A carebear is usually a player that, instead of asking for advice or tries to improve his gameplay, comes directly to the forums to try to ask for changes to the game in his favor. Carebears blame the game for their own shortcomings, or because they think because some things work differently in EVE than they do in some other game they are familiar with, that EVE has to adjust to them and not they have to adjust to EVE.
Some people would probably also attribute carebear to “risk averse” players, but I think that is just silly as in a full loot sandbox you basically have to be risk averse (or manage the risk) to succeed.
Okay, thanks. First time I got called a carebear was because I was doing a deadspace site. Apparently that guy’s definition is “anyone who does PvE.” Seemed rather petty to me.
I am used to ‘carebear’ being a reference to people who don’t PvP, or who heavily favor PvE. It became derogatory as people who favor PvE become the kind of forum warrior who advocates for more safety and putting the brakes on PvP.
I’m not going to take part in a debate about this here, but the main problem I personally see with the new system is that it makes impractical for small corps to have a handful of focused wardecs, to the point that even previously rivaling mercenary alliances merged into a single one after the change.
I was curious whether there would be a definition of the term in the UniWiki Lexicon and turns out there is:
A contextually derogatory or affectionate term for players or pursuits which are not PvP-centric.
That definition does’t seem entirely correct to me, though. I do usually see the term used to refer to players that are somewhat PvP averse, rather than merely not PvP-centric.
It’s often used derogatorily because those players have a tendency to do all kinds of mistakes and wrong things as a result of that PvP aversion, from losing their ships in stupid ways when confronted with other players, because of an utter lack of understanding of the game mechanics, to whining on the forums or elsewhere about how annoying the PvP aspects of the game are for them.
Actually, that would fit the definition in the UniWiki that I quoted above.
Huh. I wasn’t aware of this. I’ll have add that to my EvE research list, too.
Huh, I didn’t even think to look there. Whoops!
Yeah, I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not all that good at PvP, and when I get caught by surprise I usually spend a critical moment flailing around instead of fighting back.
Though unlike the people you describe I’m perfectly willing to admit that I need to git gud and put the effort into doing so. My only real roadblock to that is my own ineptitude at being ready for E-Uni’s PvP roams. Scheduling, I suck at it.
Yeah, Karak’s definition seems like a better one for what sounds like a derogatory term. Even four months after starting I’m still getting used to how EvE works, but it’s fun as hell and I don’t want it to lose what makes it special.
IMO, EVE handles non-consensual PvP adequately with the current system security ratings (1.0-0.0) and associated CONCORD mechanics.
AFAIK, preying on new players in starter systems isn’t allowed so they aren’t blasted as soon as they undock.
Perhaps the weakest link is when new players are (eventually) ganked, they may or may not understand what/how/why they’re dead and their ship is no more.
Oh, we can. We also understand you neither understand, nor want to hear that you are driving at least some of us away. Believe it or not, being subject to forced PvP encounters is not enjoyable for at the very least some of us. It is simply not our nature, nor is it the way we want to experience EVE. Some of us do enjoy the peaceful grind.
While others might enjoy the challenge you present, are you not at least being “evil” towards human beings that do not? Do you care?
What do you call those that justify evil committed in the name of the (thus perceived) greater good?
(Being the devil’s advocate here. I actually like things the way they are. You are evil sobs, though, just sayin.)
This, right here, is the core of my issue with a segment of EvE’s ganker population. I fully recognize that ganking is a legitimate form of gameplay and should be protected as such, but when they start with the namecalling and talk about “salt” it becomes very hard for me to see them as anything other than bullies using EvE as a vehicle to amuse themselves.
Don’t get me wrong, I know for a fact that not all gankers are like this since one of the first times I was ganked the player sent me 10 million ISK as compensation. (They knew I was a noob and didn’t want me to ragequit the game. I was really surprised.) I also realize that some players will flip out after being ganked to the point where they start making threats of IRL retribution, which is absolutely not okay.
But the glee I’ve seen expressed at the idea of upsetting other players…while I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “evil”, it does sound mean-spirited, and I personally find it rather distasteful behavior. It certainly seems like the kind of behavior every multiplayer game could use less of.
…and? “Videogame, bro” isn’t a rebuttal to anything he said. It’s not even an argument, it’s just two words and what appears to be an utterly dismissive attitude on your part. Is it really so hard for you to engage him in a (hopefully) constructive debate?
I realize that you may just be fed up with constantly arguing your points about ganking for the umpteenth time, and that’s fine. Just say so instead of being dismissive about it. Even if others don’t understand, I certainly will.
Why are you calling ganking “evil”? Would making a tackle in football be “evil”. As for smack talk, some athletes must be ultra evil!
(BTW, travelled from Lonetrek to Metropolis in a freighter (+webber, of course) with no sign of any familiar names except @Knowledgeminer. It’s almost too safe now.)
