Learn to read. I said the risk largely vanishes. Yes you can still be ganked flying around an anti-tanked freighter. But if it is empty…why not just toss on the reinforced bulkheads and make yourself a less enticing target. There was still a degree of foolishness here.
And how often does that happen? How often are empty freighter’s ganked vs. one’s over stuffed?
First off Goons do not gank Goons. Second of all, if they get ganked people in Goons would be amongst the first to laugh. Not every over stuffed AP freighter is going to get ganked…which is why people still do it.
No, it doesn’t. You have found an outlier and want to make something out of it. Basing decisions off of outliers is rarely a good idea.
I agree that blowing people up, even in high sec, is not a problem. And protecting your space and resources, especially in null, is part of the game.
But, there are lots of people, or at least were last I actually played, who are there in high sec, to be jerks. It’s not just the gank, but the conversations, the chatting in local. It’s the tear-harvesting afterwards. Do you know how psychotic that sounds? Tear-harvesting? Imagine someone at the professional sports level talking about that. They would sound like a total ass. Ganking isn’t the problem, it’s the fact that it attracts certain types of people attracted to power dynamics that allow for bullying. If those people are sorted out, I think you’ll find that people turn around on the subject.
Do I really need to link more empty freighters that are not anti-tank fitted, but were still ganked? No, better not. You don’t want to understand it anyways. Just to remind you: My point was not about the risk or how many freighters die. My point for perversion was that alt armies do the ganking these day, not actual people. Jus so that we are clear on that.
And the “largely vanishes” point does not stand any longer today if even a worthless target is being ganked after gankers used so much energy in the past to press the point that ganking should be worthwhile, ie. pay for itself with the loot.
Cargo is not the only reason why ships explode. There are many other reasons, like personal grudges, elimination of competition, killboard stats (it is a game after all), territorial control, lack of a mining permit, many many reasons.
Also they are not boting, they are just multiboxing on a very high level.
Again, toxic behavior coming from gank victims isn’t okay either. Frankly, it’s not so much what’s happened to me, which sometimes has been bad, but what other people have written about their gank victims. EVE has a history of awful player behavior. It only takes one bully and a culture of tolerating it to drive a person nutty. Just because someone in emotional distress is having a hard time communicating doesn’t mean they don’t need to be listened to. And if that’s not for you, distance yourself from them and don’t engage. But sitting there and denying their pain exists doesn’t help anyone. Walk away.
And CCP has pretty much stated if I am willing to accept the consequences of shooting you in the face, then I can do it. If you are logging into such a game and experiencing emotional distress when somebody shoots you…stop playing. Wrong game. Seriously, go play a game that is less competitive and does not allows such player-on-player interaction.
Losing your stuff to a gank is not cyber bullying. Losing in a PvP engagement is not cyber bullying…even if the PvP was non-consensual. Even something like a corp theft is not bullying.
Then block that person.
Then block them. Or maybe look at what they are saying and consider maybe…just maybe there is an element of truth in there. If you anti-tank your freighter and fill it with 5 billion in cargo value, and jump blindly around Uedama and Niarja you are being incredibly foolish and taking on alot of risk. If you take on alot of risk why are you surprised when it comes up and bites you in the ass? It is like walking along the edge of a really high building to get and awesome selfie…then being upset you fall and get seriously injured. Sorry you did something very risky…and it bit you on the ass. Learn from it and move on.
See, this is the kind of player that continues to make foolish and imprudent decisions then blames others for his own extreme risk taking behavior. Fit reinforced bulkheads. Use a scout. Set the cargo value so that ganking is uneconomical or close to it (i.e. you don’t have to out run the bear, you just have to out run the next guy–i.e. the guy who anti-tanked his freighter and over loaded it with 6 billion ISK worth of cargo value). Use a webber. If you have to move something extreme valuable and must use a freighter…grab some friends to help you do so safely.
Really? How often? No, really go look at zkill and look at all the empty freighter ganks. They have to be empty though and no war decs. And no plastic wrapped containers. Here is my guess based on the last time I looked…you won’t find very many.
Then don’t play that game. Block them. Close that chat window.
While you are at it can you also link all the over loaded freighters too so we can see some sort of proportion? Yeah, didn’t think so. And what about the dozens and dozens of freighters that go through unmolested every day? Yeah, you can’t link those.
Zkill will give you a biased result. It is basically an example of confirmation bias. It tells you nothing of the rate at which freighters are ganked in general.
Yup. Was that guy an alt for a group that CODE. has a strong dislike for? IDK. Chaces are neither does @Rivr_Luzade.
You are not the only one in this thread who tries to construct a story that gankers are somehow abusive and toxic, yet you all fail to actually provide any evidence. Just a few posts back you said:
And now you already back-pedal with:
It seriously sounds like you are just lying to push an agenda.
And you wonder why EVE has a reputation for blaming the victim. I’ve repeated stated there isn’t anything wrong with ganking itself. In, fact, it was the very first sentence of the post you replied to:
My problem is with other problem players and your response is that they should just be allowed to be problem players. I can block them, but they’re just going to move onto the next person to harass. At what point, is it their problem to fix? Do you just tolerate bullying in all areas of life?
Again, this has nothing to do with ganking, by itself. I just tried to explain why the power dynamics of ganking were attractive to bullies and that if something were actually done about the problem players, people’s problem with ganking would largely go away. And EVE would lessen its reputation for having a toxic player-base.
I’ll note that in this place you’ve completely removed the actual ganker. The ganking really isn’t the problem, but ganking isn’t a natural disaster. There’s another person doing the pushing so the analogy doesn’t fit.
So, I ask you, what responsibility do jerk players have to fix their own behavior? And let’s just state that we’re talking about hypothetical players who a plurality of people would agree are being a jerk.
You do not get it. As said above, it is not about the numbers. You brought the numbers and talk about risk into this discussion. My point is not about numbers of ganked freighters. My point is solely about that alt armies do the ganking nowadays instead actual people. The only thing I confirmation biased is that the empty freighter was killed by alt armies, not actual people. By all means, however, keep insisting on the numbers argument. As you said yourself, it has no bearing or meaning for the general topic of this thread. And I share this point with you.
I’m not in the habit of documenting every person slight against me. That would actually be really sad. But I have personally experienced it. And you can choose to believe it or not – it doesn’t matter. I’m not trying to convince you.
Your profile has a link to the CODE. website, so I would argue you have an agenda too. I’m making an argument in favor of a particular position. You are too. At no point have I accused you of lying and it’s not exactly hard to find stories of people being bullied.
A google search of “eve online cyber bullying” returns 149k results as of today. A similar search for “world of warcraft cyber bullying” returns 330k+ results with a much larger player-base. EVE has a reputation for it because CCP has a lax policy on it and has created activities that appeal to bullies. Not every player and certainly not every ganker is a bully. But a lot are. I’ve seen them, other people have seen them and it stinks to be on the receiving end. Correlation is not causation and any argument that I’m stating that gankers are bullies is just wrong.
How is that blaming the victim. If somebody is being an ass, stop associating with them.
I never said it was a natural disaster. Ganking is the result of choices and actions. One player made choices and took actions that ended up being very risky. Other players noticed this and took advantage of that player’s poor decisions. Further, they took advantage of it in a way that is totally within the rules of the game. If the person taking the risk was not ready to take the downside risk…he shouldn’t have taken that risk to begin with.
If they are jerks then shun and ostracize them. Impose a cost on them for being jerks. Best way to do that is block them, maybe set that player red, etc.
Some empty freighters get ganked. What I am asking for is what proportion of all the freighters ganked are empty? Last time I went it looked it was pretty small. And what proportion of empty freighters that are out there flying around get ganked. If there are 3 empty freighters flying around and 1 gets ganked then that is a gank rate of 1/3rd. If there are 500 then it is 1/500 or about 0.2%.
Alt characters are operated by people too and why is using alts the problem? You’d be less upset if each character had a single player behind it? Why? Do you not use alts and/or multibox in your activities?
You’re asking the person who was harassed to change their behavior, but not the person doing the harassment. That’s part of victim-blaming culture. We could be talking about women walking down dark streets or dressing a certain way and the conversation would be the same. People keep making parallels because there are parallels. It’s not even close to the same thing, but the psychology of blaming the victim applies to both.
Victims almost always ostracize their bullies. It doesn’t necessarily stop the bullying. Most people have been bullied at some point in their life. Getting your victim to change their behavior is the definition of success. You win when they are forced to succumb to your will. Bullying is about power and if the bully never has to change, they have all the power. As long as they can find other people who act like them, ostracizing doesn’t work. The bully gets satisfaction from a feeling of control over their victim. If the victim avoids the places the bully is, then bully has gotten everything they want. That’s not a solution to problem behavior.
So what? Have you read them all? Have you read the first 2 hits? The first one is the Bonus room for which the player organizing it was banned. My take was that the person who was bullied was at least partially at fault…he was lead into that situation because of his greed over-riding his better judgment.
I know, I know…you’ll shriek “Victim blaming!!!” Okay, shriek away. But do you think that the people taken in by Bernie Maddoff were completely innocent…or were they taken in, in part, by their own greed? There is an old adage, “If something is too good to be true, it probably is.” Maddoff’s victims ignored this adage and actually were taking on considerable risk.
The second was the Mittani’s drunken comments at Fanfest which were pretty bad.
In both cases the player in question was banned. The Mittani also apologized, resigned as head of the CSM, sent the player 10 billion ISK, and was temp banned for, IIRC, 60 days.
The third one is another erotica1 hit. The fourth a youtube video of the Mittani incident. Same for the 5th.
The 6th is a complaint that CODE. are cyberbullies.
Seriously, you post that number 149k as if means something. We’d first have to remove duplicates, and then we’d have to look at which of the remainder are reasonable or not. Not sure what the point of that was other than to point to an inflated number.
Madoff was prosecuted because what he did was illegal? The U.S. legal system doesn’t excuse theft because the crime was easy or the target tempting. Are you suggesting it should be otherwise?
It doesn’t mean much. You’re right. Though the fact that one of the most famous and, arguably, influential players in EVE history had to be banned for bullying and that the bonus room incident could even happen in a game for as long as it did, is troubling.
And, yes, Bernie’s victims were acting within the law. Or are you suggesting that gullibility should be a crime? Or even risk-taking? No amount of temptation excuses a crime. Are you seriously arguing otherwise?
It is a video game and nothing is stolen or lost. There is no crime here.
It wasn’t in game, that was part of the controversy. The Bonus Room took place outside of the game on a voice comms application.
No, but don’t pretend these people are pure innocent victims here. They were greedy and they let it over-ride their better judgment. That should never, ever be encouraged.
I was referring to Madoff’s crimes and Madoff’s victims. I agree that U.S. law doesn’t apply to space pirates, but bringing in Madoff as an analogy seemed flawed.
I listened to the bonus room tapes. The perpetrators of it were pretty sick individuals. The idea that what they did would be okay as long as it was in-game is pretty messed up.
I’m not sure how out-of-bounds Madoff’s promises were compared to Wallstreet, in general. Unless you plan on condemning all similar investment, the blame still solely rests with Madoff. “Should’ve known better” and “guilty of a crime” are very different things. Fraud is still a crime regardless of how naive the target.
I’m going to suggest we get off the Madoff discussion as it seems like a distraction from your main point.
Your ignorance is really starting to amuse me. And so does you insisting on numbers of kills instead of the alt count, which is my point. But as said, you just do not get it.
Alts are not the problem. Alts are essential for this EVE. The problem are 10-15 alts doing the job of 10-15 people. Yes, I do have a problem with this many alts. This number of alts takes away the work from actual players and reduces social interaction and cooperation. Yes, I would be a lot less fussed about this if this were 15 actual people investing their time and effort into the gank. Because this would mean people are actually playing the game and not just 2 or 3 alt bot-aspirants.
Funnily enough, CODE and other people on the forums keep complaining how 1-man corps are toxic for the game and how people should cooperate more, play together more, have more social interaction and then you see these alt armies. And then there are people like Teckos who keep insisting on freighter kill numbers in an argument about excessive use of alts.
First off you are being very disingenuous. I made the claim that freighter ganking was largely due to freighter pilots taking on way too much risk. You replied with a link to an anti-tanked empty freighter being ganked as some sort of proof I was wrong. When I noted the word largely, and that anti-tanking an empty freighter is largely foolish you totally moved the goal posts over to alts.
Whatever. I don’t get why you are all in a twist over alts…who cares? And if CODE. is being hypocritical about it…again…who cares.
No, better not. You don’t want to understand it anyways. Just to remind you: My point was not about the risk or how many freighters die. My point for perversion was that alt armies do the ganking these day, not actual people. Jus so that we are clear on that.
