These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE New Citizens Q&A

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

First post First post First post
Author
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
Evictus.
#101 - 2016-09-12 02:31:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Binchiette
Jonah,

I do believe that CCP Phantoms statements are a true reflection of the way New Eden effectively operates - and that many players might choose to pursue an errant criminal counter-ego. I'm totally fine with this. I also accept some risk whenever I undock from the station.

However, saying that I accept those risks does not mean that I give my consent to PvP. Either implied or otherwise and I believe Phantom spoke wrongly when he said this. 'Implied consent' is essentially a null concept, and entirely secondary to stated consent. If I say that I do not give consent - then I do not give consent.

How does this work in practical terms? Well let me explain. If what CCP Phantom said is true, then, whenever some 'suicide ganker' ambushes me in High Sec. I ought to:

1. Put aside all feelings of anger, or thoughts of retribution;
2. Immediately congratulate my adversary on an ambush well executed; and
3. Respect this person for their superior cunning and gamesmanship.

When, infact, the very nature of this act is that within the laws of New Eden and the oversight of CONCORD I have been cheated. I am a victim. It is therefore right that I feel angry. It is also right that I should wish to seek revenge (within the context of the PvP metagame). So yes, I'm not going to take that crap. I'm going to exercise my kill right. I'm going come back into a bigger ship, chase these thieves back to their own base of operations. I'm going to make them pay.

The problem I see with CCP Phantoms statement is that it seeks to illegitimatise ones emotions in the face of wrongful deeds - and the desire for retribution... What I'm trying to say is, if you seek to define those criminal behaviours as acceptable PvP, then, you must also accept revenge as an equally valid aspect of PvP.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#102 - 2016-09-12 08:05:26 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
However, saying that I accept those risks does not mean that I give my consent to PvP. Either implied or otherwise and I believe Phantom spoke wrongly when he said this. 'Implied consent' is essentially a null concept, and entirely secondary to stated consent. If I say that I do not give consent - then I do not give consent.
With respect, I think you are conflating two levels of consent. When you install and login into the client to the first time, you agree - that is give your consent - to abide by the EULA and TOS of Eve Online which say that shooting someone anywhere in space for basically any reason (with only a few specific exceptions) is perfectly fine. The 'Golden Rule' you object to refers to the fact that you are intentionally put at risk of attack when you undock by the basic design intent of the game and shooting someone, even in the safest space, is not against the EULA or TOS. If you do not consent to that risk, you should uninstall the game and play something else.

Where you are correct is that you did indeed not 'consent' to having your industrial ship shot within the confines of the game itself. Much of Eve destruction and combat occurs in a non-consensual manner and is often described as such. You don't have to like it, but just like in any competitive game, Eve has the risk of loss and you have to accept that if you are going to play. Most players don't like losing, but just like a poker player who doesn't consent to getting cleaned out by an opponent, or a goal tender who doesn't consent to have his net scored on, you have consented to that risk as part of playing the game.

Honestly though, the point of the 'Golden Rules' isn't to spark debate over what 'consent' means or to minimize or trivialize the emotions of those players who have been outplayed by other players and lost some virtual assets. The point of such a simple statement is to make clear to new players that it is perfectly legal and acceptable behaviour for someone to shoot you when you are in space anywhere. This is normal and expected game play. You cannot opt-out of this risk, and should not expect CCP to step in and censure the other player for shooting you, even if you don't want to be shot at. You consented to that risk by pressing the undock button, and thus you, not CCP, are responsible for ensuring the safety of your in-space assets by playing the game when you choose to leave the station.

You don't have to like being shot and losing virtual assets, and the emotions this can engender are part of the magic of the game, but I will submit you are indeed a bit of a sore loser if you choose to rage about how "unfair" the game is or start insulting the victor after being outplayed in a video game. The mature thing to do is to congratulate your opponent on her victory and for teaching you a lesson and make a point to be more careful in the future, but choosing to seek revenge for such an attack is also a perfectly acceptable choice and is the very content CCP hopes to engender by allowing non-consensual PvP everywhere in the game. Either of those choices is actually playing the game you consented to when you clicked the 'Agree' box when you logged in the very first time.
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
Evictus.
#103 - 2016-09-12 09:04:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Binchiette
Thanks Black,

Please don't go too far by implying things which I didn't mean to say. I am not calling on CCP to change anything about the game. I understand that these are normal game mechanics.


Where PvP in high sec becomes problematic is that it is usually targeting newer players (such as myself) and players who are still accumulating the hardware and skills necessary to be combat effective. They are not ready to fight - and this is precisely the reason why we are in high sec... So yea, **** on the little guy if it makes you feel better; but please don't call it rain.

I understand it's part of the game mechanics. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. It is also in accordance with the EULA and TOS. However with regard to legality (within the game) aggressive acts are most definitely not legal - and whether or not it is deemed acceptable is a highly subjective and personal matter.

Hard though it might seem, there are law abiding pilots in this game, and as well as being a tactical and economic sandbox, you must also recognise that it is also a social sandbox. - and by seeking to force player opinion toward acceptance, such players are seeking to minimalize the social repercussions of their actions.

The point I'm making is this: I, myself, to not see such things as acceptable - and this means consequences. As I will have not part with anyone who does them.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#104 - 2016-09-12 10:48:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
Where PvP in high sec becomes problematic is that it is usually targeting newer players (such as myself) and players who are still accumulating the hardware and skills necessary to be combat effective. They are not ready to fight - and this is precisely the reason why we are in high sec... So yea, **** on the little guy if it makes you feel better; but please don't call it rain.

I understand it's part of the game mechanics. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. It is also in accordance with the EULA and TOS. However with regard to legality (within the game) aggressive acts are most definitely not legal - and whether or not it is deemed acceptable is a highly subjective and personal matter.
You really shouldn't take being shot so personally. We are all targets in this game to each other. It is literally the main conceit of the game. You definitely don't have to like losing, but don't assume that someone is out there to degrade you or hurt you in some way. They may just want your stuff (or have one of another dozen reasons that don't involve making you feel bad) and piracy is an intentional 'feature' as you acknowledge so in the end, their motivations don't matter so much as you'll explode all the same for whatever reason they attack you.

Marcus Binchiette wrote:
Hard though it might seem, there are law abiding pilots in this game, and as well as being a tactical and economic sandbox, you must also recognise that it is also a social sandbox. - and by seeking to force player opinion toward acceptance, such players are seeking to minimalize the social repercussions of their actions.
I am pretty sure pirates aren't too concerned about being "socially accepted" by the law abiding pilots of highsec given that they have purposely chosen a career that preys upon them. Besides, they have their own communities and social networks, and there is no prize for being "accepted" by some subset of Eve players while part of the attraction of being a 'bad guy' in this game is to be a villain and troublemaker. You really should roll an alt and spend some time with the pirates in this game to see things from their point of view before passing blanket judgements on their motivations.

In any case, playing to the 'court of public opinion' to inflict or minimize the "social repercussions" of piracy really has no place in this subforum so I'll stop here. I just wanted to make it clear what type of game this is for any new players reading this thread.

Marcus Binchiette wrote:
The point I'm making is this: I, myself, to not see such things as acceptable - and this means consequences. As I will have not part with anyone who does them.
Good for you. Stick to your beliefs and make sure to inflict some consequences on those that don't share them (in-game of course). Be a content creator and make things happen in the sandbox.
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
#105 - 2016-09-12 17:43:53 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
I understand that these are normal game mechanics.

This is the implied consent.
Eve online has been infamous for well over a decade at this point for being this way.
I enjoyed reading your posts but by voluntarily being here, in space , in the only MMO that is this way,
it's entirely reasonable for me to make the assumption that you're aware you may be shot in the face at any point.

Much like in a game of poker it's entirely reasonable for me to make the assumption that upon loosing you're money will be lost,
I do not at that point expect to be need permission to relieve you of your money as you gave it when sitting at the table, placing bet's, and putting your chips/cash in the pot,
in short by playing poker with me you're giving me consent to take your money if I can beat you.
Eve works much the Same, if I can kill you I am allowed to do so, it's entirely your responsibility to prevent me from doing so.

You're concerned about rookie griefing , that's fine, rookie griefing is one of the few things explicitly against the EULA and if you're concerned that this is becoming problematic then the GM's and Devs can and do take action in such cases .


Do Bear in mind though that many of us will actually offer a considerable amount of help to plucky newbros with a good attitudeBlink
Provided you don't fly off the handle, talking to the guys that just shot you in the face can actually be a great way to make friends and learn about the game.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#106 - 2016-09-12 18:12:25 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
Jonah,

I do believe that CCP Phantoms statements are a true reflection of the way New Eden effectively operates - and that many players might choose to pursue an errant criminal counter-ego. I'm totally fine with this. I also accept some risk whenever I undock from the station.

However, saying that I accept those risks does not mean that I give my consent to PvP. Either implied or otherwise and I believe Phantom spoke wrongly when he said this. 'Implied consent' is essentially a null concept, and entirely secondary to stated consent. If I say that I do not give consent - then I do not give consent.

How does this work in practical terms? Well let me explain. If what CCP Phantom said is true, then, whenever some 'suicide ganker' ambushes me in High Sec. I ought to:

1. Put aside all feelings of anger, or thoughts of retribution;
2. Immediately congratulate my adversary on an ambush well executed; and
3. Respect this person for their superior cunning and gamesmanship.

When, infact, the very nature of this act is that within the laws of New Eden and the oversight of CONCORD I have been cheated. I am a victim. It is therefore right that I feel angry. It is also right that I should wish to seek revenge (within the context of the PvP metagame). So yes, I'm not going to take that crap. I'm going to exercise my kill right. I'm going come back into a bigger ship, chase these thieves back to their own base of operations. I'm going to make them pay.

The problem I see with CCP Phantoms statement is that it seeks to illegitimatise ones emotions in the face of wrongful deeds - and the desire for retribution... What I'm trying to say is, if you seek to define those criminal behaviours as acceptable PvP, then, you must also accept revenge as an equally valid aspect of PvP.
I appreciate your point of view, but at the end of the day the core concept of Eve is that it is a PvP game, and like every other PvP game out there you consent to participating in PvP by playing the game.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
Evictus.
#107 - 2016-09-13 16:11:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Binchiette
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:

Do Bear in mind though that many of us will actually offer a considerable amount of help to plucky newbros with a good attitudeBlink
Provided you don't fly off the handle, talking to the guys that just shot you in the face can actually be a great way to make friends and learn about the game.


Thank you,

Though to be fair there was only truly one experience which could qualify as rookie grieving - and that was when I was suicide ganked with 17 Million worth of ISK in my cargo hold. Yes I did learn some very valuable lessons such as:

1. Never make courier runs on autopilot
2. Pay close attention to 0.5 Sec systems and likely ambush sites on major haul routes
3. Never fully invest one's wealth into a single ship.

The lessons were well learnt and you will be pleased to know that my response was far from insulting or abusive. Immediately after my ship was destroyed I chased down the pirates pod in my own pod and I docked in station, got my self into a rookie ship. I then hunted her down, making several jumps I found her, and then eventually her own rookie ship wreck - and then I lost her...

Quickly studying the star map I realised that the system only had two gates, and only one of those led to a low sec system. So I camped the gate. I kept her in the system. Then 15 minutes later she tried to get through CONCORD in another destroyer which she had in a station which was refusing her dock (due to a timer) while I was chasing her. As CONCORD opened fire I managed to get the pod hill before she could jump.

So yea, I lost 17 Million. But in return for that I forced 2 Million worth in Destroyer losses, and got paid a 500,000 bounty. So I'm not quite so bitter as to rave or become abusive. My response was to take in game retaliation - and my comments here and above should be understood as defining a position while being in character.
Fuzzy TheBear
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#108 - 2016-09-22 17:13:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Fuzzy TheBear
What such a post says is legitimising high sec ganking and **** the miners. They get the rock and stuff and manufacture the stuff needed and build ships and modules .. once they get fed up being ganked and their hardware blown they will simply stop making the stuff gankers and pvp'ers need to do their stuff. If there's no security at all in hi sec , the people who joined the game for the possibilities of making **** instead of blowing it up; simply leave the game. The game economics are fragile , not solid. If everyone in high sec gets tired and stops producing goods , PvP'ers are fu&&&&. Maybe that's what's needed .. but in the end every game has an end to their life .. after all .. all games come to an end and EVE is no different .. it will be replaced by something newer , better and that's the unavoidable end for them. Clients paying for a game like we are .. ( about what .. 150 CDN a year ) want some enjoyment and be left in peace to do their **** if they want to .. CCP decides it's all PvP .. Client leaves . And that's normal. We do pay good money for playing the game , if we can't do it our way .. it's bye bye .
PvP ers can do their **** between themselves and it's ok .. but when it's making the game unattractive to people who joined for different reasons than PvP then it's game over for them and CCP looses clients .. their choice. Big smile
Talislanta D'shade
Vox Solaris
#109 - 2016-09-28 21:24:37 UTC

The Twelve Commandments of EVE

1. Never fly what you can't afford to replace.

2. Smartbombs ain't that smart.

3. If it's stupid but it works, it ain't stupid.

4. There are no fair or unfair fights; only fights.

5. Anything you do can get you killed, including nothing.

6. That which does not kill you has made a tactical error.

7. That enemy diversion you're ignoring is the main attack.

8. The "undock" button is also the "consent to PvP" button.

9. There are plenty of idiots in EVE, but never assume everyone is one.

10. A little trust goes a long way. The less you use, the farther you'll go.

11. If violence wasn't your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it

12. A soft answer turns away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.[/center]
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
#110 - 2016-09-29 08:24:27 UTC
Talislanta D'shade wrote:

6. That which does not kill you has made a tactical error.

lol, haven't seen this before.
must do something with this.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#111 - 2016-09-29 23:36:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Talislanta D'shade wrote:
12. A soft answer turns away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.
Double Tap. (rule#2 of Zombieland)

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Dare TheDarkness
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#112 - 2016-10-02 21:24:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Dare TheDarkness
I haven't read anything after the first post. I just wanted to say smthng which has probly been said already:

Have you even wondered how this game survived for this long, and why this game has some really mature audience ? It's because YOU CAN. Yes, every other title out there is full of rules and constrains. Here you can do whatever it takes to get to ISK. As long as it doesn't involve real life threatening, it's allowed. As long as it's role playing it's allowed. You ever wanted to be ruthless killer mercenary ? You can. Kill ppl for money ? You are allowed to... He who has the strength - he makes rules. And that's what keeps this game still alive. And the value IS real... You really have to EARN your ISK. One way or another.

Also, I do not think that the OP is correct. Eve actually has only 1 rule:

#1 No rules (if you except game mechanics as rules)

No one will keep you from flying all your blings on your shuttle, having 30bils of plexes in it and flying a nullsec tour just for sight seeing. It's not forbidden. It's not a RULE. It's just helluva stupid thing to do . But you can if you feel like it. :)


Also I'd like ppl to stop using their real life country insignias and act like separated groups "Russians this, germans that, USA TZ blabla..." Here - we should all be citizens of the new EDEN, escape from the real life clutches and embrace the new identity . Either you are Amarr or you are one of the slave nations. No USA or Russia. Earth is long gone, forgotten many generations ago.
That's all it matters in EVE, IMHO :)

Also a warning for the new CCP generations of employees < have this concept in your mind when you "evolve" the game.
Noobshot Elongur
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#113 - 2016-10-03 12:59:42 UTC
Sroasa wrote:
CCP Phantom wrote:

Unfair circumstances?
...


If you're in a fair fight then at least one side has made their first mistake.


I would have thought that you didn't see his/her buddies on D-scan.... or at least they are hiding on the other side of the gate.
Lilish
Space Defence
#114 - 2016-11-06 07:47:56 UTC
yes indeed good advice that
Borreon IX
Acenroc OreCo IX
#115 - 2016-11-15 12:08:06 UTC
New to the game here, and I like the humor of this post. Everything I've experienced so far is addictive ; great game, great mechanics, great graphics.

Cheers.
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
#116 - 2016-11-15 12:22:08 UTC
Borreon IX wrote:
New to the game here, and I like the humor of this post. Everything I've experienced so far is addictive ; great game, great mechanics, great graphics.

Cheers.

Bahaha, you laugh now but they're there for a reasonBlink
Borreon IX
Acenroc OreCo IX
#117 - 2016-11-15 12:44:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Borreon IX
Don't doubt any of it. It's more about the tone used in the first post of this thread ; you don't see that often on any other game. I actually like the fact that you got to get used to how it's played, not to how you would like it to be played. Unethical stuff being encouraged like that, I like it.

It looks more realistic in a way, since it creates dynamics which you have to deal with.
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
#118 - 2016-11-15 12:50:06 UTC
Borreon IX wrote:
Don't doubt any of it. It's more about the tone used in the first post of this thread ; you don't see that often on any other game. I actually like the fact that you got to get used to how it's played, not how you would like it to be played. Unethical stuff being encouraged like that, I like it.

It looks more realistic in a way, since it creates dynamics with which you have to deal with.

You need to read this old classic then, nearly 40 pages but Damn well worth the read.
Borreon IX
Acenroc OreCo IX
#119 - 2016-11-15 12:56:26 UTC
Will do. Cool
Biggesmall
GRINDHARD INDUSTRIES
#120 - 2016-11-20 05:38:27 UTC
Cool Well put trust no one