These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

How many more players must we lose to bullying

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#781 - 2017-04-04 08:46:10 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:


playing mental gymnastics trying to turn the reality of EVE into some fantasy EVE that doesn't exist.


it's not just EVE, it's pretty much anything todays generation invests in, they whine about how the movie should have gone, how they have rights, whine about games they join and demand changes to suit them.

i had a mate play EVE for a few weeks, he liked the game a lot, one night while talking about the fantasies of what EVE could be or could not be i mentioned how pods work and the fact that there is no bridge and never would be, his reply was " so i will never get to walk on my ship or see it's crew? he didn't like the click to fly system and often spoke of how he wished he could just fly the ships like a flight sim, i explained why this wouldn't really work for EVE, he pretty much quit within a few days, he accepted EVE was not going to change just for him and moved on to another game that he enjoyed playing.

I'll never understand why people play a game they do not like or feel they need to lead a revolt to have that game changed into something it isn't or was never designed to be.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#782 - 2017-04-04 08:46:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Dracvlad wrote:


Your post is so stupid and full of contradictions, hisec as such is supposed to be a low risk low reward area....


No. Nothing implies or indicates this. If a player is foolish, imprudent and/or impulsive and takes on too much risk he necessarily creates a high reward opportunity for other players.

You are just not intelligent enough to see this.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Acher0n Hades
Queens of the Drone Age
#783 - 2017-04-04 08:54:39 UTC
What's this here? 40 pages because of a gank or wardeck? We might habe a new record.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#784 - 2017-04-04 08:56:49 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Your post is so stupid and full of contradictions, hisec as such is supposed to be a low risk low reward area, PVE and PVP all all part of that equation after all they would not be applying CONCORD if that was not the case. So call names all you want, I am enjoying your many contradictions and those of your supporters, they are quite frankly hilarious.

It is low risk/reward, except probably for incursions. As I said that metric is used to balance NPC loot tables and resources and not to balance player loot drops which can not be influenced since they depend on player decisions.

Dracvlad wrote:

And don't forget princess that your bumper is protected by NPC's, it seems you need reminding of that fact.

I have to say watching a ganker aligned player cry 182,580 EHP is too tough without bumping says it all..., well back to PL then!

Bumpers have the exact same protection the Freighters have. I don't see any ganker aligned player cry about 182k EHP, but an AG crying about a bumper who has far less EHP. Now that is ironic.

Evil RatKid
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#785 - 2017-04-04 09:00:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Mr Mieyli wrote:
I think they are scared, scared that more people with different views on what eve is would join. Scared that CCP would try to cater to those new customers. Scared that the eve they know, that game that's different, becomes another boring standardised game, by their thinking.

I think this is a slippery slope, that isn't as slippery as you think, after all look at this discussion. You all do a good job of insulting those you disagree with to shut them up.

I also think culture evolves naturally from what makes sense in an environment, given the warlike gameplay of eve the content of these forums should be a given. If gameplay changed though, culture would change.


Insulting those you disagree with...you are a fine one to talk,

Mr Mieyli wrote:
The guy is a self confessed ******* and you lot are touting him as some kind of prophet / god....

I thought you guys were supposed to be intelligent....


Look, the issue is what is the core nature of EVE. A theme park or a game where players interact both cooperatively and non-cooperatively or not? A game of consequences and rewards or not? A game of competition or a game of non-competition where we can largely ignore each other?

I prefer the one with interaction, consequences and rewards, and competition. I suspect to some degree you do too or you wouldn't want to be here. But if you want a more secure space it must necessarily have even lower rewards than NS currently does. I (and others) have pointed to Sisi. Why? Because no matter what resources you acquire there they mean nothing here on the main server Tranquility. That is for reasons of balance.

No, seriously, lets consider this. Suppose I could move my LS invention operations to your HS+ and get the same rewards without the same risk. I'd do it in a mother-godamn-****ing hear beat. I'd be in there so fast your head would spin. You'd be like, Teckos for a guy your age you can stay up goddamn late and move goddamn fast...stay away from my wife! I'd be a Goddamned idiot not to make such a move. And assuming I'm not alone in my desire for high rewards and low risk I'd not be alone. What would happen to T2 prices? They drop like a rock in water. In short, HS+ with good rewards for the risk would be unbalancing. If you want HS+ with no belts, no ability to anchor citadels or POS, no PI worth doing, missions that suck ass, and so forth...well okay. But why stay in such ****** space? So you don't get ganked every 16th week? Okay...but when you quite can I have your stuff?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#786 - 2017-04-04 09:04:51 UTC
Acher0n Hades wrote:
What's this here? 40 pages because of a gank or wardeck? We might habe a new record.


You must be new here. This is par for the course. Big smile

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Black Pedro
Mine.
#787 - 2017-04-04 09:05:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Chewytowel Haklar wrote:
Odd that these people looking out for their interests is frowned upon, and yet the CSM is filled with people looking out for only their own interests as well. I don't necessarily think that having an AFK endless mining farm would be fun, but if others want to do that for some reason then okay. Too often people in this community argue that the way to play EVE is to create your own content. Yet, when that content that is created is deemed too carebear and threatens the sanctity of whatever you not only frown upon it, but also actively discourage it.

Yes of course choices come with consequences however. They chose to do X and others chose to do Y in response. I'd argue that the very people many of you hate are indeed creating content. Yet oddly enough you bite the hand that feeds. How strange...
The problem isn't that someone wants to set up a massive mining farm and run it AFK. The problem only arises when they come to the forums and ask directly for a safe space to run their gathering/industrial operation, or more usually through the deceptive use of claiming CCP's profits will skyrocket because of increased subscribers or, to protect the "new players" which they are not. Setting up a mining or other industrial operation is creating content, but only because it vulnerable to, and in competition with other players.

No one seriously hates miners even if many people find mining game play tedious. However, there is a definite dislike of the true carebear, the player who agitates for the rules of the game to be rewritten so they can be able to grind resources into our shared competitive universe at no risk to the other players. Or the pseduo-carebear who taints the minds of new players by teaching them that point of Eve is just to grind as much useless currency in as much safety as you can finagle out of the mechanics and that it is immoral to ever attack another player, think of interacting with them if a war is declared or even speak in local. Eve is a sandbox yes, but both the player retention stats and game design suggest that it is direct conflict and interactions with other players that is most engaging and keeps players in the game longest. Sure, if you tried Eve and find that mining in a quiet corner of highsec is your raison d'etre then have at it, but don't be so self-centered to think your way is the only way. Have your fun AFK mining, but don't whine or ask for the game to be changed when someone comes along and counters your 'brilliant' ISK-making strategy by exploding you.

Setting up a space where players would be immune to attack would add nothing to the game. It would in fact hurt it by devaluing the work and assets of everyone else and adding nothing the other players could interact with. That isn't content. That is a poison for the rest of the interactive game CCP has built.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#788 - 2017-04-04 09:09:05 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Acher0n Hades wrote:
What's this here? 40 pages because of a gank or wardeck? We might habe a new record.


You must be new here. This is par for the course. Big smile


My first thought after reading his comment was, "wait, we're only on page 40?"

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#789 - 2017-04-04 09:09:41 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Chewytowel Haklar wrote:
Odd that these people looking out for their interests is frowned upon, and yet the CSM is filled with people looking out for only their own interests as well. I don't necessarily think that having an AFK endless mining farm would be fun, but if others want to do that for some reason then okay. Too often people in this community argue that the way to play EVE is to create your own content. Yet, when that content that is created is deemed too carebear and threatens the sanctity of whatever you not only frown upon it, but also actively discourage it.

Yes of course choices come with consequences however. They chose to do X and others chose to do Y in response. I'd argue that the very people many of you hate are indeed creating content. Yet oddly enough you bite the hand that feeds. How strange...
The problem isn't that someone want sto set up a massive mining farm and run it AFK. The problem only arise when they come to the forums and ask directly for a safe space to run their gathering/industrial operation, or more usually through the deceptive use of claiming CCP's profits will skyrocket because of increased subscribers or, to protect the "new players" which they are not. Setting up a mining or other industrial operations is creating content, but only because it vulnerable to, and in competition with other players.

No one seriously hates miners even if many people find mining game play tedious. However, there is a definite dislike of the true carebear, the player who agitates for the rules of the game to be rewritten so they can be able to grind resources into our shared competitive universe at no risk to the other players. Or the pseduo-carebear who taints the minds of new players by teaching them that point of Eve is just to grind as much useless currency in as much safety as you can finagle out of the mechanics and that it is immoral to ever attack another player, think of interacting with them if a war is declared or even speak in local. Eve is a sandbox yes, but both the player retention stats and game design suggest that it is direct conflict and interactions with other players that is most engaging and keeps players in the game longest. Sure, if you tried Eve and find that mining in a quiet corner of highsec is your raison d'etre then have at it, but don't be so self-centered to think your way is the only way. Have your fun AFK mining, but don't whine or ask for the game to be changed when someone comes along and counters your 'brilliant' ISK-making strategy by exploding you.

Setting up a space where players would be immune to attack would add nothing to the game. It would in fact hurt it by devaluing the work and assets of everyone else and adding nothing the other players could interact with. That isn't content. That is a poison for the rest of the interactive game CCP has built.



Can you people just stop posting interesting stuff so I can Goddamn go to bed? Jesus! Big smile

What Black Pedro said. You want to set up a big ol' mining OP in HS? Fine. But you can't also ask to be immune from gankers. You are having an effect on the game with our "big ol' mining OP" so the game should be able to have an effect back on you. Either via CODE. a wardec, or something else.

Here is the basic rule: if you want to have an impact on the game environment, that environment should be able to have an impact on you.

Pretty simple.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#790 - 2017-04-04 09:13:31 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Acher0n Hades wrote:
What's this here? 40 pages because of a gank or wardeck? We might habe a new record.


You must be new here. This is par for the course. Big smile


My first thought after reading his comment was, "wait, we're only on page 40?"


Goddammit! I need sleep. Stop for like 5 minutes so I can walk away you bastards! Big smile

I expect to wake up to 100+ notifications tomorrow.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Tanuki Kittybeta
Ripperoni in Pepperoni
#791 - 2017-04-04 09:18:12 UTC
in during threadnaught
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#792 - 2017-04-04 09:39:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Teckos Pech wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:

His interpretation of both things is wrong. Oveur never said highsec should be safe, or ganking be impossible in highsec, but only that "pirating should be hard". And it is.

As for this Zombie invention of his, here is a balanced report of the events: http://www.gamesradar.com/sponsored-awesome-moments-1st-decade-eve-online/

Zombie Inc, was banned for evading CONCORD and ignoring CCP's direct request to stop exploiting a bug in the CONCORD mechanics to avoid ship loss. This had nothing to do with "noobs" or shooting players in highsec.

Shooting people in highsec has always been intended to be part of the game as long as you declare a legal war and thus give your target notice, or suffer the consequences. This has been confirmed so many times by so many devs it is rather tiresome to have to keep refuting someone on this basic fact. If someone doesn't like this design, or thinks that the game would be better off with a safe space, they should just argue that idea on its merits instead of trying to support the idea with some dubious claim to a decade-and-a-half old design goal that never existed and is directly contradicted by dev statements and actions. Changing the core idea of the game is always a possibility for CCP, but please be honest and acknowledge that that is what you are arguing for CCP to do.



Heh, so Zombie was not banned for ganking, but for evading CONCORD. Should have known with Infinity, well okay I suspected I did not have the full story. Yes ganking was involved, but that was not the issue. Ignoring a direct command to stop by CCP and essentially evading CONCORD the players in questioned were suitably punished.

I shouldn't have to point out the obvious.

Firstly I've already mentioned that Zombie exploited grid bounderies in another post recently and the reason I mentioned it was to point out the reason they did so - because ganking in high was so difficult they chose to have their accounts banned to do so.

Clearly had ganking been so prevalent and easy they would not have done it. Ganking was not a part of high sec in the early years. End of story.

Oh and the Oveur post clearly states what I think it does. Pretending his use of "pirating" was not a reference to ganking is laughable. It was piracy at the time because ganking in high was close to non-existant and the term ganking which now refers to high sec suicide was not being used.

His statement in Bold "that's the point of highsec" refers directly to it being relatively safe. Word lawyer all you like you'll still be wrong.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#793 - 2017-04-04 09:52:36 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
... because ganking in high was so difficult they chose to have their accounts banned to do so.

You make me embarrassed to be Australian at times.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#794 - 2017-04-04 09:56:53 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Your post is so stupid and full of contradictions, hisec as such is supposed to be a low risk low reward area, PVE and PVP all all part of that equation after all they would not be applying CONCORD if that was not the case. So call names all you want, I am enjoying your many contradictions and those of your supporters, they are quite frankly hilarious.

It is low risk/reward, except probably for incursions. As I said that metric is used to balance NPC loot tables and resources and not to balance player loot drops which can not be influenced since they depend on player decisions.

Dracvlad wrote:

And don't forget princess that your bumper is protected by NPC's, it seems you need reminding of that fact.

I have to say watching a ganker aligned player cry 182,580 EHP is too tough without bumping says it all..., well back to PL then!

Bumpers have the exact same protection the Freighters have. I don't see any ganker aligned player cry about 182k EHP, but an AG crying about a bumper who has far less EHP. Now that is ironic.


Your reading and comprehension skills are lacking as it is here in this thread, and I am not in AG at this point.

And you are really trying too hard again, oh a combat ship needs the protection of CONCORD, how fun...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#795 - 2017-04-04 10:00:36 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
anyone with a brain will see that with the cost of such a gank as compared to the reward that the risk reward is way out of kilter.

risk/reward is a metric to balance NPC loot drop tables and ore in the belts and not player interaction. The reward is based on what the players loads into his freighter, how would any game mechanic change ever "fix" that?


Players are the risk in Eve, don't forget that, oh but you do, only when it suits you... Roll

By the way you can have the last word, as I am going to do some risk reward in null sec o7 and calm down ganker...

EDIT some dumb idiot seems to be ignoring mechanics and its impact, not a surprise there, bumping is a mechanic mate, don't forget that. And while I am at it VNI's rock Cool

I simply pointed out an error in your argument, which is by the way very obvious and the very reason why CCP can't balance risk/reward in freighter ganking. Your childish answer makes me think you are once again out of arguments.

It's also very hilarious how you point out that the risk is supposed to be the player when all carebears do in this very thread is to call for more "NPC risks" for the gankers.


Your post is so stupid and full of contradictions, hisec as such is supposed to be a low risk low reward area, PVE and PVP all all part of that equation after all they would not be applying CONCORD if that was not the case. So call names all you want, I am enjoying your many contradictions and those of your supporters, they are quite frankly hilarious.

And don't forget princess that your bumper is protected by NPC's, it seems you need reminding of that fact.

I have to say watching a ganker aligned player cry 182,580 EHP is too tough without bumping says it all..., well back to PL then!

EDIT: Just killed a PL Panther in a Thrasher, fun fun fun.

1-Dumb people make highsec a low risk/high reward area
2-bumpers can get ganked too
3-pretty sure you're as relevant to PL as you are to this thread

Gf

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

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#796 - 2017-04-04 10:01:41 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Firstly I've already mentioned that Zombie exploited grid bounderies in another post recently and the reason I mentioned it was to point out the reason they did so - because ganking in high was so difficult they chose to have their accounts banned to do so.

Clearly had ganking been so prevalent and easy they would not have done it. Ganking was not a part of high sec in the early years. End of story.


End of the story you made up, sure. But we're talking about reality here. The reality is, Zombie wasn't banned for ganking, but for exploiting concord and ignoring the devs when they were instructed to cease and desist. If they were willing to get banned, it wasn't because ganking was hard or not allowed. According to the video of it, it was actually very very easy to do what they did, which wasn't even technically ganking so much as it was holding up a high sec smartbombing gatecamp and tanking concord.

Quote:
Oh and the Oveur post clearly states what I think it does. Pretending his use of "pirating" was not a reference to ganking is laughable. It was piracy at the time because ganking in high was close to non-existant and the term ganking which now refers to high sec suicide was not being used.

His statement in Bold "that's the point of highsec" refers directly to it being relatively safe. Word lawyer all you like you'll still be wrong.


And he was wrong. He wouldn't be the first dev to be so and he won't be the last. The evidence is, once again, in the reality of what is, rather than what one dev said (contradicting what all the other devs have said). That reality is that if high sec was intended to be safe, why are our weapons not entirely disabled there? Why is it that I am able to lock a player's ship and open fire on them at all? Why give magic space police a time til arrival depending on sec status instead of just have them magically spawn right next to you? The game is simply not designed the way you think it is, and never has been. It could be quite easily, and yet in the almost fifteen years of its existence, it has never gone that route.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Yebo Lakatosh
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#797 - 2017-04-04 10:15:13 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Goddammit! I need sleep. Stop for like 5 minutes so I can walk away you bastards! Big smile

C'mon Mr Pech.. you could leave people ignorant for 8-10 hours, probably they can't install CONCORDE to every low, null and WH system by that time.

Elite F1 pilot since YC119, incarnate of honor, integrity and tidi.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#798 - 2017-04-04 10:27:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Dom Arkaral wrote:
1-Dumb people make highsec a low risk/high reward area
2-bumpers can get ganked too
3-pretty sure you're as relevant to PL as you are to this thread

Gf


Add to that a Gila and a Bhal, was a GF in Thrashers, having fun mate.

What is the loot benefit that you get from a bumper which requires 3 Talos to be sure of, as compared to a freighter.

Are you calling freighter gankers dumb?

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#799 - 2017-04-04 10:31:39 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
What is the loot benefit that you get from a bumper which requires 3 Talos to be sure of, as compared to a freighter.

And now you are complaining that you don't get enough reward for ganking?

Evil RatKid
Black Pedro
Mine.
#800 - 2017-04-04 10:32:03 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Oh and the Oveur post clearly states what I think it does. Pretending his use of "pirating" was not a reference to ganking is laughable. It was piracy at the time because ganking in high was close to non-existant and the term ganking which now refers to high sec suicide was not being used.

His statement in Bold "that's the point of highsec" refers directly to it being relatively safe. Word lawyer all you like you'll still be wrong.
You really want to believe this don't you?

Even CCP Oveur acknowledged on the forums that you can shoot players anywhere and there is not suppose to be a safe space in this game:

CCP Oveur wrote:
[Y]ou can PvP anywhere, as long as you take the consequences, you know this already.


Apparently you don't know this. Actually, I think you do understand this but want so much to believe what you feel is right, you are ignoring or discrediting the massive number of equally credible comments from CCP devs that don't agree with your narrative.

Any reasonable person can see that CCP Oveur's comments do not mean highsec was intended to be perfectly safe (just safer), nor would any reasonable person ascribe to your version of events that Zombie, Inc. was banned for shooting players in highsec instead of their blatant and admitted exploiting of CONCORD mechanics and disregarding of demands by CCP to stop. You are not convincing anyone with your noise. What I find strange is you are so committed to these versions of events though even if true, they do nothing to support your view that highsec is currently suppose to be safe or should be made safe. It clearly isn't, as demonstrated by direct developer comments and thousands of kills each week there.

The game has not fundamentally changed in almost 14 years on this point, but if it ever were to for some reason, it isn't going to be because of some event that happened over 10 years ago or a comment some former dev once made on the forums.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?