Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Paranoid Loyd
2815
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 21:33:15 -
[61] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote: blow their alts Keep what you do with your alts to yourself and/or choose your words more carefully.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
14021
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 21:36:22 -
[62] - Quote
My alt is well hidden, nobody can guess its name.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
7113
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 21:36:31 -
[63] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:who wants to blow their alts Hahaha, good catch.
baltec1 wrote:My alt is well hidden, nobody can guess its name. It's baltec 2 isn't it....
"I'm also quite confident that you are laughing
and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers."
=]I[=
|
Doddy
Esoteric Operations
908
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:04:22 -
[64] - Quote
Redus Taw wrote: So I just ran a level 2 security mission when another player tried to duel me so I declined the duel and soon realized I wouldn't be able to complete the mission because the guy ran off with the "package" I needed to pick up. I do not believe the result of a PvE mission should be determined by another player. I had no problem with the player warping up to me and asking to duel, but why in a PvE mission did I lose the mission because of a player and not the environment? If I'm playing a security mission, why can somebody interfere with the objectives of a mission? PvE has objectives, complete them and beat the mission. PvP has an objective, kill the other guy and you live. I'm expecting one word answers like "sandbox". I understand its a sandbox, but I'm talking about specific details within the security mission being altered by a player to determine the outcome of the mission. Let me know what you guys think. Fly safe!
Sandbox. offer to buy it back for whatever you think the standing loss is worth to you. |
Doddy
Esoteric Operations
908
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:05:47 -
[65] - Quote
Cancel Align NOW wrote:Stealing is fine. Stealing off a two month old player is not fine. Petition it. Accept the result of the petition either way and learn from the situation.
At two months old he has already learned everything there is in this simple little game, why would he need extra protection?
|
Cancel Align NOW
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
264
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:34:39 -
[66] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Cancel Align NOW wrote:
I can assure you. You HAVE had repeat customers. Fact.
proof? Ok, hands up, who wants to blow their alts...yeah....didn't think so.
Ignorant bravado is more rewarding than tears.
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds
6003
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:36:57 -
[67] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:
A lot of EVE is painful. Get used to it.
Also, if this was griefing, it wouldn't be allowed. Griefing in the easy kiddy games you're used to is not griefing in EVE.
For the record, 'PVE' and 'Elite' don't work in a sentence together.
CCP doesn't punish every instance of grief play (see suicide ganking for tears).
The fact that they don't take punitive measures against suicide ganking for anything tells me it's not grief play in EVE Online. Thought you would have gotten a clue by now, Veers. Clearly I underestimated your capacity for ignorance.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Cancel Align NOW
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
264
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:44:54 -
[68] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:
A lot of EVE is painful. Get used to it.
Also, if this was griefing, it wouldn't be allowed. Griefing in the easy kiddy games you're used to is not griefing in EVE.
For the record, 'PVE' and 'Elite' don't work in a sentence together.
CCP doesn't punish every instance of grief play (see suicide ganking for tears). The fact that they don't take punitive measures against suicide ganking for anything tells me it's not grief play in EVE Online. Thought you would have gotten a clue by now, Veers. Clearly I underestimated your capacity for ignorance.
But... but... if its griefing in Club Penguin it must be griefing in Eve Online. Individual games (and their communities) are not allowed to create their own terms of reference. My experience as an owner of 23 puffles gives me all the skills necessary to over-ride any other game community - especially one so degenerate as Eve Online's. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
323
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:54:12 -
[69] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:
A lot of EVE is painful. Get used to it.
Also, if this was griefing, it wouldn't be allowed. Griefing in the easy kiddy games you're used to is not griefing in EVE.
For the record, 'PVE' and 'Elite' don't work in a sentence together.
CCP doesn't punish every instance of grief play (see suicide ganking for tears). The fact that they don't take punitive measures against suicide ganking for anything tells me it's not grief play in EVE Online. Thought you would have gotten a clue by now, Veers. Clearly I underestimated your capacity for ignorance.
Not all grief punishable by CCP. You can do things just to **** people off and be a jerk, and have it not be against the EULA. Running a margin trading scam to cheat a new player out of his first 500 mil is a great example. Ditto with blowing up empty ships for tears. |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds
6004
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:06:51 -
[70] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:
A lot of EVE is painful. Get used to it.
Also, if this was griefing, it wouldn't be allowed. Griefing in the easy kiddy games you're used to is not griefing in EVE.
For the record, 'PVE' and 'Elite' don't work in a sentence together.
CCP doesn't punish every instance of grief play (see suicide ganking for tears). The fact that they don't take punitive measures against suicide ganking for anything tells me it's not grief play in EVE Online. Thought you would have gotten a clue by now, Veers. Clearly I underestimated your capacity for ignorance. You can do things just to **** people off and be a jerk, and have it not be against the EULA.
Therefore, not griefing. Catching on yet? End of the day, the real scum in the game are the ones attaching moral values to pixels and gameplay. Literally #firstworldproblems. You want to tackle moral dilemmas? Learn to separate fantasy from reality and go try a real one. In the meantime, griefing in EVE is still not the same thing as griefing elsewhere.
TL;DR - EVE is a sandbox. By virtue of that, it is our developer-given right to do things just for the sake of being a jerk. #Dealwithit
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
323
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:23:25 -
[71] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:
A lot of EVE is painful. Get used to it.
Also, if this was griefing, it wouldn't be allowed. Griefing in the easy kiddy games you're used to is not griefing in EVE.
For the record, 'PVE' and 'Elite' don't work in a sentence together.
CCP doesn't punish every instance of grief play (see suicide ganking for tears). The fact that they don't take punitive measures against suicide ganking for anything tells me it's not grief play in EVE Online. Thought you would have gotten a clue by now, Veers. Clearly I underestimated your capacity for ignorance. You can do things just to **** people off and be a jerk, and have it not be against the EULA. Therefore, not griefing. Catching on yet? End of the day, the real scum in the game are the ones attaching moral values to pixels and gameplay. Literally #firstworldproblems. You want to tackle moral dilemmas? Learn to separate fantasy from reality and go try a real one. In the meantime, griefing in EVE is still not the same thing as griefing elsewhere. TL;DR - EVE is a sandbox. By virtue of that, it is our developer-given right to do things just for the sake of being a jerk. #Dealwithit
I do deal with it...by calling out the griefers like you on the forums. It's quite cathartic...and as usual your emotional control is failing. That you have a right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do, and make you any less of a bad person for doing it.
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
3768
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:28:59 -
[72] - Quote
OP - be aware that CCP policy is to only reset missions failed due to player interference if the mission is one of the training ones, including the Sisters epic arc, and anyone that tells you otherwise is trolling you.
As someone that has been both a mission runner and a mission invader, it's my experience that you will have someone attempt to interact with you in about 2-3% of highsec missions, and they will be able to ransom a needed completion item on about 5-10% of those occasions. How you deal with this situation is up to you. Be aware that your rival *wants* you to attack them and has prepared for it, but you may be able to counter them if you are cunning.
Or, you may try to counter them, lose the fight, and have some fun anyway.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
5717
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:35:18 -
[73] - Quote
I can see this thread going in the usual direction.
But how about we fancy something else. Perhaps it's time for missions specifically designed to be messed with by other players. Like missions that are given to two players at once and in some manner as "who gets to something/there/from somewhere first" ?
Maybe even factionalize the matter. In highsec Caldari space for example you get missions that for the most part would entail fighting the Guristas. Well how about players who prefer to be on the side of Guristas getting the "same" mission from a Guristas agent in such manner that you have two NPC agents pitting players head to head?
Yeah I know what the complaints would be "Hurr durr bitter vets will bring in 50 remote reps hurr durr" but we have already seen missions exert arbitrary controls on the gates so the mechanics to ensure against the game giving one player a gangfest over another would not be a far departure from the present system.
Rather than shy away from the prospect of this thread, maybe it's time to incorporate the PVP element in it and allow pirate sympathizers have their fun too.
Just an idea that I'm sure will be shot down or ignored because spergers gonna sperg (and hate change).
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Cancel Align NOW
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
267
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:36:19 -
[74] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
I do deal with it...by calling out the griefers like you on the forums. It's quite cathartic...and as usual your emotional control is failing. That you have a right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do, and make you any less of a bad person for doing it.
According to that logic Bryan Cranston is a terrible person in real life.
|
Omar Alharazaad
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
843
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:37:27 -
[75] - Quote
So, serious question. Is it a conscious choice you make to verbally drag your arse across every interesting discussion on the forums? Or are you just compelled beyond your means of control to try and make every thread worth posting in about you?
You keep using the word griefer in the context of what is considered grief play in other games. EVE has a different set of standards for grief play. Even the wikipedia entry of 'griefer' has an addendum (almost all the way to the bottom) mentioning this.
I do not understand how being wrong can be cathartic, but to each their own. Keep on putting that extra chromosome to it's fullest use. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1184
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:43:44 -
[76] - Quote
In before the thread move to Missions and Complexes :D
Sabriz Adoudel wrote: If you successfully complete a level 4 mission for the Sisters of EVE, you might get 1m ISK and 8000 LP (worth about 12m-16m ISK today).
but .. SOE LP is protected by divine intervention and their ISK/LP ratio is immutable and indestructible :D
btw - you can get almost 15,000 SOE LP at Lanngisi for some Burner missions which is enough for a 40 mill probe in just one mission.
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Perhaps it's time for missions specifically designed to be messed with by other players. Like missions that are given to two players at once and in some manner as "who gets to something/there/from somewhere first" ?
ummhh ... like in incursions ??? |
Cancel Align NOW
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
267
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:43:59 -
[77] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:I can see this thread going in the usual direction.
But how about we fancy something else. Perhaps it's time for missions specifically designed to be messed with by other players. Like missions that are given to two players at once and in some manner as "who gets to something/there/from somewhere first" ?
Maybe even factionalize the matter. In highsec Caldari space for example you get missions that for the most part would entail fighting the Guristas. Well how about players who prefer to be on the side of Guristas getting the "same" mission from a Guristas agent in such manner that you have two NPC agents pitting players head to head?
Yeah I know what the complaints would be "Hurr durr bitter vets will bring in 50 remote reps hurr durr" but we have already seen missions exert arbitrary controls on the gates so the mechanics to ensure against the game giving one player a gangfest over another would not be a far departure from the present system.
Rather than shy away from the prospect of this thread, maybe it's time to incorporate the PVP element in it and allow pirate sympathizers have their fun too.
Just an idea that I'm sure will be shot down or ignored because spergers gonna sperg (and hate change).
I like the idea of missions that intentionally pit player vs player. I think it is an avenue that could create some nice emergent game play.
There are a couple of things which make me uncomfortable with the concept: 1. The usual high sec is not safe enough crowd will push to remove players being able to enter other players "non pvp" missions. 2. Off grid boosters have concord "protection" in high sec. 3. If this concept attracts the interest of new players it needs very careful balancing. Something CCP has struggled with in the past. CCP do not need a system where I can farm 30-40 new players endlessly for ingame rewards.
|
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1184
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:46:16 -
[78] - Quote
Cancel Align NOW wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:I can see this thread going in the usual direction.
But how about we fancy something else. Perhaps it's time for missions specifically designed to be messed with by other players. Like missions that are given to two players at once and in some manner as "who gets to something/there/from somewhere first" ?
Maybe even factionalize the matter. In highsec Caldari space for example you get missions that for the most part would entail fighting the Guristas. Well how about players who prefer to be on the side of Guristas getting the "same" mission from a Guristas agent in such manner that you have two NPC agents pitting players head to head?
Yeah I know what the complaints would be "Hurr durr bitter vets will bring in 50 remote reps hurr durr" but we have already seen missions exert arbitrary controls on the gates so the mechanics to ensure against the game giving one player a gangfest over another would not be a far departure from the present system.
Rather than shy away from the prospect of this thread, maybe it's time to incorporate the PVP element in it and allow pirate sympathizers have their fun too.
Just an idea that I'm sure will be shot down or ignored because spergers gonna sperg (and hate change). I like the idea of missions that intentionally pit player vs player. I think it is an avenue that could create some nice emergent game play. There are a couple of things which make me uncomfortable with the concept: 1. The usual high sec is not safe enough crowd will push to remove players being able to enter other players "non pvp" missions. 2. Off grid boosters have concord "protection" in high sec. 3. If this concept attracts the interest of new players it needs very careful balancing. Something CCP has struggled with in the past. CCP do not need a system where I can farm 30-40 new players endlessly for ingame rewards.
yeah incursions already have this mechanic.
Incursions fleets are not renowned for shooting at each other.
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds
6005
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:48:56 -
[79] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
I do deal with it...by calling out the griefers like you on the forums. It's quite cathartic...and as usual your emotional control is failing. That you have a right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do, and make you any less of a bad person for doing it.
But I've already explained why we're not griefers. By virtue of me being logged on right now, I've never been found guilty of griefing by the people that matter. Since you don't matter, you aren't actually calling out anything. You remind me of the angry street preacher with a megaphone claiming the end is nigh and we're all doomed sinners because we don't behave the way you think we should. It is simultaneously cringeworthy and pathetic.
For the record, I live in lowsec, and I'll guarantee you I've done more good for new players to this game in just the past week then you have done since you created your account. I will bet my substantial isk reserves on it, both liquid and otherwise, and biomass if I'm wrong. What would you bet?
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
3769
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:54:40 -
[80] - Quote
OP's questions have been comprehensively answered and this thread is getting totally off topic.
The ideas (including some I think are good) should get sent to the Features and Ideas section of the forums.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
|
Cancel Align NOW
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
269
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:06:24 -
[81] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote:In before the thread move to Missions and Complexes :D Sabriz Adoudel wrote: If you successfully complete a level 4 mission for the Sisters of EVE, you might get 1m ISK and 8000 LP (worth about 12m-16m ISK today). but .. SOE LP is protected by divine intervention and their ISK/LP ratio is immutable and indestructible :D btw - you can get almost 15,000 SOE LP at Lanngisi for some Burner missions which is enough for a 40 mill probe in just one mission. Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Perhaps it's time for missions specifically designed to be messed with by other players. Like missions that are given to two players at once and in some manner as "who gets to something/there/from somewhere first" ?
ummhh ... like in incursions ???
If incursions: 1. didn't have system effects 2. could be declined by the mission agent 3. have different objectives, eg rescue the gallente soliders from the damaged ship before a caldari pilot destroys it. eg defend the starbase from amarr slavers and any associated amarr pilots 4. gave LP to different corporations 5. could be done one vs one
then if you ignore all of that I suppose yeah Herzog's idea is the same as incursions. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
5719
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:09:36 -
[82] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote:In before the thread move to Missions and Complexes :D Sabriz Adoudel wrote: If you successfully complete a level 4 mission for the Sisters of EVE, you might get 1m ISK and 8000 LP (worth about 12m-16m ISK today). but .. SOE LP is protected by divine intervention and their ISK/LP ratio is immutable and indestructible :D btw - you can get almost 15,000 SOE LP at Lanngisi for some Burner missions which is enough for a 40 mill probe in just one mission. Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Perhaps it's time for missions specifically designed to be messed with by other players. Like missions that are given to two players at once and in some manner as "who gets to something/there/from somewhere first" ?
ummhh ... like in incursions ???
Back when incursions were just live events, in the days of Olde when live events were unplanned, spontaneous, and epic, there were some players who sided with Sansha.
When incursions became the canned, monetized, geriatric, predictable ISK Fountain for bitter nullsecers content that we know of it today, the Sansha sympathizers got screwed over.
It would have been great if they could at least get missions from Sansha incursion NPCs or if a system would have pro-Sansha sites that they could participate in. Such that if the pro Sansha players were grining sites better than the anti-Sansha forces, the Mothership NEVER appeared. And only the one side that was victorious ultimately would be getting LP rewards. Failed to beat Sansha and kill the mother? NO LP for you! But the pro-Sansha players would get Sansha LP or maybe some special anti-concord LP that could be swapped for other pirate LPs? Of course if the mom got popped then the pro-empire players would get their reward and the Sansha players not.
And yes, perhaps some sites where they went head to head.
So yes, definitely incursions. I have been saying for years that so much content potential was overlooked with Incursions that it's practically a tragedy.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
1060
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:23:49 -
[83] - Quote
Although I don't feel too bad for the OP, I think the people that say "PvP is everywhere" miss an important point.
Intent.
When I sell salvage on the market the intent is my gain. There is no intent to harm others, just help myself. The way some players are making their point is akin to saying, "Because you are breathing air you are denying air from someone else." Not true.
Players need to separate action from intent. It is what separates "playing the game" and "griefing".
What the OP ran into could be one of those borderline cases. If the other player was denying the resource for their own gain, fair play. If they were using the item to try and force a newer player into an unfair fight...
Luckily these decisions are up to CCP and not the player base.
This thread has so much content it may be 'Thread of the Year' and it is only January.
|
Cancel Align NOW
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
270
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:39:13 -
[84] - Quote
Nexus Day wrote:Although I don't feel too bad for the OP, I think the people that say "PvP is everywhere" miss an important point.
Intent.
When I sell salvage on the market the intent is my gain. There is no intent to harm others, just help myself. The way some players are making their point is akin to saying, "Because you are breathing air you are denying air from someone else." Not true.
Players need to separate action from intent. It is what separates "playing the game" and "griefing".
What the OP ran into could be one of those borderline cases. If the other player was denying the resource for their own gain, fair play. If they were using the item to try and force a newer player into an unfair fight...
Luckily these decisions are up to CCP and not the player base.
Sigh. The metric of financial gain is not the sole measure that exists.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
323
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:39:34 -
[85] - Quote
Omar Alharazaad wrote:So, serious question. Is it a conscious choice you make to verbally drag your arse across every interesting discussion on the forums? Or are you just compelled beyond your means of control to try and make every thread worth posting in about you?
You keep using the word griefer in the context of what is considered grief play in other games. EVE has a different set of standards for grief play. Even the wikipedia entry of 'griefer' has an addendum (almost all the way to the bottom) mentioning this.
I do not understand how being wrong can be cathartic, but to each their own. Keep on putting that extra chromosome to it's fullest use.
Grrrr Veers, as usual. If you notice I post useful advice to OP (petition CCP - they are happy to reset the mission). The Grrr Veers anti PvE crowd feels compelled to chime in with flame wars and personal attacks. Want it to stop? Stop doing it! Make your points, shut up, and move one. If you feel compelled to disagree with someone you can do it respectfully, or just ignore him and stick to your own points. Name calling and personal attacks just make you look, well, stupid. But good luck trying getting Remmy to do stop! |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
323
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:41:30 -
[86] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Hasikan Miallok wrote:In before the thread move to Missions and Complexes :D Sabriz Adoudel wrote: If you successfully complete a level 4 mission for the Sisters of EVE, you might get 1m ISK and 8000 LP (worth about 12m-16m ISK today). but .. SOE LP is protected by divine intervention and their ISK/LP ratio is immutable and indestructible :D btw - you can get almost 15,000 SOE LP at Lanngisi for some Burner missions which is enough for a 40 mill probe in just one mission. Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Perhaps it's time for missions specifically designed to be messed with by other players. Like missions that are given to two players at once and in some manner as "who gets to something/there/from somewhere first" ?
ummhh ... like in incursions ??? Back when incursions were just live events, in the days of Olde when live events were unplanned, spontaneous, and epic, there were some players who sided with Sansha. When incursions became the canned, monetized, geriatric, predictable ISK Fountain for bitter nullsecers content that we know of it today, the Sansha sympathizers got screwed over. It would have been great if they could at least get missions from Sansha incursion NPCs or if a system would have pro-Sansha sites that they could participate in. Such that if the pro Sansha players were grining sites better than the anti-Sansha forces, the Mothership NEVER appeared. And only the one side that was victorious ultimately would be getting LP rewards. Failed to beat Sansha and kill the mother? NO LP for you! But the pro-Sansha players would get Sansha LP or maybe some special anti-concord LP that could be swapped for other pirate LPs? Of course if the mom got popped then the pro-empire players would get their reward and the Sansha players not. And yes, perhaps some sites where they went head to head. So yes, definitely incursions. I have been saying for years that so much content potential was overlooked with Incursions that it's practically a tragedy.
Ya...no thanks. Incursions are meant to be PvE, not PvP.
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
3774
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:46:37 -
[87] - Quote
Nexus Day wrote:Although I don't feel too bad for the OP, I think the people that say "PvP is everywhere" miss an important point.
Intent.
When I sell salvage on the market the intent is my gain. There is no intent to harm others, just help myself. The way some players are making their point is akin to saying, "Because you are breathing air you are denying air from someone else." Not true.
Players need to separate action from intent. It is what separates "playing the game" and "griefing".
What the OP ran into could be one of those borderline cases. If the other player was denying the resource for their own gain, fair play. If they were using the item to try and force a newer player into an unfair fight...
Luckily these decisions are up to CCP and not the player base.
Taking a small amount from each of a lot of rivals is no less PVP than taking a lot from a single player.
One of the best examples was the Gallente Ice Interdiction. Goonswarm's leadership's primary motive in this incident was strategic control of resources and monetary gain (although they motivated their line members with the 'for the lulz' line).
Every person that successfully mined Gallente ice during that period undermined the ISK that the GII made.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds
6007
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:50:00 -
[88] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ya...no thanks. Incursions are meant to be PvE, not PvP.
I think you'll find, if you weren't an ignorant clout, that nothing in the game is meant to be immune to PVP, and by virtue of that, everything is PVP. By virtue of flooding the market with CONCORD LP, you are PVP'ing. Use your brain, seriously, and think about things before you say something so ridiculous.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
7118
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:02:49 -
[89] - Quote
"I'm also quite confident that you are laughing
and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers."
=]I[=
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds
6009
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:08:38 -
[90] - Quote
I will stop if you send me free Exile boosters.
The Improved variety, not this synth crap.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |