All you do is lie on these forums. Other people might troll, pick fights, argue semantics, or derail threads, but you’re just a straight-up liar, which is the least honorable of them all.
No one moved out of null-sec “because the foes are too big” because when you’re in null-sec, that’s a non-issue since you’re also necessarily part of a big group yourself. People moved out of null-sec because of the boring, static nature of fleet warfare, stagnant politics, and endless seas of bots that you aren’t allowed to touch.
All you do is lie to everyone within earshot with your asinine “griefy gankbaby goo-goo gah-gah” talk because it’s literally the only way you can get back at the “griefers” since you’re impotent in every other way possible. You are worse than Balos. At least he’s honest in his desire, and consistent in his message.
I’m starting to be more active now, and I’m going to gank a miner for every single lying trash post you make. And then I’ll quote your lies as the reason if they ask me why I did it.
Yes it’s still harassment. Harassment is about the state of the actions, not the choices that you made before.
Because that’s literally what CCP chose. If people follow you in several systems to gank you in HS, you can ticket a GM and explain that to them. And if the HS harassment is deemed correct by the GM, the harasser will get banned.
So yes, HS is the “no harassment” area (that is no gameplay harassment - personal harassment is forbidden anywhere). You can gank people, but if you abuse it you will receive the taste of the banhammer. With wardecs, you were able to avoid that.
If you want to harass people ingame, you are welcome to do so in other spaces. With structures being a valid target for harassment, owning a structure is the only valid reason to harass people in HS - also meaning that the possible harassment is a choice (not always but … ) from the player, not like before the direct result of making friends.
These masses of players are still quitting. It’s not wardecs alone that made them quit. The nature of eve makes them quit.
Don’t forget that when wardecs were cheaper and easier to start, eve subs and player log ins were growing every year.
And vice versa a game that appeals to only ‘live stock’ is dull and lifeless.
I disagree. And CCP wrote this:
War Declarations are a risk that every player corporation has to face and they are under no circumstances considered harassment. Wars in general can be completely avoided by remaining in an NPC corporation
And there are real world parallels as well.
So if CCP said wardecs weren’t harassment like above?..
And I literally said that wardecs allowed you to do harassment…
What’s wrong with your memory ?
CCP on one hand says “harassing players is bad in HS”
CCP on the other hand says “but you can do it with wardecs”
Then when CCP realizes that players who were told that HS was free of harassment, realize that it’s at the cost of not making friend ( see social corporations), leave, CCP realizes the absurd of the situation and fixes it(by adding said social corporations). And here we are, with you not understanding how absurd it was.
I’m not talking about ‘should be’ designed, and other than a few people on the forums, I don’t think there’s any great body of players asking for a game that’s peaceful for the asking. Players looking for that leave quickly.
The game is what it is, trite as that phrase is. That means that people react to the way the game it’s designed, not to the way it should be, or was conceived to be, or that CCP or any players wants it to be.
If we focus on the reality of the game, then EVE is literally designed so that larger, more experience/skilled, more organized, and more aggressive groups can literally make game play so unrewarding for other groups that they stop playing. This is not good game design. It leads to an ecosystem where those who enjoy exerting power and dominance over others (in a game environment, mind) stay in the game longer, and those who don’t like getting pushed around for other people’s amusement leave the game.
That’s not a should be, would be, “these folks are better those folks are worse” opinion. That is literally what CCP’s own stats (and any application of rational thinking) reveal. So either you say “Fine, cool, we’re happy with peaceful productive players leaving the game, and we’re fine with fewer players and a nasty reputation on the gaming message boards, and we’re good with less in-game activity, so long as the strong can bully the weak and the weak have no options then it’s all good”.
Of course that leads to a steadily declining game over the long term, but if that’s what everyone wants then fine. The alternative is not to make the game safe and bubblewrap it. The proper alternative is to give target groups at least the perception of having some degree of agency in an accessible manner. More accessible than, say, “build a big corp of your own and train them all at PvP and wardec the people who targeted you”.
Look, I’m sorry that your feelings get hurt when I point out your facts are wrong, your opinions self-centered, and your motives are the exact same as the carebears you consistently insult and despise.
It’s completely understandable that when you can’t actually argue reasonably about something that’s an emotional issue for you, you devolve into ad-hominem attacks, accusations, insults and derision. It would certainly be nicer if you got your facts straight or could respond rationally, but nobody really expects that of you. You are, after all, a weak highsec ganker who fled real PvP to go to safe space, and have been crying about it ever since.
You could at least try to respond to actual full sentences though, rather than selecting 3-4 words from one line and pretending that was the whole point. For instance, I said:
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but this post is by you, in another thread where you’re also getting trounced and responding with sputtering and insults:
See, the key thing about my points, the ones you call lies, is that I can back them up and prove them, and include references. All you can do is sputter and fume and shout insults from behind your little Concord-protected playground. And honestly, you can gank all you like and take all your anger out on anyone you want. Ganking’s never done me any damage and I’ve no concern about it in the future. My freighters get where they’re going, cargo intact, every time. Have fun finding them!
Of course they do. These people are professionals at cherry-picking their data and arguments.
But what’s missing from the standard lying scumbag drivel around here is the acknowledgement that the reason these players feel “victimized” is entirely of their own doing. It’s the “strong” picking on the “weak,” which is “harassment,” but never mind that these people could, I don’t know, join more balanced, capable, and stronger groups/alliance instead of insisting on playing with like-minded, impotent Eloi like themselves. Hey, I have a great idea! Let’s not have any fighters in our corporation, because that means it’s going to be more money for us! \o/
They don’t.
CCP did not say that harassment performed under a war is not harassment. CCP said that the war declaration is not harassment. and I’m saying , that war declaration makes harassment legal.
There is no contradiction in this.
Kinda like you talk about one thing and then a different one as it suits you.
And as I wrote I am talking about gameplay harassment. Context.
No one can possibly be this incompetent, so I can safely assume this is yet more intentional lying.
You know very well what my post meant. For anyone else who might not, I will explain: not choosing to engage in shitty-ass gameplay isn’t the same thing as being afraid of it. Leaving an area because you aren’t able to find enjoyable, small-scale combat isn’t the same thing as leaving an area because you’re afraid of large-scale combat. This is yet more of the intentional misconstruction this person is well-known for. Don’t fall for it.
There you go. More impotent babble because you have zero power and courage to do anything else but anonymously talk ■■■■ from within the confines of a forum. This is literally the extent of your influence. You have no impact on anyone whatsoever. At least I do, even if by virtue of my ideals. You, as a player, will always be wary of and on the lookout for players like me, but the opposite will never be true. Your biggest victory over anyone is limited to waiting until CCP changes something, and then gloating about it. It’s kind of sad, actually. That’s not a life even worth living in my eyes.
Yes yes, we’ve heard all this before, “I shoot weak targets in safe space so I am a brave and noble warrior, living by the highest ideals. You avoid letting me shoot you but continue to play while ignoring me, so you are a bad and evil player and a rotten person IRL too!”.
Honestly, if that’s the level of debate your PvP crowd is capable of, you and Solstice and Hellokitty and Scipio and the rest should just form a club where you can sit around and tell each other war stories about your mighty victories over industrials and miners, and possibly sign up for a class on actual debating technique.
It’ll do you a world of good!
(PS: It’s kinda weird how you keep focusing on needing more combat opportunities in high sec where you’re safe, and not about improving combat opportunities in low sec where you’re a target, but that’s just the mindset all you safe-PvPers have gotten locked in to I guess. You should try asking for some actual challenging combat for a change, instead of crying for an endless supply of weak, high-profit targets in high-sec so you can continue to be lazy and safe.)
No one, aside for a few good-faith people, has been debating with you for a long time now, because you’ve proven you have zero willingness to debate in good faith after you came out the door swinging the “gankbaby” club. And those people will get tired of you soon enough. The only support you get is from other bottom-feeding Eloi.
Yes that is what people who do support it are saying.
I really dont get the relevence of your continued “one side is better than the other” stuff, and I really dont think you expect me to agree with your position that there isnt a great number of (particular from either your my our their viewpoint) people wanting the game changed in their myopic favour as the evidence is literally in nearly every thread here, including this one.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to as my “one side is better than the other”. The so-called carebears continue to say pvpers and gankers are bad, the so-called PvPers continue to say that carebears are bad. I keep saying that there’s room for all playstyles in the game if the game is designed properly, and that poor design around the PvP aspects is the primary reason that both sides are unhappy with the result.
The worst criticism I level is on those whose hypocrisy blinds them to the actual situation. Specifically those high-sec PvPers who continually ask for easier and more PvP in high sec so they can have easy targets without much risk, rather than asking for actual improvements to PvP mechanics across the game so that there’s more PvP overall, and so that people who engage in it have to take on more consequences than “is the loot drop or salt mined worth the Catalyst I’m going to lose?”.
(Please note: if a carebear comes along and says something obviously contradictory to the nature of EVE then I also point out that flaw to them. There are actually fewer of those posts than of PvPers saying “the game was designed for me to PvP, therefore give me easy targets”.)
As for the ‘great number of people wanting the game changed in their favor’, well there’s two ways of looking at that. First off, almost everyone wants the game changed more to their liking, that’s just natural. But as for actual camps, such as carebears or PvPers, calling frequently for changes to their specific niche of the game, if you check the forum posts you’ll see there’s less than a hundred names at any given time discussing these things - and about half of those are always the same names, with always the same position. That’s entirely unrepresentative of the player base as a whole.
If you could go to all the players, and get their vote on “Should high sec space be completely safe, or should it be gankfest free-for-all, or should there be a balance between the two?” I’m virtually certain you’d get a bell curve with the large majority of players supporting a middle position. The actual question is how best to balance the mechanics so there’s more room for people to play in a way that satisfies them, and less opportunity for small numbers of players to use game mechanics to drive other players out of the game.
I’m pretty sure harassment can only apply when the victim makes an actual effort to get away. So how is it still harassment when the victim can leave at any time?
No, I’m answering your question as to what differs with wardecs, by “nothing”.
You asked that stupid question. FFS you can’t even remember your questions.
No, this is BS.
Just because you answer to harassment by moving does not mean there was not harassment in the first place.
What is true, is that CCP won’t defend you if you don’t even try to avoid harassment in terms of gameplay.
No it does not. If I hit you in the face, just because you can leave the place does not mean my act was not aggression. If I steal your car, just because you can buy another one does not make it less a theft.
Harassment is never characterized by the reaction of the victim, for whatever sense of this word we use (warfare, of civil).
