These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

On the topic of High-sec Player Security (A discussion about ganking)

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Captain Phil
Miner's Revenge
#41 - 2016-01-14 19:22:59 UTC
Getting suicide ganked is a cost of doing business. The sooner you accept it the sooner you'll enjoy the game.

Additionally, CODE. would probably all but die off if their victims would just stop making rage posts on the forums.
Froggy Storm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#42 - 2016-01-14 19:31:27 UTC
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
Froggy Storm wrote:
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
[quote=Froggy Storm][quote=Raithial Dan'Arona ]
Things


If I may, claiming to be very deliberate in your word choices, while calling people names, telling them to "**** off", and liking entire groups of human beings to pedophiles, that is not good form nor good posting. No amount of second languages or dislexia can recover a thread when that is your response to the initial salvos of criticism. Additionally, calling out typos when laying claim to second language clemancy is quite poor form.

Next, as I stated this is not the audience for the intended thread. Look before you post or you are going tobe as good as freighter loaded with plex afk on a lowsec gate.

Finally, I think I can safely say that the Code WANTS YOU TO MOBILIZE! Code is going to win. Period. If you do nothing and miners get killed they win. If you do nothing and miners all follow the code then they win. If you stage a revolution and fight code to the death then they win again.

And you know what, that is a damn good thing. I am a code supporter in the need to disrupt hisec stagnation.

Case 1) Code is at least providing a story line of interest and entertaining their own players while the game continues to rott.
Case 2) Code has made it clear as possible that the samdbox has reached its natual conclusion and will continue to slowly bleed players to amgst and boredom until CCP chooses to disband or shake hisec
Case 3) The players have decided to be the shake up of hisec. Code gets content and battles. Miners learn to fly combat ahips and fight for their way of life. Bloggers and story writers have a field day.

All that aside, forum posting isn't a very effective place to start a revolution. Gather confedants in secret and forn a core plan, then when you have exploits and success the recruits will cone to you.



first things first: I never called anyone out on their spelling.
CODE's own member named themselves pedophiles, I mere used the word, rather than simply insinuate it.
and telling people to "**** off" just goes to tell people the measure of incentive within it.

If CODE. wants us to mobilise, then they are free to provide ample ships and ammunition, or just leave us be. But their Catch.22 is not applicable.

I oppose Code. and I think more people should.
Stagnation is one thing, deliberate racketeering is another. Here's the thing though; what CODE. has introduced into high-sec is something that has been going on for ages in Null and Low sec; promoting such totalitarian regimes in High Sec is just overkill.
CODE. has made no such thing clear. Players who want that sort of game-play experience can move into Low or Null-sec. Encouraging that is prefferable to CODE. doing needless damage to players who have made no indication they have any interest in such affairs.
moreover: I think you mean "shake down High-sec." not "up"


You called out my own typo.
You escalated a common internet catch phrase to malign an entire group of people.
Code has provided the reasons you claim to wish to mobalize code has the stated aim of ending afk game play where ever it is.
Nul amd low are far safer than hisec. They just require group play and group methods. I recommend you look into it. Group stories are far more interesting in my opinion.

Finally, shake up is the correct word. Codes 10m racketeering is laughable at best. It is a wink to role playing and making a story telling catch phrase. If serious miner makes 60m an hour or more 10m a year is no cost at all. And the shake up is addressing afk play.
Solonius Rex
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2016-01-14 19:33:21 UTC
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
While CODE.'s action are despicable,


I'm curious:

How divorced from reality does a person have to be to think that actions performed in a video game, and 100% in accordance with the rules of that game, could ever be regarded as "despicable"?

It might be time for you to give Outside a try, OP.


When making a moral judgement one has to take several things into consideration.
A. Is the action that is deemed immoral or amoral of detriment to somebody?
B. Is the action that is deemed immoral or amoral wanted to said somebody?

Are CODE.'s action to the detriment of someone? why yes, lots of newbro's who do not yet know the reins and have no means to protect themselves.
next, is this action wanted by these people? I highly doubt it. while CODE. might laugh their asses off each time someone rages against them, the recipient of the action in nearly all cases, do not want it.
Conclusion: The act of ganking is not wanted and to the detriment of the recipient; hence it is immoral, and thus can be validly described as despicable.

Wether the actions are in accordance to the rules of the game is not in question; but the morality of an action is not determined by the rules of the game.
Philosophy is very interesting, you should really learn something about it.


I dont get it.

I play Call of duty sometimes.

Is my action of killing and shooting someone in the head with my sniper rifle, to the detriment of someone? Why, yes. I dont discriminate between new players and old veterans, and im certain i have killed my fair share of new players, who do not yet know the reins.
Next, is this action wanted by these people? I highly doubt it, no one wants to get killed when they play Call of duty.
Conclusion: The act of shooting and killing someone in Call of Duty is not wanted and to the detriment of the recipient; hence it is immoral, and thus can be validly described as despicable.

This is how stupid you sound.
Isaac Armer
The Soup Kitchen
#44 - 2016-01-14 19:39:54 UTC
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
Are CODE.'s action to the detriment of someone? why yes, lots of newbro's who do not yet know the reins and have no means to protect themselves.


According to CCP people who are killed quickly right off the bat are more likely to stay than those who are never ganked/killed.

Quote:
next, is this action wanted by these people? I highly doubt it. while CODE. might laugh their asses off each time someone rages against them, the recipient of the action in nearly all cases, do not want it.


I have been doing mainly PvE for a bit now, I love the fact that I need to research people in system with me, check their history to see if they are gankers, write down names/track people I know might try to jump me, etc. The sense of danger is what is keeping me in the game. I tried to start playing a few years ago, I ended up quitting out of boredom because I found I was playing another game while I shot rats or mined.

Starting to get involved and keep up with groups like CODE and the meta game as a whole has completely re-engaged me in EVE. Do some people hate CODE? Absolutely, but good guys don't exist without the bad guy. Take any single player game, the worse the enemy is, the better you enjoy trying to take him down. In EVE the enemy simply isn't an NPC.

Some people hate CODE, but I would argue most love to hate them, whether they admit it to themselves or not. Would you personally enjoy EVE more if you weren't able to try to rally people against them? I would argue you love CODE, since it lets you start projects like this. It's giving you content.
Froggy Storm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#45 - 2016-01-14 19:39:58 UTC
Solonius Rex wrote:
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
While CODE.'s action are despicable,


I'm curious:

How divorced from reality does a person have to be to think that actions performed in a video game, and 100% in accordance with the rules of that game, could ever be regarded as "despicable"?

It might be time for you to give Outside a try, OP.


When making a moral judgement one has to take several things into consideration.
A. Is the action that is deemed immoral or amoral of detriment to somebody?
B. Is the action that is deemed immoral or amoral wanted to said somebody?

Are CODE.'s action to the detriment of someone? why yes, lots of newbro's who do not yet know the reins and have no means to protect themselves.
next, is this action wanted by these people? I highly doubt it. while CODE. might laugh their asses off each time someone rages against them, the recipient of the action in nearly all cases, do not want it.
Conclusion: The act of ganking is not wanted and to the detriment of the recipient; hence it is immoral, and thus can be validly described as despicable.

Wether the actions are in accordance to the rules of the game is not in question; but the morality of an action is not determined by the rules of the game.
Philosophy is very interesting, you should really learn something about it.


I dont get it.

I play Call of duty sometimes.

Is my action of killing and shooting someone in the head with my sniper rifle, to the detriment of someone? Why, yes. I dont discriminate between new players and old veterans, and im certain i have killed my fair share of new players, who do not yet know the reins.
Next, is this action wanted by these people? I highly doubt it, no one wants to get killed when they play Call of duty.
Conclusion: The act of shooting and killing someone in Call of Duty is not wanted and to the detriment of the recipient; hence it is immoral, and thus can be validly described as despicable.

This is how stupid you sound.


A fundamental flaw in the most common argument is that logging into Eve does not really mean consentto have other players interact with you. It is patently false by every metric including CCP official statement, but that is the belief.
Raithial Dan'Arona
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#46 - 2016-01-14 19:41:27 UTC
Solonius Rex wrote:
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
While CODE.'s action are despicable,


I'm curious:

How divorced from reality does a person have to be to think that actions performed in a video game, and 100% in accordance with the rules of that game, could ever be regarded as "despicable"?

It might be time for you to give Outside a try, OP.


When making a moral judgement one has to take several things into consideration.
A. Is the action that is deemed immoral or amoral of detriment to somebody?
B. Is the action that is deemed immoral or amoral wanted to said somebody?

Are CODE.'s action to the detriment of someone? why yes, lots of newbro's who do not yet know the reins and have no means to protect themselves.
next, is this action wanted by these people? I highly doubt it. while CODE. might laugh their asses off each time someone rages against them, the recipient of the action in nearly all cases, do not want it.
Conclusion: The act of ganking is not wanted and to the detriment of the recipient; hence it is immoral, and thus can be validly described as despicable.

Wether the actions are in accordance to the rules of the game is not in question; but the morality of an action is not determined by the rules of the game.
Philosophy is very interesting, you should really learn something about it.


I dont get it.

I play Call of duty sometimes.

Is my action of killing and shooting someone in the head with my sniper rifle, to the detriment of someone? Why, yes. I dont discriminate between new players and old veterans, and im certain i have killed my fair share of new players, who do not yet know the reins.
Next, is this action wanted by these people? I highly doubt it, no one wants to get killed when they play Call of duty.
Conclusion: The act of shooting and killing someone in Call of Duty is not wanted and to the detriment of the recipient; hence it is immoral, and thus can be validly described as despicable.

This is how stupid you sound.


that would be the case, if not that the players in CoD implicitly comply with getting shot themselves by attacking other players.
when an industrialist or miner does nothing to invite PVP, then it is deemed immoral to fire on them.
You really aught to learn how to discuss morality a bit better, and in greater nuance than simply switching out words of one's argument without first checking of they are applicable to the situation in ALL respects.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#47 - 2016-01-14 19:41:48 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
While CODE.'s action are despicable,


I'm curious:

How divorced from reality does a person have to be to think that actions performed in a video game, and 100% in accordance with the rules of that game, could ever be regarded as "despicable"?

It might be time for you to give Outside a try, OP.


When making a moral judgement one has to take several things into consideration.
A. Is the action that is deemed immoral or amoral of detriment to somebody?
B. Is the action that is deemed immoral or amoral wanted to said somebody?

Are CODE.'s action to the detriment of someone? why yes, lots of newbro's who do not yet know the reins and have no means to protect themselves.
next, is this action wanted by these people? I highly doubt it. while CODE. might laugh their asses off each time someone rages against them, the recipient of the action in nearly all cases, do not want it.
Conclusion: The act of ganking is not wanted and to the detriment of the recipient; hence it is immoral, and thus can be validly described as despicable.



How divorced from reality does one have to be to think that conventional standards of morality are at all applicable in a video game?

By this laughable standard, it's "immoral" when a Chess player captures their opponent's pieces.

Quote:

Wether the actions are in accordance to the rules of the game is not in question; but the morality of an action is not determined by the rules of the game.


The rules of any game effectively replace any normal morality standards within the confines of the game, or else any competitive game would be inherently immoral to play.

Go outside, friend, you've lost perspective.

Quote:


when an industrialist or miner does nothing to invite PVP, then it is deemed immoral to fire on them.


If they clicked the undock button, they did something to invite PvP.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Raithial Dan'Arona
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#48 - 2016-01-14 19:43:01 UTC
Isaac Armer wrote:


According to CCP people who are killed quickly right off the bat are more likely to stay than those who are never ganked/killed.



Citation needed.
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#49 - 2016-01-14 19:47:15 UTC
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
Isaac Armer wrote:


According to CCP people who are killed quickly right off the bat are more likely to stay than those who are never ganked/killed.



Citation needed.


It's easy, go on Google and type "CODE. Player retention"

You're welcome :D

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist
Solonius Rex
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2016-01-14 19:48:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Solonius Rex
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
Solonius Rex wrote:
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
While CODE.'s action are despicable,


I'm curious:

How divorced from reality does a person have to be to think that actions performed in a video game, and 100% in accordance with the rules of that game, could ever be regarded as "despicable"?

It might be time for you to give Outside a try, OP.


When making a moral judgement one has to take several things into consideration.
A. Is the action that is deemed immoral or amoral of detriment to somebody?
B. Is the action that is deemed immoral or amoral wanted to said somebody?

Are CODE.'s action to the detriment of someone? why yes, lots of newbro's who do not yet know the reins and have no means to protect themselves.
next, is this action wanted by these people? I highly doubt it. while CODE. might laugh their asses off each time someone rages against them, the recipient of the action in nearly all cases, do not want it.
Conclusion: The act of ganking is not wanted and to the detriment of the recipient; hence it is immoral, and thus can be validly described as despicable.

Wether the actions are in accordance to the rules of the game is not in question; but the morality of an action is not determined by the rules of the game.
Philosophy is very interesting, you should really learn something about it.


I dont get it.

I play Call of duty sometimes.

Is my action of killing and shooting someone in the head with my sniper rifle, to the detriment of someone? Why, yes. I dont discriminate between new players and old veterans, and im certain i have killed my fair share of new players, who do not yet know the reins.
Next, is this action wanted by these people? I highly doubt it, no one wants to get killed when they play Call of duty.
Conclusion: The act of shooting and killing someone in Call of Duty is not wanted and to the detriment of the recipient; hence it is immoral, and thus can be validly described as despicable.

This is how stupid you sound.


that would be the case, if not that the players in CoD implicitly comply with getting shot themselves by attacking other players.
when an industrialist or miner does nothing to invite PVP, then it is deemed immoral to fire on them.
You really aught to learn how to discuss morality a bit better, and in greater nuance than simply switching out words of one's argument without first checking of they are applicable to the situation in ALL respects.


Read the Golden Rules to EVE. Infact, heres a link:
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Golden_Rules

"Consent to PvP

You consent to PvP when you click "undock".
You are not safe in 1.0 security space. CONCORD is there to punish, not to protect. Get used to the idea.
In most cases, the only way to be 100% safe from agression inside the game is to be docked in a station. Being cloaked in a secret safespot could work too."

And yes, this is the official EVE wiki, endorsed by CCP.

Also, are you saying that if I shoot someone who plays COD multiplayer, but chooses not to attack other players and instead simply wants to enjoy the graphics, that it is immoral for me to do so?
Froggy Storm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#51 - 2016-01-14 19:49:37 UTC
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
Isaac Armer wrote:


According to CCP people who are killed quickly right off the bat are more likely to stay than those who are never ganked/killed.



Citation needed.


CCP will likely need to link to their fanfest presentation graphs. I am not sure those are public available records. None the less, just abot every year at fanfest and eve vegas they have showcases of retention metrics. The data and presentations are gighly suggestive that players who join amd never have any player interaction are unlikely to be with us long.
Solonius Rex
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2016-01-14 19:51:10 UTC
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
Isaac Armer wrote:


According to CCP people who are killed quickly right off the bat are more likely to stay than those who are never ganked/killed.



Citation needed.

Im nice, so ill provide you a link.

http://justforcrits.com/fanfest-2015-helping-newbros-art-new-eden/
Raithial Dan'Arona
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#53 - 2016-01-14 19:52:19 UTC
Froggy Storm wrote:
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
Isaac Armer wrote:


According to CCP people who are killed quickly right off the bat are more likely to stay than those who are never ganked/killed.



Citation needed.


CCP will likely need to link to their fanfest presentation graphs. I am not sure those are public available records. None the less, just abot every year at fanfest and eve vegas they have showcases of retention metrics. The data and presentations are gighly suggestive that players who join amd never have any player interaction are unlikely to be with us long.


none-the-less, I'd like to see those Graphs, and I would love for CCP themselves to show me, and prove their point.
The thing is, I'm not unreasonable, if this can be shown then I will concede the point. But that this moment, this has not yet been proven, and thus, I remain sceptical.
Isaac Armer
The Soup Kitchen
#54 - 2016-01-14 19:52:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Isaac Armer
Solonius Rex wrote:
Im nice, so ill provide you a link.

http://justforcrits.com/fanfest-2015-helping-newbros-art-new-eden/


Three of the more relevant slides from that youtube video, made by CCP Rise himself.

http://i.imgur.com/2rOhWzE.png

http://i.imgur.com/cgNdIiQ.png

http://i.imgur.com/OPMk9G4.png
Black Pedro
Mine.
#55 - 2016-01-14 19:54:36 UTC
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
Isaac Armer wrote:


According to CCP people who are killed quickly right off the bat are more likely to stay than those who are never ganked/killed.



Citation needed.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5504176#post5504221

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y

http://www.minerbumping.com/2015/03/ccp-proves-new-order-was-right-about.html

In short, retention rates are higher for new players that lose ship to legal (wars, duels) or illegal (ganks) aggression during thier first days in the game.

Just watch CCP Rise's presentation on the YouTube link above - he covers it in the first few minutes.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Raithial Dan'Arona
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#56 - 2016-01-14 19:56:54 UTC
note: I am currently watching the presentation. Interesting data.
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#57 - 2016-01-14 20:26:31 UTC
Droidster wrote:
There are probably a bunch of EVE devs in CODE.

Your whining and whimpering about being ganked is just giving them a hard on.




Are you creating content here...or merely spouting 💩 ?

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log
Raithial Dan'Arona
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#58 - 2016-01-14 20:28:57 UTC
most of the data viewed in the video that was just linked has more to do with the way the tutorial/opportunities were structured, making the whole ganking-ratio rather insignificant as a whole. so far the only cojent argument regarding the whole ganking is that people "realise that death is not a big deal". It's not costing them, but from what I can gather, it's also not makin them stay longer.
Paranoid Loyd
#59 - 2016-01-14 20:31:06 UTC
Bumblefck wrote:
Droidster wrote:
There are probably a bunch of EVE devs in CODE.

Your whining and whimpering about being ganked is just giving them a hard on.




Are you creating content here...or merely spouting 💩 ?

Are the two mutually exclusive? Blink

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#60 - 2016-01-14 20:37:04 UTC
Raithial Dan'Arona wrote:
most of the data viewed in the video that was just linked has more to do with the way the tutorial/opportunities were structured, making the whole ganking-ratio rather insignificant as a whole. so far the only cojent argument regarding the whole ganking is that people "realise that death is not a big deal". It's not costing them, but from what I can gather, it's also not makin them stay longer.


You got the facts, yet you're still trying to deny the role CODE. has in retaining players...
They're holding more players because they are offering free, fun content (in the form of ganking).
I would never have discovered Pvp aspects without seeing it first hand haha.

And the whole Anti-Ganking groups keep playing because of gankers, they just don't realize it :)

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist