I get it why the PvPers are so frustrated by us. I really do.

Problem is, it is my experience, that this is NOT going to go away. ANY attempt to try to get us to accept a higher than "virtually 0" loss is simply going to result in us quitting the game.

Orly? Can I have your stuff when you leave? If that above statement is really true, we didn't want you here in the first place.

That is another thing I would NEVER do... pay a mercenary corp to fight a war for me. Next thing you know, the mercenaries are paying other corps to war dec you, just so you will pay them to fight the war for you.

I'm not your source of income. If you want income, go grind it mining, missioning, ratting, salvaging like I do. Or pay some real, and trade me a PLEX for the ISK I grind.

Maybe if High sec wasn't so safe, Low sec might actually be a viable place to travel instead of the instant death near empire camps.

You must be flying in a different lowsec than I do. It's a ghost town.

I mean, let's admit it, graphically EVE is one of the best MMOs out there, and it has tons of lore, some content, plenty of things to do, but only 500k subs? When other MMOs have millions?

If you wanna try to kill me, fine but don't go cry about it if you can't.

I don't understand what this thread is about.

I'm a nerd and I want to rule your virtual universe cause in rl I'm too scared to do anything

Dear Lord, this thread

After reading some parts from this post and all the tears and complains I came up to a conclusion that even if it's my fault that I want to avoid pvp cause I realy don't like loosing ships and I like much more the industrial part of the game it's still more of the pvper fault if ge gets up set by the fact that he can't get me than it would be my fault.

Lets face it, if you can't kill me while I'm in space it just means your bad at pvp or that if you go cry about it that you didn't get me it means theres something wrong with your way of thinking things and that realy tells alot about you as a person. This is just a game and as it's a MMO I'm paying my subscriptions I have the right to choose how I play the game and influense the sandbox.

If you wanna try to kill me, fine but don't go cry about it if you can't.

And if you want me to play the game in another way then please start paying my subcriptions also.

Sorry but this game is very much based upon pvp. Anyone insisting that they should be exempt from it is playing the wrong game and should probably go to something like STO which is a pve based MMO.

So you think it is perfectly fine to be able to avoid the entire wardec mechanic at the push of a button the second the wardec lands at no cost or incovenience to yourself?

carebears are not against pvp, they are against non-consensual pvp

So you think it is perfectly fine to be able to avoid the entire wardec mechanic at the push of a button the second the wardec lands at no cost or incovenience to yourself?

ll this jibber jabber about carebears and pvpers and their depending on each other, its all steaming pile of bull crap

carebears are not against pvp, they are against non-consensual pvp, so all this boring board whining is just about some social underdeveloped kids (mostly boys in the bodies of middle age fat mens) crying about easy targets not undocking in their yummy ships^^

maybe you go fight each other ? or did u get punched to much in the face irl when u kicked the other kids sandcastles

destruction naturally requires less brainwork than building so beg to the gods of eve that the carebears dont realize u need them but they dont need you ^^

One in theory could mine and build their own ships and ammo and then earn all their isk from mission running all without ever interacting with another human.

Though rare, I've heard of few people that wanted to be self sufficient without player interaction.

I don't see it as a great way to play though.

The discussion we are having, Murk, is whether or not a "game" can really be "about" anything at all. You say the game is about PVP, but I say that YOU are about PVP, and are imposing that view on not just the game and objects within it, but on the other players. I think this tells us something about who you are as a person, not just that you want this game to be about PVP, but that you demand that other players adopt that same desire and approach the game in that same way, even going so far as to punish them for failing to comply.

Shao Huang takes a view that is not exactly inconsistent with that. He is just asking about what the process is (according to others) that causes people to feel like you are victimizing them, when, from a literal standpoint, it's just pretty lights on a screen. "What turns a pretty pixel flash into grief?", as it were. (I think that's what he's asking.)

Interestingly enough, Murk, you have done something very similar in this thread. You seem to believe that what Shao Huang, Corey Fummimasa, I, and presumably others have contributed to the discussion so far is not really what this thread is "about", and have suggested that WE take actions to remediate our "misbehavior". Well, in the interest of staying on topic, I won't tell you what hole you can stick that suggestion in.

Yes....yes I do. It is no different than any other game mechanic you take advantage of to kill an opponent already at a great disadvantage. LetGÇÖs get to the real issue you have....you want to be able to kill miners and Indy at a profit. The ability to kill them is already in the game so nothing broken working as intended. You state even the devs said the mechanic wasnGÇÖt working as they hoped. To which I state they have said ganking wasnGÇÖt meant to be profitable just possible.

Kill miners all day and night if thatGÇÖs your thing but do so at your own personal cost...called balance. You may just have to mine and Indy to fund that game play style.

Or heaven forbid go reset someone in null and play against other players trained skilled and ready for pvp, but they wouldnGÇÖt be easy mode or provide that misguided since of superiority.

Chess, poker, horseshoes and tic tac toe all still exist, not because there are no losers, but because they are great games.

I also don't think there should ever be some immunity mechanic. On the other hand I am pretty interested in non-linear play and the things that reveals and makes possible...

In your example above what happens if we remove or change your first assumption: he wants ISK?

ISK is still exchanged. We can posit motives, but we actually have no idea what he wants. We see events and behaviors. We can even measure them. They have no inherent meaning, as is the case with all data.

We must add context to ascribe meaning, as we spoke of elsewhere. This is true even if we take the context to be a self evident pre-given condition. This is why I asked about the minimum context required to play the game. It does not seem to ever include anything about win/lose, attain this or that, etc. There are some prescriptions, but very, very few and none of those seem to imply anything about a necessary or fixed context. Nothing is required about competition or any of that.

The structure is made so we can compete. There is nothing required about competition, winning or losing as a frame. The inclination is to view someone not competing as losing. This is simply not the case. It is a construction and not one hard wired into the game. The reason it feels important to me not to have some mechanic that completely insulates a player in some part of the EVErse has nothing to do with a PvP frame, however we define that. It has to do with compromising the sandbox by creating authority in the game outside of any ability for player narrative to influence this. This creates evidence that the game 'should' be some way or another vested in some mediating authority. That in turn is a structure for griefing and victimization built into the game, rather than explicitly generated by the players.

Why? Well in practice it eliminates the ability to say: the game is X. How then would we make the statement: the game is PvP. What would we say instead?

The second isk is exchanged, it's defined by whether it is pvp or not. Player Versus Player.

STO sucks, i played it when i had no money for the real thing. I was sadly dissapointed.

PvP is a HUGE part of EVE, i agree. But, it is not the only thing. While some say that the hisecers only exist because low and null PvP buys all their good. Their may be some validity to this, then the opposite would be true. PvP Null/low sec only exist because Hisec (carbears) are mining and grinding. Thus making it easier to procure certain items. So while yes a lot play for the sole peurpose of blowing things up, the flip side is a lot of people play to funnel parts and equipment into the war effort. So, thus is the circle.