These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

War on Gankers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#281 - 2015-01-06 21:14:32 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
You just described 90% of PvP in the game. That's the whole point.
Clearly you misread. Most PvP in the game is not done specifically to make another player upset.

Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I agree that there need to be lines drawn somewhere but considering CCP has given us ungankable mining ships with the same native drone bonus as a lvl V Algos or Dragoon...fly a procurer or a skiff and afk mine to your heart's content. Fit thermal and kinetic resists on a procurer, afk mine in 0.5, and start collecting catalyst wrecks. Forcing you to put 1-2 defensive mods on your mining barge in a PvP game is not griefing.
No ship is ungankgable. And sure, go with the victim blaming as usual. The same could be said for shooting newbies in a newbie zone, which CCP do act on. The newbies could just move out of the newbie zones or learn to not fall for traps.

And sure, if miners fit more tank, they'd be less likely to be ganked, but then the ganker would just move on to the next target that they know is going to get upset. When they run out of targets they'd start (or continue) whining that their targets have it too easy and campaign for them to be nerfed so they can go back to griefing them.


It's a PvP game and miners have been gifted with ships that can be made extraordinarily difficult and unprofitable to gank. I have my own criticisms of the self proclaimed tear harvesters but I don't see a problem with expecting people to make use of readily available and highly effective countermeasures. At this point I'm seriously tempted to train into a procurer, go drop one in a .5 belt with stacked kin/therm resists and light drones out, rename it "**** the CODE" or something suitably antagonistic, and then go do something else. The defensive capability these ships now have is insane.
Lady Areola Fappington
#282 - 2015-01-06 21:17:36 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
The thing is, I don;t mind people ganking. I think ganking is a little too easy and predictable (which is beside the point), but it's a part of the game. What I don't like about code is that for most of them, the whole basis of the code is simply a way to cover up what they really want, which is to upset people. If people want to gank because they want to take out a competitor or get back at someone for an in-game transgression, or even just for isk, that's fine. But that's not what they want. They roll into a system insulting people and trolling, they gank people hoping for a reaction, for tears, then when they get that they start trolling even more then copy paste the tears to their friends. It's the type of behaviour that does no favours for the community.

I certainly agree that CCP should adhere to the letter rather than the 'spirit'. Too much goes by the wayside because of that.



True, but that falls square into the whole letter vs. spirit thing. I'm sure there are lots of people out there using the "cover" of a story to hide upsetting people. For the longest time (and perhaps still is) The Goons stated intention was to "**** off the pubbies", all while staying strictly within EULA/ToS.

You can't really sit back and say "Code only does it to **** people off", because then you're asking the decision makers for a "spirit" judgement. Code follows the letter of the law with their shenanigans, so that's all CCP needs to look at when determining how valid it is.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Black Pedro
Mine.
#283 - 2015-01-06 21:20:45 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Steppa Musana wrote:
If your intention is to illicit a negative reaction out of the player, you are griefing. If you pop the mom to swim through the tears of incursion runners, you are griefiing. If you multibox mine all the ice in a system to annoy the locals, you are griefing. If you blow up someones barge to laugh as they rage in local, you are grieing.


Do you ever think that you might be a bit too fragile for this game?

Indeed. If I blow up someone's frigate in lowsec and taunt them with some light trash talk and laugh, am I griefing?

This is a competetive game. Much of what we do is annoying to other players. This is not griefing. Thankfully, we don't have to speculate on what is griefing as CCP has spelled it out;

CCP wrote:
A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making others’ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way. Grief tactics are the mechanics a griefer will utilize to antagonize other players. At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account.
This should not be confused with standard conflict that might arise between two (or more) players, such as corporation wars. The EVE universe is a harsh universe largely driven by such conflict and notice must be taken of the fact that nonconsensual combat alone is not considered to be grief play per the above definition.


CCP is pretty clear that nonconsensual combat is not grief play, nor is out competing your opponent for resources even if it elicits a negative reaction because humans don't like to lose.

I don't even know why we are discussing this. If you think you are being "griefed" press F12 and report it to CCP. If you see another player "griefing" someone press F12 and report it to CCP. If there is a certain website you think is "griefing" players, press F12 and and report it. If you just don't like other players because you think they are mean, perhaps the block tool is a better tool for you.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Solonius Rex
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#284 - 2015-01-06 21:33:59 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

Sure, but when your intention is to upset someone, that is grief. When your intention is to play the game and compete, and a side effect of that is the player losing out and getting upset, that's just the game. In EVE, certain activities which are performed specifically to upset people and harvest "the tears" are allowed, but that doesn't stop them being griefing. Trying to pretend like that means anything in the game is griefing is just being deliberately obtuse. You clearly know the difference, and I'm done arguing with an obvious troll.


I never said it wasnt greifing. And if youre going to put words in my mouth, and then use that as an excuse to stop talking to me, then its obvious you know your arguments have failed but dont want to admit that youve lost.

Lucas Kell wrote:

Bull. they gank in 0.5 and 0.6 systems because it gives them the widest array of targets. If they didn;t want risk averse players, they'd go out into lowsec or nullsec and harvest the miners there. But they know that people floating around in highsec are more likely to be upset by being ganked. I mean seriously man, you're arguing that code - a group know for tear harvesting - does not target people for tears.
I also note that you neglected to comment on the fact that they also troll the players they are ganking, again pushing for a negative reaction.


I dont think you know what “risk-averse” is. It means to avoid risk, or to oppose risk.

Wouldnt you agree that a miner who mines in a .5 system in a yeild-fit retreiver, does so because he wanst the most isk, and not because he wants to maximize his safety?

Wouldnt you agree that there are better ways to maximize safety, other than to mine in a .5 system with a yeild-fit retreiver?

If you agree to the above, youre agreeing that these miners who frequently get targetted, arent risk-averse at all. They are balancing risk with profit, which is what everyone does.

And no, I never said that code doesnt target people for tears. Again, read what I wrote. My contention with you, is your claim that they somehow HELP botters, which is absurd.

Also, again, I never said that Code doesnt troll or push for tears. This was never something i contested.

Lucas Kell wrote:

Botters that don't get banned will generally cycle alts. They may not leave alts on 24/7, but they have different alts on at varying times. And you're comparing career botters with players who have been sat in highsec for several years, as if a vet in highsec crying *must* mean that botters will cry.
And note, when I say botters farm for income, I mean actual real life income, not like a vet in highsec who wants to hit a trillion.


And yet, the criterion you placed as to why Botters wont cry, i.e. doing it for income, and not being harmed from losing a single ship or two, applies to vets just as much. Tons of vets have multiple accounts that they isbox/manage manually, and often do mining fleets with them. Im certain that, for example, Mine Teck wasnt a botter, and yet he had NINE accounts with which to mine.

So if those two you mentioned, arent the reasons why botters wont cry, then what is?

And also, Perfect. So what percent of botters do it for real life income and RMT, as opposed to simple isk income and hoarding? Is it 50%? 10%? 1%? If you dont know how many RMT botters there are, how do you know how many are actually being affected or avoided?
Lucas Kell wrote:

How is it wrong? If the players code are hitting are miner who do not bot, then by removing the players who are competing with for the mineral sales (the normal miners who are getting ganked) the amount made by botters is being kept up. It's basic supply and demand.


So what percent of miners are bots, what percent of botters are being ganked, and what percent of non-botting miners are being ganked? Without knowing that, you couldnt possibly come to a conclusion as to whether its helping the botters more than its helping the other miners. After all, killing miners benefits ALL other miners who arent ganked, irrespective of botting. Im not a bot, but if you die in your retriever, the amount made by me is stilll increasing. And yet, if the same percentage of botters die, alongside non-botters,

Lucas Kell wrote:

They aren't in the target group because a competent botter knows how to tank and won't respond to baiting and trolling. At no point have I said that code intentionally avoid killing botters, but their reason for ganking (the real one, not the rubbish the spin) and their method of selecting targets has that effect. Most code players won't even realise that botters benefit from their actions.


And a competant non-botting miner knows how to tank, and wont respond to baiting and trolling, either. There is literally no difference between a botter and a non-botting, competant miner, based on what you said.

But the problem with your arguemnt is, how will Code know the person wont respond to baiting and trolling, without ganking them first? Clearly they couldnt, which disproves your argument completely.

Thanks for being rekt by logic, and making up an excuse to run away. Bye.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#285 - 2015-01-06 21:38:18 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Therein lies the problem, you can't disassociate the mineral market from the rest of the economy, it's far too intertwined to do so. Minerals are the baseline for the value of pretty much everything that can be manufactured, thus the price of them affects the price of a very large percentage of the stuff available on the market.

As I said earlier, the ISK value of minerals is relative when you take into consideration the purchasing power of that ISK. I appreciate the point you're trying to make but it's too simplistic for the actual situation.
Of course you can. The only market that matters to a mining botter is the mineral market. All he wants is less competition and higher prices. The more other miners are suppressed, the better his isk/hour, and in turn the better his income. I honestly don;t know how you can even keep a straight face while suggesting that botters don't benefit from less competition.

Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
For the record I hate bots, I've reported many people that I suspect are using them, I've provided a few warpins for gankers on the same people.

Cheating in a multiplayer game is wrong, people who use mining and mission bots are scum, just as those that use aimbots and the like in other games are scum, cheaters need to FOAD.
I also hate bots, and all other cheaters. If code were actually effective at combating bots and weren't just in it for the tears, I'd be behind them. But they aren't. They want to grief people and pretend they are somehow saving people from bots while inadvertently helping those very botters.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#286 - 2015-01-06 21:45:45 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Steppa Musana wrote:
If your intention is to illicit a negative reaction out of the player, you are griefing. If you pop the mom to swim through the tears of incursion runners, you are griefiing. If you multibox mine all the ice in a system to annoy the locals, you are griefing. If you blow up someones barge to laugh as they rage in local, you are grieing.


Do you ever think that you might be a bit too fragile for this game?


Of course they didn't think that. To a narcissist, everything is always someone else's fault.

So to them it can't possibly be that they're playing the game wrong, or playing the wrong game. It has to be the fault of that pesky player freedom that other people are allowed to have.

"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.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#287 - 2015-01-06 21:52:49 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
It's a PvP game and miners have been gifted with ships that can be made extraordinarily difficult and unprofitable to gank. I have my own criticisms of the self proclaimed tear harvesters but I don't see a problem with expecting people to make use of readily available and highly effective countermeasures. At this point I'm seriously tempted to train into a procurer, go drop one in a .5 belt with stacked kin/therm resists and light drones out, rename it "**** the CODE" or something suitably antagonistic, and then go do something else. The defensive capability these ships now have is insane.
A procurer is easier to gank than a freighter, and freighters are ganked all the time. Like I say, no ship is ungankable. The best way to defend against code is not to react at all. Since they want tears, that's all they are after. If you react and you are in a procurer, they'll usually just bump you for hours instead.

Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
True, but that falls square into the whole letter vs. spirit thing. I'm sure there are lots of people out there using the "cover" of a story to hide upsetting people. For the longest time (and perhaps still is) The Goons stated intention was to "**** off the pubbies", all while staying strictly within EULA/ToS.

You can't really sit back and say "Code only does it to **** people off", because then you're asking the decision makers for a "spirit" judgement. Code follows the letter of the law with their shenanigans, so that's all CCP needs to look at when determining how valid it is.
Not really, the letter of the law states:
"At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account."

and from the EULA:

"You may not use “role-playing” as an excuse to violate these rules. While EVE Online is a persistent world, fantasy role-playing game, the claim of role-playing is not an acceptable defense for anti-social behavior. Role-playing is encouraged, but not at the expense of other player. You may not create or participate in a corporation or group that habitually violates this policy."

Code show that they are doing what they do to upset people. This is why they troll them into crying, then post the tears all over their blog and laugh about them, and they use role playing as an excuse.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#288 - 2015-01-06 21:59:00 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Therein lies the problem, you can't disassociate the mineral market from the rest of the economy, it's far too intertwined to do so. Minerals are the baseline for the value of pretty much everything that can be manufactured, thus the price of them affects the price of a very large percentage of the stuff available on the market.

As I said earlier, the ISK value of minerals is relative when you take into consideration the purchasing power of that ISK. I appreciate the point you're trying to make but it's too simplistic for the actual situation.
Of course you can.
No, you can't. You're looking at a very small picture, I'm looking at a much bigger one. The mineral market affects the whole economy, as such it can't be disassociated from it.

Quote:
The only market that matters to a mining botter is the mineral market.
Nope, the PLEX market also matters to people who bot, they sure ain't going to be paying their sub in real world cash when they can bot their way to multiple PLEX.

Quote:
All he wants is less competition and higher prices. The more other miners are suppressed, the better his isk/hour, and in turn the better his income.
The same is true for those miners that don't bot. I'm all for my competition exploding, it makes my wallet look healthy, which means I can buy new toys, whose cost is directly related to mineral prices; and lose them in amusing waysLol

Quote:
I honestly don;t know how you can even keep a straight face while suggesting that botters don't benefit from less competition.
I posited my opinion, as did you.

Let me make it clear, in my opinion gankers don't benefit botters by their actions, in your opinion they do. Lets agree to disagree shall we?

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#289 - 2015-01-06 22:10:08 UTC
Solonius Rex wrote:
Wouldnt you agree that a miner who mines in a .5 system in a yeild-fit retreiver, does so because he wanst the most isk, and not because he wants to maximize his safety?
No, I'd say he doesn't know better. As far as he is concerned, 0.5 is safe as it's a concord enabled system.

Solonius Rex wrote:
And yet, the criterion you placed as to why Botters wont cry, i.e. doing it for income, and not being harmed from losing a single ship or two, applies to vets just as much. Tons of vets have multiple accounts that they isbox/manage manually, and often do mining fleets with them. Im certain that, for example, Mine Teck wasnt a botter, and yet he had NINE accounts with which to mine.

So if those two you mentioned, arent the reasons why botters wont cry, then what is?
Well no, it doesn't apply in the same way. To a botter, the cost of a lost procurer out of the hundreds they run is a minor cost of doing business. They are in it to make real cash, and as long as they keep doing that, it's fine. They aren't going to be sitting in the game raging over chat because some random ganked them. A vet mining in highsec however is in it for the isk, and obviously not too great at the game or he wouldn't be mining for isk. These are 2 vastly different types of players.

Solonius Rex wrote:
But the problem with your arguemnt is, how will Code know the person wont respond to baiting and trolling, without ganking them first? Clearly they couldnt, which disproves your argument completely.
I guess they must do it by magic, eh? Or perhaps by trolling their targets and seeing who reacts. Looking at their targets and seeing who is likely to react. It's not a hard task to pop into a few belts and figure out which players are likely to be the ones to explode into a rage, then i's a case of ganking the best educated guesses. Sure, not all of the player they hit will cry, but they can damn sure make sure the majority do.

Solonius Rex wrote:
Thanks for being rekt by logic, and making up an excuse to run away. Bye.
Lol, grow up kid. All you've done here is make outrageous claims that botters - many of whom are in it for RMT, by all means attend fanfest sometime - will cry over local, and that code - who have an entire website dedicated to miner tears - somehow won;t be able to identify good targets for tears. Then you finish it up with a classic meme all the kids are using these days. Good job buddy.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#290 - 2015-01-06 22:12:44 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
I posited my opinion, as did you.

Let me make it clear, in my opinion gankers don't benefit botters by their actions, in your opinion they do. Lets agree to disagree shall we?
Nope, I posted a fact, and you posted your opinion, which was wrong. Less competition for botters = better for botters. Nothing you say will change that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#291 - 2015-01-06 22:14:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Lucas Kell wrote:
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
I posited my opinion, as did you.

Let me make it clear, in my opinion gankers don't benefit botters by their actions, in your opinion they do. Lets agree to disagree shall we?
Nope, I posted a fact, and you posted your opinion, which was wrong. Less competition for botters = better for botters. Nothing you say will change that.
They're both opinions, thinking that yours is fact does not make it so Roll

You being intransigent that your opinion is actually fact shows that you fail to understand the difference between the two. If you are so sure that your opinion is in fact a fact then you'll need to present some actual evidence to support your position.

Instead we're going round in circles because you're adamant that your opinion is fact because you say so.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#292 - 2015-01-06 22:15:21 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
I posited my opinion, as did you.

Let me make it clear, in my opinion gankers don't benefit botters by their actions, in your opinion they do. Lets agree to disagree shall we?
Nope, I posted a fact, and you posted your opinion, which was wrong. Less competition for botters = better for botters. Nothing you say will change that.


Actually, the only thing inordinately good for botters that isn't also good for non-botting miners is that CCP doesn't ban them often enough.

"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.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#293 - 2015-01-06 22:30:35 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
I posited my opinion, as did you.

Let me make it clear, in my opinion gankers don't benefit botters by their actions, in your opinion they do. Lets agree to disagree shall we?
Nope, I posted a fact, and you posted your opinion, which was wrong. Less competition for botters = better for botters. Nothing you say will change that.
They're both opinions, thinking that yours is fact does not make it so Roll

You being intransigent that your opinion is actually fact shows that you fail to understand the difference between the two. If you are so sure that your opinion is in fact a fact then you'll need to present some actual evidence to support your position instead of just insisting that it is so because you say so.
No, the fact that mine is a fact does make it so. The fact that you don't like it and want to claim botters do not benefit from having their competition removed is opinion, and a really really bad one.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Actually, the only thing inordinately good for botters that isn't also good for non-botting miners is that CCP doesn't ban them often enough.
Sure, it's good for non-botters that don't get ganked too, but it's certainly more beneficial to botters as a whole. With code being against botters it's certainly too beneficial to botters for them to claim to be effective at fighting the scourge of bots.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#294 - 2015-01-06 22:34:10 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sure, it's good for non-botters that don't get ganked too, but it's certainly more beneficial to botters as a whole.


No.

The only thing good for botters as a whole is that CCP is not sufficiently proactive in banning them. The buck starts, and stops with CCP in this instance.

That said, an argument could of course be made that the simplicity of mining is the root cause of it being the most botted activity in the game. Time to add lootspew, if you ask me. There's just about no way to bot that activity.

"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.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#295 - 2015-01-06 22:39:19 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sure, it's good for non-botters that don't get ganked too, but it's certainly more beneficial to botters as a whole.
No.

The only thing good for botters as a whole is that CCP is not sufficiently proactive in banning them. The buck starts, and stops with CCP in this instance.

That said, an argument could of course be made that the simplicity of mining is the root cause of it being the most botted activity in the game. Time to add lootspew, if you ask me. There's just about no way to bot that activity.
Well no, that's not the only good thing for botters. I agree CCP could do a lot better job at getting rid of them and that mining is too simple an activity (you may have seen me making that exact argument in the thread about input broadcasting), but it's disingenuous to claim it's the only thing that is good for botters.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#296 - 2015-01-06 22:39:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, the fact that mine is a fact does make it so.
If you're so sure that your opinion is fact, prove it with actual evidence, and cite the sources of that evidence.

Quote:
The fact that you don't like it and want to claim botters do not benefit from having their competition removed is opinion, and a really really bad one.
The fact that you don't like my opinion is neither here nor there, I'm not the one claiming that my opinion is fact, my ego isn't that big.

Until you step up to the mark and present some actual evidence that proves your opinion to be fact, it remains an opinion.

Queue the next round of circular posting where you insist that your opinion is fact, despite being unable to provide any evidence that backs up your claim.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#297 - 2015-01-06 22:42:08 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Well no, that's not the only good thing for botters.


It is the root cause, from which everything else stems. No in game action would do them any good if CCP actually banned them.

Nothing else is possible for them, without this condition.

"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.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#298 - 2015-01-06 22:46:20 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, the fact that mine is a fact does make it so.
If you're so sure that your opinion is fact, prove it with actual evidence, and cite the sources of that evidence.
What evidence is required to prove such a simple fact? Removing competition is beneficial. Everyone knows this. Someone else removing your competition for you is even better. You know that asking for evidence is unlikely to yield results without considerable time and some information which is not publicly available. You're not asking because you need evidence, you're asking as a stall tactic.

Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
The fact that you don't like my opinion is neither here nor there, I'm not the one claiming that my opinion is fact, my ego isn't that big.

Until you step up to the mark and present some actual evidence that proves your opinion to be fact, it remains an opinion.

Queue the next round of circular posting where you insist that your opinion is fact, despite being unable to provide any evidence that backs up your claim.
What I've stated is fact. And yes, we can go on forever, because you repeatedly claiming things which are utterly ridiculous is not going to make me doubt simple facts. If you want to go ahead and try to prove that removing competition gives no benefit, by all means proceed. I'll stick with facts which are common knowledge over opinions from some argumentative random.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#299 - 2015-01-06 22:50:11 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Well no, that's not the only good thing for botters.
It is the root cause, from which everything else stems. No in game action would do them any good if CCP actually banned them.

Nothing else is possible for them, without this condition.
Again, that doesn't make it the only good thing. It may be that the benefit they gain from that allows them to receive other benefits, but that doesn't mean they don't receive them. All the time they aren't being banned, they are still able to make more money if their competition is being crushed than they would if they weren't.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#300 - 2015-01-06 22:53:31 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Again, that doesn't make it the only good thing.


It really does. Were it not for this, they wouldn't be playing the game at all, let alone deriving any benefit from anyone else's actions.

Quote:
All the time they aren't being banned, they are still able to make more money if their competition is being crushed than they would if they weren't.


And? It's not like that means I'm going to stop killing each and every miner I can find, nor that doing such is not a 100% legitimate activity.

Nevermind that, if you want to cry about what does or does not benefit botters, you probably shouldn't have campaigned so very hard in favor of ISCheaters.

"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.