There is no limit.
What could be against the ToS / EULA is not ganking someone over and over, not even if the gankee ends up quitting the game as a result, but rather make it something personal and follow him around wherever he goes with the intent of not letting him play the game.
2 Likes
Knowledgeminer explained it perfectly.
Ganking your alts is unlimited recursive circle-jerk activity. Enjoy.
1 Like
Mainly because you are one player and yet if left unchecked you may drive many away.
Cost effectiveness? Bounce you and keep all the folks you might have forced out of the game.
Morals be damned, this is about money
m
6 Likes
@Coffee_Stains_Unlimited @Nana_Skalski @Mike_Azariah
But there are limits; aren’t there?
- you have to find the target
- you have to field an appropriate ship
- you have to replace any potential losses
- you have to spend playtime to sustain your aggression
Why are the hard limits that are already in place not enough to limit players from committing harassment? You seem to be implying that EVE gives the aggressor too much choice for too little cost. Otherwise, wouldn’t it quickly become nigh impossible to continue behaving aggressively? Shouldn’t the natural drawbacks of aggression limit it’s use enough that harassment couldn’t even really take place?
@Gowa_Hyasyoda @Knowledgeminer It’s always personal, though. You always blow up someone else’s ship. You may not mean it “personally” but . . . so?
Aggression is aggression. One of the draws of the game is that we are enabled to behave aggressively. The ubiquitous risk of aggression is . . . that’s EVE.
Personal or impersonal, shouldn’t the onus be on the victim to avoid, evade, withstand or repel the aggression using the resources at hand? Player A is forced by game mechanics to play Player B’s game of aggression, personal or impersonal. But why should Player B be forced to play Player A’s game of peace love and harmony by force of the TOS and EULA? Why shouldn’t Player A also have to resort to game mechanics in pursuit of his/her desired outcome?
2 Likes
What @Knowledgeminer said here. I once had a guy who reshipped into another Retriever and went back to mining every time he died. He died a lot. I didn’t specifically target him or seek him out, but when you are ganking in a constellation and someone just constantly makes the same mistake that is his problem not yours.
1 Like
How do we have to understand that if you “give them the finger” while sitting in front of a computer? You know they can’t see you right?
Ah the internet tough kid way
3 Likes
Gank me once shame on you. Gank me twice shame on me. But this guy never learns. So keep up the ganks until he learns smthing from it
1 Like
Your question is meaningless. Its CCP’s game and CCP’s TOS & EULA and they don’t have to explain or excuse it to you - and anyone else’s explanation is just guesswork.
And - if you think it’s perfectly acceptable to harrass someone in a game to the extent that they have to give up the game altogether to escape you, your moral compass has definitely lost its magnetic north…
5 Likes
Even large scale indiscriminate ganking can be seen as griefing. CODE. are the prime example - they had to come up with “mining permit” system to be able to say they do it for profit…
1 Like
That’s simply impossible. Shooting spaceships in a spaceship shooting game, be it suicide ganking in high sec or otherwise, is by itself playing the game as intended, not harassment, so as stated the question does not even make sense. That can only make sense to you if you think the mere act of shooting someone else’s ship in a spaceship shooting game is harassment by itself…
No, I’m talking about the aggressor intentions, not about the inability of some players to understand this is a spaceship shooting game and taking it personally as a result.
By making it personal I mean the aggressor makes it personal by following a specific target around wherever he goes, completely ignoring other more convenient targets he might find along the way.
That some victims take it personally every time someone blows up their ship in a spaceship shooting game is their problem, not what I’m talking about.
There are several types of aggression and different ways in which aggression may happen. Verbal aggression through chat or mail, for example, could easily break the ToS / EULA and not be tolerated, whereas shooting ships is merely playing the game as intended.
If you ignore the differences, the context, and the intent, and lump everything together into the term “aggression”, you’re not understanding a thing about this and nothing you say is going to make sense.
Yes, or at the very least not make a big deal of losing his ship if he’s unwilling to do that. This is correct.
Nobody is forced to do anything in this game. This is wrong.
This makes no sense at all. The Tos / EULA has absolutely nothing to do with forcing players to play a “game of peace love and harmony” in any way.
But he has to… All players have to “resort to game mechanics in pursuit of their desired outcome”… What does this have to do with the ToS / EULA?
1 Like
It is astonistonishing how this completely false rumor is staying around. It’s like people can’t read, don’t understand what they read or simply repeat some stuff they hear somewhere without checking.
You don’t need a reason to shoot spaceships in a spaceship shooting game. The “mining permit” was suggested by a GM for bumping and not for ganking.
1 Like
same thing, if you think about it. Also from what i have read GM just said that it wouldn’t have been a problem if CODE. done their activities for “profit”, even if only nominally.
1 Like
So you did read it but didn’t understand what was written? Interesting.
Not really, bumping is an inherently profitless activity without the permit, the bumper gaining nothing of fiscal value; whereas ganking has a goodly chance of being profitable given the disparity between the cost of the ships required to do it and the potential fiscal value of the loot drop.
Not when their group activity involved bumping/ganking primarily miners. It was later that they shifted to other aspects like hauling and misisoning.
It doesnt even matter what they did or didnt, what matters is the fact - their indiscriminate (non-personal) activity had to be intervened by game authorities to make it … look less like a griefing.
Wouldn’t a paying contract to repeatedly kill a character be acceptable, legitimizing what might otherwise be “griefing”?
1 Like
Ganking miners is profitable. A single T2 mining laser can pretty much pay for a T1 catalyst.