Ganking killing content

Nothing malicious does not prevent him being a victim.

You are moving the goalpost.

A victim OF WHAT ?

Right back at ya.

I accept your surrender. Now go in peace and care for your hurt feelings.

Are you talking to me?

Legally, no. He has not been the subject of a criminal act punishable in Law.

Emotionally - he may feel victimised, but that is a self-description of his perceived state, or one provided by anyone sympathetic to his situation. It cannot be universally applied because it has its roots in the individual’s subjective assessment of his condition.

‘He is a victim’ is an attempt to conflate the two, to give one description of the state of victimhood the authority of the other. It is nonsense, and no intelligent person could possibly be convinced by such a dishonest approach to the subject.

I shall probably be accused by Stefnia of trolling, making off-topic comments, and whatever else they can think of to throw my way, but my skin is even thicker than theirs, I think.

At least you are self aware.

I wouldn’t wonder if he doesn’t really know who he is talking to any more. Whole topic looks like he is overwhelmed by emotions.

So, thanks for the confimation that this “victim” status is entirely made up in his mind. It doesn’t have any requirement, he only needs to “feel like a victim” even if nothing malicious had been done to him. At this point you should realize, the EVE Online Devs are the wrong adress for this kind of problem.

Since the definition of a loss is personal, yes the feeling of being a victim is subjective.
Somebody can be victim of an event but not consider himself victim (because the loss is not worth thinking over it).

However, when you have a context that enforces criterion for actions effects, like a killmail, then you are an objective victim whenever a killmail is generated.
And when the context is about people losing the ability for a content, then they are victims when this happens to them. Because in that case the event is inferred from the context.
For example, when we talk about WHS eviction, then the people who lived in a WHS and their structure and pods were destroyed are victims. Claiming they are not victim “because they accepted the risks” is victim blaming, so toxic behavior. They can accept the risk and still be victim.

So when we talk about people using mechanisms, other people who consider they lose something from it are victim of it.
This holds when people abuse mechanism to griefe.

So yes, you can be a victim in a video game. Objectively or subjectively. It all relies on the event and the context. Pretending “there can’t be victim” is plain BS.

Which kind of problem ? Again you are going off topic.

Also you did not answer my question . Why do you start making a reasonable argument, then stop when I ask details ?

Did you finally realize how off topic you were derailing the topic, or was it too difficult for you to keep making civil and constructive arguments ? I believe, yes.

Thanks for proving my point. Everything else is just rubbish in the context of a competitive game. There are no victims in a game, just winners, losers and losers who can’t stand a loss and begin to cry about the game being unfair, the other players being mean, calling themselves ‘victims’ and demanding the game masters should intervene to make those bad feelings go away.

No mechanic has been abused in the context of this topic. The game is designed intentionally that anyone can run the site in question anytime he likes. You still have to accept that fact, if the game designers made it that way, using it that way isn’t abuse, by definition. It’s use.

On the opposite, this proves that your “there can’t be victim” was BS.

There are never victim anywhere unless you specify OF WHAT.
In that case the event was specified, claiming those people “can’t absolutely be victim” is thus plain BS.

non sequitur.
Just because a mechanism was designed, does not mean that any use of it is not abuse.

So if I have a hotel on Park Place, and you land where I charge rent (Uedama), which bankrupts you… does that make me a griefer in real life?

You still fail to realize that we aren’t in the real world. It’s a video game with pixel avatars.

  • they can’t be hurt, they don’t feel anything. Must stuff destroyed isn’t even a ‘being’, not even virtual one. It’s a ship or a structure.

  • they can’t be killed, the capsuleers are immortal and the other stuff simply doesn’t even have a ‘life’, not even a virtual one

  • they can’t feel bad, they are imaginary things. They have no consciousness.

So the Charon being ganked by 20 Catalysts isn’t a victim. It doesn’t feel anything. It didn’t even live.
The Pilot can’t be a victim. He is immortal. He is imaginary. He doesn’t feel anything.

And the player can’t be a victim because he simply lost a piece in a bad move in a game he agreed to play. He (the player) wasn’t “killed”. He wasn’t even “attacked”. He might feel hurt, but thats his problem and completely irrelevant.

Feel free to argue in circles.

It isn’t any use. It is explicitly the use it was intentionally designed for.

Yet it is a victim according to the game. It’s literally written on the kms.

2017.05.21 19:50:22

Victim: stefnia Freir
Alliance: Unknown
Faction: Unknown
Destroyed: Condor
System: Uitra
Security: 0.9
Damage Taken: 1122

Involved parties:

Name: Guristas Starbase Control Tower / Guristas Pirates (laid the final blow)
Damage Done: 1122

When your vision contradicts reality, that is called being delusional.
When this happens over prolongated period of time, that’s a delirium syndrom.

That’s victim blaming.
He is not a victim of his own move. What he is victim of, depends on the context.

Liar. That’s exactly the definition.

Which was not even remotely part of my point. You are even more off topic.

Obviously not, just look at that Killmail. In the line “victim” not the ship is listed, it’s the (avatar) pilot. The ship is an inanimate object, seeing it as “victim” is as stupid as seeing the banana you chew as victim of your teeth.

Now we can discuss why they use the term “victim” and even those reasons are quite clear: from an ingame perspective the “attack” and the “death” (even if only temporary) for this “pilot” has occured so for simple immersion reasons they call it “victim”. Staying in-character it should seem like a “real universe”, but it simply isn’t. I can call an Avatar “Magician” to raise the immersion that the dude is an imaginary avatar in a fantasy game full of mystery and magic - that doesn’t mean suddenly “magicians exist!!!”, they are just called “magicians” to make the game feel more real and immersive for he players. However, your little clone casuleer has never felt any pain, never froze to death in space after his ship and maybe pod exploded, it was all imaginary. So - at best - he is an imaginary victim, no bit of harm was done, no problem exist, nothing needs to be fixed.

But, that misses the whole point. This topic is about PLAYERS (real persons behind the avatars) claiming to be victims of griefing, which - of course - is absolutely nonsense.

Every successful gank is the result of a chain of mistakes by the pilot being ganked. Be it being overconfident, being lazy, be it not knowing the rules of engagement, be it not scouting properly, trusting the wrong persons… whatever. If you play flawless, you simply can’t be ganked. But no one does, so you can only minimize your chances of being ganked. Nonetheless, you are responsible for every single ship loss in EVE, server issues excluded.

Obviously yes, since the mail actually contains victimTypeId .

Yet that definition applies for the bananas. Being an inanimate object does not prevent from being victim. Again, you are changing the definition, and that’s dishonest.

No, you don’t know. You propose an interpretation, but that interpretation can be wrong as far as we know.
Also that interpretation is off topic, since the point that, that there is a victim in a KM, therefore your claim that “there can’t absolutely be victim in a video game” is BS.

Indeed, you’ve been off topic for a long part now. Glad you finally realize it.

Yet you have not proven it.
Players can be victim of griefing in a game. Because there can’t be griefing if there is no victim to start with.

Your argument is made of the strongest absurdium. Have fun trolling alone.

That’s victim blaming.

Some people really want to be a victim…


EVE is an MMORPG after all, maybe this is their choice of roleplay in the game, to be a victim. :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

1 Like

It’s the truth. Maybe it hurts, it still is the truth. And it’s no ‘blaming’ at all, it’s just clarifying who could have prevented this ship loss. The one flying it. To help him rethink his decisions and become a better player. It can’t even victim-blaming because if anything, the imaginary ingame-avatar was the imaginary victim, but I am not even talking to “him”. The player wasn’t a victim, so pointing out his mistakes that lead to the ship loss can’t be victim blaming. Its called “advice”.

That victimTypeID doesn’t refer to the ship. So your little Condor is not even meant. Besides that, neither the Condor nor the Avatar even exist as physical objects, they are database entries that just have attributes changed. Health=100% vs. Health=0% does not “damage” them, it simply changes their status in a database. They can’t be killed, damaged, hurt whatever. Your own definition would only apply if the database itself would be attacked and the entries forcefully changed so they no longer have their attributes attached within the rules of the game, then we could assume they have been “damaged” (meaning they no longer have the properties they should have according to the game rules).

Maybe, there is no way to really know until a CCP dev steps out of the dark and clarifies why they did make the killmail as they did. Since I have worked quite a long time with game design teams in my younger days, I am pretty confident about it. But well, these were other times, when players didn’t cry about every invonvenience and demanded changes to cater and protect them.

Sure, multiple times.

  • no rule has been broken
  • all mechanics have been used exactly as indended
  • no one is prevented from playing the game as agreed in the EULA/ToS (aka the contract made between CCP and the player)

If you find any of these points wrong, link your proof.

So, lets summarize: There are no victims in games, especially not in online games where all things are just virtual and imaginary. Even if they are called “victims” for immersion reasons, they are as real victims as ingame zombies are real zombies. They aren’t, they don’t even exist other than has digital database entry that can be modified, but not damaged or hurt by legit ingame actions.


It’s not just incursions, though. You get that exact same entitled carebear PvE mentality with miners and asteroids…’ this is MY asteroid, go mine elsewhere ‘…and especially with anomalies with ’ I got here first…this is MY anomaly’.

There’s absolutely nothing in the EVE rules that says a person ‘owns’ anything due to getting there first. Quite the reverse…the whole purpose of EVE is to fight for stuff.

1 Like

Beware, steffi will soon emerge to correct you about your toxic ideas. You have been warned, raise the woke-shield.