Your “expect to die” is a subset of “expect the possibility to die”, but in a very extreme case where the possibility is 100%. A case so extreme that I doubt it is ever relevant in EVE.
No it’s not.
“expect the possibility of” is just a soup of words. YOU added that term which means something completely different from what I wrote in the first place.
AKA false quote.
Your repeated usage of that expression is a strawman.
Yeah cos no one ever Hero Tackles
3 Likes
Blimey, something you and I agree on…
As for this:
Yes, I think I would err on the side of thinking that you are. My definition is when I think the attacking player(s) are trying to get under the skin of the other player.
Okay, there’s the hero tackles and suicide gankers that do expect certain death. 
1 Like
So, by your own definition, aren’t you a griefer?
It is entirely possible that I am causing someone grief by the amount of emotive replies I get thrown at me. Generally I do try to be civil up until someone is uncivil to me, at which point I just tend to give back what gets aimed at me. When people speak to me nicely then I do the same. But I do make mistakes at times.
In effect most conflict is a form of griefing because at times you try to force people to make mistakes by getting them emotive.
I am intrigued why you called it Communist, are you going back to the Duranty reporting debacle?
2 Likes
I think you greatly misunderstand the timing of a suicide gank. Your time to get into warp is your time to get into warp. Your change does nothing that the overview / standings aren’t already doing.
Let’s assume you are talking about getting ganked in an asteroid belt while mining… what does your change do when someone warps their bumper in to prevent you from warping for the few seconds it takes for you to get tackled?
Let’s assume you’re a freighter taking gates… there is ample time for the fleet to land on you before you can get off the gate unless you’re webbing your freighter.
The proposed change does nothing but waste dev time.
There are in-game rules (e.g. if you attack someone in high-sec, you get blown up by the cops) and there are out-of-game rules, like the ones listed in the ToS/EULA.
Griefing deals with the edge cases of the latter. In most games (well-administered ones, at least), griefing is equated to performing some kind of act that is either expressly forbidden by the authority, or is new/innovative enough that it hasn’t yet been officially addressed.
We can go to a different game (WoW) for an example. In WoW (on a PvP server), it’s perfectly legitimate to kill and repeatedly spawn-camp a player, even if they’re just trying to quest, or are many levels lower than you. There are various game mechanics in place for victims to “give up” at a loss. However, sometimes players find something that allows them to kill others in this situation unfairly. Maybe it’s some kind of mechanical loophole in skills or spawn logic that makes it impossible for a player to use a surrender mechanic, e.g. finding a special spot in which you can stand in order to repeatedly nuke players when they “graveyard res” which makes it impossible for the town guards to aggro you. Then you keep killing those players, and there’s nothing they can do about it until you leave. This is an example of actual griefing, and leads to warnings/rule changes/game updates.
To say that griefing is getting killed while not expecting to get killed covers pretty much every possible situation in competitive gaming. When I undock and go out to hunt for players in low-sec belts, I don’t expect to get killed. Does this mean that when I get killed, I’m getting griefed? What about when I spawn in Call of Duty and go out to shoot other players? I don’t expect to get killed then either. So does that mean every time I’m fragged, I got griefed?
I’m just not following this logic. Unless you’re specifically hinging it on getting killed while performing PvE activities, in which case that’s a different argument.
It’s not like it was before. That stuff used to create new focus-stealing windows for each instance and would start to lag out your client if you received enough of them. We used to kill pods by timing invites around a hull percentage, and would get them nearly 100% of the time. The way that confirmation boxes act now is much more benign.
1 Like
there are several issues with this idea the only thing that would fix this is if they had to turn there safety eatch time and there be a timers for when they turn it on that they cant fire there guns. also the safety thing i think works in all space not just high sec.
NO.
But in your case it was specifically allowed before, therefore you are contradicting yourself.
Which Eve is not.
nobody cares, again.
Yes, because you are actually making a strawman.
I did not talk about “competititve gaming”. YOU added that. I actually already told you it was not, and you just ignored it.
There is no more blind than the one who does not want to see.
Yes.
Also a preemptive “yes” to any further replies of “no” to this yes, just to save some time and thread space.
Just to clarify, by competitive gaming I mean games where players compete with each other, and not gaming as a sport.
What all of this comes down to is that you’re redefining “griefing” to suit your own interpretation of the term, which is, as I understand it so far, “getting attacked when you’re not expecting to get attacked” (I still don’t know whether doing PvE is a necessary component of this argument or optional, as that hasn’t been clarified). You are, of course, welcome to do this, but you’re not going to reach wide consensus. Your support is most likely going to consist of the most carebeariest of carebears, and bleeding-heart “anti-bullying” media shills. Not the best of company in my opinion, but maybe you feel right at home, I don’t know. Either way, you haven’t convinced me, or most others in this thread. Perhaps you should focus your efforts on making an argument that’s genuinely convincing as opposed to merely contradictory.
What is asserted without a proof, is dismissed without a proof.
So, no.
Repeating the same useless thing is spamming.
Then you are using the wrong definition.
Eve is NOT a competitive game.
Competing against other player is … PVP game.
Liar.
I gave you sources.
Even Aiko quoted wiki saying that those activities are considered griefing. It’s not the first time he gives a source that says the exact opposite of his claim.
Go ■■■■ yourself.
You are ignoring the point I made, and making strawman. You are making personal attacks again and again.
At this point it’s clear you are just trolling.
Nah, I’m just telling you that I’m not convinced. If anything, this is a very generous offer to listen to what you have to say on my behalf, but you’re wasting it on red-faced outrage.
About the only thing you can do is make a convincing argument. Outside of that, your power to affect anyone or anything is nonexistent. At least when I go out and kill someone (when they don’t expect to be killed), I’m affecting the game, and EVE’s overall narrative. You’re not even doing that. When you stop talking, people forget that you exist, which isn’t particularly beneficial when you have some kind of platform you want to present to others. You might get some reactions from people who interact with you for the first time and get angry because they don’t yet know any better, but otherwise it’s really just wasted effort. 
No, you are making strawmen, personal attacks, and you use terms that I already explained incorrect in answer to your previous question.
That’s a troll.
Hey, if being outraged and constantly pointing out (perceived) personal attacks or fallacies or whatever is more important to you than making arguments that people readily agree with (or even understand), that’s entirely your prerogative. I’m perfectly cool with that. It has no bearing on my life if someone on the forums accuses me of this or that or insults me. In fact, I find it amusing. If your goal is to convince, however, you’ll need to find a different approach.
4 Likes
Tbh that should just be a Arbeit Macht Fries With That? caveat above the EvE-O Forum gates in general.
So if I undock with the subjective belief that I shouldn’t be expected to be killed, EVE Online’s servers should register that somehow and render me invulnerable? Lmao. What ■■■■■■■ lack of logic.
The real issue isn’t that line of logic (which is flawed in itself, but as a separate discussion). It’s that this line of logic can be applied to pretty much any situation in which a player undocks, and to any case of any sort of player interaction whatsoever. Anderson said that even warping into a site that already has another player in it and completing it and taking the loot yourself is “griefing.” That’s an absolutely insane argument to make because no player actually owns any sites, and the loot ownership defaults to whoever did the most damage/made the finishing blow. And even if you take loot from a can that doesn’t belong to you, the game flags you for PvP to the entire world, instead of creating a situation where there’s no recourse whatsoever.
It’s an extremely subjective and self-serving interpretation of the term, and has no bearing on reality because it effectively equates griefing to literally any form of inter-player competition (“mining my rock? you’re griefing me!”). When you need to claim ownership of public NPC entities to make your argument work is when you need to go back to the drawing board and make a new one.
1 Like
Safety Red = Suspect Timer
Could be fun. Also makes suspect baiting so much easier