Do you want more protection from people in highsec, or less?

Communications Center General Discussion
540

I’d say we should name individuals rather than the umbrella. I’ve gotten what i assume is the usual mail from code. But I’ve never been personally attacked by them.

And we should do the same when it’s the other way round. I’m guilty of tarring bears with the same brush.

The bonus room and those responsible were highlighted and dealt with.

You cannot forever hold the entire of code past, present and future accountable for it anymore than the Germans can be held forever accountable for the wars.

There’s also a big difference between killing someone in the game, ‘victim blaming’ them for in game actions compared to threatening harm on real life people.

CODE are deliberately pushing buttons yes, but within the game is it not? And surely if the way code did this was having a significant effect on retention we’d have seen it. Wouldn’t it have come up when rise was looking into the effect ganking had on retention?

1 Like
541

If you snapshot at one given time you may be right. I said “beginning of the end”. In 2006 when Sniggwaffe was ganking in Amamake and putting the killmails on their site and making comments, it was not so bad because the trends were starting.
TEARS was not nerfed. There was a channel called “Free Wrecks” where salvagers would go to get, well, free wrecks as the name implied. But making it so the wrecks were actually free was not really in the game mechanics. By popular demand, being able to abandon wrecks seemed like a good idea. I know what it’s like to lose a playstyle to one mechanics change, by the way.
For the “Pirate Stories” thread in C&P, go back and find the old ones and read them from start to finish. I did - even when they were being written. You know what? The early stories are great! These were stories of capers, blowhards, people taking risks, talking smack, and pulling against considerable odds. They were good stories. And not only those threads. Who can forget Cedrick Cayne (my spelling is probably off there it was years ago) and his denouement of a player who was a terrible CEO but needed to learn it?
As you read the pirate stories thread though, you will notice that it degenerated from capers and good quality Yarr-age into “LoL we tricked this guy into joining corp then we robbed him and killed him in lowsel LOL GO BACK TO WOW HEADSHOT!!!”
What kind of stories do you want to tell? Of the mogul who thought he could outwit some players and got some comeuppance, or a humble band of new players scoring big against better players, or “we got somoenes trust in game and screwed him oh look he mad what a loser!”
I think even you know the answer.
I have seen now a decade of complaints about players being “risk averse” in the context of fear of losing their space pixels. People who are hooked on their stats or ISK, in a spergy min-maxing way, are going to be risk averse whether they are mining rocks or other players’ ships. But the real risk aversion is not risk in the game, it’s their enjoyment of the game itself they don’t want to lose. And making the sandbox into a litterbox tends to do that.

542

No they weren’t. The primary instigators were dealt with. The rest of the mass of participants are still with us and out there pushing buttons still.

No, pushing buttons is not within the game. The EULA specifically says Roleplay is never an acceptable excuse for harassment.
As for retention, 1. Where did I say anything about it, and 2. Rise looked at the first 21 days or so, and included people that never even undocked. His numbers were only good for indicating what areas needed a more in depth look at them to try and actually isolate figures and work out what was going on. It was a great look at that level, don’t get me wrong, but it wasn’t a look at a good enough level to actually draw conclusions on anything in any direction. And finally 3. Who cares if it affects retention or not. Bad behaviour should not be encouraged or tolerated. This includes abuse and deliberate button pushing trying to create said abuse.

3 Likes
543

If someone pays this permit do they get ganked anyway?

544

Yes.

The permit is stuff and nonsense. The decision on whether or not you get ganked really comes down to whether or not the people doing the ganking like you.

545

The bonus room was a significant point in eve history. Bans were made, policy was changed and players changed their behaviours.

If you know someone who should have been banned but wasn’t, tell CCP.
If someone who was involved in the bonus room is still breaching EULA, tell CCP.

Aside from that

Harassment.

Important word. What you think is pushing buttons might be different to what i think is pushing buttons. My idea of pushing buttons might not be harassment, yours might be. But really anyone who feels harassed can report it to CCP and they can decide if its crossed a line.

No one is saying bad behaviour should be encouraged or tolerated. But what you think is bad behaviour might be different to mine, or CCP’s or even the victims.

546

I’m under the impression CODE work like american insurance firms in the Michael Moore documentary SICKO.

Sell the product and then find any way that the buyer has breached the terms and conditions.

547

Indeed. Is shooting someone’s ship in highsec and then telling the exploded that they should have bought a permit, obeyed some player-written set of rules, or that they are trespassing on space belonging to another player considered bad behaviour? Objectively, I don’t see how anyone could claim so given the nature of this game. New Eden is a player-driven universe where such things are not only permissible, but intended.

CCP clearly agrees, not only tolerating such behaviour, but enabling it, even praising sucide ganking efforts publically and asserting that this is the type of game play they intend to take place. Bad behaviour clearly is a thing, but almost exclusively is something that spews forth from those that have lost imaginary pixels they are too attached to, rather than highsec content creators, at least in my experience. Indeed, there are a few aggressors that I have run across that seem to be primarily motivated in proking a reaction from those they explode, but most are just having fun blowing ■■■■ up, being part of something, and having an impact on the game universe.

And even if there are a couple sadists out there who are primarily motivated by tear extraction, what does it matter if they engage in EULA-compliant activities like ganking miners or haulers in highsec? It certainly doesn’t excuse the actual EULA-breaking behaviour inflicted on those that engage in legal and intended game play and that seems to be tacitly excused by too many as acceptable behaviour because of “button pushing“ or whatever.

Bad behaviour has a clear definitation in the EULA and comes nowhere near shooting ships in highsec without consent of all parties, or claiming ownership of highsec or the right to dictate how people play the game there. Even applying the “harasssment” clause in the case of the Bonus Room was a large leap in interpretation given the transient nature of the event and the lack of real-world identities being involved, even if I don’t fault CCP for deciding they wanted no part of that, nor question their right to decide who plays their game. But there are reams and reams of vile personal insults, threats and hate speech documented on Minerbumping and elsewhere that have no place anywhere in human interaction and very little line-crossing stuff coming from highsec aggressors.

But I don’t think it especially useful though to conflate EULA-breaking behaviour and the question of highsec security. The rules are the rules, and highsec is a legit place for the core competitive game of Eve Online to go on, even more so in the age of increased player control and Upwell structures. Trying to claim some moral high ground or pointing fingers isn’t going to reinvigorate this game. If people violate the EULA, that is something for CCP to sort out and unrelated to the question of the OP. We can discuss the balance of highsec safety, risk and reward without descending into the murk of this pointless debate.

2 Likes
548

Man that was a lot of words to say that you are a snowflake.

Seriously.

If I were king there would be low sec separating the empires so it makes using a single trade hub that much harder. I also trained to train, and this character was a direct result of catching training skills going away before some goof on the bazar.

CCP keeps trying to make this “casual” friendly …and by casual I mean bad…and the PCU keeps dying for it.

Also. Loving the no local thing…if I could have the rest of my chats back.

549

EvE is NOT real life, FFS!

2 Likes
550

Try actually reading the whole post next time. And the post I was replying to.

551

That murk is the discussion currently though.

You typed a lot of words to essentially say that most activities going on in highsec are within the boundaries of the rules.

I don’t believe anyone here has said that they are not. Ganking, permits, inciteful behavior, piracy, backstabbing… Indeed all of “da bad guy” behaviour is 100% in line with the EULA. And so it should stay.

The “murk” was what we were discussing though. The crazy idea that despite CCP’s much-touted study, the effects of people in the game acting like dick heads to each other may actually not result in a net growth. Or indeed that the people doing the buttholery gave one flying crap about whether or not growth/retention was affected.

We can sit here and have 10 active threads on the subject of ganking, and in every one of those threads, somebody will bring up The Great Study. We’ve all heard by now how blowing up people’s ships helps them get a better feel for how the game is meant to be played.

It becomes justification for an arms race of one-upmanship, trying to see who can out dick head who. It becomes fertile ground for third-party blogs extolling the virtues of trying to spin up victims.
And we all are supposed to pretend like these people are doing it for the good of the game, instead of their jollies.

I have never once argued that ganking has no place in this game. And I have never once stated that I think it should not happen in hi sec. If I had any argument at all, it would be that we should just drop the stupid pretenses, and the claims to higher moral ground on both sides.

You’re not selling permits to people, or blowing up their ship, or sending post-gank surveys to them for the good of the game. You’re doing it because you think it’s funny. You’re not actually trying to help CCP, you’re not concerning yourself with whether or not retention is in fact negatively impacted. You’re not doing it for the good of the game.

You’re doing it because you want to. That is reason enough in my book.

Just stop the pretentious twaddle while you’re doing it.

2 Likes
552

You claim you didn’t write that sentence?

553

Any concerns with one-upmanship i would address the same way as concerns for the slippery slope. You take each case individually.

After the bonus room ccp falcon drew a line between what was acceptable and what was not, but deliberately didn’t tell the playerbase where it was so that they didn’t feel free to do whatever they like upto the point of crossing the line.

Common sense should prevail here. And if ccp see that this is having a significant impact on retention, ccp can probably adjust the line accordingly on a case by case basis. But that’s if it has a significant affect on retention.

2 Likes
554

I’m the one who usually says it, but here he is very cautious with the terms he uses and he is not affirming things, just “suggesting” relations between events, that make sense according to him.
Does not mean you’re wrong with social adaptation, just that he is not wrong either :wink:

here however he is mistaking correlation and causation :

Seriously ? This article is 100% falsification. It affirms things out of nowhere and claims that CCP said it. That’s lying on purpose when presenting data analysis. That’s what comes in mind of people who analyze IRL falsification. So yes, this site is using falsification.

555

A website specifically for mocking victims…that is not “within game”. I have no doubt that they would go as far as posting the real life name and address of their victims if they could. Whatever data CCP allows them to pull from the game should not be allowed.

1 Like
556

The website isn’t, but the communication with the ‘victim’ is. And the website is just documentation of in game events.

I’ve been mocked by gankers as i mentioned above. And I’ve read some miner bumping articles (and I’m reading some more now, congrats @Black_Pedro) . It’s not what I’d call crossing the line. It’s code doing roleplay things. So i don’t report it.

If you think something has crossed the line, report it to CCP.

As far as posting real life info of victims, I very much doubt they would. I haven’t seen code do anything associated with doxing, and if they did, ccp would take action.

I suspect you’re just making an unsubstantiated claim and a bit bitter about code.

Edit-
Just to explain my congrats to black pedro, it’s for completing the mission of getting a code kill in every system of hi-sec.

I didn’t realise i had clicked ‘2017’ and thought this was a much more recent event. Damn my fat fingers :rofl:

557

LOL carebears convince themselves that they are so powerless, despite the fact that CCP has given them every tool they need to protect themselves and their assets. Pathetic.

2 Likes
558

LOL you’re still all twisted up about that article, aren’t you? :grin:

The fact that James 315 can upset carebears so much with just a little bit of editorializing is one of the many reasons he has my undying loyalty.

1 Like
559

an article 100% wrong with stuff 100% presented by CCP at Fanfest 2015

can’t be more false than that /s