GǪand we're in such a ring right now. You stepped in the moment you logged in GÇö highsec is as much a part of the ring as low and null. At most, it's a corner where the padding on the gloves is a bit thicker (which, as it turns out, is not always a good thing for the parties involved).

Someone else's play style as a PvPer does not disallow your play style as a carbear. The game already allows for both. The game just puts it on your shoulders to ensure that you get to play the way you want. Or to use a different Malcanisism: [playing EVE] does not mean you get to succeed at anything you want to try GÇö it means you get to try anything you want to succeed at.

The underlined is a fine example of "This is the way EVE is meant to be played and no other. There is just this one".

The bold is a fine example of contradicting the underlined and is also blatantly false.

For starters, if someones idea of pvp (since suicide ganking a defenseless miner is not pvp. It's not pvp if the other person can't fight back) is to suicide gank a miner repeatedly, regardless of where this miner mines making it impossible for that miner to mine, then one person's playstyle has just "disallowed" another's.

since suicide ganking a defenseless miner is not pvp. It's not pvp if the other person can't fight back

Maybe miners shouldn't be so darned defenseless and fight back, or perhaps pay attention enough to actually act in their own defense, eh?

What cracks me up about **** arguments like this is you're basically admitting that miners aren't players.

Which is actually pretty hilarious in a video game, if you think about it. Miners, baby seals, the same thing... Makes sense.

How does a miner fight back? Avoidance is the only real defense that I know of for gankers/bumpers but that in no way counters the fact that the aggressors still retain full control of the situation where they choose to operate. Do you disagree or just feel it's working as intended?

Avoidance, paying attention, fitting ships appropriately, that sort of thing. The same sort of **** the rest of us do when we're PVEing in dangerous locations. Miners like Mara Rinn (I think?) are people I actually respect. They know their trade and they play the game. They think about how to compete, they form strategies, they fit appropriately.

So, yes, working as intended.

Of course there will always be those who feel statistically that the chances of actions being taken against them are low enough to not warrant changes to fitting or behavior save maybe just choosing an out of the way system. At what point do these actions cross the boundary into respectable?

The underlined is a fine example of "This is the way EVE is meant to be played and no other. There is just this one".

The bold is a fine example of contradicting the underlined and is also blatantly false.

For starters, if someones idea of pvp (since suicide ganking a defenseless miner is not pvp. It's not pvp if the other person can't fight back) is to suicide gank a miner repeatedly, regardless of where this miner mines making it impossible for that miner to mine, then one person's playstyle has just "disallowed" another's.

The underlined is a fine example of "This is the way EVE is meant to be played and no other. There is just this one".

The bold is a fine example of contradicting the underlined and is also blatantly false.

For starters, if someones idea of pvp (since suicide ganking a defenseless miner is not pvp. It's not pvp if the other person can't fight back) is to suicide gank a miner repeatedly, regardless of where this miner mines making it impossible for that miner to mine, then one person's playstyle has just "disallowed" another's.

Cant remember, who said it:

Mittani would be a pseudo-educated douchebag. [edit: it is malcanis] ok, so Mittani not even would say this. So we can dismiss the attribut "pseudo-educated". Still the text is just trival generalisation. It costs the writer nothing. Admitting - say - HBC/CFC leadership runs a campagne vs AAA to demonize them and to manipulate their own little grunts like - say - Goebbels, that would cost something.

+1 Alex, Mittani, Gianturco


Lin would say /bow fot this interesting piece of thought and humility.

Good read, except for the section "(4) Remember that other people are rational."

I've made way to much wealth off the fact that most people are not rational. Being rational is something you have to train your mind for, and most people simply don't. People buy overpriced goods or more than they need, fall for very simplistic scams, and in general react more with their gut (pride, jealousy, hate and love).

Economists wish people were rational, because if they followed simple logic and utilitarianism their calculations on the movement of markets would actually have some predictive value. But people aren't robots, and assuming they are will get you in trouble more often then not.

since suicide ganking a defenseless miner is not pvp. It's not pvp if the other person can't fight back

Dude! You're not supposed to blow the lid off the propaganda machine, gaw! Oh well, they'll forget pretty quick. :)

I disagree with point 4

The bottom line is this. CCP wants max subscribers. They are going to do whatever is necessary to create environments where both PVPers and carebears can enjoy playing the game the way they enjoy playing the game.

It doesn't matter how loudly one side or the other calls for removing the other, CCP is going to ignore that. CCP will watch subs and unsubs, and make game changes necessary to keep as many (of each type of player) playing, and paying.

No, it's an example of GÇ£this is how EVE works, and if you want to play it, you need to consider this fundamental design decisionGÇ¥. It says absolutely nothing about how the game is meant to be played because that's the whole point: you choose. No matter what, though, the choice will exist within what the game can and cannot do GÇö you cannot choose away the PvP environment that inherently comes with the multiplayer sandbox.

How does it contradict anything and how is it false? You are free to carebear it up as much as you like GÇö the game isn't going to stop you since it fully allows for that play style, and other players can't disallow anything since that's far beyond their control.

The only way for it not to be PvP is if there's a bot at the other end. Otherwise, it's a player vs. player conflict, and the shooty bit is a pretty small part of that conflict. There are plenty of decisions that lead up to it, all of which can be GÇ£wonGÇ¥ or GÇ£lostGÇ¥.

And no, you're still not disallowing any kind of playstyle. He's as free as ever to go and mine. He just needs to be aware of his environment. The only thing that would come close to player-made GÇ£disallowingGÇ¥ would be to constantly harass him to the point where he can't play the game, and that falls under the EVE definition of griefing GÇö something that gets you bannedGǪ so it's not really something that's available in the standard player tool kit.

People sill generally make rational or semi rational decisions but they'll use incomplete or bad information to do so. Or they'll simplify their decision making with harmful generalizations (racism is a good example. All gankers are sociopaths is another.)

People are not rational by default. They have to be taught about utility and how to maximize it, to plan and strategize. There are plenty of people who have learned these things, and if you hang around them all the time, you may think that everyone is like that. When those people screw up, it is just a miscalculation or some bad input.

But many people (I would argue, most) never really learned to plan their actions in such ways.

If you're a new player reading themittani.com (or evenews24) for the first time because you're interested in what goes on in eve, ******* forget it. You're better off reading hardcore fetish inspired pornography, or hanging out on 4chan. At least trash like this has some modicum of entertainment value, whereas the eve "news sites" have become some kind of fetid sinkhole for all the worst kinds of recycled academic ************ imaginable.