All those special snowflakes that can’t even stand the slightest CLEAR word spoken out loud MUST be protected…
THAT’S the real problem today…
That a discussion in which the TRUE opinion is spoken out in clear words and not covered in cotton wool is automatically understood as insult by the special snowflakes.
This would be no problem if there weren’t the “snowflake protectors”,the “political correctness police officers” that try to tell you,even against the will of the snowflakes,that you “can’t say it this way.”…
No…just no…
CLEAR words are the ONLY way to discuss…cottom wool just fills your mouth and makes a discussion impossible…
I have no idea why you replied to me with that random caps rant. It’s nothing to do with anything I said.
Would you care to try again to actually formulate a logical argument that explains what your point is.
No it just flagged me as a direct reply to me, and you can do that without a quote. I guess you hit the wrong reply button then if it wasn’t aimed at me.
Honestly? New policy is bananas.
No offense, but we are in the game, ffs. Games are:
1)Competitive to some degree.
2)Rely on that “inner kid” to do the actual lifting of transforming bunch of incoherent menus and windows into big magical picture of universe.
With new policy you are trying to still use that “inner kid” to work, yet being full-package-adult with full-scale RL restrictions. You are trying to get cheap fertilizer without funky odor. It just won’t happen, you’ll either will have to not really enforce this policy or watch the world die. Latter is undesirable to you, so the former will be in place. And nothing kills obeying the rules faster than fuzzy lines between breaking the rules and actual punishment. It’s PETA pamphlets all over again.
Harassment has been illegal but never defined. As such there was a lot of leeway. Right now CCP is hard at work to add definition to what they consider to be harassment. You may not care, I do. We’ll never get along on these points as I find the lack of clarity problematic. I’ll have to agree to disagree with you.
You play a game. Then you decide to tell another player you will kill him in RL. You get permaban and if you want a trial, go to the local police and ask them to note that you wanted to murder someone but you got high. Enjoy the public trial.
Only EVE players can complain for over 600 messages that a policy condemning RL threats and harassment curbs their playstyle. And most of you are bloody grown men, 30+ yrs old. SMH.
If you’re so worried about this change, maybe you should evaluate what you’re doing that skirts on these new policies, and stop them. HTFU and all that.
Well…in my eyes everything regarding unwilling and unaccepted pvp is harrasment.
This includes gatecamps and miner ganking (in high) but also any form of mission relevant item stealing and scanning and disturbing a mission…pretty far definition hm…?
No i don’t think so…
Think about it this way : if I would be in his place would i like or want what i’m trying to do ?
If the answer is : no then it’s harrasment…
And yes…i know that many people don’t care eve is a pvp game,you better should play single player games ect .p.p. blablabla…but this has no effect on the definition
We’re not complaining about the policy being put in place, but rather that the policy isn’t clear enough on certain aspects that can open up routes for abuse and an erosion of EVE’s culture. By any means, anything in form of harassment that is transcending the boundaries of game mechanics should be punished. But in-game there are actions some will consider harassment while others do not. We want that latter part, on how it works of in-game stuff, to be more clear.
EVE’s own development team has stated over and over again that someone becomes a valid target whenever they leave the safety of a station. It is a basic tennet in what the game is about. A gatecamp isn’t harassment. Ganking players on their mining adventures, isn’t harassment. Stealing from corporations isn’t harassment. It is harassment when your behaviour takes structural steps to inconvenience specific players for personal reasons, beyond reasonable in-game behaviours.
Harassment to me would be that when I block someone from conversing with me, that they proceed to log into new characters to contact me. It would be people that deliberately contact your CEO’s to try and get you removed over a grudge. But all these aspects have a structural element to them, while a gatecamp is incidental.
And yes, this is EVE. If you want perfect safety with no one “harassing you” according to your definition, you best find a game that suits that style of play.
The real problem here is that the big alliances voted themselves into csm and therefore directly defined this policy and what actually IS harrasment by their needs…
There never was a “discussion”…
And so nothing is really clear…
Maybe we simply need getting rid of csm and start a real discussion where every aspect and every need of eve players is defined and not just those that tend a minority of players…
Yes they stated this…
I’m not negating that state…
But the costs were a thinner and thinner player base and my opinion is that now that ccp has been sold there is a much needed opportunity to change things.
PA will want to make profit and a thinning out player base is a clear sign that some things are going out of hand and the answer is not “carry on like the last 15 years”…
“less pvp instead of more” was never tried and just because some say it is does not mean it would be really bad…i mean if you see a direction leads you into a pit are you still walking straight into it because you walked straight for an hour now so no need to go around it?
Don’t you really see that the change made here is already a first sign that the game will be driven into a more “market compatible direction”?
In my eyes this is crystal clear…
“less pvp instead of more” was never tried and just because some say it is does not mean it would be really bad…i mean if you see a direction leads you into a pit are you still walking straight into it because you walked straight for an hour now so no need to go around it?
Sure, new avenues need to be tried but you are missing a few key problems here.
Let us assume that they will do what you say and as a result PVP goes down.
A large group of players will quit the game in space outside high-security space as their primary content dries up.
Markets, industrialists and missioners run into a gradual but steady reduction in demand due to the reduced amount of stuff simply dying. That by itself means that PLEX prices will skyrocket whilst profit per item goes down as you are competing with others.
As such, the market for bots and RMT becomes more interesting to many because it becomes harder to earn the money manually. For those type of results, see Serenity.
All marketing for EVE gets hurt because PVP is what brings the majority of new players into the game.
One of the largest problems with your assessment is that you ignore the power of long-term players that are loyal and willing to pay up. A lot of MMOs forget that after a while, if they alienate their community by pushing for the new player rush rather than cultivating loyal players, that they eventually see a decline in their profits. A game such as WoW has this problem but still banks on the casuals because they are much more famous. EVE has this problem but it’s addressed by players who run multiple accounts or buy PLEX from time to time (along with other items).
PA needs to understand that a big portion of the EVE community is loyal to a fault, and that by pushing us to new directions you lose people that are the backbone of the game. This game is nothing without content creators. FCs, streamers and other personalities that bring people together to play. Whenever they leave or take breaks, you already notice major slumps in activity in many groups. Let alone if they are permanently gone because CCP keeps gouging their members and add new player friendly things.
