Look at people crying about nonconsensual PvP

In fact it would be amazing if all of 0.0 rose up and decided to kill the carebears in highsec.
Arent there more in 0.0 than Empire? Theres more 0.0 space right?

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.

I endorse this idea. Maybe Mittens can pull it off when all of 0.0 is one alliance

And this remains my point of contention. Empire is NOT supposed to be a stomping ground or Thunderdome per se...

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

Go into amarr, caldari and winmatar space and count the number or ice belts that are under attack by goons.

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:

TL;DR Yes, we've established that it IS allowed under current mechanics.

My question: Should it be?

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.

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.

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?

Argument from personal ignorance is rarely persausive.

There's a reason people use Gallente towers.

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?

I've found your problem, buttercup - it's not your job to define it, it's CCP's job

Stop wrapping Empire and 0.0 into the same fold.

Empire IS different, has different rules and different players - it also has different motivations.

Who said anything about nonconsenual PvP? It's not "PvP" in the true sense of the word anyway?

My question is WHY (and more importantly HOW) a very large, very financial alliance/coalition can bring their 0.0 might and assets into empire and target a specific type of player.

imho, it's not for economics, that's easily refuted.

So is the tactic one of simply griefing empire? If so, should it be allowed in THIS form.

If G**N's can do it now (regardless of how poorly executed it is), what IS to stop 0.0 alliances stomping empire into wrecks? No precedent is being (or likely to be) set insofar as establishing a ruling on it.

And this remains my point of contention. Empire is NOT supposed to be a stomping ground or Thunderdome per se. If it were (as many claim it is/should be) then there would be no need for Concord and no sec status hits for aggression.

What if all of 0.0 did decide to "muscle up"? Is it still acceptable if not even a single empire player could effectively play anywhere!?

I'm wearing an empire advocate hat and I'm asking that we need CCP to put in place measures to PREVENT Empire stomping by 0.0 alliances.

The intent of Empire is NOT to smash everyone and everything into the ground.
[GǪ]
Empire IS different, has different rules and different players - it also has different motivations.

A total blockade on ice could be a serious setback to Empire. Would it have to be determined as being detrimental to game if it remained in force indefintely?

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!

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.

So CCP, please explain...

Under griefing rules/policy



Current "fun" being enjoyed by a limited number of 0.0 alliances on empire players is consistently and maliciously interfering with the game experience for others.

Source: http://support.eveonline.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=336

Is the "at our discretion" statement the mitigating factor?