| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ryoko
   |
Posted - 2003.11.15 23:48:00 -
[1]
So alliances all have their "claimed" territories. If anyone not in the alliance goes there, they are killed just for being in that system. I'm trying to find the difference between an alliance and a griefer. I see nothing that gives any person the inherent ability to say they "cliam" this territory and then all kills made in that territory are justified as not being griefing. I hereby claim all solar systems as Space Invaders Territory. Please do not intrude or you will be shot.
|
Kalki Nibiru
|
Posted - 2003.11.15 23:52:00 -
[2]
A "griefer" must cause someone grief and continue to do that. The game warns you when you venture out into 0.0 LAWLESS space. If you die then its your damned fault. Those who have the power, can enforce their will onto anyone in 0.0 space and because thats the way the developers wanted 0.0 space to be, what alliances to do to non members is not griefing.
An 'alliance' in Empire space killing people over and over again in space that should only allow lawful people is griefing.
Taken from the May 29th 2003 Devchat at EveGate
.
<Muaddid> Q: When will sentry gun and station and similar construction pods be introduced on the market?
<Hellmar> we have various player owned entities already implemented. Sentry guns, power/shield generators, field repair mini-stations, mobile refineries. We are still working out the last tidbits of how they can be over taken, what is the penalty of having a sentry gun kill a n00b etc. and we have been a bit busy with plugging the holes that people have found.I would say that you'd start to see these items on the market in about 2-3 weeks, very expensive to begin with |
Molly
|
Posted - 2003.11.15 23:52:00 -
[3]
What's about Mollyland  ?
--
Kasha > Mastema, face the reality: All the juicy dots are gone.
-- |
Ryoko
|
Posted - 2003.11.15 23:55:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Ryoko on 15/11/2003 23:57:53
Thank you that is what I was looking for. Very well, in the spirit of "the holy empire space", I'd like to made a modification. All 0.0 systems are hereby Space Invaders Territory. Please do not intrude or you will be shot. No more *****ing.
|
Darodem
|
Posted - 2003.11.15 23:59:00 -
[5]
How is this "Space Invaders" threat to kill everyone new?
Alliances are encouraged by this type of sentiment, it is afterall a major function of the commonwealth to impinge on individual aggression.
|
Kalki Nibiru
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 00:01:00 -
[6]
Oh no! Space Invaders might enter Fountain or Stain regions!
Taken from the May 29th 2003 Devchat at EveGate
.
<Muaddid> Q: When will sentry gun and station and similar construction pods be introduced on the market?
<Hellmar> we have various player owned entities already implemented. Sentry guns, power/shield generators, field repair mini-stations, mobile refineries. We are still working out the last tidbits of how they can be over taken, what is the penalty of having a sentry gun kill a n00b etc. and we have been a bit busy with plugging the holes that people have found.I would say that you'd start to see these items on the market in about 2-3 weeks, very expensive to begin with |
Leitari
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 00:03:00 -
[7]
been there, done that.... boooring
Here, Only the silent survive.
|
Shittake
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 00:51:00 -
[8]
Ryoko, Space Invaders "claims" the corpses of NVA members. You wonder why you are kill on sight? If you were from a non-pirate corp, you'd be asked nicely to leave first.
Corporation like Rona go to 0.0 space to make ISK and find it necessary to band together with people of a similar mind, to keep the likes of SI from killing us.
What do you expect?
|
Ryoko
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 01:39:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Ryoko on 16/11/2003 01:41:43
 Quote:
If you were from a non-pirate corp, you'd be asked nicely to leave first.
lol; Well even if you warned the person, that doesn't give you the right to kill them either does it? I'm just making a point that all alliances that think they can justify any kill because they say some region is theirs, is completely wrong. They are being griefers. Everyone has just as much right to travel in 0.0 space as the next person.
This is your official warning: Please leave all 0.0 space or we will have to shoot you to protect our territory from those darn pirate hunters which we must band together against in order to go about our business. Thanks in advance.
|
Kalki Nibiru
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 01:46:00 -
[10]
Did you not read what I said? Everyone is free to travel into 0.0 space, we arent stopping them from "trying" to enter it.
Alliances arent being griefers AS THIS IS THE WAY THE DEVELOPERS WANT THE GAME TO BE PLAYED, IE. PLAYER POLITICS, WARS, ETC.
I'm sorry for those of you dont need the caps to understand the point.
Taken from the May 29th 2003 Devchat at EveGate
.
<Muaddid> Q: When will sentry gun and station and similar construction pods be introduced on the market?
<Hellmar> we have various player owned entities already implemented. Sentry guns, power/shield generators, field repair mini-stations, mobile refineries. We are still working out the last tidbits of how they can be over taken, what is the penalty of having a sentry gun kill a n00b etc. and we have been a bit busy with plugging the holes that people have found.I would say that you'd start to see these items on the market in about 2-3 weeks, very expensive to begin with |
Ryoko
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 02:17:00 -
[11]
My manual must have had the page torn out where it said: "Also, if you get some buds together and say you own a region - any one you want, take your pick, then you can kill anyone that comes in it and no one will hold it against you." You can DO anything you want to do, but you have to admit that whenever you DO kill someone just because they are past your imaginary territorial line, you are griefing.
|
Myrmex
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 04:37:00 -
[12]
what about you go see the trailer of eve with the guys tank ceo like so much to incarnate :)
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 04:57:00 -
[13]
Quote:
My manual must have had the page torn out where it said: "Also, if you get some buds together and say you own a region - any one you want, take your pick, then you can kill anyone that comes in it and no one will hold it against you." You can DO anything you want to do, but you have to admit that whenever you DO kill someone just because they are past your imaginary territorial line, you are griefing.
Ryoko, you're a pirate. What's legit for others doesn't apply to pirates. It's a duality that keeps me from being a pirate myself. I don't have the temperment anymore to tolerate the hypocrisy.
And the game doesn't need me ****ed off and not caring about sec rating.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Ryoko
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 05:06:00 -
[14]
Jash, I'm not defending pirate or known player killers here at all. My point is that if n00b#2583 just created his character and said, "Ooh, I like the name of that region; I want to go there to explore." Then they went there and was asked to leave by some alliance he would think, "Why shouldn't I be allowed to ask you to leave?" Simply because a few players have attempted to make home there doesn't sound like a basis for killing someone. We have a shared amount of property rights in space as players. If they kill the n00b#2583 just because he wouldn't leave, then they are griefers. Where is the logic flaw?
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 05:17:00 -
[15]
Quote:
Jash, I'm not defending pirate or known player killers here at all. My point is that if n00b#2583 just created his character and said, "Ooh, I like the name of that region; I want to go there to explore." Then they went there and was asked to leave by some alliance he would think, "Why shouldn't I be allowed to ask you to leave?" Simply because a few players have attempted to make home there doesn't sound like a basis for killing someone. We have a shared amount of property rights in space as players. If they kill the n00b#2583 just because he wouldn't leave, then they are griefers. Where is the logic flaw?
The logic flaw is the old adage "Might Makes Right".
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Fester Addams
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 05:21:00 -
[16]
0.0 space is free for all, go there and anyone can kill you anytime.
Its the way the game is designed.
If a group of players decide that the system GR5-0O is their system then its theirs as long as two things are true:
1: They kan keep other players out.
2: Noone cares.
Lets take for example SA, they will hunt you if you go into their territory, true, but the area is only theirs as long as they can hold it.
|
Ryoko
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 05:29:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Ryoko on 16/11/2003 05:32:09
Might makes right. That's exactly what I'm getting at. Alliances that believe in that should be recognized as griefers, and most alliances follow that.
Any alliance that kills just because of the system you are in is griefing.
|
Darodem
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 05:35:00 -
[18]
There is also a huge flaw in your assumption about how alliances behave.
I think most of us would agree that your experience with alliances is somewhat polarized by your lack moderation and appropriate response. This stark threatening behaviour would be acceptable if you were willing to accept the consequences... but you are not and you insist on appealing to some higher moral authority by using the word "griefer." I would argue that the very meaning of zero sec space is that such authority is your burden alone. You may eventually evolve the ability to share such a burden with an alliance.
Your most basic premise seems to be that property is theft. We simply amend such theft and reform it to become.... TADA
property is sharing with those deserving of its benefits.
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 05:49:00 -
[19]
Quote:
Edited by: Ryoko on 16/11/2003 05:32:09
Might makes right. That's exactly what I'm getting at. Alliances that believe in that should be recognized as griefers, and most alliances follow that.
Any alliance that kills just because of the system you are in is griefing.
Now I don't subscribe to the belief in using the word 'Griefer'. It's a subjective term too liberally applied simply because by definition, anything you do to a person that they do not like causes them grief. Ergo you become a griefer.
If you're asking are the Alliances justified in shooting people in 'their' territory I'd have to reply are you justified in shooting people or ransoming people at a gate? Both are legitimate forms of gameplay and therefore justified to me. In order to label an Alliance a 'Griefer' I'd be forced to label SPVD as 'Griefers' as well.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Ryoko
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 06:10:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Ryoko on 16/11/2003 06:12:05
Quote:
Now I don't subscribe to the belief in using the word 'Griefer'. It's a subjective term too liberally applied simply because by definition, anything you do to a person that they do not like causes them grief. Ergo you become a griefer.
If you're asking are the Alliances justified in shooting people in 'their' territory I'd have to reply are you justified in shooting people or ransoming people at a gate? Both are legitimate forms of gameplay and therefore justified to me. In order to label an Alliance a 'Griefer' I'd be forced to label SPVD as 'Griefers' as well.
I fully accept the name of Griefer. I won't hesitate to blow up any nva ship I come across if I can. I certainly don't think camping a gate or jip point justifies any kill or pirating. The difference is I accept the fact that I kill someone just for being there while most alliances have policies that say 'stay out or we'll shoot' and don't think it's griefing, while if I say 'stay out of 0.0 or I'm gonna shoot' it is thought of as "evil". I'm using the term griefer as someone who initiates combat that is not at war with the corporation of the intended victim. What I'm getting at is that alliances are hypocritical in stating that they do not support piracy while they are in fact just as much the pirate as I am.
|
WarElf
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 06:27:00 -
[21]
Ryoko:
No one cares.
KTHXBYE
~WarElf
~WarElf Occassus Republica
|
Ryoko
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 07:02:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Ryoko on 16/11/2003 07:08:13
If no one cared, no one would have replied to my initial post.
Is there a maturity filter I can enable somewhere?
I find this to be a very interesting discussion on one of the issues which I believe to be a double standard for a large portion of the eve universe, particularly in politics and the philosophy of the game.
|
Kalki Nibiru
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 07:21:00 -
[23]
Ryoko, you would be better to call Alliances "pirates" as griefing is frowned upon in any MMOG and leads to diciplinary actions.
"Griefing" is the MMOG equal to harrassment. The differences is that things that constitute a game element are not griefing, its part of the game. You hunting down and killing a noob over and over again with no purpose is griefing. An alliance forcing someone out of space they control with their forces is a game mechanic. See the difference?
As for the part missing from your manual, player stations are supposed to provide and label legitimate territory for corporations and alliances. So technically speaking every alliance is illegitimately squatting the space. Only in lieu of player stations do alliances just control the NPC space, I mean, what else are we going to do? Just operate in empire space and make ventures out into 0.0?
Of course not.
The fact of the matter is that alliances are providing content for themselves and others by controlling these contested areas of space, they are providing the back bone of major power struggles and political intrigue that is needed for a game like this to function.
I have a very good feeling that alliances will control much less space in the future when player stations are released as they would rather not spread their forces to thin and risk losing a station.
Dont use the word griefer when describing alliances because it doesnt apply, if you still dont understand what I mean, see the official CCP descriptions and meanings here and here
Taken from the May 29th 2003 Devchat at EveGate
.
<Muaddid> Q: When will sentry gun and station and similar construction pods be introduced on the market?
<Hellmar> we have various player owned entities already implemented. Sentry guns, power/shield generators, field repair mini-stations, mobile refineries. We are still working out the last tidbits of how they can be over taken, what is the penalty of having a sentry gun kill a n00b etc. and we have been a bit busy with plugging the holes that people have found.I would say that you'd start to see these items on the market in about 2-3 weeks, very expensive to begin with |
Arthur Guinness
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 07:40:00 -
[24]
Quote:
So alliances all have their "claimed" territories. If anyone not in the alliance goes there, they are killed just for being in that system. I'm trying to find the difference between an alliance and a griefer. I see nothing that gives any person the inherent ability to say they "cliam" this territory and then all kills made in that territory are justified as not being griefing. I hereby claim all solar systems as Space Invaders Territory. Please do not intrude or you will be shot.
nothing better todo than to troll a bit on the forums?
pathetic |
Ryoko
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 08:03:00 -
[25]
Thank you for your appropriate and mature post Kalki. Please forgive the liberal editing of your post for my reply.
Clause 1 :
Quote:
As for the part missing from your manual, player stations are supposed to provide and label legitimate territory for corporations and alliances. So technically speaking every alliance is illegitimately squatting the space.
Quote:
You hunting down and killing a noob over and over again with no purpose is griefing. An alliance forcing someone out of space they control with their forces is a game mechanic. See the difference?
Due to Clause 1, they are not a game mechanic.
Quote:
Ryoko, you would be better to call Alliances "pirates" as griefing is frowned upon in any MMOG and leads to diciplinary actions.
Pirates "hold you up" to take something. Griefers kill you just to make you have a bad day. Should I use the term "Unprovoked Attackers of Ships Which Are Not at War With the Aggressor" when referring to alliances? I think griefer minus the repetetive aspect sums it up.
Quote:
Only in lieu of player stations do alliances just control the NPC space, I mean, what else are we going to do? Just operate in empire space and make ventures out into 0.0?
Of course not.
The fact of the matter is that alliances are providing content for themselves and others by controlling these contested areas of space, they are providing the back bone of major power struggles and political intrigue that is needed for a game like this to function.
Players creating content is not my point. My point is the hypocrisy that is alliances in their stances of "justified" killings.
|
Kalki Nibiru
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 08:23:00 -
[26]
I concede your point. Legitimately we have no right to kill those people, yes we are causing some grief, but it isnt "griefing tactics".
I understand your point, but it falls upon deaf ears because it is generally recognized that this is how the game is supposed to run. I would much rather alliances control space throuch actual property so there can be some element for adventurers to fly off into uncontrolled space and seek riches and glory, but it just wont happen until corporations and alliances actually have something to lose.
I still dont believe that calling alliances griefers is the term to use. Pirates still fits better as only Space Invaders hold you up, all other pirate corporations kill you. When I got my first vexor I was killed by Sinister, I asked why they didnt ask for me to give them cash and they said something like 'it takes too much time'. I guess they could be called griefers too, but they still dont fit the bill as what they do has a purpose, they loot the cans left behind and make money like that. Alliances make money by hoarding the rich minerals contained in the regions, its not like they are blocking entrance into the space just to prevent people from going there (that would be griefing).
Taken from the May 29th 2003 Devchat at EveGate
.
<Muaddid> Q: When will sentry gun and station and similar construction pods be introduced on the market?
<Hellmar> we have various player owned entities already implemented. Sentry guns, power/shield generators, field repair mini-stations, mobile refineries. We are still working out the last tidbits of how they can be over taken, what is the penalty of having a sentry gun kill a n00b etc. and we have been a bit busy with plugging the holes that people have found.I would say that you'd start to see these items on the market in about 2-3 weeks, very expensive to begin with |
Veruna Caseti
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 08:37:00 -
[27]
I think one of the major problems facing the alliance vs. up-and-comers issue is the fact that it's too easy to "take" territory in EVE once you are part of a large alliance. With only one way in and one way out to almost all of the claimed regions, and only a few stations therein, the task of policing traffic into and throughout these areas is simple.
Granted, these alliances can't prevent everyone from entering the regions - this would take a dedicated 24/7 presence at points of interest. However, just 'getting into' a region doesn't really accomplish much - doing anything of use requires spending vast amounts of time in key areas in the region, and doing so in the presence of an alliance is virtually impossible.
So what are the alternatives? Challenge the alliance? Perhaps, except that they are sitting on 0.0 space, providing an endless stream of rare minerals for sale and battleship production, while any challengers who aren't themselves part of an alliance are relegated to areas much less rich in resources, or those 0.0 regions that are rather unappealing due to their total lack of stations within reasonable travel distance.
I believe alliances and the ability to claim and defend territory are a vital part of the game, but the capability to actually challenge those who have done so is equally as important, and right now that really doesn't happen.
Veruna Caseti
Ishukone |
Ryoko
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 08:38:00 -
[28]
Quote:
I concede your point. Legitimately we have no right to kill those people, yes we are causing some grief, but it isnt "griefing tactics".
Very well. Now that we have a fairly complete discussion, will alliances accept the fact that they are at least on par with "pirates" if they kill player#2385 for exploring in "their territory"? Or will they continue to be self-righteous hypocrites with their 'non-pirate' claims while they abide by the above mentioned activities?
Probably the later, but the topic speaks for itself in the minds of the enlightened.
|
Veruna Caseti
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 08:48:00 -
[29]
Also consider the fact that these tracts of 0.0 space are enormous when compared with the relatively small number of players who claim them. How much of each 'claimed' regions' resources are actually being used for the members of the alliance which makes it their home? 10%? 25%?
I would be willing to bet these regions could support at least 5 times as many players as they do now, but since it's so easy to choke off the region and any attempts by outsiders to take a foothold, the notion of "sharing" these areas is unheard of. The resources "belong" to the alliance, even if they're only putting a small fraction of them to use.
This isn't inherently a bad thing, until you consider the fact that CCP is apparently taking steps to remove resources from Empire space and make it much more difficult to subsist purely on Empire earnings.
So new players are left with bleak choices - either sign on with an alliance regardless of whether you want to or not, or fight against them with full knowledge that their flow of minerals can produce 5 ships for every 1 you are capable of destroying.
Veruna Caseti
Ishukone |
Kalki Nibiru
|
Posted - 2003.11.16 08:50:00 -
[30]
Of course every alliance will say that they arent pirates because technically they arent, but to joe newbie they are. After all, they kill them just the same as the pirates dont they?
Some alliances will just kill you on sight, some will actually give you warnings, and the Stain Alliance tries to do that as much as possible. I do it all the time and explain why so the person doesnt feel too bad about whats happening.
I know first hand what its like as it has happend to be before, but now I'm on the other side of the fence and I see perfectly legitimate reasons for our actions that because of CCP's inability to implement items they promised us (in may they said in a CSM chat that player stations were 2-3 weeks away) become de-legitimized.
Its a shame as I was really hoping for a wild west setting to the game (kinda like the border regions in Freelancer), but right now all we have is empire space and player fiefdoms.
Taken from the May 29th 2003 Devchat at EveGate
.
<Muaddid> Q: When will sentry gun and station and similar construction pods be introduced on the market?
<Hellmar> we have various player owned entities already implemented. Sentry guns, power/shield generators, field repair mini-stations, mobile refineries. We are still working out the last tidbits of how they can be over taken, what is the penalty of having a sentry gun kill a n00b etc. and we have been a bit busy with plugging the holes that people have found.I would say that you'd start to see these items on the market in about 2-3 weeks, very expensive to begin with |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |