EVE New Citizens Q&A

Whenever there is nerve hitting involved it's always you doing it to yourself. And yes I am defensive because people keep saying this game is a sandbox and then telling me I'm playing it wrong.

Again with your comment about what this would be teaching newbies you seem to be completely disconnected from the fact that this is an adult game that adults play and adults can make their own decisions. If someone were to follow this model and advertise the corp as such then the people that don't like PvP could join it and the ones that like PvP could join other corps that are PvP focused. The OP is not claiming that every corp in game should be structured this way.

And no he is not teaching anyone that they are "at the whims of whomever wants to fck with them" he is teaching them quiet the opposite. He is teaching them tools to effectively avoid PvP and live in high sec. What you are proposing here to a non-PvP minded player is that they are indeed "at the whims of whomever wants to fck with them" that one someone decides to war dec you if you don't want to PvP too bad you must PvP you must be subjected to someone else's playstyle and not choose your own.

Eve Uni, Brave Collective, RvB etc. etc. etc. are there to teach and take in new players that are PvP minded. No one on these forums has any issue telling new players looking to PvP that those are the corps to go to if you want to PvP. Why then is it such a problem for this guy to say that if you don't want to PvP he has a structure that you can join?

So again Mr. Parud you are saying that this game is a sandbox and anyone can play it however they want yet the OP is wrong and he should not be allowed to play the sandbox his way? You also seem to be implying that grown adults should not be allowed to pick and chose the manner in which they play a game. It's their 15 bucks a month let them do as they wish.

Yes you have a good point here that kind of slipped my mind. I have adjusted my playstyle and play times a bit to not be running anoms during prime time US TZ. That does make my original suggestion a little less valid to any players limited to that time frame.

Nope. You just keep saying contradicting things in the same post and I am pointing it out. You are giving lip service to acceptance. If you want to call my playstyle or the OPs playstyle wrong go ahead. If you want to call this a sandbox and claim that everyone can play it however they want then go ahead. What I am trying to point out however is that when you claim you are honoring someone else's choice or their right to choose but then tack on subjective words like "bad" and "valuable" and such that you are not showing any respect for nor acknowledging any their right to chose.

This reminds me of a Henry Ford quote that I read once. It was back in the early days of Ford and he said something like " You can get a Ford in any color that you want as long as the color that you want is black"

All that I am saying is pick one. Either it's a sandbox and he can play however he wants or his playstyle is "valueless" and "bad".

I think you are stepping on your own argument here. First you claim that PVE/market forces aren't competition, then you actually use the word competitors in your analogy.

And it's not a very good analogy anyway. Competing companies go out of business all the time because their competitors have lower prices, which definitely causes them harm. But it's not illegal to have better prices, and you wouldn't win a lawsuit against them any more than CONCORD would gank me for undercutting someone on the market.

Also, saying market activities in EVE don't harm anyone is just burying your head in the sand. Sabriz and other "high rollers" are constantly manipulating prices on the market for profit. Those profits don't come out of thin air. They are taken from others, such as producers that end up dumping their stock when the price crashes. I have been burned by this myself and have also done some meddling of my own.

All that said, while I agree with Sabriz' thesis in theory, in practice I'm not sure it matters much for the individual PVEr. Sure, you bring the value down slightly when you sell your loot from running null anoms. But not in any significant way as an individual. Those prices forces are better control by producers, traders, or coalitions, because they can have a much larger impact than a lone ratter. So for the individual ratter, your actions have a pretty negligible effect on the universe.

As for the OP, I cannot fathom that playstyle, though I respect your right to choose it. What bothers me more is that you are cajoling new players into it with the promise of riches. It's sort of like setting up a tent on the beach and telling your kids they have to play with the sand inside it, instead of letting them explore the shore. They should be collecting shells, knocking down sandcastles, getting stung by jellyfish. Of course there are some corps that will make fun of your bathing suit so much that you feel like you have to stay in the water, and that's not ideal either.

New players are very vulnerable. They don't know what they want or what is available to them. If you shelter them from the things they would find the most fun, they will never discover them. That's a great way to drive people out of the game. Sure, there are some people that don't like PVP. What you describe is fine for them. There's also plenty of new players that can be bullied into believing they don't like PVP. These are the people that quickly get bored and leave EVE forever. I was almost one of them.

Leading a corp for new-bros is a big responsibility. IMO you owe it to them to help them find their niche. I would suggest a more open-minded approach than what you describe, and I wouldn't direct them into a hardcore PVP-only group either.

I tried to avoid going off on this tangent but I guess it's unavoidable.


No I am not. I intentionally did that. There are two separate items there that I am attempting to show are separate. So I used the competitors example to show that even in the world of competition harm is not caused by the use of market forces. I in the past have said that you can engage in the market without competing. I don't recall having said that in this thread but I stand by it. However for the example here I chose competitors so that we could limit the discussion to one item at a time. So by eliminating competition from the discussion we could talk about harm.

I do not recall saying that engaging in the market was not competition if I did I misspoke what I believe that I said or meant to say is that engaging in the market is not inherently competition. You are thinking of competition as a thing or a doing of a thing when it is a perspective.

Most people would consider golf to be a competitive game. I don't golf but I know lots of people that do and they are all competitive types. However my buddies that are businessmen tell me that when they golf with their boss or customers they intentionally loose to gain favor with their boss or customer by making him or them feel better by winning. This is probably a bad example because it involved deceit and fraud but none the less I ask are those guys competing with their boss or customers in that round of golf? They most certainly are not they are attempting to loose.

So the golf it's self is not competitive. Golf is a game it can't compete it is not a person it does not have a perspective nor goals nor objectives. The people that play golf can choose to compete or not compete but the golf it's self is not competitive.


Let's say company AAA builds widgets and they sell them for $100 each. Then lets say that company BBB comes by and starts making widgets that are as good in quality if not better for $99. After a while when company AAA goes out of business because they can't figure out a way to make widgets either better or cheaper or both.

So in that example did company BBB cause harm to company AAA? No they did not company BBB was just doing what a good company is supposed to do they made a better product for less money. Company AAA went out of business because they could not improve their product and their manufacturing processes to keep up with the times and current technology not because company BBB could.

Now if company BBB had burned down the factory of Company AAA or sent thugs by to flatten all the tires of all the employees so they could not make it to work day after day or some other thing like that then company BBB would have been causing harm.

Now let's say we have the Olympic 100 meter race. Does the gold medalist cause harm to the silver medalist by winning? No he does not. They both gave it their best and one of them won and the other did not. Now the Tonya Harding / Nancy Kerrigan incident that is a different story.

Erg, I will first say that I appreciate the different perspective you bring to this forum and I respect your opinions. We do tend to gang up on you a bit so I don't blame you for being defensive. I find this part very strange though.


IMO in this situation company BBB certainly did cause harm to AAA whether they meant to or not. AAA is not competing against some arbitrary standard at $99. That's a value set by BBB. If AAA found a way to sell at $99, then BBB could drop their price to $98 and continue dropping it until AAA goes out of business. This may or may not be malicious, but the end result is the same and it is directly caused by the actions of BBB.

But that's just arguing semantics, which I don't care to do. It's doesn't matter how you define it. AAA is affected by the actions of BBB, whether or not it's malicious. Just as EVE players are affected by the actions of others, whether or not they are intended maliciously.

You contest that a mission runner isn't competing because they aren't maliciously selling their loot to lower the price. I don't agree, because it doesn't matter whether they are malicious or not, the price will drop. The sandbox is affected by their actions. However, in practice, it doesn't matter, because one mission runner has a negligible effect on the price. So in the end, I agree with you that PVErs are not PVPing persay, because their actions "don't matter" in the large scheme of things.

I think you will find a less hostile reception of your ideas if you spend less time nitpicking semantics. I don't care how competition is defined. I don't care how a carebear is defined. You seem to take personal offense when these terms are used even though it's been explained that others are using a different definition. Is their definition wrong? Who cares. It's the one they are using, so it's the one you must use to evaluate their intention.

TLDR: I was trying to support your point of view really. There is a forest around those trees.