If you cannot fight back, then maybe you shouldn’t go there?
NO PVP ANYWHERE!
PVP doesn’t start when the scrams land. The best way of fighting back is to not get caught, constantly, and mocking them with your return to continue to mine gas.
Keep them balls as blue as the sky, as deep as the ocean’s blue.
Just saying, by definition, killing an unarmed or minimally armed exploration vessel is still a gank, no mattter where it occurs. There seems to be some confusion between a true gank (which can occur anywhere), and a suicide gank that is used in HiSec. If you think I am trying to argue that ganks are “evil”, you are sadly mistaken. It’s Eve. Let there be fire and blood!
No i’m saying that this is EvE, not WoW or some other crappy theme MMO, ganks can only happen in HiSec. This has been the traditional definition of “gank” in Eve since 2003.
Because I can’t be bothered retyping everything:
Instead of trying to differentiate between the various circumstances behind killing other players and finding the right labels to apply to them, it’s much easier and more straightforward to simply refer to all non-consensual PvP as griefing as a sort of convenient catch-all term that properly and accurately depicts this sort of player relationship to both players and outsiders.
So instead of confusion like:
“I was ganked in my wormhole today!”
“Wait, how is that even possible? Was it at the high-sec side of the entrance?”
“No, another player destroyed my Golem while I was running a stronghold site. ”
“I was griefed in my wormhole today!”
“Oh no, that’s really horrible! I hope that you filed a petition with CCP support immediately!”
“Yes, I hope that GMs quickly replaces the Golem that the griefer destroyed while I was running sites, just like they always do. ”
See how much better that is?
griefing implies harassment as a motivator.
Which is completely untrue in this circumstance. Not only did the player undock into space, but they entered an area where player killing is encouraged without restrictions – and even hit “yes I agree” on the eve-default warning that tries to prevent one from entering a wormhole to unknown space in the first place.
There is nothing “griefing” about preventing outsiders from stealing our gas, our minerals, and our combat sites. If you took a HS->Null gate and then died because the null players were protecting their sovereignity from you, is that griefing? no. it is core game mechanics at work.
Griefing is a subjective interpretation of player interaction. EVE isn’t some kind of FPS deathmatch game where the only possible action is to “attack the enemy.” In an open-world, free-form environment like EVE’s, players are able to choose if/how they are griefed, assuming some basic qualifiers are met, e.g. one player performs an unwanted action on another, instead of, say, merely existing, because you can’t rationally claim that someone is griefing you just because they’re sitting around in the game environment.
Any hostile action against another player in an environment where such actions aren’t default, mandatory, or necessary, can be said to have “harassment as a motivator.” In a game of Counter-Strike, for example, the only goal is to defeat the enemy team by killing its members with guns. In EVE, you don’t have to shoot anyone; you can just go do something else. When you shoot someone in EVE, the underlying reason is because you want to take something that they have away so that they don’t have it anymore. It can be anything, like environmental resources, their cargo, et cetera. But remember: all of these things can likewise be acquired through your own work and effort.
Because things can be acquired through work and effort, when you choose to attack someone else for their things instead, logically the only reason why you’d be doing so is because you don’t want them to have those things, as opposed to merely wanting things of your own, because like I just said, you can go out and acquire them through non-violent means. Therefore, logic dictates that the sole fundamental motivation behind violent assault of other players in-game is to grief them by causing them loss.
Now I know that a counter to this argument could be that it’s simply more efficient to kill someone for their assets than earning your own. This, however, relies on violent assault to be the most efficient method of profit generation, which in reality it simply isn’t, as there are many activities with higher income rates. For example, if you’re trying to destroy a Golem running sites in a wormhole to get its loot, it’s likely that on average it would take less time to make the same amount of money as the loot value, and just purchase those modules for yourself. So this argument doesn’t truly work, except in some extremely high-value fringe cases.
But I’m not surprised that the PvP griefers in this game don’t have the critical thinking skills to be able to come to this conclusion on their own. Thankfully, players like me are here to point these things out so that CCP is able to make meaningful changes to EVE Online.
yea just bend over and let them kick us out, let them mine and harvest all of our gas, our sites, and our relic/data sites – all of which ARE LIMITED WHERE YOU MUST COMPETE IN ORDER TO GET THEM.
It’s not about “taking it away from them”, it’s about “ensuring that my guys are able to get it” when there is a lot of competition for them.
Your frame of mind is like a high sec miner – just go to the next system and mine. That doesn’t work when there isn’t more high sec, or when “getting to the next system” involves a significant amount of RNG and effort to scan down.
There is competition for all of those. Everybody knows that they are lucrative, and they know that the ones who generally farm them will fight tooth and nail with the goal to dominate the market for them.
“go and do something else” no. This is my space, this is where I live, and I want the resources from it. I’m not going to move out to do something else – that isn’t a viable option. T
Take your logic to your free time “instead of fighting people in eve, just turn off your computer and go do something else”. Less competition for me, and less competition for everybody else, too. That’s not how the game is intended to work, and that mentality is literally detrimental to the game in the long run.
There are few things more profitable than killing a structure in WH space and then harvesting from the loot pinata.
And what about fun per unit time?
Why grind asteroids in absolute safety with nothing to do other than jettison ore every 5 mins?
What is so wrong with incentivizing activities that generate above modest amounts of isk, and then provide options to get kill mails and PVP excitement?
After all, from the olden eve devblog – Scarcity creates competition, competition creates conflict, and conflict drives players engaging with each other
There may be “unlimited” resources in the grand scheme of things, but there are only so many anomalies at one time, and they will not respawn in the same system – if you want them, you have to be prepared to fight for them to ensure that you actually get them, as opposed to losing them to somebody else.
Sure, the scavenger mentality exists, and most of the industrial ships aren’t mechanically allowed to be fit in a way where they could put up an actual fight which perpetuates the scavenger mentality, but that isn’t the only option, nor is it the most profitable, nor is it the most fun.
I strongly disagree – that privilege belongs to myself. You can certainly get there, in time. You just need to broaden your perspectives a fair bit.
If the argument is that resources are limited, I can tell you that this is something that players would only truly start to feel when the concurrent population hits six digits. This is a theoretical argument, and not one that we’ve ever come close to experiencing in practice, even during the peaks of the player chart over a decade ago. The only true historical examples of scarcity would be R64 moons getting controlled by mega-groups, which is something that was addressed during the game’s first few years, and T2 BPOs, which were addressed with invention, and weren’t a resource one could generally take away by force since them being transported in cargo were extreme outlier situations.
So at best you could make an argument for convenience, and not for need. It’s not that you can’t go somewhere else to get the same resources (most space is vastly underpopulated, especially with today’s player counts), it’s that you don’t want to go through the relatively minor hassle of relocating. But we all know the truth: if some rookie winds up in “your” system and huffs some gas or does a hacking site, the reason why you’ll dog-pile their frigate with a super-capital gang isn’t because they’re endangering your scarce resources, but, well, because you want to dog-pile them with a super-capital gang.
And this is a perfect example of the “outlier” situations I mentioned previously. According to CCP’s own stats from a few years ago, only 2-3% of the population dwells in wormholes. Compound onto that statistic the fact that wormhole dwellers usually have additional methods of preserving their assets (e.g. storing them in multiple structures, storing them in cloaked high-capacity ships like Orcas and even capitals, evacuating non-critical assets in a highly-organized manner when endangered, etc. etc.), and instances of “loot pinata” wormhole stations are exceptionally rare statistically. And even then, it’s highly likely that applying the same amount of time and effort to conventional money-making activities that a group applies to staging a wormhole invasion fleet (amounting to hundreds of man-hours for a single citadel siege), would actually yield a higher income rate.
Fun exists on a scale. The amount of fun you derive from destroying an innocent player can be offset by the amount of grief experienced by your target. In fact, the target might actually experience more grief than you experience fun; we can’t say for certain because no scientific experiments have been conducted to measure this, but that’s also why you can’t use the “fun” argument in isolation for your own perspective regarding this debate.
This isn’t a relevant argument. You can compete with other players without destroying them too. For example, making it to the site before another player, completing it, and securing the loot is also competition. Mining a rock before someone else can is also competition. And there are many more such examples wherein you can compete with other players without griefing them at the same time.
It doesn’t matter how a game is designed to work; that has no bearing on the concept of grief itself. For example, you have the right to create a device that trash-talks babies. No one can stop you from developing, engineering, and manufacturing such a device. It’s not even illegal to trash-talk babies (assuming that it’s not being done violently, like for example the volume is so high that it can damage hearing). You can go to a public park, and there could be a person there with a stroller with a baby in it, and you turn on your device and it starts saying stuff like “screw you baby, you ■■■■■■■ suck, babies are stupid!” Completely legal, and yet an absolutely abhorrent thing to actually do. You can’t say that it is anything other than you deriving enjoyment at someone else’s (a baby’s) expense.
Griefing in EVE is kind of like that. You obviously won’t go to jail for it, but…We all know why it’s being done.
On a tangent, yes, CCP developing EVE Online is very much like developing a device that trash-talks babies.
The ways I get my WH PvP without living in one:
- Ganking explorers and Ventures in an Astero. In a bomber, that expands to haulers, mining barges and picking fights with the occasional rolling or ratting combat ship.
- Stumbling on a more dangerous PvE target, calling in corpmates and ganking it together.
- Camping some corp’s hole, ganking their mining/rolling ships and baiting out fights.
In a TC3 you have a much wider solo engagement profile, but I’m not there yet. Solo is doable, but it’s nothing like lowsec where you have hotspots with lots of people actively looking to pick a fight. It’s more about patiently searching around or waiting for targets and often comes down to who notices who first. If a response comes, you can either take it or cloak up and slip away.
You can also bash Citadels and POSes to get a fight over the timer, even if you don’t intend to evict.
You are inherently incorrect.
If the word “gank” was only for highsec ganking, why would the “suicide” prefix even need to be attached? Suicide ganking occurs when your ship gets destroyed afterwards. Regular ganking occurs when your ship does not get destroyed afterwards.
Most people complain about ganking because they don’t like losing a bunch of money by being careless, lazy, or uninformed. They shorten the term “suicide gank” because who wants to type “suicide gank” and “suicide ganking” every time when just “gank” will get the message across.
I just thought that ganking and griefing were hs only?
To me at least, pvp outta hs is just combat.
That’s what I always say as well. Finally someone talking sense. The “we just call it PvP” argument is also dumb, ganking and suicide ganking are both PvP activities, just like “suspect baiting” or “black ops blobbing” or whatever.
Ganking simply means “gang-killing”, aka attacking a target with such overwhelming force, that it can neither fight back successfully, nor flee or be saved in time by any support.
In EVE that usually means any kill faster than ~30 seconds is a gank, because in around 30 seconds the quickest “secure suvival” can happen by CONCORD blowing up all attackers - no matter how many - in HighSec. In all other spaces not even a Cyno and a standby fleet or a supportfleet on the other side of a gate would save you against any force that could kill you in below 30 seconds because you simply would be dead before your support could jump+lock+kill the attackers/RR you. So technically you were also just “ganked” when blown up by a gatecamp in 20 seconds. Nonetheless, the common meaning in EVE for “gank” is a suicide attack in HighSec space.
No, not at all. This is EvE, the traditional definition of gank is in HiSec only. EvE is different, we dont have quests (missions), builds (fits), or healers (logi) either.
Walking down the street and killing someone is murder (gank in HS, combat generally not expected), doing the same during a war is a kill (PvP not in HS, combat should be expected).
This is what I thought.
Yet when defending our wh from all the intrusions we can, popping some dumb noob who should have known better just by the warning is ganking?
The “gank” does not differentiate between good and bad reasons for the kill. “to gank someone” just describes, like I have already explained, to kill someone with such overwhelming force that he has no option of defense or escape. I don’t debate that the term is commonly used in EVE explicitly for suicide attacks in highsec, I just wanted to shine some light on he origins of the wording. See here: gank - Wiktionary
It’s funny in how humans word things sometimes.
I’m glad we have weekend paks. I’m going to start using those now so I can be guilty of what I’m accused of.