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?

I for one am loving this Goon Initiative. This interdiction is the best thing I've seen happening for a long time.

And when all my orders, slots etc. are running, and I have nothing better to do, I can go mine some ice which nets a good profit now when sold on the market, and it's more fun as I actually have to watch out for people blowing up my ships.

I also have no idea howmuch this campaign is costing them, but I hope they got the isk to keep it going, and deplete those stockpiles, then we'll see just how expensive Ice can get.
( and I also want to keep selling more gank ships and ice mining gear.. )

PS: Sherpa, if you're reading this, your canes will be ready in a few days when I finish making these damn guns.. this campaign has me shifting my industrial ass into overdrive to the point where I'm thinking of skilling up a 2nd toon with industrial skills and research skills so I can meet higher demands.

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?

CCP should just make it so any ship killed by concord does not get its insurance payout.

CCP should just make it so any ship killed by concord does not get its insurance payout.

No, they should make it so that any ship that gets killed by CONCORD gets double insurance payout to further incentivise the destruction of ships in highsec.

I like you're new bloodthursty view of things.

No, they should make it so that any ship that gets killed by CONCORD gets double insurance payout to further incentivise the destruction of ships in highsec.

New?

That rather tells me that this topic doesn't come up as often as people seem to think, so I haven't had the opportunity to express it as often as needed, because I've had that view for years nowGǪ

I've been in this game for four years. I've been the target for ganks a total of four times (and one didn't really count as GÇ£mineGÇ¥ because it was a smartbomb attack against the Perimeter gate), all of which were trivially easy to avoid and all of which failed. This is far too few and an utterly appalling score card.

I still remember back when it felt slightly scary to go to Jita 4-4 GÇö I want that feeling back.

No. Punishing new players who are prone to make mistakes is not the solution to this and you are just another selfish,evil ,noob bashing, griefer scum who thinks of nobody but himself!

Emphasis mine. Economic warfare is still warfare; it's only malicious if you are gaining literally nothing from it.

No the non payout for insurance to people concorded should give them less insentive to gank.

For one I am a newb. And as a newb I know that the last thing I will do is target and shoot someone knowing concord will come and blow up my ship. No the non payout for insurance to people concorded should give them less insentive to gank.

I must admit that it has been far too long since the last jita blockade

GǪand why on earth would you give less incentives to ganks when, if anything, there needs to be more of them?

insurance also looks at you funny when you ask to insure something for use in combat

I assume OP is referring to the Goons attack on Gallente ice space. This is not malicious but instead it is an attempt to raise the price of ice products for their profit. I do not see this as a malicious attack.

You mean like Faction Warfare? I thought it was an intended game feature.

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.

The whole "bot kills" and "commodity throttling" is all smoke and mirrors for consistent and malicious bully-boy behaviour.

This "campaign" is not random shoots and corp kills - it is a VERY deliberate and co-ordinated approach that is interfering with the play of others.

For mine, if what the G**N's are doing is NOT deemed griefing then NOTHING in game can be called griefing - ever.

I'm just after a clear definition of the rule. I see it as a topic for debate.

For one I am a newb. And as a newb I know that the last thing I will do is target and shoot someone knowing concord will come and blow up my ship. No the non payout for insurance to people concorded should give them less insentive to gank.

why does he keep saying g**ns idgi

I know, I've been lurking Kugu the better part of 2 years now. Eventually I hope my posting skills will be up to snuff, and might register and take part.

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.

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.

Think Goons could hold a Jita blockade AND keep up the Gallente ice interdiction? Or did they give that up already?