Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I have dedicated two full posts to explaining why sitting afk fails to meet any of the criteria as stated by CCP, you have yet to counter any of it. Including the massive contradiction in your statements regarding the effort/time put in.

Why should I bother responding to you anymore when you are deliberately skipping over any argument that you can't refute?

I don't care what players in a given system think. It is what CCP thinks and after watching this topic for 6 years CCP has very strongly implied by their lack of response on this that it does not fit into the category of grief play. If it did they would have acted long, long ago.

Grief play does not have an AFK component. If I single out a player and stalk him through out the New Eden cluster and gank him and only him whenever and where ever I can clearly I am not AFK, but I am almost surely engaging in grief play.

So, stop calling it grief play cause it makes you look like a nub and a noob...with every negative implication those terms carry with them.

Okay, this is getting just stupid.

Fear is a feature of this game not a bug. War decs cause fear in high sec carebears. Are they doing something wrong? No. Those mechanics were designed that way. The entire back story of Eve is a cold, harsh, dystopian future for a branch of humanity. Non-consensual PvP is a primary element of the game and that too causes fear. Burn Jita, ice interdictions, Hulkageddon, all cause "fear" in those who pay attention and you know what, they adapt and do just fine.

The idea that a group of players want to play in game "terrorists/nercs" by specializing in BLOPs and then hiring out themselves out to the highest bidder to go disrupt an alliances operations in that alliances home sov systems is totally and completely legitimate game play. They will achieve this by the "fear factor" and they'll enforce that "fear factor" by ganking anything and everything they can. Be it a blinged out ratting BS, a fleet of mining ships in an ice belt, or even just AFK camping high value systems. All of that. It. Is. All. Legitimate. Gameplay. Has been for every one of the 9 years you've been in this game.

Hell, IIRC, alot of what I just described fit with what Burn Eden used to do down in PB a few years ago. They set up down there and just poked the crap out of the alliance that was down there. Made their life Hell. Can't recall the alliances name, it was when Goons took DQPB from BoB. There was some mild drama about it over in CAOD about it.

So stop posting about fear. Either that and GTFO, and no I don't want your stuff. Just GTFO.

But you've spent much of this thread whining that AFK players aren't playing the game and putting in any effort for their rewards.

See how this directly contradicts first point? You are now willingly contradicting yourself in order to try and twist it to be a violation when, by your own statements, it isn't.

As for "deriving enjoyment"... I enjoy when ships blow up. I enjoy when my corp/alliance triumphs over another. Sitting cloaked for a long time sometimes is part of achieving these goals, and they are both valid goals and not griefing. You also rather deliberately skipped the "not profit from it in any way" part. I profit from it if I kill you and get your loot. I profit from it if I disrupt your alliance in order for my alliance to do better. Therefore, not griefing.

Sitting in a system is not antagonising other players. It is not targeting a specific player, and is not following that player around to antagonise them. You could move literally just one system over and the "AFK cloaker" will no longer be an issue.

So for a third time now I have demonstrated how sitting afk cloaked fails to meet ANY of the criteria as CCP state it. Sorry for thoroughly destroying your arguments.

Except not really.

This is just another way of telling you why it's wrong. I'm more for the thing that lets us have an afk timer. It's the best solution so far. The op's idea might work to, but the idea who are most balanced are the afk timer.

The afk timer doesn't hurt any active players, and it doesn't hurt the afk players either, because weeellllll...... they aren't playing.


Causing fear ingame is a tactic, so yes, i can use the word 'fear' as much as i like as it's a big part of how EVE works.

Look, stop being so damn obtuse. Do you know how much time I've spent AFK cloaking? No? Then have a nice cup of STFU. And while you are enjoying that nice cup of STFU, STFD and clean the crap of your glasses and read:

I almost never, ever AFK camp. I have AFK camped Finfleet's ratting system way back in Querious for a few hours. That's it (and that is a special case because...well :Finfleet:).

Do I enjoy it? No. Do I think it is good game play? No. Do I think it is necessary? Yes, given how local works it is unfortunately necessary.

As for the general argument about why others AFK camp...enjoyment is not really a factor because it is easy to set up--i.e. the costs are practically zero. So the enjoyment factor does not really factor into it.

And if you really believe this, go open a petition about it. See what happens. My guess: nothing.

Lets take a larger quote from the grief play policy (note, Grief Play is not technically part of the EULA/ToS, but is its own separate policy):



That is the entire policy. Lets take a look at the example provided: can bating of new players in starter systems. This form of grief play is where an older more experienced player tells a new player to take stuff from a jettison can and when said player does so, destroys the new players noob ship. Why does this meet the standards of grief play? Well lets run through them:

1. Attacking a brand new player in a noob ship really makes that poor new player's first day in Eve rather miserable.
2. Does the griefer profit from this? No, because the modules on a noob ship are worthless in game. They provide zero isk value and their use to older players is very, very, very low relative to other modules the older player can use.
3. I've seen griefers spend quite a bit of time doing this...well until a second older player undocks in a velator, takes from the can and when the griefer shoots him docks up and undocks in a zealot and sends him running for his momma.

Now, compare this to some schlub in null who has been playing the game since 2004. An AFK cloaky shows up in his system and he starts crying on the forums like a 12 year old. Never mind this player could:

1. Move over one system and rat, mine, etc.
2. Fleet up with buddies in PvP ships and burn through anomalies.
3. Jump clone into Empire and Run L4s until the AFK cloaker realizes he isn't stopping the acquisition of isk.
4. Set up a reaction operation to generate isk. This is a player who has been playing for 8 or 9 years, they surely have the skills and probably the wealth to do this.

There are multitude of solutions to this so called "grief play". Compared to the new guy in his noob ship who has yet to learn the harshness of Eve, we are to believe this veteran player is really suffering this much from one guy in a cloaked ship?

GMAFB.

If your gaining advantages over others by not playing to get profits of it, it's grief play

On paper it is, but maybe not in reality for you.


Basicly, what you are writing is just a part of the EULA there in the same way as the afk griefing as someone does also is a part of the same EULA section there.

You have to look at the whole picture dude.

But again, if you gain an advantage while you don't gain profits, it's grief play. CCP does care if you do grief play and don't care if you then gain some profits later. What CCPcares about is about gaining advantages and causing fears on others at the same time as you do not profits on it.


It's still grief play according to CCP.


We are talking about the rules CCP have sat for EVE Online, aka the best MMO game in history. What peoples does in real life have nothing to do with what CCP does with EVE.

It's bad when you have to bring in real life into a game where a game company have sat rules to their game.

Wow, now that is a stunning display of ignorance, poor reasoning and illogic. And when is pointing to a definition of a word in English to one who is clearly a non-English speaker an example of RL? I mean that last one...just completely blinkered.