Super Orca 
Stop lying. I have explicitly said, over and over again, that āfarmer trashā does not apply to all PvE players. People who do PvE in the PvP sandbox and accept that EVE is a PvP game are not farmer trash. People who declare themselves āPvE playersā, demand the ability to opt out of PvP, expect EVE to be a menial risk-free game of passive resource accumulation, and declare anyone who interferes with their farming to be āCODE. griefersā are farmer trash.
Actually, that option would be goodā¦ Or the split of HS in HS and MS (medium security space)ā¦ HS would be 1.0 - 0.8 and MS would be 0.7 - 0.5. Move all the L4 missions from HS to MS. The ores are somehow already distributed like this, maybe tweak a little bit with that also. And make HS not to allow non-consensual PvP. MS will keep the existing HS to allow ganking.
And whatever you are going to say, CODE. are griefers. When their KB shows that over 50% of their kills are non-combat ships, that shows griefing.
We should have a moment of silence for goons please.
No it would not. Hisec is safe enough already.
1 Like
Only if you hate PvE players and want to destroy their income.
And whatever you are going to say, CODE. are griefers. When their KB shows that over 50% of their kills are non-combat ships, that shows griefing.
Killing non-combat ships is not griefing. Why do you play EVE if you have an opinion that is so opposed to EVEās basic concepts?
What does griefing mean? Do you have a clue?
Targeted and ongoing harassment to destroy a playerās enjoyment of the game, usually outside the scope of normal gameplay. Killing a non-combat ship because it drops good loot or improves your killboard stats is not griefing, it is normal gameplay that is explicitly endorsed and supported by CCP. The fact that you think that ānon-combatā ships should be able to opt out of PvP does not mean that this is how it works in EVE.
1 Like
Oft-repeated line:
Thereās a word for this behaviour, making a claim that is absolutely provable one way or the other with a direct citation, then saying āDo your own researchā. Iāve seen it many, many times before, and in vastly more cases than not the claim is entirely unsupported by any available evidence. Iām going to treat this one as I have the others, after asking for said evidence to claims; say āBSā, and depart the thread. HAND.
No it would not. I agree even with Merin here. 0 risk = 0 reward
2 Likes
When a char targets only specific type of people, thatās griefing. If your kills contain over 80% non-combatant ships, thatās griefing. I donāt have a problem if you kill also non-combatant ships, but that maybe would mean 20%-30%. 80% shows direct focus on a specific type of people.
No it isnāt. Griefing requires ongoing harassment of the same person. My game experience isnāt destroyed just because you also killed someone else flying the same kind of ship as me. In fact, Iām probably not even aware of your other kills.
Also, would you consider it griefing if you were only targeting supercaps in nullsec, and your killboard was 80% titans? Or is it only āgriefingā when the target is a type of ship that you think should have the ability to opt out of PvP?
1 Like
Actually thatās why I was saying the split between HS and MS (medium security) and the move of L4 agents from HS. So that there is a step between HS and LS. HS would be less profitable and people would move to MS to increase their income.
Unacceptable. Zero risk, zero reward. If you want space where there is zero risk then there can not be any possible reward in that space.
And no, people wouldnāt move to increase their income. Theyād just add more alpha accounts to the AFK farm.
1 Like
Both of them are combatant ships. Iām speaking about non-combatant. Itās like you have a gun and go and shoot someone on the street without the capacity to defend them to get their shoes, that is not moral. If you think thatās moral I doubt your ethics.
What does that have to do with anything? EVE is not the real world. Attacking unarmed targets, scamming, betrayal, spying, etc, are all perfectly legal and reasonable things to do in EVE. None of those things are griefing.
If you think thatās moral I doubt your ethics.
If you think that engaging in PvP in a PvP video game has anything to do with ethics then you are utterly delusional.
2 Likes
1.0 starter systems. 99.99% safety. Youāll even get your ship reimbursed and offender banned if you get killed there, afaik. There just isnt much to do. For a reason.
EvE itās first a sandbox game. Go play FPS if you want only PvP.
Second, is this griefing?
Same victim, same aggressors, different days.
Yep. I agree with him as well on this one.
1 Like
It is a PvP sandbox game. And that has nothing to do with the lunacy of suggesting that engaging in normal gameplay within the rules of a game becomes āgriefingā because the same actions in the real world would be illegal or immoral.
In the real world shooting a medic is a war crime. In a war-themed FPS shooting a medic is a basic strategy. Does that mean anyone who shoots a medic in a FPS has questionable ethics? Of course not, because a video game isnāt reality.
Same victim, same aggressors, different days.
Key point: different days. What part of ātargeted and ongoing harassment outside the scope of normal gameplayā is so hard to understand? Killing someone twice, days apart, because they happened to come back to the same system is not griefing. It does not demonstrate an intent to target that specific player for purposes of sustained harassment, and it does not exceed the scope of normal gameplay.