Originally by: Ather Ialeas

---

I've had this debate just a few days ago, the conclusion was that no matter what people think of it, nothing good comes from it. Examples:

1) The other side wins and become proverbial kings of the game. Too bad kings are nothing without pawns which they themselves had to eradicate to get to the high position in the first place. This is the most likely scenario.

2) The other side actually quits the game completely. Financially that's a blow to the game developer since if all the sudden you lose, say, 5% of your gamers that means you get -5% income and all the sudden the game developer can't hire new people to do amazing stuff for them because they just can't afford it. As far as business plans go, imagine if on top of that some recent extension to new markets would for some reason fail completely making it a money sink for game developer pushing the company economically even further away from financial stability.

The latter is the main reason why I actually hate every single alliance in this game. At the moment I see nothing good that can come out of this community and every now and then I'm utterly disgusted by people's actions ingame mainly because while this is just a game, I firmly believe that if you're evil ingame, you are at least somewhat evil in real life too. I'm not saying that pirates ingame are thieves in real life, I'm just saying that they're ready to take the next step to get what they want and that step most certainly won't be for greater good.

---

Originally by: Krystian

---

You sound like a corp thief, and judging by how you are being hounded seems so. The best I can tell you is to make a new character, dont repeat this mistake again. Let your current character train somewhere in empire, give him nice implants and play the hell out of your alt. I dont condone this behavior as I find it no different then cheating in any other game, but its just a game. Even the most determined blood thirsty person will tire and forget about you several months down the line. I have other tips but as I despise corp thiefs I will keep my mouth shut.

---

Originally by: Devilish Ledoux

---

Originally by: Krystian

---

You sound like a corp thief, and judging by how you are being hounded seems so. The best I can tell you is to make a new character, dont repeat this mistake again. Let your current character train somewhere in empire, give him nice implants and play the hell out of your alt. I dont condone this behavior as I find it no different then cheating in any other game, but its just a game. Even the most determined blood thirsty person will tire and forget about you several months down the line. I have other tips but as I despise corp thiefs I will keep my mouth shut.

---

You fail Reading Comprehension.

For the record, my old corp loves me.

---

Originally by: Devilish Ledoux

---

Due to some current events (for the sake of debate, pretend that you don't know which events), I thought it would be good to have a discussion about whether or not it should be considered acceptable for one alliance/corp to work towards a goal of making another alliance/corp/individual player quit Eve.

A "make them quit" strategy is defined as a conflict that isn't about territory, mining rights, money, fun, etc. It would instead be a conflict where one side has an exclusive goal of making Eve so unpalatable for the other side that they will quit playing.

Fortunately, many tactics that would be used by a group working towards such a goal are either explicitly forbidden or it is possible for the target to work around them. So it's arguable that most "make them quit" strategies are doomed to fail.

However, consider the following scenario (which has probably happened at some point, but I'm not aware of it):

A player does something that is not against the terms of service and does not violate any game rules. However, he angers the members of another corporation/alliance. The offended group retaliates by declaring war on the individual's corporation/alliance. The individual leaves the corporation/alliance to spare his friends. The angered group then declares (publicly or not) that ANY corporation that this individual joins will be immediately wardecced for as long as that individual is a member, or even if the group is suspected of working with the target. The offended group would take it a step further by paying handsomely for intelligence regarding this individual's whereabouts so that he can be hounded no matter where he goes.

For the sake of argument, assume that this group is wealthy enough to afford to maintain the wardecs, powerful enough to totally outmatch any group that would take in the individual in question, and otherwise capable of hounding the player no matter where he goes.

This would effectively make the player a pariah, with no safe harbor and very limited ability to play the game.

Of course, this person could also remain a member of an NPC corporation or create a corporation of their own (and then operate somewhere far from his stated headquarters), but they would effectively be confined to a gameplay experience that is far less social than the game was originally intended. If the person in question had become accustomed to a social style of gameplay, this would likely be enough to cause him to leave the game. If the offended group can afford it and is so inclined, he could even be attacked in safe space, so long as the attackers are willing to lose their ships to destroy the target.

I'm sure this isn't the only example of a "make them quit" strategy (so please don't critique the strategy itself, only the intent). It may not even work. It's quite possible that the example person could successfully evade the wrath of those he offended and continue to enjoy the game. The choice to leave the game is always left to the target, no matter how much his gameplay experience is hindered.

So please discuss: Is it okay to use a strategy specifically designed to make someone quit the game, or is it a violation of the spirit of the rules of the game?

---

Originally by: Ben Derindar

---

My very first battleship in Eve was a scorpion. I had it probably a lot sooner that I ought to, but I was well aware of this at the time and fully expected to get it blown up in short order. No problem, that's what insurance is for.

Well, one day I logged on to find that my safespot was busted and my fully insured scorp had been stolen by Slacker Industries (hi Righteous <3). Scratch 90mil, a hell of a lot of isk for a 3-month old player.

I didn't play the game for almost two weeks after that. By your definition, Slackers "made me quit" and should therefore be banned from the game.

Yep, I thought that sounded kinda silly, too.

/Ben

---

Originally by: Shimpu

---

The problem is the average Goon from SA that is just here to bring havoc and insult people and be a smartass.

---

Originally by: Righteous Fury

---

I remember stealing that Scorp, it took us the good part of 20 hours to scan it down and microwarpdrive all the way to it. We stole a ton of stuff from that system, infact we had an entire fleet of ospreys, scythes, badgers, thoraxes and stuff stashed at a safespot 200 au from the system.

---

Originally by: Righteous Fury

---

Those were the days when scanning took real skill, instead of anyone and their mother with probes could find anything.

Glad to see that loss didn't hurt you too much.

---

Originally by: Ather Ialeas

---

I've had this debate just a few days ago, the conclusion was that no matter what people think of it, nothing good comes from it. Examples:

1) The other side wins and become proverbial kings of the game. Too bad kings are nothing without pawns which they themselves had to eradicate to get to the high position in the first place. This is the most likely scenario.

2) The other side actually quits the game completely. Financially that's a blow to the game developer since if all the sudden you lose, say, 5% of your gamers that means you get -5% income and all the sudden the game developer can't hire new people to do amazing stuff for them because they just can't afford it. As far as business plans go, imagine if on top of that some recent extension to new markets would for some reason fail completely making it a money sink for game developer pushing the company economically even further away from financial stability.

The latter is the main reason why I actually hate every single alliance in this game. At the moment I see nothing good that can come out of this community and every now and then I'm utterly disgusted by people's actions ingame mainly because while this is just a game, I firmly believe that if you're evil ingame, you are at least somewhat evil in real life too. I'm not saying that pirates ingame are thieves in real life, I'm just saying that they're ready to take the next step to get what they want and that step most certainly won't be for greater good.

---

Originally by: Qayos

---

What are you supposed to do to corp theives? Just say oh well? Are you not allowed to retaliate with force you deem appropriate against those who wrong you in some way? It's called accountability, you **** someone off bad enough, you reap the consequences. Simple.

Just because a corp theif changes corps doesnt give you back the stuff he stole from you does it? So you should be free to pursue your target wherever he may go.

Corp theft is just one example, I'm sure there are other things you can do to **** someone off to this extent. Whatever it is, if they deem you worthy of hunting, they should be free to hunt you. If you don't want to be hunted, don't do stuff that ****es people off to this level, else it's really your own doing. Face up to your own actions instead of asking CCP to correct or protect your own damn transgressions.

---

Originally by: Ben Derindar

---

(dual MWD frigs ftw).

So, thanks.

/Ben

---

Originally by: Devilish Ledoux

---

Due to some current events (for the sake of debate, pretend that you don't know which events), I thought it would be good to have a discussion about whether or not it should be considered acceptable for one alliance/corp to work towards a goal of making another alliance/corp/individual player quit Eve.

A "make them quit" strategy is defined as a conflict that isn't about territory, mining rights, money, fun, etc. It would instead be a conflict where one side has an exclusive goal of making Eve so unpalatable for the other side that they will quit playing.

Fortunately, many tactics that would be used by a group working towards such a goal are either explicitly forbidden or it is possible for the target to work around them. So it's arguable that most "make them quit" strategies are doomed to fail.

However, consider the following scenario (which has probably happened at some point, but I'm not aware of it):

A player does something that is not against the terms of service and does not violate any game rules. However, he angers the members of another corporation/alliance. The offended group retaliates by declaring war on the individual's corporation/alliance. The individual leaves the corporation/alliance to spare his friends. The angered group then declares (publicly or not) that ANY corporation that this individual joins will be immediately wardecced for as long as that individual is a member, or even if the group is suspected of working with the target. The offended group would take it a step further by paying handsomely for intelligence regarding this individual's whereabouts so that he can be hounded no matter where he goes.

For the sake of argument, assume that this group is wealthy enough to afford to maintain the wardecs, powerful enough to totally outmatch any group that would take in the individual in question, and otherwise capable of hounding the player no matter where he goes.

This would effectively make the player a pariah, with no safe harbor and very limited ability to play the game.

Of course, this person could also remain a member of an NPC corporation or create a corporation of their own (and then operate somewhere far from his stated headquarters), but they would effectively be confined to a gameplay experience that is far less social than the game was originally intended. If the person in question had become accustomed to a social style of gameplay, this would likely be enough to cause him to leave the game. If the offended group can afford it and is so inclined, he could even be attacked in safe space, so long as the attackers are willing to lose their ships to destroy the target.

I'm sure this isn't the only example of a "make them quit" strategy (so please don't critique the strategy itself, only the intent). It may not even work. It's quite possible that the example person could successfully evade the wrath of those he offended and continue to enjoy the game. The choice to leave the game is always left to the target, no matter how much his gameplay experience is hindered.

So please discuss: Is it okay to use a strategy specifically designed to make someone quit the game, or is it a violation of the spirit of the rules of the game?

---

Originally by: Bared Bel'Medar

---

its always fair. What ultimate vitory takes is always acceptable. That said, doing it duke's way was a little bit more fun... even hough the fighting was usally cleaner.

---