Well, I won’t judge someone based on his definitions. Just because they have their own doesn’t mean they are ridiculous.
Since Jonah has acknowledge to share his point of view in a very respectful manner, that would be very unpolite of me to consider there is nothing he can produce of value.
If I consider than someone doesn’t bring anything to the topic, I simply skip his posts to avoid losing time.
No. I do not like station trading as a play style…too boring. However I would not insult a player who does like. Similarly those who want to internet spaceship trucker (e.g. Red Frog). In fact, I’m glad they do as I use that service…just don’t want to do it myself.
To me a carebear is exactly as I described it. A player with an attitude and view of the game that is at odds with the way the game is and thus want to change it to something less. It isn’t just that they are careLESSbears as per @Patti_Potato_Patrouette, although that is part of it. After all a careLESSbear who suffers a loss and learns from it and takes steps to mitigate/remove that risk is not a carebear. If instead he comes to the forums to whine…then he is a carebear. People need to understand that EVE is not WoW in space with speceships instead of funny looking beings. It is a game where the list of rules is very limited and the whole idea is to let players run around and bump into each other, cause friction and in turn leading to conflict and fun. If you show up and rage on the forums over an 8 billion ISK because you screwed up…you are a carebear. If you learn from it and move forward you are not.
That simple.
I want to point out that anyone who thinks they can play EVE and not engage in some form of PvP (broadly defined) is on the brink of becoming a carebear. EVE is all about PvP. When I go to sell my T2 invention I am competing against of other players. I am trying to take the same sales they are angling for. I want ISK in my wallet and at the highest price sooner than it goes into the other guys wallet. If I decide to start mining while working from home and there is another (non-blue) in the belt, I want to get the good stuff before he does. I may not blow him out of the sky, but I will try to gobble up the good stuff before he does. Even mission running, which I thought was pretty much competition free is not. As I run missions I gain LP and as I cash them in and sell stuff I affect the other mission runners. We can’t help but bump into each other, come into contact and sometimes that causes friction and even conflict. It is a wonderful thing as it gives us the truly fun content, IMO, pitting oneself against another player in a direct sense. People are innovative and creative, computers are stupid and predictable.
Now some do not share my view on this, and that’s fine, but my view is what the game is about, IMO. It is not about being spoonfed predefined content, or highly limited with predefined limited player-on-player content, but more of a free-for-all in a true sense. You can form groups to deal with the politics and messiness to achieve your goals or you can try to go it alone. Each come with their own challenges and frustrations. Do I want to change the game to suit the demands of the carebears (as I defined the term)? No. Because then the game becomes boring and stultifying. I’d end up quitting, not as a threat or a tantrum…I’d just get bored very quickly and find something else to occupy my time.
And I did not affirm that people call everything they do not like “carebear” :
I am very jealous of people with a red hat, so that I call them “bears”. It doesn’t mean I call everybody I am jealous of a “bear”. However when I call someone a “bear” you know that I am jealous of him and I already saw him with a red hat.
People need to understand that EVE is not WoW in space with speceships
See, your definition of carebear is someone who wants to make Eve look like Wow. As you use it for people unable to adapt to Eve, it is an insult in your mouth and you using this term means you disregard the opinion of the target, even he he had a solid point.
Thank you for your answer, please don’t consider my post as being against you, I just want people to understand why IMO “carebear” is not acceptable in a discussion.
(And I totally agree that Eve should not become WoW - though I never played WoW )
(I also totally agree that what makes the depth of Eve is the omni-PvP factor)
You guys are great. Quite the difference to equal threads in the past.
Well here is what you wrote:
Station trading largely takes place in HS. It is a “playstyle” I myself do not like. How am I not in accord with what you wrote?
Yes, directionally that is my view. They want to reduce the player-on-player interactions. And yes, some might be unable to adapt, but others are unwilling. And no it is not an insult. If a player is either unable or unwilling to adapt to a game that basically consists of people regularly adapting and trying new strategies as both the environment and their opponents strategies change, then perhaps this is not the game for them. Just like doing construction IRL is not the job for me. It is not an insult it just…is.
I rarely use the term as it does tend to cause people to get angry. However, I am explaining why I consider somebody who comes to the forums and rage posts about a loss due to their own imprudence and foolishness is a “carebear” while somebody like @Jonah_Gravenstein is not even though some would mistakenly call Jonah a carebear.
That really isn’t true though is it. I do data analysis and statistical work. As such I use a computer. If however for some strange reason I ended up on a construction site and insisted that everything would be so much better if everyone had a lap top and we constructed a database of tools, parts, etc. I’d really be kind of an idiot. Do we need such a computer? Yeah, maybe. But not everyone.
Indeed, Jonah is a valuable poster on the forums…and yet he does something in game I simply cannot stand. Missions. I did them way, way back to get standings to get jump clones when that was a thing, but aside from that I would not have done it. Among the people I initially started playing with I always had the worst standings with various NPC corps. Oh, and I did missions so I could get access to the better R&D agents…holy crap that was a painful slog.
So I don’t judge people by what they consider fun. If a person wants to change the game in a fundamentally non-EVE direction…I’m not going to be well inclined towards that view.
What’s that you keep saying about not attacking people and instead addressing their arguments?
Until you stuck your oar in, we were having a reasonable, rational, and not entirely offtopic discourse about a difference of opinion; a discourse in which we found common ground despite our differences.
From a suicide-ganker who regularly earns my respect and appreciation:
"Carebear: “Why do you hate me so much?”
Me: “Sigh…Do I need a super-good reason?”
Carebear: “Yes!!!”
“Well, I need an enemy, and the best way to wage war is to demonize your enemy.”
Carebear: “Why don’t you go to nullsec where people are willing to be your enemy?”
Me: “Well then who’s gonna be your enemy?”
Carebear: “Well, we just won’t have one.”
Me: “Oh, that won’t do.”
Thanks @Galaxy_Pig!
(from EVE old forums: Here)
Waaaaay off-topic (and I don’t care) but, is Ralph King-Griffin still around? He used to illuminate the forums in days gone by. Some of the stuff on here lately would have been even more entertaining with his input!
No it did not.
Yes they do. I’m not disputing your statement. I’m asking “Why?” What has to happen for gankers to have a steady income stream?
Yes, that is part of it, but not the primary reason why, IMO. Something has to happen before this.
BINGO!!! Exactly. The first step to a successful and profitable gank does not start with the gankers…but the ganked.
So…was that a good decision or a bad decision. It is a bad decision. Further, does this mean the “risk vs. reward” is out of whack? I argue, “No, absolutely not!” If that player wants to take such massive risk…it should be absolutely allowed in a game like EVE.
Okay, lets step back and look at this. What can we do to prevent freighter ganks? Hers are some ideas that we could do that stop freighter ganks, by-and-large if not completely.
Remove freighters. Clearly some players cannot use these without “hurting themselves” and like good Progressive technocrats we should remvoe these items for the good of these players. Yes, those who can use them prudently will also be hurt, but hey they survived without freighters before (never mind those methods no longer exist in game).
Put in some sort of programming (setting aside feasibility issues) that puts a hard limit on cargo value, say 1 billion ISK. If you want to put in 1,000,000,001 ISK won’t work. Break the load up into two loads. If you have something that simply costs more than a billion ISK, well sucks to be you.
Variation on 3, put in programming like in point 2, but make it contingent on the ships EHP. The more EHP you get on the “hauler” the more you can haul.
These are attempts to correct for people’s, in a word, imprudence. We have to protect them from being imprudent.
The typical solution proposed though is to not protect people from being imprudent, but to make being imprudent okay. Increase the EHP. Lock -10 players out of HS stations. Buff CONCORD. Make them fly more expensive ships.
But look players are imprudent. If you raise the bar so that it takes 8 billion or 10 billion or 12 billion for a successful gank…the imprudent will take that as a challenge, IMO. It is like they are saying, “Oh, hey 8 billion is safe to move, I’ll put in 12.” As the saying goes you cannot patch out stupid, at least not in this way. My 3 approaches above might work but they are never ever proposed.
Why aren’t they proposed? Those who object to freighter ganking want to have their cake and eat it too. They are engaged in lobbying with CCP…rent seeking. They want an unearned benefit at the expense of the rest of the game. Frankly, I find it rather…well…bad. Bad for those players who are prudent and fly freighters. Bad for those who prey on the imprudent. Bad for the overall economy too.
Paging @Ralph_King-Griffin…
I wrote an implication : “carebear” implies “I don’t like it” ; not an equality. And you assume the opposite implication : “I don’t like it” implies “carebear” ; which means you assume I affirmed an equality.
I mean that
WHEN
someone call a target “carebear” and he disagrees with in the forum, and since the only notion that is common to people in the definition of “carebear” is a negative term (e.g. wannawow, or PVP credit tank, or playing whine online),
THEN
you can only be sure the caller is using a negative term that allows him to disregard the opinion of the target. That is the definition of an ad hominem argument, whose most common form is the insult. Of course the caller may have another argument he wants to transmit but the broad meaning of “carebear” does not allow him to transmit his message correctly. Which I think you agree with when you say “it makes people angry”.
Basically you can’t be sure of anything else than “caller does not like target”.
In no way I affirmed that people who don’t like another one will always call him “carebear”. I usually call them ducks, for instance : “please go duck yourself” . But if I call one carebear, you know that
Maybe if I said that calling someone carebear is like calling someone I don’t know “f4g” and then ask him to keep cool and show respect ?
Well I see your implication argument. That the “arrow” does not go in both directions.
However, I am not defining carebear as an insult, but an attitude. Some people have sty attitudes. Saying "He has a sty attitude," is not an insult if the person does indeed have a s***ty attitude. People who have the carebear attitude are going to have a hard time in EVE because of a fundamental difference in how they think the game should be and how the game is and how the developers intended it to be. Eve was absolutely intended to be a game where if you screw up you suffer the consequences (or if you don’t you got lucky…and you shouldn’t press that luck button too often).
If a player has the wrong attitude regarding EVE my view is they have two options:
Early on I opted for 2. I did not think I had the right to make changes that in essence tell other players how to play the game.
People do not like to admit they were wrong. People do not like to admit they made a mistake. Hell I see it at work. People were freaking out a few weeks ago, especially when I said “You are using the wrong data.” Then they say, “When were you going to tell us?” And I respond with “I told you 2 years ago to not use that data (not a joke, I found the original document I sent out informing people of the problem…it was dated September 2015).” They are pissed. Very pissed…and it is directed at me, but it was their ■■■■ up.
So when I say, “Hey…you do know that you were ganked because…well…you kinda set up the gank. You put too much cargo into your obelisk, you put on cargo expanders, and you were autopiloting through Niarja…all bad moves.” They sometimes react like the people at my work. They sometimes get pissed, usually at me. And then the insults fly…“Teckos you are retarded and nobody cares about your mental gymnastics.” But am I wrong? Were they not imprudent and foolish? No. They absolutely were imprudent and foolish…as @Patti_Potato_Patrouette put it, they were big juicy whales swimming among hungry sharks.
I disagree. I might very well like a person who would be a “carebear” in EVE IRL. And I accept their opinions, they are just wrong as to what EVE is. Most players who hold the carebear attitude are actually the extremely dismissive ones. And that problem with a discussion is true on both sides not just the “pro-ganking” side.
Just a quick note on that: I’m not sure anyone here wants to stop freighter ganks. Surely that is not my interest. If someone is generally against ganking… well they better stay out of highsec or cancel the undock. I personally think that it could be more interesting if haulers had less ways to avoid PVP, but in exchange more offensive options in cases of ganks or wardecs or whatever. I don’t insist that this is what anyone else wants; probably not the gankers, surely not the haulers themselves, because the evasive ones often survive. They probably wouldn’t want to use scram, web, neut etc. to get rid of tackle or fly some weird active tank freighter. For me it would sound like a refreshing change and surely both sides would come up with new solutions.
Carebears are by definition the people who come to the forums and cry for nerfs from CCP because they can’t handle the game.
They are the internet-equivalent of your little brother who cries for mom because he can’t beat you at Monopoly.
“Wisdom comes from experience. Experience is often a result of lack of wisdom.”
― Terry Pratchett
Mistakes increase your experience, experience decreases your mistakes; experience being the name that we give to the mistakes we learn from.
That’s not comparable, one is a mildly derogatory way of describing a player or playstyle, the other is considered to be homophobic hate speech in many countries.
Good post, and quote, Jonah.
A long time ago now, a ganking friend of mine ganked the same miner in the same belt with the same fit, 3 times, one after the other. No, not a bot, a real-life, heavens-to-Betsy! - miner. I think it still happens.
I will also bring up the following point. I think it was 2 years ago at fanfest with CCP Rise presented the results of a somewhat limited study on suicide ganking of new players. What they did was the following:
They went out and grabbed 80,000 accounts. Accounts. Not new accounts. Not accounts where people were ganked, but 80.000 accounts. CCP Rise did not say random, but my guess is 80,000 random accounts.
The then grouped those accounts according to the following cirtiera:
Were ganked in their first 15 days. Their killer was in turn killed by CONCORD. Call this Group A.
Were killed legally in their first 15 days. Their killer was not killed by CONCORD. Call this Group B.
Were not killed at all. Call this Group C.
Group A was about 1% of the 80,000 accounts.
Group B was about 14% of the sample.
Group C was the remaining 85%.
Next they looked at “retention” that is how long each group stayed with the game. The results were as follows:
That is the group that was not killed in their first 15 days were least likely to stick wtih the game.
Now, this result should not be taken too far that “Ganking is good for retention.” Like most things there can be “too much of a good thing.” We should not all rush out and start ganking any and all new players thinking it will result in them staying longer. And CCP Rise did not come to that conclusion either. His conclusion was more broad: That player-on-player interaction is good for retention…not just ganking, but all sorts of interaction. That is most likely right.
When I see anti-ganking posts, generally speaking they are intended to limit said player-on-player interaction, or they try to promote it in a ham-handed way. Case in point, the OP. As has been pointed out, NPCs, the FacPo, basically incentivize the gank fleets to almost continuously roll safes until the target is ready to be ganked. Catching them as they roll safes is not at all easy because they yous a large(ish) number of small fast moving ships. So, one solution would be to slow down the FacPo. Thus the NPC driving incentive to roll safes is removed. Of course, if players get good at it, we could end up with a similar problem…gankers rolling safes and not being easy to catch. And forcing them into slower ships likely won’t work either. My guess is gankers will find a way to mitigate that risk, or they’ll stop ganking and we’ll get less interaction either way.
There have been many repeated calls for additional nerfs to freighter ganking. In a sense this thread is one of them.
Given that most ganked freighters chose not to use the options currently available to them…why do you think they’ll use new options?
one is a mildly derogatory way of describing a player or playstyle
Some people use “carebear” as a very negative term - and sometimes use it alone without anything constructive statement.
It does not mean the same thing as “f4g” of course, but someone you call “carebear” can be expected to have the same reaction as someone you call “f4g”.
How do you expect that someone will react when you call him a carebear ? What constructive opinion does it conveys ? What negative opinion does it convey ?