No it doesnāt. You are confusing āmustā with āmust haveā. You are mixing the definition with an āafter the factā conclusion based on evidence.
You didnāt decide. Does non-consensual PVP exist or did people consent at log in (your contention) Decide.
Calm down Gnosis miner.
Iām sorry that you donāt understand game design but thatās literally what the term āconsensual PvPā means in this context. Consensual vs. non-consensual PvP refers to the choice between mechanics where all parties must explicitly opt in to a PvP activity vs. mechanics where one player may initiate a PvP activity without explicit acceptance by the other player(s). Example: EVEās open-world PvP where any player can initiate an attack at any time vs. a game where the only PvP is in the form of opt-in duels.
Does non-consensual PVP exist or did people consent at log in (your contention) Decide.
People smarter than you understand that āyou consent by logging inā refers to acceptance that EVE is a PvP game with mechanics that include non-consensual PvP.
You are twisting yourself into a nice pretzel trying to insist two mutually exclusive concepts exist side by side.
People smarter than you understand that āyou consent by logging inā refers to acceptance that EVE is a PvP game with mechanics that include non-consensual PvP, and that there is no contradiction because they refer to two independent things.
PS: the only reason consent by logging in is mentioned is your pathetic attempt to claim that someone who accepts that EVE is a PvP game canāt possibly argue that EVE has non-consensual PvP because that acceptance is consent. Itās not my fault that you made a terrible argument.
A player may not explicitly consent to PvP, but they implicitly consent by playing the game.
Ganking is allowed in Highsec, and everyone in Highsec has implicitly consented to ganking.
And who said anything about explicit and implicit but you? Nobody hinged anything on that until you just did.
By out of game rules, yes.
So you say, and I might agree, but so many disputing that is proof that there is a clear problem. I could just as easily say you lot implicitly consented to receiving death threats.
By in-game rules as well.
I could just as easily say you lot implicitly consented to receiving death threats.
You could do that, if you feel the need to say profoundly stupid things.
What the ā ā ā ā ?
Look, if you mean āsurprise, sudden PVPā then that is what you should say. Its idiotic to say non-consensual PVP exists in a game where logging in equals consent to PVP. FFS
Here, we see the real issue. Ridley/Renly implicitly agreed to ganking when he started playing EVE, and then he explicitly consented to it by entering lowsec, where he had to acknowledge a popup confirmation. He knowingly and deliberately tried to steal minerals, with a mining Gnosis, and he is upset because of his own poor decision making.
Instead of accepting that HE made a mistake, he has spent years insisting that someone else is to blame for his foolishness.
By in game rules you get punished by Concord for hi sec ganking because in game its illegal. Do you even play EVE?
In game, I have outlawed CONCORD.
It is a rogue drone system.
Iām sorry that you donāt understand game design but thatās literally what the term āconsensual PvPā means in this context. Consensual vs. non-consensual PvP refers to the choice between mechanics where all parties must explicitly opt in to a PvP activity vs. mechanics where one player may initiate a PvP activity without explicit acceptance by the other player(s). Example: EVEās open-world PvP where any player can initiate an attack at any time vs. a game where the only PvP is in the form of opt-in duels.
By in-game rules the law is that aggression outside of certain limits will result in the loss of your ship. All in-game rules are followed in suicide ganking. A specific act of aggression is committed and the matching response is applied. The only rule being broken is your personal assumption that ganking is bad and should not be possible.
That is the same as saying IRL murder is not against the law, its just when you murder someone you get a jail sentence or get executed.
You must be trying to bait me. Not even you believe the crap you are spewing.
I am sorry that you donāt understand words and basic general concepts. Game design has nothing to do with the difference between non consensual PVP and consensual but surprise attacks.
Show me the law that says that suicide ganking is illegal, not merely that suicide ganking will result in the destruction of your ship.
(You canāt, because EVE has no laws other than the game mechanics and CCPās out-of-game exploit notifications.)
Game design has nothing to do with the difference between non consensual PVP and consensual but surprise attacks.
Game design has everything to do with the difference because ānon-consensual PvPā in the context of how PvP works in an MMO refers to PvP that can be initiated by one player without having to have the other player(s) explicitly agree to that specific fight. Your concept of āsurprise PvPā has nothing to do with the question of whether or not each participant in a fight must explicitly opt into that fight for it to happen.
As ever, its hard to tell if you are trolling intentionally or accidentally. Regardless, this sort of complete nonsense should see you removed from this board for being nothing but an irritant.
https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/CONCORD
Serving as the police force, the long arm of the law, CONCORD acts as an unstoppable force of consequence for anyone breaking the law in high security space.
Itās important to realize that CONCORD isnāt there to defend you, they are simply there to enforce the consequences of breaking the law. As such, people are able to break the law at any time of their choosing, as long as they are ok with the consequences.
This distinction is paramount to understanding how EVE works and why suicide ganking is valid game mechanics.
What next? Going to ask for Concordās telephone number so you can ask them for the names of the in game legislators who made the law?
What is your major malfunction anyway?
Are you aware that EVE University is a third-party fan site and not official CCP material? Please cite official CCP material including a law that suicide ganking is illegal.
(And please cite actual game mechanics, GM statements, etc, not background fiction about the EVE story.)
You are completely off the friggen deep end. If you want to hang on to some fringe insane belief that ganking is in game legal because of the lack of an ingame written law or CCP being so creepily pedantic they wrote clearly somewhere that yes indeed, actions that give you a criminal timer and punishment from police forces are in fact, in game illegal, well you just go right ahead and hang on to your utterly nut bar beliefs.