases neither griefing nor victimization are possible without player generated participation. I want to be clear that I am not asserting this about the RW. It is a special condition of a finite game emulating an infinite game. To really feel victimized under these conditions takes a great deal of work.

You seem to me to also have a very specific and one dimensional view of who 'other' players are and how you understand value and meaning generation for them. You also seem to be systematically deleting or ignoring suggestions about this. For instance what if you encountered a player who prioritized learning as a value? Or one that had a particular aesthetic that informed their play? Or harder yet, someone who valued revealing the artificial nature of fixed value sets? Or someone who valued activity you found irrational specifically because you found it irrational, or possibly even because that was intrinsically interesting to them. In all of these cases your very narrow view of utility and assertion of fixed, universal values might cause you to feel some confusion and attempt to make attributions about those play styles based on your own model and attempt to keep that model in tact. ISK and your versions of utility may not even occur to such players, though you will insist that they do.

One final thing. You are making an assertion throughout that some nameless category of other believes that you are obligated to do such and such. I think you are the only one making this assertion. It is another interesting quality to EVE. Beyond agreement to the EULA and the sub based transaction that formalizes this there is nothing remotely resembling obligation. There is lots of structure. Very few rules. Why are you talking about obligation?

This may be redundant with posts I missed during my meetings. If so, apologies.


Edit: some typos

You are confused about what EVE is.


EVE is not just spaceships shooting spaceships.

EVE is harvesting resources. EVE is a player driven market. EVE is exploration and discovery. EVE is about building sandcastles, and knocking down other peoples' sand castles.

Sure, spaceships shooting spaceships is an aspect to EVE, and if you do not desire to play the other portions of EVE, then more power to you. Enjoy playing however you want to play.


But, if you say that EVE is nothing more than spaceships shooting spaceships in space, then you do not understand EVE.


I am not a tank racer. I am a resource harvester. I am a sandcastle builder. I am a market participant.


AND, I've never screamed on the forums when my ship has blown up, not have I been a strong advocate for change to high sec game mechanics. I've mostly been an advocate arguing AGAINST changes to high sec that seem to want to change the very complex sandbox game that is EVE, into the much more simplistic Word of Spaceships.

So a mugging victim wouldn't be a victim if they would just learn to enjoy being mugged?



Your bias is showing in this statement. I think you are taking his ASSERTIVE statement that he WILL cease his participation in the game as an AGGRESSIVE attempt to coerce compliance by CCP. Try flippng the statement around:

"If CCP continues to allow players the ability to avoid and even opt out of PVP activity, I will continue to participate in their game."

Do you find THAT statement threatening?



More likely, I think your assumption that EVE is finite has to do with your experience with past "games". It's been 10 years, now. When is it going to finish? Do you know something we don't? DUST 514 just launched, afterall.

again with the victim complex, again with trivializing bad things that happen to people in real life by comparing them to legitimate gameplay in a video game

it's like when worthless miners trivialize domestic violence by telling everyone that miners are just like battered women when they get suicide ganked

All PvP games have a PvE element.

PvE games are histrically more successful than PvP games.

CCP likes to get paid.

This is why CCP keeps the peace. And IMHO they do a great job.

Actually that doesn't make sense to me in the light of the changes to war-decs.

Well the might make money from it, but it's a crap game.

Nonsense the only reason I still play pinball is because there is a 2 player mode and we bet money on it at the bar. Considering the one machine we use is a baseball version of pinball from the 50's I'd say you're delusional.

Monopoly solo must be a great time to you? Solo scrabble to see who has to cook dinner tonight anyone? historically.....