| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
37
   |
Posted - 2015.01.06 20:04:20 -
[1] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Lady Areola Fappington wrote:Griefing is actually pretty simple to define, and I think my definition is the same as CCPs.
Griefing is when you perform actions with the intent of screwing with the person behind the keyboard.
Valid gameplay mechanics are actions that screw with your character in-game.
CCP tends to lean quite heavily towards the "valid gameplay mechanics" side of the line. As an adult, they expect you to comprehend that the vast majority of in-game activities and behaviors are just that, in-game. CCP also takes a pretty broad view of what "in-game" actually entails, and considers stuff like TMC, Minerbumping, and such in-game.
Camping you in a station because I want to is a totally valid gameplay mechanic.
Camping you in a station because you're black and I'm a huge racist (BTW I'm not a racist), that's griefing. Indeed. Ganking a character because you want their stuff: totally valid gameplay mechanic. Ganking a character so the person behind the screen gets incredibly upset and rages for you to take the **** and humiliate them: griefing. The problem with CCPs view is that players come up with ideas like the code so they can excuse their griefing as valid gameplay. And the fact that CCP allows it doesn't suddenly mean it's not griefing. It's still a player attacking another player with the intention of upsetting them.
You just described 90% of PvP in the game. That's the whole point.
I agree that there need to be lines drawn somewhere but considering CCP has given us ungankable mining ships with the same native drone bonus as a lvl V Algos or Dragoon...fly a procurer or a skiff and afk mine to your heart's content. Fit thermal and kinetic resists on a procurer, afk mine in 0.5, and start collecting catalyst wrecks. Forcing you to put 1-2 defensive mods on your mining barge in a PvP game is not griefing.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 21:14:32 -
[2] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:You just described 90% of PvP in the game. That's the whole point. Clearly you misread. Most PvP in the game is not done specifically to make another player upset. Demerius Xenocratus wrote:I agree that there need to be lines drawn somewhere but considering CCP has given us ungankable mining ships with the same native drone bonus as a lvl V Algos or Dragoon...fly a procurer or a skiff and afk mine to your heart's content. Fit thermal and kinetic resists on a procurer, afk mine in 0.5, and start collecting catalyst wrecks. Forcing you to put 1-2 defensive mods on your mining barge in a PvP game is not griefing. No ship is ungankgable. And sure, go with the victim blaming as usual. The same could be said for shooting newbies in a newbie zone, which CCP do act on. The newbies could just move out of the newbie zones or learn to not fall for traps. And sure, if miners fit more tank, they'd be less likely to be ganked, but then the ganker would just move on to the next target that they know is going to get upset. When they run out of targets they'd start (or continue) whining that their targets have it too easy and campaign for them to be nerfed so they can go back to griefing them.
It's a PvP game and miners have been gifted with ships that can be made extraordinarily difficult and unprofitable to gank. I have my own criticisms of the self proclaimed tear harvesters but I don't see a problem with expecting people to make use of readily available and highly effective countermeasures. At this point I'm seriously tempted to train into a procurer, go drop one in a .5 belt with stacked kin/therm resists and light drones out, rename it "**** the CODE" or something suitably antagonistic, and then go do something else. The defensive capability these ships now have is insane.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 19:53:54 -
[3] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Interfering with a players desired gameplay technique or trying to force players to play a certain way is griefing and absolutely horrible.
Wrong. I don't care what your "desired gameplay technique" might be, you are in no way entitled to play the game that way. You enforce your ability to do so at the barrel of a gun. Sandbox means that you can try and succeed at whatever you want, not that you will succeed at whatever you try.
Why the fixation with shooting at people who don't shoot back when there are plenty who will? I've done it myself and yea it's funny but I won't try and defend it as an essential part of the game.
Why aren't people entitled to play how they like? Why do the Randian ubermenschen have such love for the word "entitlement?"
Most sandboxes have borders.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 22:25:41 -
[4] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:What a paradox the mindless highs. pubbies that sit there all day pveing like bots want to play their way but, don't want other people to be able to do the same.
Those backsystem null rats won't farm themselves. Get back to work!
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 22:37:08 -
[5] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Why the fixation with shooting at people who don't shoot back when there are plenty who will?
My personal motivations go all the way back to the functional elimination of PvP from Ultima Online, the first MMO I ever played. It killed that game. And it was all because their devs caved in to exactly the kind of carebear whining that we see people trying to enforce on EVE now. No one needs PvP visited on them more than the people who try to deny that it should exist. Those people need the abject lesson of the reality of EVE Online more than anyone else. Quote:
Why aren't people entitled to play how they like?
Because when how they like to play the game is contingent on my playstyle being removed, it's unacceptable. Especially in a stated PvP game like EVE is.
Your playstyle is the virtual equivalent of beating autistic kittens and then showing video of the deed to all your friends with a good laugh. Let the retards have their little sandcastles and go fight people who will shoot back. There are plenty of them. You will survive without your blaster fit civilian shield boosted raven killmails.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
38
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:48:50 -
[6] - Quote
Bit silly that you can use a faction battleship to enable freighter ganking without any risk to that ship. But I can't see a way to introduce a suspect tag for the mach into that situation. |
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
39
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 03:50:22 -
[7] - Quote
John E Normus wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Bit silly that you can use a faction battleship to enable freighter ganking without any risk to that ship. But I can't see a way to introduce a suspect tag for the mach into that situation. There are some people who don't want to wait for new mechanics and just gank our Machs. We like these people. Eve is really a great game if you play it.
I will believe you when I see a mach killmail. |
| |
|