| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
457
   |
Posted - 2011.10.08 04:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:Jovan Geldon wrote:Quote:At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account. Emphasis mine. Economic warfare is still warfare; it's only malicious if you are gaining literally nothing from it. Firstly, no lost Hulks. Wouldn't complain if I did. Be my own fault. And for the record, the definition of malicious, consistent and interfering are NOT related to anything economic.
They are in EVE. There is long standing precedent for this: if you can demonstrate that you have a reasonable in-game motive for what you're doing, then it doesn't matter if it makes the victim abloobloohoo into his coffee all day long. Goons can credibly claim to be trying to corner the Gallente ice products market to their own advantage. Case dismissed.
In case you haven't noticed, EVE does in fact allow non-consensual PvP. If campaigns were to be forbidden purely because the losing side was :sadface: about it, then no 0.0 war could ever happen.
All that's happening here is that some people in hi-sec are getting a taste - a very, very mild, attenuated taste - of what it's like to fight an actual campaign in EVE. I can think of no reason whatsoever that hi-sec players as a whole should be totally immune to campaigns of organised violence. The rules of hi-sec are the same as they always were: nothing has changed, no rules are being broken. They're merely being applied in an organised, systematic way. The only thing that has changed is that these people have been left to endlessly make risk-free ISK for so long that they think it's not just normal but something they're entitled to.
You consent to PvP when you undock your ships, whether you accept this or not. All the fuss is merely the startling realisation that this applies to ice-miners as much as it does to anyone else. There is no entitlement to safety.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
457
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 04:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
dp
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
457
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 05:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:Tippia wrote:The Apostle wrote:And for the record, the definition of malicious, consistent and interfering are NOT related to anything economic. No, but GÇ£maliciously interfering with the game experience of othersGÇ¥ is: killing people for gain is not an interference with the game experience GÇö it is the game experience. What that sentence means is that you are not allowed to keep people from playing the game; that you cannot target certain individuals and harass them for the sole purpose of keeping them from logging in. I hear ya and agree on most points but it's this very fine line between "legitimate griefing" and "outright bullying" that I am trying to define. When does repeated and specific aggression against a very small player band become griefing? What I am seeing is a lot of "single person" references in the replies and we're really down to thumbtacks here. It's a specific type of player in a specific area. It is consistent in that those players who might "normally" fly said ship in said area are being denied the right/ability to do so. Sure they could go do "something else" but so could anyone else being "griefed"... More to the point is that a single very large, very financial 0.0 enitity can remove the entire spirit of the "relative safety of empire" (I'll accept the finger smacking on this point) for a gain that is described as "economic" when it's fair to say they just want shitz and gigglez. This is NOT a G**N bash by any means but please take into account that NO other alliance/coalition practices this behaviour. Tolerated by CCP it may be but by my definition, this unadulterated bullying needs to be reigned in. I'm not asking for "fair" (it's Eve) but there is simply no counter. And when there is no counter - it's a poor game mechanic.
When the victims can "counter" simply by mining ice in Caldari space instead, or mining asteroids instead, or doing something else than mining, it's evidently false to claim that they have no recourse or in-game alternatives. No specific person is being targetted, only the general class of people engaging in a specific activity. This is the polar opposite of "griefing". It's just an in-game campaign conducted within the rules for a defined and reasonable objective. Simply because the perpatrators happen to be hugely enjoying the process isn't a reason to stop it.
How exactly does this campaign differ from one alliance attacking another less powerful in 0.0? Why is one "griefing" whilst the other is normal gameplay? The goons have done what any 0.0 alliance might do: they have identified a group weaker than themselves who they can extract a profit from by applying force. Tech moons, ratting space, crokite belts... gallente ice products. The fact that the target group happens to be in hi-sec seems to be the only difference here.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
457
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 05:36:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kengutsi Akira wrote:Tippia wrote:Kengutsi Akira wrote:Thank you for proving my point in my last post.
What the hells the point of a griefing rule you cant/DONT WANT TO enforce? Aside from the fact that they can, want, and actually do enforce itGǪ Really... when? Ive yet to see that actually happen. Kinda like how they dont seem to moderate Goons or CSM for that matter. Id join just for that honestly
Havve you ever been griefed in EVE?
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
458
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 06:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:
And this remains my point of contention. Empire is NOT supposed to be a stomping ground or Thunderdome per se...
Says who?
Using your own argument, if non consensual PvP wasn't "supposed" to happen in hi-sec, we wouldn't be able to do it at all. It would have been hugely simpler for CCP to simply make us unable to lock each other in Empire than faff about with all this CONCORD stuff.
This supposition that Empire is "supposed" to be safe has come about purely because it has been a few years since any group has made the effort to demonstrate that it isn't.
People can make massive fortunes in Empire. It's not a ~specialrules~ newbie starting area. (The new player spawning systems have a couple of special rules about can baiting and such but that's all).
I'll try and restate The very, very obvious in words of one syllable, so that you can't possibly fail to understand:
YOUR. SHIP. IS. AT. RISK. AS. SOON. AS. YOU. CLICK. UN. DOCK.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
458
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 06:54:00 -
[6] - Quote
EVE Stig wrote:baltec1 wrote:The Apostle wrote:EnderCapitalG wrote:So, goons blowing up ships in Eve: Online is now considered griefing? When it is co-ordinated and malicious yes imo. I'm asking the question tbh. Is it or should it be? It's not random ganks, it's not war-decs and nor is it 0 v 0 gudfites. It is DELIBERATELY and CONSISTENTLY interfering with the average empire players enjoyment of the game. As a G**N, I'm surprised you haven't said "Yes, that's what we do..." Go into amarr, caldari and winmatar space and count the number or ice belts that are under attack by goons. as I understand it the reason for this is theyre destabilizing the economy and from what I hear they own most of the 0.0 gallente ice or something like that. But then if you listen to them they dont mine But then if you listen to them youre crazy lol
They don't have to do any mining. They just have to buy up all the available stocks and then stop anyone else mining them.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
458
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 07:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:
TL;DR Yes, we've established that it IS allowed under current mechanics.
My question: Should it be?
Of course.
Why should players in hi-sec be immune to organised violence? They sell products for the same ISK, they're competing in the same game, on the same shard, in an MMO that's explicitly and openly advertised as dark, cut-throat and ruthless.
They get a compelling advantage in that anyone who attacks them will lose their ship, regardless of any other outcome. They're not "helpless" vs the goon campaign, it's just that they've been able to operate in a selfish, disorganised, inattentive way up until now because no organised group has had sufficient motivation to bother trying to overcame that huge inbuilt advantage they get from CONCORD protection. What the complaining about is nothing more than "Circumstances have changed and I will suffer a disadvantage unless I adapt the way I play".
Option 1: whine and cry for mommy CCP to bend the rules even further
Option 2: organise, co-operate, adapt, survive, prevail.
Since everyone knows that goons are shrieking brain-damaged baboons with the attention span of a mayfly on meth, I'm sure it shouldn't prove a problem for the intelligent, thoughtful, mature and well-adjusted inhabitants of hi-sec to out-think and out-organise them.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
458
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 07:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:Malcanis wrote:The Apostle wrote:
And this remains my point of contention. Empire is NOT supposed to be a stomping ground or Thunderdome per se...
Says who? Using your own argument, if non consensual PvP wasn't "supposed" to happen in hi-sec, we wouldn't be able to do it at all. It would have been hugely simpler for CCP to simply make us unable to lock each other in Empire than faff about with all this CONCORD stuff. This supposition that Empire is "supposed" to be safe has come about purely because it has been a few years since any group has made the effort to demonstrate that it isn't. People can make massive fortunes in Empire. It's not a ~specialrules~ newbie starting area. (The new player spawning systems have a couple of special rules about can baiting and such but that's all). I'll try and restate The very, very obvious in words of one syllable, so that you can't possibly fail to understand: YOUR. SHIP. IS. AT. RISK. AS. SOON. AS. YOU. CLICK. UN. DOCK. For the 10th time - I am not arguing "consensual PvP". Let me make this clear - YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY NEED TO BLOW UP SHIPS TO STOMP EMPIRE. Have we got that bit yet? The simple threat of and/or active blockading can easily prevent anything/everything in game from being done without killing a single ship. Consensual or otherwise! It's the ability of massive NON empire alliances to do so that is the concern.
And again, why is this more of a problem than the same thing happening in 0.0? Are hi-sec players special people who are entitled to make ISK forever with no risk?
If my alliance is fighting another alliance, would you have a problem with us attempting to deny that alliance the use of their anomalies and moons?
If we discover that they're importing ships via jump freighters, would we be entitled to suicide gank those freighters in hi-sec?
If we discover that they have an alt corp that mines ice in hi-sec to fuel their supers and POS, would we be entitled to gank that corp?
If we discover that they're buying ice products from a group of miners in an NPC corp working together to supply a contract to the alliance I'm fighting, would we be entitled to gank those NPC corp guys?
At what point does the chain of involvement stop? Answer: it doesn't. If I can derive sufficient advantage from suicide ganking someone in empire to bother doing so then it is ipso facto justifiable for me to do so.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
458
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 07:14:00 -
[9] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:Malcanis wrote:
They don't have to do any mining. They just have to buy up all the available stocks and then stop anyone else mining them.
I rule out the economic argument as total BS. Alway have.
Argument from personal ignorance is rarely persausive.
There's a reason people use Gallente towers.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
459
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 08:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:Malcanis wrote:And again, why is this more of a problem than the same thing happening in 0.0? Are hi-sec players special people who are entitled to make ISK forever with no risk?
Stop wrapping Empire and 0.0 into the same fold. Empire IS different, has different rules and different players - it also has different motivations.
Ah, so you're saying that Empire players should be privileged?
Well yessuh massah Apostle suh, I'll just sit at de back of de bus and leave you hi-sec massahs in peace. Is there a water fountain for de null-sec folks? I don' want to be using de massah's fountain.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
461
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 11:02:00 -
[11] - Quote
Vastek Non wrote:
P.S. why on earth haven't highsecers got together and either a) war decced persons responsible b) pooled money and hired mercs to shoot back at goons?
Either way there are some very competent pilots in highsec who could easily make life very difficult for the attackers.
Because they'll want compensating for their time, and people like The Apostle think that they should be protected for free.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
467
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 17:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
Tjo Sephagen wrote:Malcanis wrote:Since everyone knows that goons are shrieking brain-damaged baboons with the attention span of a mayfly on meth, I'm sure it shouldn't prove a problem for the intelligent, thoughtful, mature and well-adjusted inhabitants of hi-sec to out-think and out-organise them. I'm pretty sure that you've misread the history here. Goons are shrieking brain-damaged baboons who have managed to out-recruit, out-maneuver, out-fight and just plain out-survive everything EvE can throw at them. Goons are like a force of nature. Hunker down and hope they get distracted by something shiny.
Well then, I stand corrected.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
468
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 18:10:00 -
[13] - Quote
Feligast wrote:ITT: One Empire pubbie tries to claim "ALL OF HIGH SECURITY" = Gallente ice fields. Am I close?
And I'd love to meet the guy that could plan a campaign where "10k-20k" nullsec dwellers could shut down all of Empire, cause I would KILL (ingame, ofc) to be in on that.
Maybe we should talk about this.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
468
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 18:21:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Demon Azrakel wrote:I am sure that with the amount of speculation and increase in isk prices, significantly more isk worth of isotopes has been moving, allowing both the average goonie, the alliance as a whole, and much of eve that had some level of intelligence to make a killing on this. I was only able to make about 250mil, because I was late, lazy and only kept it up for one eveningGǪ  GǪthey need to do this more often and when I'm in the mood for baby-sitting market orders. It's pure griefing that they did it when I wasn't ready!!
To the petition-mobile!
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
468
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 20:13:00 -
[15] - Quote
Admiral Sarah Solette wrote:Nope, I shouldn't have to wait for them to fire on a miner to defend them. The game is still playing in the goons favor.
And I suppose they could o to low sec... but then again not everyone is a war mongering buffoon looking to get into a fight.
Once the gankers drop below -5.0 they can be attacked with impunity by anyone at any time.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
468
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 20:17:00 -
[16] - Quote
Admiral Sarah Solette wrote:Malcanis wrote:
Once the gankers drop below -5.0 they can be attacked with impunity by anyone at any time.
I wish, then they biomass/move them to low sec and start another alt. =X
Your ignorance pains me.
I am petitioning you for griefing.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
474
|
Posted - 2011.10.09 06:01:00 -
[17] - Quote
Rocky Deadshot wrote:David Cedarbridge wrote:
I have no idea what you're talking about here. There's never been a "rule" against podding anyone in high sec.
The fact that concord blow you up for podding someone in high sec would imply there is a rule against doing it. Just like there is a rule against speeding on the highway... you can do it, and suffer the consequences (although in eve's case your less likely to get away with it)
Just the fact that NPC pirates attack you if you warp to a belt and stay there (to mine for instance) would imply that there's a rule against doing it.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
474
|
Posted - 2011.10.09 07:16:00 -
[18] - Quote
Kamden Line wrote:Griefing:
Some guy has perma-dec'd Red Frog Freight. He then spread the decks between five alt corps. He clearly has nothing to gain from it, but continues to deck Red Frog.
Not griefing:
Blowing up some guys hulk in an ice belt. It would be griefing if I specifically hunted him down and continued to do it, regardless of what he was flying and when.
Let's just say there's a fine line, and most know when they've crossed it.
Hi, my name is Malcanis and I'm in an alliance called The Initiative. We operate a policy popularly known as "NBSI", short for "Not Blue, Shoot It". This means that all of us consider anyone who is not in the alliance nor on the list of groups who we have specifically marked blue to be actively hostile to us. And that list is pretty short, by the way; I'm afraid to say that you're not on it.
According to our publically stated and consistently applied policy, we consider virtually everyone in EVE to be valid targets. We care nothing for the "laws" of Empire except insofar that they add a significant time/cost overhead to engaging targets of opportunity. Nor are we at all interested in your odd and unfounded belief that you're "entitled" to be considered friendly to us or that it's breaking some imaginary "rule" to treat you as hostile.
Our rules say that we can shoot you whenever we like, wherever we can, in whatever ship you're in, for any reason that suits our purposes. As far as we're concered, all space is hostile space, it's just that some parts of it has nastier gate rats with different aggro mechanics than others.
It's not personal - we're not interested in you at all as an individual player, it's just that, well, you're our enemy. We've chosen to draw a line with us and a very few select friends on this side: HERE <-- | -> THERE and everyone else on the "there" side. As I said - nothing personal, you're just on the wrong side.
Now as it happens, we currently have very few interests in hi-sec space, so as a matter of practicality, you're unlikely to be the focus of much attention from INIT. But rest assured that the second we find you between us and something we want, you will be. As it happens, Goonswarm Federation operates a policy and a philosophy similar to ours, albeit with a somewhat longer list of friends (they're much more likeable than we are). And it seems that a number of hi-sec players have interposed themselves between GSF and something they want.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
480
|
Posted - 2011.10.09 19:44:00 -
[19] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:griefing them, as it were
The fraternity of mission runners would like to to thank you for your services towards the implant market.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
551
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 08:02:00 -
[20] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:Sverige Pahis wrote:why does he keep saying g**ns idgi Hey. Well spotted  I think I did it 'cos G**ns love people posting about them and jump on to troll the thread to pieces. Can't have people saying good things about you now hey? I'm hoping it's a bit hard to search for G**ns when it's spelled G**ns. Now ya know of my clever plot, I'm going to spell it G..ns or G$$ns or some other such. You guys are joyous.... Really. You are.
If you want to stop people using googlesearch to find ludicrous tear-threads, you'll need to change your name to *p*stl*
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
| |
|