|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hakawai
State War Academy Caldari State
79
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 10:18:42 -
[1] - Quote
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:1) undock and fight. Cut your teeth on some pvp. So long as you aren't salty about it most wardeccers are likely to drop it. Or at least give you a little bit more respect for it.
2) move somewhere else. High-sec is a bIg place. Get off the beaten trail and find a quiet little corner and most wardeccers won't bother following you.
3) mercenaries are always an option. Lot's of things are possible for people who have already developed in-game skills and a steady income. Similarly if a new player succeeds in finding a Corp that fits their requirements they have many interesting options.
But initial startup in EVE is a mess, and there's no obvious, natural path out of highsec. Any initiative like this one that helps a little to make startup smoother and more fun is a good thing. It doesn't have to be perfect, or even excellent, to be 1000% better than what the game offers.
It's a lot more realistic than fighting back against wardeccers. They don't wardec anyone who could beat them in combat, and they certainly won't suddenly act civilized if a merchant corp buys a few combat ships and "feeds" the vampires with some easy kills and some token grovelling by the sacrificial pilots.
BTW: (2) is what people actually do against wardecs (and get heavily criticized for /lol), and new players hiring mercs before they've got a decent cash flow is wildly impractical. |
Hakawai
State War Academy Caldari State
79
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 10:48:39 -
[2] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Aaron wrote: It is difficult for new, solo players and smaller corps to operate within hi sec due to the way in which the war dec mechanic is used
this is false Denial unsupported by any corroborating evidence?
Can't you at least make a token effort to support your claim? Given the modest standards of evidence required here for victim-blaming, there are a huge number of plausible claims you could get away with.
Maybe show that there are no corps that habitually wardec large numbers of "combat-weak" highsec corps perhaps? Or that a low proportion of new/newbie Corps are actually frivolously wardecced. Or even go for an "alternatively factual" explanation such as claiming that new players who've been harassed continue playing EVE longer than others (with the added bonus that pro-"fun vampire" posts are good for collecting forum "likes"). |
Hakawai
State War Academy Caldari State
79
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 12:52:13 -
[3] - Quote
Revis Owen wrote:Aaron wrote:It is difficult for new, solo players and smaller corps to operate within hi sec due to the way in which the war dec mechanic is used used No one needs to fear forming or joining a corp in highsec. The only corps in highsec having problems are ones with dumb leadership who either bring a wardec upon themselves or don't guide their members on the many ways to continue operating successfully while wardecced. The mechanics problem is that any idiot can form a corp, and a lot of idiots in highsec have done so. Threads and OPs like this perpetuate a myth. If you are unhappy about being in your corp, while wardecced or not, the problem is it's leadership and it's time for you to look for and jump to a good highsec corp. Many are out there, both small and large. This is a big improvement from the last "denial" post, but you're still blaming the victims and ignoring the nature of the problem the OP wants to address.
Try starting here ...
EVE is famous for:
- Requiring a large amount of knowledge in order to play it effectively
- That you can't trust anyone in EVE unless you already know them well out-of-game
- The necessity of joining with other people to play effectively
New players also receive a lot of bad advice, but this is not as well known, nor can it be readily ascertained from the Rookie Help or NPC Help channels. New players notice that they keep getting contradictory input though, and it makes planning a way through the startup labyrinth even more difficult.
What could be more natural for a group who've met in-game to start a Highsec Corp and try to learn together? It's the easiest route to being able to trust, at least a little, the people they play with.
It's not their fault if this was actually an unwise course. |
Hakawai
State War Academy Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 20:05:25 -
[4] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:It's a game , not a life choice. There are no victims here. There are limits to how much EVE players can distort the language to suit themselves. For the moment I think we should stay with the usual use of "Victim Blaming", which has its own wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming and an interesting track record of being used IRL by some of the worst kinds of people.
If you want to try a "dictionary attack" (selective and out-of-context use of alternative definitions of a word), on "victim", you'll have to rework "victim blaming" first.
GLWT.
Maybe you should take a look at this too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division |
Hakawai
State War Academy Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 20:34:07 -
[5] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Hakawai wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:It's a game , not a life choice. There are no victims here. There are limits to how much EVE players can distort the language to suit themselves. For the moment I think we should stay with the usual use of "Victim Blaming", which has its own wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming and an interesting track record of being used IRL by some of the worst kinds of people. If you want to try a "dictionary attack" (selective and out-of-context use of alternative definitions of a word), on "victim", you'll have to rework "victim blaming" first. GLWT. Maybe you should take a look at this too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division I'd rather you first establish that the term "victim" is even remotely appropriate for the game invoronment. Edit: specifically a competitive gaming environment. If I go out in early in poker because I go all in blind am I a victim? If I get caught in a game of chasing am I a victim? If I get sniped in the face in battlefield because I sat on a bipod on a rooftop am I a victim? If I come last in a race am I a victim? Already covered in my post:
- Learn what "victim blaming" means. See the handy link above
- Assess whether it is relevant for the thread, with normal allowances for flexibility for rhetorical purposes
- Establish that for the phrase to be meaningful it requires the specific meaning of "victim" you're trying to sell
- Make a coherent argument that I used the phrase inappropriately
|
Hakawai
State War Academy Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 09:26:50 -
[6] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:No you haven't. I understand exactly what victim blaming is and I'm not disputing anything about it, from it's definition to it's deeply shameful modern iterations.
What you're failing to accommodate for is that we are playing a competitive game and this is where the disconnect is happening.
There are no victims in sport or games. If you play with a poor strategy, or fail to consider mine or anyone else here who plays adversarialy that doesn't make you a victim.
We all have the same tools here and we all play with the same rule set.
Unless you're being subjected to something outside of EULA/TOS then frankly "git gud" is the modus operandi here.
Nice attempt to "move the goalposts" but now you're too far from the original context.
We started with an interesting suggestion from OP, which was "countered" by claims that Corps achieve the same thing. Unfortunately, new player Corps are often blighted by frivolous wardecs, which interferes with their ability to do the kinds of things the OP's informal organization would facilitate.
So here we can see the victims clearly, the reason the game's standard mechanisms to support player groups (Corps) don't work well in some cases, and we find that there's a place for the OP's suggestion after all.
And if we backtrack from here, we can contextualize my use of "victim blaming". Someone was trying to sell the idea that the new players themselves are at fault for their choosing the natural response to their being wardecced by "fun-vampires" - which is to stop playing for a while. Why should they let someone else dictate how they use the sandbox? Outside EVE they can choose an activity they actually want to do. |
Hakawai
State War Academy Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 10:45:34 -
[7] - Quote
@Scupio Artelius
You're narrowing the definition of "victim" to one that suits you, rather than the one that's appropriate for this particular context.
Let's look at this from another angle.
OP made a suggestion. It makes sense to ask:
- Is it useful?
- Is it practical?
- Is it affordable?
Someone went after point 1 by claiming existing Corps serve the same purpose, implying the OP's suggestion adds nothing.
Of course this is nonsense, but it had to be dealt with. Along the way we got the claim "Corps would be just as good as OOP's suggestion if new players reacted differently to wardecs". Still nonsense, but of course the exchange continued anyway.
This pointless argument over the meaning of "victim" actually nets out to the following meaningless (in context) claim: "It's not possible to be a "victim" of a frivilous wardec, therefore OP's suggestion is not useful". This is clearly irrelevant (at best).
"Dictionary Attacks", even when they're well done, almost never actually contribute to the discussion. They're just another "dirty trick", useful only for shutting down a constructive topic. |
Hakawai
State War Academy Caldari State
85
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 12:34:46 -
[8] - Quote
Let see ...
... "nothing anyone does in EVE matters, no matter how good or bad it it. If you care about in-game events you're unsuited to play he game at all".
So either al the old-timers are actually zombies or bots? That would explain the problems with logic, but I don't think it explains the pleasure fun-vampires take in "collecting tears" - interfering on other players' enjoyment of the game.
And back on topic - if none of this matters at all, why are some people so eager to discourage OP from providing his suggested service? The only rationale I can see with the nay-saying side of this thread is that they believe the game isn't as dark, vicious, and unforgiving as we've now learned it really is, so the service he's proposing isn't necessary.
I wonder if it's the same people ... |
|
|
|