I stand by my questions. They directly reference what you wrote in the most straightforward manner possible. You are of course free to deflect/not answer as you see fit.
They will if there are low sec systems in the constellation the agent is in, this goes for security missions. Hauler missions can even go outside the constellation so they have a higher chance.
I thought the point of PvE was to find a way to make isk while people are actively hunting you - are we playing the same game?
No it does not.
You added a term of “possibility” that was not present in my sentence.
I was not talking about “expecting the possibility of being killed” but only about “expecting to be killed”.
Some L4 security are limited to next constellation too. IIRC the chain vs empire are among them.
I had to insert that word there because there’s no 100% certainty of things like this. Even if all encounters of other players lead to your death, there might still be a situation when there simple aren’t any players around.
Even if you remove the word “possibility,” the question remains intact, so feel free to answer it as if it’s not there.
Like I said, deflection. You’re not answering because you’re unable to provide a good answer, so you choose to nitpick over something trivial instead. I mean, we get it, it’s what you do. But then you’re making yourself look bad, not the rest of us.
2 Likes
No, adding this word completely changes what we are talking about.
You made a false quote, and now go on insulting me because I don’t answer to your false quote.
Go ■■■■ yourself.
People are not expecting to get killed when they do PVE, otherwise they would not undock. Your false quote won’t change that.
I can’t find a definition entry for something called a “false quote” anywhere. The closest I can find is “misquote,” which means an erroneous (intentional or not) modification of a quote, which is something I didn’t do, as I in no way modified the quoted text.
Okay, then I have to ask a different sort of question since what you’re saying is not clear enough:
Do people flat-out expect to not get killed when they do PvE, or do they expect the possibility of getting killed, and choose to undock because they perceive the possibility to be acceptably low?
False attribution + misquote
You attribute something that I did not write, literally in
You attribute me the first part “people not expect the possibility of getting killed during their PvE activities in EVE” which is not actually what I wrote.
That is literally what I ALREADY explained here
By repeating the same question I already answered, you are dishonest.
Only because you are trying to make me say something else.
yes.
You mean accept ? Recognize ? Consider ? Acknowledge ?
I accept the possibility of getting hit by a truck when going to work, yet I expect to get there unharmed.
I don’t expect to get hit by a truck when going to work. If I expect rain, I will bring my umbrella. If I expected to get hit by a truck, I rather stay at home.
I did neither of those things. I just asked a question. You immediately got defensive and started lashing out instead of having the normal-person reaction of asking me to elaborate, or to ask if I’m addressing specifically what was written or making a modified inquiry, or etc. etc.
Yes, we can go with any of those. Let’s go with the first one since it’s the easiest term.
This is a PvP game, there is no such thing as ganking.
Ganking implies non-consensual PvP, which doesn’t exist in this game.
When you undock, you consent to PvP.
1 Like
Not mutually exclusive.
You can ask a question that does those things. You actually did.
I told you what was wrong with your post.
Your misquote is unacceptable and you are still victim blaming.
Again, go ■■■■ yourself.
But then it’s completely off topic, as I literally wrote on the previous post I can accept the possibility of X and not expect X.
Thank you! Wow, they could’ve fooled me. I was starting to feel like a bad person for playing the game as intended.
o7
I’m confused, am I a griefer or not?
1 Like
I guess it depends. For the whiners we’re griefers, for true EVE players we’re just other players who share the same servers.
Go figure…
1 Like
Okay, here’s my interpretation so far:
- You accept the possibility of getting killed while doing PvE.
- You don’t expect getting killed while doing PvE.
- If you expect to get killed during PvE, you don’t undock.
So far that makes sense.
Now we get to the original point of contention, which is griefing. You essentially define griefing as getting killed while not expecting to get killed (feel free to correct this).
However, I’m not convinced that it’s possible to be “griefed” while accepting the possibility of being killed. Accepting the possibility implies both awareness and direct acknowledgement of something. There’s a difference between not expecting something to happen and not comprehending the potential of it happening, and not expecting something to happen but being aware that it can happen.
If a person accepts the possibility of getting killed while doing PvE, then they’re fully aware of the game’s rules. At that point, “griefing” just becomes “killing,” which is a sanctioned (and very much encouraged) game act. This lies in stark contrast to the arena example in which a group of players or alts team up in FFA matches to win, instead of playing in the group queue as intended:
That’s where the issue in your argument lies. That you “expect” PvP in a 1 vs 1 arena, but you don’t expect PvP when you go out into a low-sec belt to kill battlecruiser rats. Both environments have the same expectation of PvP built in according to the developers’ intended game design. You should be expecting PvP in both of those situations, and many others. If you don’t, then it’s ignorance, which can be either willful or unwitting (such as when a player is really new). In the case of the latter, it’s sad when it happens, but it’s still not griefing, because no sane society accepts ignorance as an excuse for not being cognizant of its rules.
I will add that in the past, there were many game mechanics that actually met the definition of griefing, such as spamming players with chat windows to obscure their UI (and distract them from saving their pod as their ship is exploding), various CONCORD avoidance loopholes, loftys, etc. But I’m pretty sure every single one has been patched out by this point.
1 Like
not acknowledgement. It’s just awareness.
It’s not “at that point” but “in that context”, as I already wrote
So yes, in the context of a PVE player, getting killed (or actually most other player activity, eg ninja salvaging) is being subject to griefing.
Just because Eve is designed with griefing as an acceptable activity, does not mean it’s not griefing.
No there is no difference. Until it is forbidden, any emergent gameplay is legal from the EULA, such as banding together in free for all environment.
possibility !=expectation.
Also, PVP != get killed.
Just because it’s possible to get PVP’d, does not mean you should expect to get killed. Again, if you actually expect to get killed whenever you do a PVE activity then it’s not worth undocking.
You accept PVP when you undock, but you don’t expect to die. On the other hand, when you do a FFA arena, you do expect to die.
Completely off topic.
If you define “griefing” as doing something “against the rules”, then the only rules in Eve that you can decide to not respect are concord and thus criminals are griefers. It’s still unrelated.
You can still spam fleet invite, or private message, etc.
Whenever I do a PvE activity I ‘expect’ the ‘possibility’ to get killed. In fact, whenever I undock to do anything at all, be it PvE, PvP or just floating around in space I expect the possibility to get killed and make my choices based on that knowledge.
You are presenting a very extreme example where this possibility is equal to 100%. And even then it can be worth undocking - provided you make more ISK while undocked than your ship’s worth before you get killed.
I expect to die in both situations. Not a 100% chance of death, but I expect a nonzero chance in either situation. I expect my chances to survive are smaller when I do a FFA arena than if I were to undock my travel interceptor to move from A to B, but I expect there is a chance to die in either case and act accordingly.
Are there seriously players in EVE (apart from newbies who don’t know better) that would not expect the possibility to die when they undock?
Well do you mean ship loss, pod death or coronary from fright ?
1 Like
@Anderson_Geten you have the patience of Job.
I’m ready pull my hair out just reading the long winded strawman arguments directed at your simple statement. Yet you continue to knock them down one by one.
I’ll give you props for your dedication and willingness to keep arguing with the willfully stupid.
Mr Epeen 
3 Likes
No, I am not.
That’s a soup of words.
No you don’t.
to think or believe something will happen, or someone will arrive:
If you actually think or believe you will die, then you just don’t undock.
The problem is : you don’t stick with what I wrote but are actually making a false quote.
Another soup of words. I did not write about “to expect the possibility of X” but “to expect X”.
1 Like