| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sasha Nemtsov
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
111
   |
Posted - 2016.05.22 17:36:48 -
[1] - Quote
Ripard Teg was a moderately successful EVE Online blogger.
In the run-up to the CSM election for which he announced his candidacy, he published on his blog a post entitled 'Ganking isn't PvP and never was'.
Well, James 315 couldn't just let that go, now could he?
'Jester's Dreck' is James' response; not a post-mortem examination but rather an anatomical dissection of the most exacting kind.
James' post deals with the nature of Power in EVE, and explores the arguments rehearsed by many players about consensual and non-consensual PvP; an argument which still drags on, unresolved, apparently.
I've introduced and quitted the reading in my own voice and persona; just to prove that I 'don't really speak like that'.
Please do have a listen.
Jester's Dreck
Bless.
|
Pix Severus
Empty You
4481
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 00:39:09 -
[2] - Quote
I listened to this recording yesterday when it was posted to Minerbumping. Despite the original post being three years old, the subject matter is indeed still very relevant today.
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:I've introduced and quitted the reading in my own voice and persona; just to prove that I 'don't really speak like that'.
A joy to listen to.
-ì-ä-à -£-à+¦-äGêâ-Ç
|
Zathra Narazi
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
Templis CALSF
23
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 01:21:49 -
[3] - Quote
I miss James. He was like a street judge taking the long walk, bringing lawlessness to the lawful. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
FETID
2983
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 06:39:37 -
[4] - Quote
i dont consider ganking pvp, i just think its funny
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
4316
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 07:06:06 -
[5] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:i dont consider ganking pvp, i just think its funny
Then you're stupid because it definitively is PVP. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
FETID
2984
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 07:45:50 -
[6] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Lan Wang wrote:i dont consider ganking pvp, i just think its funny Then you're stupid because it definitively is PVP.
now now Vimsy dont get mad, its just shooting someone unarmed, nothing special
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
4320
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 08:06:05 -
[7] - Quote
I don't know if I want to start with the fact that people who get ganked actually are armed most of the time, or by pointing out that its completely irrelevant whether or not the involved parties are armed.
The thing that makes a particular interaction "Player Versus Player" is that the involved parties are all players (this is what the Ps in PVP mean) and that one is trying to do something that that the other wants the other wants them to fail at (This is the Versus, which is the V).
It bothers me that I have to explain a three word, simple English phrase that is its own definition to another (presumably) adult human being. |
Sasha Nemtsov
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
115
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 08:19:34 -
[8] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Lan Wang wrote:i dont consider ganking pvp, i just think its funny Then you're stupid because it definitively is PVP. now now Vimsy dont get mad, its just shooting someone unarmed, nothing special
As regards ganking, James' point is that it consists of attacking another player who has at hisher disposal the means of defence. This might be the fitting of tanking modules, for a solo player, or greater numbers and variety of means for a group.
Sacrificing yield for tank (miners) is a perfectly legitimate way of dealing with gankers. Greed, however, often trumps caution in the behaviour of miners and their ilk.
Whichever way you cut it, one player or group is pitched against the other. The sides do not have to be 'equal'. Indeed, on these forums I've often seen it asserted that there's no such thing as a fair fight in EVE.
It is Player versus Player, ergo PvP.
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
FETID
2984
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 08:28:50 -
[9] - Quote
dont get me wrong, i pvp and i gank, however i dont consider the 2 the same thing, if i jump into a plex or a gatecamp and we both redbox then i consider that pvp, if i jump into highsec and shoot a miner in a belt then im just ganking
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
4322
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 08:47:34 -
[10] - Quote
I'm sorry that your thought process is faulty. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
FETID
2986
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 09:08:51 -
[11] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I'm sorry that your thought process is faulty.
what would you say to someone who had a killboard 100% of ganking highsec miners and they told you they had excellent "pvp" experience because of this?
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Sasha Nemtsov
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
116
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 09:33:24 -
[12] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:I'm sorry that your thought process is faulty. what would you say to someone who had a killboard 100% of ganking highsec miners and they told you they had excellent "pvp" experience because of this?
"Welcome!"
But seriously Lan, all that's happening here is that your own definition of PvP is a tad narrower than that promulgated by CCP, and others.
I don't know why, but however many times it is asserted by the Devs, GMs, Executive Producer, etc., there are folks who simply will not accept that EVE Online is fundamentally a Combat PvP Sandbox MMO.
Surely it is wiser to accept their definition than to fashion one for ourselves?
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
4324
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 10:41:54 -
[13] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:what would you say to someone who had a killboard 100% of ganking highsec miners and they told you they had excellent "pvp" experience because of this?
Well for a start I wouldn't make a statement about the quality of something based on a single derived percentage of a single quantitative value.
The only actual information you can get from someone having 100% of their kills being from ganking in highsec is that they have some amount of experience ganking in highsec.
And the quality of their experience is irrelevant anyway since regardless of how much experience they have, or how successful they've been it's still a kind of experience of a kind of PVP activity. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
FETID
2986
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 10:50:05 -
[14] - Quote
maybe its a bit narrow of me but i consider pvp as combat to combat, or 2 players engaging in the same activity against each other (pvp = Player vs player, there is no vs in ganking), and many others think this way too, i get that ganking is a form of pvp but the term is soo subjective, ganking is just player killing.
to call the definition "fashioned" is also pretty narrow especially when you tell someone that they are pvp'ing if they fit a shield extender.
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Nitshe Razvedka
826
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 12:13:42 -
[15] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I'm sorry that your thought process is faulty.
Your though process is limited. If you think winning an argument by defining a word or two is correct, you are displaying your ignorance.
The Eve community is a culture, the gamer community is a culture. A simplistic dictionary definition does explain our cultures attitude and values in relation to a particular issue.
Gankers and some lessor Mercs have one perspective.
Intelligent PVPers, FW players, Carebears, Nullsec Alliances, Greater Mercs and AG's have another perspective on what is PvP within our culture.
Vimsy don't let simplistic definitions define who you are either. I'm sure your more complicated.
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
4331
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 12:55:40 -
[16] - Quote
Nitshe Razvedka wrote:The Eve community is a culture, the gamer community is a culture. A simplistic dictionary definition does explain our cultures attitude and values in relation to a particular issue.
Individuals changing their personal definition of PVP arbitrarily to encompass only specific activities doesn't explain any of those things either, it just highlights their personal bias and makes conversation difficult because they're using a term to mean something other than what, by its definition, it actually means.
It's not helpful and it's not informative. It's annoying and it's wrong.
You can like or dislike any given PVP activity as much or as little as you like, but you don't get to write-in your own definition comprised exclusively of things you approve of and still get taken seriously in a conversation. |
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
218
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 13:11:18 -
[17] - Quote
It might not be honourable e-bushido.
But by definition it is PvP. So there is really nothing to argue here. |
Nitshe Razvedka
827
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 13:13:15 -
[18] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Nitshe Razvedka wrote:The Eve community is a culture, the gamer community is a culture. A simplistic dictionary definition does explain our cultures attitude and values in relation to a particular issue. Individuals changing their personal definition of PVP arbitrarily to encompass only specific activities doesn't explain any of those things either, it just highlights their personal bias and makes conversation difficult because they're using a term to mean something other than what, by its definition, it actually means. It's not helpful and it's not informative. It's annoying and it's wrong. You can like or dislike any given PVP activity as much or as little as you like, but you don't get to write-in your own definition comprised exclusively of things you approve of and still get taken seriously in a conversation.
Dry your eyes Vimsy, take a deep breath and listen. You are not correct, and I am not 'wrong', broad groups and cultures have different perspectives. 
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
FETID
2986
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 13:14:30 -
[19] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Nitshe Razvedka wrote:The Eve community is a culture, the gamer community is a culture. A simplistic dictionary definition does explain our cultures attitude and values in relation to a particular issue. Individuals changing their personal definition of PVP arbitrarily to encompass only specific activities doesn't explain any of those things either, it just highlights their personal bias and makes conversation difficult because they're using a term to mean something other than what, by its definition, it actually means. It's not helpful and it's not informative. It's annoying and it's wrong. You can like or dislike any given PVP activity as much or as little as you like, but you don't get to write-in your own definition comprised exclusively of things you approve of and still get taken seriously in a conversation.
Its an opinion, not a definition
even ship spinning is considered pvp, i must remember this when filling out my app to pl
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
4331
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 13:15:01 -
[20] - Quote
The post-modernism is palpable. |
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
220
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 13:25:56 -
[21] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:even ship spinning is considered pvp, i must remember this when filling out my app to pl
Ship spinning on its own is not really PvP, since it does not involve conflict between you and another player. However, market trading is PvP and can be done while ship spinning. It is just another form of PvP compared to shooting at player ships.
PvP is not a concept that has been broadly discussed in academics. However, on the wiki of "Player versus Player" they take the definition found in a book called "Designing Virtual World" by Richard Bartle. The definition is:
"Player versus Player (PvP). Players are opposed by other players. In a combat situation, this means PCs can fight each other"
And also relevant to EvE would be this snippet on pure PvP worlds.
"In a pure PvP world, there is no consensuality: People can try to mess you about, whether or not you like it; they may run the risk of being attacked by you, your friends, and perhaps the local police force too as a result, but they can still try."
Since most of us have played a ton of multiplayer games and the concept itself is not really hard to grasp, I think we all can agree that this definition is what we all understand by PvP.
So by that definition, suicide ganking and market trading are both PvP, it is just another form of PvP compared to honourable e-bushido.
EDIT: Found a preview of the book and the relevant quotes. |
Nitshe Razvedka
827
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 13:31:55 -
[22] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Nitshe Razvedka wrote: Everyone is right The post-modernism is palpable.
If I followed qualitative and quantitive research methods I would:
survey a sample of the different player groups to define what PvP meant to them,
THEN provide the results in the form of percentages,
and have an explanation of the results.
Its called good science, not pandering to the most entitled group that shouts loudest.
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
15936
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 13:40:37 -
[23] - Quote
Nitshe Razvedka wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Nitshe Razvedka wrote: Everyone is right The post-modernism is palpable. If I followed qualitative and quantitive research methods I would: survey a sample of the different player groups to define what PvP meant to them, THEN provide the results in the form of percentages, and have an explanation of the results. Its called good science, not pandering to the most entitled group that shouts loudest.
Its not a subjective thing, its a simple ,straightforward term that covers ganking.
Honestly if you are going to be obtuse , pick something with some ambiguity or intresting talking points.
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
FETID
2987
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 13:52:00 -
[24] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:Ship spinning on its own is not really PvP, since it does not involve conflict between you and another player. However, market trading is PvP and can be done while ship spinning. It is just another form of PvP compared to shooting at player ships.
denying someone a kill can very well be classed as pvp, if i stay docked instead of fighting someone, its pvp?
even miners who skip corps to avoid wardecs, thats a form of pvp too, i mean blueballing and content denial is pvp?
it may be the definition but pvp'ers are classed people who fight other fighters, im not trying to change a definition im merely expressing my opinion that a pvper is considered a fighter and a ganker is just someone who shoots a mostly helpless/non-combat player.
nobody ever answers the question "what is your pvp experience? with....everything in eve is pvp so its very great" they refer to it as combat vs combat. everybody does
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
220
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 14:07:10 -
[25] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Maekchu wrote:Ship spinning on its own is not really PvP, since it does not involve conflict between you and another player. However, market trading is PvP and can be done while ship spinning. It is just another form of PvP compared to shooting at player ships. denying someone a kill can very well be classed as pvp, if i stay docked instead of fighting someone, its pvp? even miners who skip corps to avoid wardecs, thats a form of pvp too, i mean blueballing and content denial is pvp? it may be the definition but pvp'ers are classed people who fight other fighters, im not trying to change a definition im merely expressing my opinion that a pvper is considered a fighter and a ganker is just someone who shoots a mostly helpless/non-combat player. nobody ever answers the question "what is your pvp experience? with....everything in eve is pvp so its very great" they refer to it as combat vs combat. everybody does
You are actually correct that ship spinning on its own is PvP. Forgot to look at it from that perspective. Which is why most people simply say that EvE just is a PvP game at its core, because most activities in EvE are PvP. And even if you try to avoid direct player confrontations, you are always at the risk of running into someone who wants to shoot you.
Blueballing or avoiding getting killed is still a useful skill. But not so sure this is what PL looks for in their recruits :P
It is true that we usually refer to player shooting at each other, when asking the question "Do you PvP?". But that doesn't change the definition of PvP, and therefore you cannot just say ganking is not PvP since it suits your current perception of PvP. Ganking is by definition PvP whether you like it or not.
You cannot change definitions. You are basically saying that if I perceive a banana to not be what is defined as a banana, I can just call it something else. From now on, I do not acknowledge the definition of bananas. I believe strawberries are closer to my understanding of bananas and and henceforth, I will call strawberries "bananas" and bananas are to be called "disgusting yellow goo".
|
Omar Alharazaad
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
2872
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 14:16:48 -
[26] - Quote
By the standards of some what I do is not considered PVP despite the very low success rate for getting engagements and the moderately high success rate for getting kills when I do get an engagement.
I bait mission runners.
We all know this... but sometimes they shoot. They all have guns, so that meets most people's qualifications, but really lets face it, the game is rigged in my favor. It's the fit. My targets generally do not have neuts or webs fitted because of reasons.
Sometimes they do.
This makes it exciting for me, as I don't scan their fits and with skill injectors I now have NO idea just how much mojo their character sheet is packing. I simply do what I do and bet on stupid.
However, because my targets are not PVP players necessarily engaged in PVP activities you could easily argue that I am a bad person for taking advantage of an ill-prepared opponent in order to score an 'easy kill' (FYI, some of those 'easy kills' are insanely rough, leaving my ship on fire for most of the fight). Some of these 'easy kills' have sent my pod scampering off to the nearest planet post haste in order to prevent the subsequent loss of implants due to me underestimating the awesomeness of my foe.
Then there are the miners. Everyone says 'helpless mining vessel'... I say 'Have you f*cking SEEN a Skiff?' I have had an enyo run screaming on fire from a pair of these monsters before. Procurers are pretty bad too... unless it's a war target you can single out and kill without repercussions, a mining fleet poses some serious risks for your average nogoodnik.
Okay, I'm rambling. I guess my point is that whenever you and another player have conflicting desires for the outcome of a situation and both of you have an influence on said outcome it is PVP. If your objective is to live and you do, then you have won at pvp on your end. If your objective is to kill and you do then you have achieved your objective. This applies no matter what your objective is. Sometimes it's something weird like 'I don't care what you're doing, but you need to do that somewhere else.'
Did I sense make?
Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
|
Nitshe Razvedka
827
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 14:22:45 -
[27] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin
' Its not a subjective thing, its a simple ,straightforward term that covers ganking."
I say the majority ( *not researched*) of the Eve community says otherwise. Are you or the majority correct?
Definitions ( the same as language) vary within communities, also language changes over time.
"A lowsec PvPer " congers a totally different image to "Hisec ganker" from most perspectives. With a simplistic definition of PvP you could classify them as the same.
Ralph I respect your experience as a Merc within Eve, but I don't agree with you on this issue.
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Dom Arkaral
Axios
439
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 15:06:59 -
[28] - Quote
PvP is player versus player... no matter the type of engagement.
Be it ships blowing up ships (legitimately or illegitimately), or market .01 isking, of just mining more than your competitor, it all is pvp.
Ganking is just a non-consensual pvp type, just like gate camps...
But it the end PvP is and always be player versus player.
PvP
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester. #b4r
Gù+Montreal EVE Meet Organiser
Gù+Come talk in the ingame chan "EVE Montreal" for more info or just to chill!
|
Nitshe Razvedka
829
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 15:13:28 -
[29] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:PvP is player versus player... no matter the type of engagement. Be it ships blowing up ships (legitimately or illegitimately), or market .01 isking, of just mining more than your competitor, it all is pvp. Ganking is just a non-consensual pvp type, just like gate camps... But it the end PvP is and always be player versus player. PvP
Dom, by merely appearing in this thread you have screeewed any progress Vimsy and Ralph ever had.......
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Tyyler DURden
Mordechai and Sons Distribution Co.
298
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 15:15:47 -
[30] - Quote
Kind of like turning your guns on and blowing up someones pod, right Dom?
Thats considered pvp too right?
Tyyler DURden says "use soap"
|
Dom Arkaral
Axios
439
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 15:17:24 -
[31] - Quote
Tyyler DURden wrote:Kind of like turning your guns on and blowing up someones pod, right Dom?
Thats considered pvp too right?
does it involve more than one toon?
there's your answer
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester. #b4r
Gù+Montreal EVE Meet Organiser
Gù+Come talk in the ingame chan "EVE Montreal" for more info or just to chill!
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
FETID
2990
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 15:38:19 -
[32] - Quote
even pve is pvp 
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Dom Arkaral
Axios
439
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 15:40:10 -
[33] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:even pve is pvp
gotta sell that dank loot
or
gotta kill the overseer before that other dood
or
gotta kill that other dood because he tried to steal my lootz
:D
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester. #b4r
Gù+Montreal EVE Meet Organiser
Gù+Come talk in the ingame chan "EVE Montreal" for more info or just to chill!
|
Revis Owen
The Conference Elite
CODE.
326
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 15:46:10 -
[34] - Quote
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:But seriously Lan, all that's happening here is that your own definition of PvP is a tad narrower than that promulgated by CCP, and others.
It's worse. Lan's definition of PvP is contradicted by the very definitions of "player" and "versus".
Agent of the New Order
http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.
|
Tyyler DURden
Mordechai and Sons Distribution Co.
301
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 15:51:54 -
[35] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Tyyler DURden wrote:Kind of like turning your guns on and blowing up someones pod, right Dom?
Thats considered pvp too right? does it involve more than one toon? there's your answer
I just find it a bit humorous that you cant keep your B.S. straight from one thread to the next.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6452359#post6452359
Tyyler DURden says "use soap"
|
Dom Arkaral
Axios
440
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 16:04:51 -
[36] - Quote
Tyyler DURden wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Tyyler DURden wrote:Kind of like turning your guns on and blowing up someones pod, right Dom?
Thats considered pvp too right? does it involve more than one toon? there's your answer I just find it a bit humorous that you cant keep your B.S. straight from one thread to the next. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6452359#post6452359
damnit 1 sec
edit: is that the best you got?
Cry me a river :D
Everyone is entitled an opinion, and opinions change.
People don't though, that's why you'll always come crying when I post, wherever I post :D
Praise James and great soundcloud yet again Sasha :D
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester. #b4r
Gù+Montreal EVE Meet Organiser
Gù+Come talk in the ingame chan "EVE Montreal" for more info or just to chill!
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
FETID
2991
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 16:14:31 -
[37] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Tyyler DURden wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Tyyler DURden wrote:Kind of like turning your guns on and blowing up someones pod, right Dom?
Thats considered pvp too right? does it involve more than one toon? there's your answer I just find it a bit humorous that you cant keep your B.S. straight from one thread to the next. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6452359#post6452359 damnit 1 sec edit: is that the best you got? Cry me a river :DEveryone is entitled an opinion, and opinions change. People don't though, that's why you'll always come crying when I post, wherever I post :D Praise James and great soundcloud yet again Sasha :D
Gotta admit that was pretty good lol
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Sasha Nemtsov
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
117
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 17:02:14 -
[38] - Quote
Revis Owen wrote:Sasha Nemtsov wrote:But seriously Lan, all that's happening here is that your own definition of PvP is a tad narrower than that promulgated by CCP, and others. It's worse. Lan's definition of PvP is contradicted by the very definitions of "player" and "versus".
Hi Revis, I was feeling charitable when I wrote that. It does happen, occasionally.
Your amplification is correct, and welcome.
The point is not what we, the players, think should be the definition of PvP. The point is what CCP hf has determined it shall be. All aspects of the game design are conceived and executed in light of their decision in that regard.
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
FETID
2992
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 17:24:24 -
[39] - Quote
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:Revis Owen wrote:Sasha Nemtsov wrote:But seriously Lan, all that's happening here is that your own definition of PvP is a tad narrower than that promulgated by CCP, and others. It's worse. Lan's definition of PvP is contradicted by the very definitions of "player" and "versus". Hi Revis, I was feeling charitable when I wrote that. It does happen, occasionally. Your amplification is correct, and welcome. The point is not what we, the players, think should be the definition of PvP. The point is what CCP hf has determined it shall be. All aspects of the game design are conceived and executed in light of their decision in that regard.
everyone is a pvp'er, i got it now, sorry guys i was wrong 
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
225
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 17:38:04 -
[40] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:everyone is a pvp'er, i got it now, sorry guys i was wrong
You might do only PvE activities (like only shooting rats), but the EvE server is a pure PvP server. So you are not operating within a vacuum. When someone decides to shoot you, or deny you freedom to farm by being in the same system and you consciously docking up to deny him a kill, you are engaged in PvP even though you only do PvE content.
It's not that hard to understand.
|
Exaido
Fire Over Light
9
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 17:40:07 -
[41] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I don't know if I want to start with the fact that people who get ganked actually are armed most of the time, or by pointing out that its completely irrelevant whether or not the involved parties are armed.
The thing that makes a particular interaction "Player Versus Player" is that the involved parties are all players (this is what the Ps in PVP mean) and that one is trying to do something that that the other wants the other wants them to fail at (This is the Versus, which is the V).
It bothers me that I have to explain a three word, simple English phrase that is its own definition to another (presumably) adult human being.
Versus implies opposition. Ganking implies the inability to provide opposition. Ergo. Ganking does not equal PVP. |
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
225
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 17:44:33 -
[42] - Quote
Exaido wrote:Versus implies opposition. Ganking implies the inability to provide opposition. Ergo. Ganking does not equal PVP.
"In a pure PvP world, there is no consensuality: People can try to mess you about, whether or not you like it; they may run the risk of being attacked by you, your friends, and perhaps the local police force too as a result, but they can still try."
Tranquility is a pure PvP server. Therefore ganking is PvP.
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
FETID
2992
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 17:56:44 -
[43] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:Versus implies opposition. Ganking implies the inability to provide opposition. Ergo. Ganking does not equal PVP. "In a pure PvP world, there is no consensuality: People can try to mess you about, whether or not you like it; they may run the risk of being attacked by you, your friends, and perhaps the local police force too as a result, but they can still try."Tranquility is a pure PvP server. Therefore ganking is PvP.
but you're a ganker not a pvp'er
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Dom Arkaral
Axios
443
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 17:59:33 -
[44] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:Versus implies opposition. Ganking implies the inability to provide opposition. Ergo. Ganking does not equal PVP. "In a pure PvP world, there is no consensuality: People can try to mess you about, whether or not you like it; they may run the risk of being attacked by you, your friends, and perhaps the local police force too as a result, but they can still try."Tranquility is a pure PvP server. Therefore ganking is PvP. but you're a ganker not a pvp'er
ganking involves two or more players
therefore it's classified as pvp (Player versus Player)
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester. #b4r
Gù+Montreal EVE Meet Organiser
Gù+Come talk in the ingame chan "EVE Montreal" for more info or just to chill!
|
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
227
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 18:01:07 -
[45] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:Versus implies opposition. Ganking implies the inability to provide opposition. Ergo. Ganking does not equal PVP. "In a pure PvP world, there is no consensuality: People can try to mess you about, whether or not you like it; they may run the risk of being attacked by you, your friends, and perhaps the local police force too as a result, but they can still try."Tranquility is a pure PvP server. Therefore ganking is PvP. but you're a ganker not a pvp'er
Ganking is a subset of PvP, just like mining is a subset of PvE.
PvP and PvE are just two very broad groups of activities that are further split into specialized subgroups.
But that doesn't change the fact, that ganking is still part of the overall group of activities that are under "PvP".
|
Mortlake
Devils Rejects 666
2115
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 18:13:39 -
[46] - Quote
This conversation is awesome. Needs more pedantry though.
WTS extra fine scalpels, ideal for splitting hairs. Convo me.
Father to a murdered son. Husband to a murdered wife. Truth be told, I've been pretty unlucky.
|
Bing Bangboom
DAMAG Safety Commission
480
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 18:16:51 -
[47] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:maybe its a bit narrow of me but i consider pvp as combat to combat, or 2 players engaging in the same activity against each other (pvp = Player vs player, there is no vs in ganking), and many others think this way too, i get that ganking is a form of pvp but the term is soo subjective, ganking is just player killing.
to call the definition "fashioned" is also pretty narrow especially when you tell someone that they are pvp'ing if they fit a shield extender.
Do you consider it pvp when you and 39 of your closest friends burn down an unarmed Guardian?
I do. Just wondered if that falls under ganking or pvp by your lights.
You might consider the danger of trying to define PvP by your own guidelines. More than a few players have disdained the "F1 monkey" as a human powered bot.
Highsec is worth fighting for.
By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.-á www.minerbumping.com
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
FETID
2992
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 18:41:18 -
[48] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:Versus implies opposition. Ganking implies the inability to provide opposition. Ergo. Ganking does not equal PVP. "In a pure PvP world, there is no consensuality: People can try to mess you about, whether or not you like it; they may run the risk of being attacked by you, your friends, and perhaps the local police force too as a result, but they can still try."Tranquility is a pure PvP server. Therefore ganking is PvP. but you're a ganker not a pvp'er Ganking is a subset of PvP, just like mining is a subset of PvE. PvP and PvE are just two very broad groups of activities that are further split into specialized subgroups. But that doesn't change the fact, that ganking is still part of the overall group of activities that are under "PvP".
but its been explained that everything in this game is pvp so pve does not exist because you are constantly in competition with someone else. i get it, ganking is a subset of pvp, but the way things are in every game you are a pvp'er if you focus on player to player combat.
you look anywhere and someone says "im a pvp character" and you instantly know what they are talking about, ship to ship combat, not ganking miners
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Dom Arkaral
Axios
443
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 18:44:47 -
[49] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Maekchu wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:Versus implies opposition. Ganking implies the inability to provide opposition. Ergo. Ganking does not equal PVP. "In a pure PvP world, there is no consensuality: People can try to mess you about, whether or not you like it; they may run the risk of being attacked by you, your friends, and perhaps the local police force too as a result, but they can still try."Tranquility is a pure PvP server. Therefore ganking is PvP. but you're a ganker not a pvp'er Ganking is a subset of PvP, just like mining is a subset of PvE. PvP and PvE are just two very broad groups of activities that are further split into specialized subgroups. But that doesn't change the fact, that ganking is still part of the overall group of activities that are under "PvP". but its been explained that everything in this game is pvp so pve does not exist because you are constantly in competition with someone else. i get it, ganking is a subset of pvp, but the way things are in every game you are a pvp'er if you focus on player to player combat. you look anywhere and someone says "im a pvp character" and you instantly know what they are talking about, ship to ship combat, not ganking miners
Lan
Ganking is a much pvp as blobbing is in nullsec.
Player Versus Player.
How hard is it to understand?
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester. #b4r
Gù+Montreal EVE Meet Organiser
Gù+Come talk in the ingame chan "EVE Montreal" for more info or just to chill!
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
FETID
2992
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 18:46:42 -
[50] - Quote
we have already determined everything in this game is pvp, and i said i agree numerous times
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Sasha Nemtsov
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
118
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 19:08:10 -
[51] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:Versus implies opposition. Ganking implies the inability to provide opposition. Ergo. Ganking does not equal PVP. "In a pure PvP world, there is no consensuality: People can try to mess you about, whether or not you like it; they may run the risk of being attacked by you, your friends, and perhaps the local police force too as a result, but they can still try."Tranquility is a pure PvP server. Therefore ganking is PvP. but you're a ganker not a pvp'er Ganking is a subset of PvP, just like mining is a subset of PvE. PvP and PvE are just two very broad groups of activities that are further split into specialized subgroups. But that doesn't change the fact, that ganking is still part of the overall group of activities that are under "PvP".
I was thinking this earlier. PvP is an overarching concept, In CCP's view. Example subsets might be piracy, ganking, awoxing, etc.
Perhaps the nay-sayers would like to just give James 315 a hearing and then return to the thread. The arguments you're putting forth here are answered fully by him.
Lan, I note that you've graciously withdrawn from the fray; thanks for your input, though.
|
Revis Owen
The Conference Elite
CODE.
326
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 19:39:52 -
[52] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:you look anywhere and someone says "im a pvp character" and you instantly know what they are talking about, ship to ship combat, not ganking miners
Last I checked, miners are in ships, their gankers are in ships, and combat is the only thing that makes the mining ship pop. Ganking miners is ship to ship combat. It may be very one-sided combat, but encounters with elite PvP'ers often are very one-sided affairs.
Agent of the New Order
http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
FETID
2992
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 19:44:40 -
[53] - Quote
Revis Owen wrote:Lan Wang wrote:you look anywhere and someone says "im a pvp character" and you instantly know what they are talking about, ship to ship combat, not ganking miners
Last I checked, miners are in ships, their gankers are in ships, and combat is the only thing that makes the mining ship pop. Ganking miners is ship to ship combat. It may be very one-sided combat, but encounters with elite PvP'ers often are very one-sided affairs.
look man, you're a ganker not a pvp'er
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Tyyler DURden
Mordechai and Sons Distribution Co.
305
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 20:14:36 -
[54] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Tyyler DURden wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Tyyler DURden wrote:Kind of like turning your guns on and blowing up someones pod, right Dom?
Thats considered pvp too right? does it involve more than one toon? there's your answer I just find it a bit humorous that you cant keep your B.S. straight from one thread to the next. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6452359#post6452359 damnit 1 sec edit: is that the best you got? Cry me a river :DEveryone is entitled an opinion, and opinions change. People don't though, that's why you'll always come crying when I post, wherever I post :D Praise James and great soundcloud yet again Sasha :D
So your opinion on whether or not podkilling is PvP somehow miraculously changed in the last 30 days.
Also your statement that everyone is entitled to an opinion doesn't jive with how often you tell somebody to GTFO when you disagree with them over something in these forums.
Dom Arkaral, as consistent as he ever was.
Tyyler DURden says "use soap"
|
Revis Owen
The Conference Elite
CODE.
328
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 20:15:08 -
[55] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:look man, you're a ganker not a pvp'er
A rose by any other name . . . :)
Agent of the New Order
http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.
|
Dom Arkaral
Axios
443
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 20:49:13 -
[56] - Quote
stop trying to derail the train Tyler, this ain't a playground for little crybabies like yourself.
This is simply another good thread you try to shut down
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester. #b4r
Gù+Montreal EVE Meet Organiser
Gù+Come talk in the ingame chan "EVE Montreal" for more info or just to chill!
|
Morgan Agrivar
Peace.Keepers
329
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 04:48:41 -
[57] - Quote
PvP is everywhere in its shining glory. Many ways to PvP too, and all of it (but market PvP) is fun.
This would cure me of the fear...
|
Roenok Baalnorn
Sadistically Sinister
31
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 06:09:10 -
[58] - Quote
PVP is like fishing...
1) You have the guy that sits in the lawn chair on the bank cast a bobber and bait in, cracks open a beer and sits there and waits for a bite.
2) You have the guy that has the $100k high tech bass boat with two 3-d fish finders, has the pro rod and can get in places that a person on foot could not get( at least not easily)
3) you have the sea fisherman bigger boat, bigger reel, bigger fish.
4) You have the trot line runner. Sets multi hook lines and checks them twice a day.
5) You have the net fisherman( typcially commerical)
6) you have the fly fisherman who prides himself on his finesse.
At the end of the day, they are all fisherman. They will swear up and down their way is the only way( and best way) to fish. Those other methods... thats not really fishing.
PVP in Eve is the same. It has many facets.
1) Null pvpers- not real pvp because your blobbing and pushing F1. While this may be true for certain alliances. In actual pvp alliances you actually do a minimum amount of this. This is only a small part of the pvp you actually end up doing.
2) Gankers- infamous for picking on the weak. Many consider not to be real pvp since the other side rarely fights back. Gankers have their place. While they do prey on the weak and naive, it is this preying that in part keeps eve from becoming WoW in space. 8 years ago when i started you could load up you indy with faction mods and other loot and head from derelik to jita, hit the AP, go grab some lunch and you would sitting at the gate in jita when you were done. Today i had to go from Hek to Jita in an astero. About 6 jumps into my travels, my dog wanted to go out. 8 years ago i would of hit the AP and taken him out. Today i docked up, took him out, then resumed traveling. It wasnt worth losing a 100 mil isk frig so my dog could go to the bathroom. Now imagine if everyone just did everything in highsec and never had to worry about consequences. It would become carebear land. People wouldnt be encouraged to leave high sec and those mean gankers behind. Now people are like" if im going to risk getting shot or blown up, i might as well do it in a place where i can make 10 times more isk an hour"
3)Wardeccers- The twin brother of gankers. They wardec as many corps and alliances as they can. They keep people who live in null in null. Why should i go to highsec if im wardecced? i cant carebear. Only thing i can do is shop. So null players have shopping alts that contact supplies to other alts in non decced corps that haul. I have very little reason to go to highsec and even less if im being wardecced. Again this keeps eve players from becoming lazy carebears.
4) Faction war pvp- So basically you have experienced pilots going around ganking a bunch of inexperienced players in cheap ships. If thats not bad enough, they are probably worse as blobbing than null sec alliances they just do it in cheaper ships. Ironically, this is the only actual consensual pvp ive mentioned and i know you consent when you undock. However both parties here KNOW they are going to pvp and that is their intent when they undock. Usually one side does not have a choice.
5) Cloaky campers/BLOPS - the bane of every nullsec alliance. You have that awesome ratting system. got time off from ops. Going to get in a little ratting make a couple hundred mil and BOOM! cloaky camper in your system! Now this could be some guy that is AFK in a buzzard. Or it could be a stealth bomber who is going to take out your MTU while you switch between your ratter and your noctis. Or he could be cyno equipped and has 10-20 buddies in blops ready to be all up and down your deadspace fitted rattlesnake like a window shade. You.just.never.know.
All of these will defend their style of pvp. Many will claim the style is the best. Many will claim others arent real pvp. But just like fishing, everyone is doing it Just doing it differently.
So... cant we all get along? No? Thats good, dont want you guys going soft on me and holding hands while mining veldspar and singing kumbaya and filling out support tickets cause a rat popped your retriever while you went potty. |
Nitshe Razvedka
836
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 07:14:37 -
[59] - Quote
After reading the Eve Forums and feeling generally good about myself, I sat back in my poof eating my Golden Gaytime, the
savoury smells of faggots cooking with bacon wafted in from the kitchen. At that moment I knew all the SJW's could not tell ME
otherwise:
I own MY f'ing language. Whatever those muppets say is white noise.
*scratching my balls, my mind is distracted again*
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMbacon.
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
480
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 09:00:17 -
[60] - Quote
when will the discrimination ends, miners are players too, you know.
Just Add Water
|
StonerPhReaK
AFK Inc.
410
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 10:26:21 -
[61] - Quote
Text pvp is the most exhilarating form of pvp this game has to offer. This thread is proof.
Signatures wer cooler when we couldn't remove them completely.
|
Mortlake
Devils Rejects 666
2121
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 11:04:31 -
[62] - Quote
Not logging in is also pvp. To deprive one of a target, simply by not being there is practically the pinnacle of elite pew in EVE.
It truly is the art of fighting, without fighting.
Father to a murdered son. Husband to a murdered wife. Truth be told, I've been pretty unlucky.
|
Mike Adoulin
Adolescent Radioactive Pirate Hamsters
1764
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 12:06:54 -
[63] - Quote
Goddamn Nitshe threads, they're everywhere.
*turns on the firehose*
And yes, 'ganking'........aka......'ambushing'....is PVP. Guns get shot, ships blow up.
Next the damn carebears will be saying dropping a few dozen bombs on a drunkfleet sitting on a gate isn't PVP either......
"Oooooh, they didn't have a chance, the bombs, the evil bombs!!!"
Damn right they didn't have a chance. That's the whole point.
Everything in EVE is a trap.
And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)
You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.
Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
|
ISD Fractal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1179
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 13:16:17 -
[64] - Quote
Quote:34. Posting of inappropriate content is prohibited.
The posting of pornography, discriminatory remarks which are sexually explicit, harmful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, obscene, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive as well as excessive obscene or vulgar language, posts which discuss or illustrate illegal activity, or an instance of providing links to sites that contain any of the aforementioned is strictly prohibited on the EVE Online forums.
I have removed a post for violating the above rule.
ISD Fractal
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Omar Alharazaad
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
2875
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 13:35:34 -
[65] - Quote
Mike Adoulin wrote:Goddamn Nitshe threads, they're everywhere. *turns on the firehose* And yes, 'ganking'........aka......'ambushing'....is PVP. Guns get shot, ships blow up. Next the damn carebears will be saying dropping a few dozen bombs on a drunkfleet sitting on a gate isn't PVP either...... "Oooooh, they didn't have a chance, the bombs, the evil bombs!!!" Damn right they didn't have a chance. That's the whole point.
Pretty much this.
So your ship doesn't have guns, big deal. You have situational awareness. When flying unarmed your PVP objective is to not explode. It's not like you can't do anything about it. Simply not being there when the people who want to widen your orifices arrive is a win. You just pvp'd. Each player in each given circumstance has to define for themselves what 'winning' means.
If you fly blind into dangerous areas or AFK anywhere in space you are pretty much dropping trow and offering content to anyone who feels the urge to create it. Hell, I've done it myself in the past several times... I flew haulers into lowsex and nullsex areas without scouting and got my shizzle pushed in. It was MY fault for not taking measures to ensure my own safety. The guys who sploded me, they were just dying for someone to shoot at and I gave it to them.
So, yeah... gankers are pvp pilots as well. You don't win by blowing their ships up, that's gonna happen anyways. You win the pvp battle with them by NOT DYING. Use your brain, use your tools and don't fly around with most of your worldly possessions on your person and you can do just fine. Derps who don't get this don't deserve sympathy, they deserve what they get.
Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
FETID
2996
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 13:38:01 -
[66] - Quote
you dont put gloves on a toddler throw him in the ring with mike tyson and call it boxing
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
15968
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 13:46:47 -
[67] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:you dont put gloves on a toddler throw him in the ring with mike tyson and call it boxing
you don't watch toddler boxing?!
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Mortlake
Devils Rejects 666
2124
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 13:59:03 -
[68] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Lan Wang wrote:you dont put gloves on a toddler throw him in the ring with mike tyson and call it boxing you don't watch toddler boxing?!
Mate. Three words.
Elderly jelly wrestling.
Yeah boy. You know you want to.
Father to a murdered son. Husband to a murdered wife. Truth be told, I've been pretty unlucky.
|
Mortlake
Devils Rejects 666
2124
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 14:00:06 -
[69] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:you dont put gloves on a toddler throw him in the ring with mike tyson and call it boxing
My six year old would whine him to death easily, before he got half way across the ring.
Father to a murdered son. Husband to a murdered wife. Truth be told, I've been pretty unlucky.
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
15969
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 14:04:25 -
[70] - Quote
Mortlake wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Lan Wang wrote:you dont put gloves on a toddler throw him in the ring with mike tyson and call it boxing you don't watch toddler boxing?! Mate. Three words. Elderly jelly wrestling. Yeah boy. You know you want to.
no mort , i know you want to though 
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Mortlake
Devils Rejects 666
2126
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 14:43:53 -
[71] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Mortlake wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Lan Wang wrote:you dont put gloves on a toddler throw him in the ring with mike tyson and call it boxing you don't watch toddler boxing?! Mate. Three words. Elderly jelly wrestling. Yeah boy. You know you want to. no mort , i know you want to though
I'm not ashamed to admit that I do, Ralph. We have closed groups but I have some influence. You're welcome to join us at any time.
Father to a murdered son. Husband to a murdered wife. Truth be told, I've been pretty unlucky.
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
15970
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 15:18:12 -
[72] - Quote
not touching that mort, not with a latex glove on someone else's hand.
interesting thought just popped into my head though,
would the toddler boxing match be considered fair if say someone were to enter a pack of twins ?
i say pack deliberately now, my two hunt in tandem its scary.
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Roenok Baalnorn
Sadistically Sinister
36
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 15:33:18 -
[73] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:you dont put gloves on a toddler throw him in the ring with mike tyson and call it boxing
In the late 90s ( possibly a bit earlier) there was a big movement to switch from traditional child raising to the new fad of no corporal punishment and positive reinforcement. Psychologists ( who ironically never raised kids) said positive reinforcement was better and that negative reinforcement could hurt the childs development.
This lead to many unintended negative consequences:
1) 18 year olds in the 1940s signed up to go to almost certain death to defend their country and those that live in it. 18 yr olds today need a safe place when their feelings get hurt.
2) The children, for the most part didnt learn consequences of their actions. They only knew if i do good i get rewarded, if i do bad or nothing, i dont get a reward. The realities of real life hit them hard. They whine and cry and complain and moan when they dont get their way because they dont understand how real life is which leads me to the next one.
3) Those young people today are the most confused of any generation that has come before them. They are confused by everything even their gender and made up a whole bunch of new gender types to try to describe it.
4) They want more for doing less. They dont understand things like hard work and ambition. Their version of ambition is protesting because mc donalds doesnt pay as good as skilled jobs.
Older generations are worried about the newer generations. Here in the US they havent been "hardened up" by their parents. So they get picked on at school, go home get a gun go to school and shoot a bunch of school mates. School shootings have went up exponentially the last 10 years.
That is the affect when you remove negative reinforcement from child development. Your not preparing them for life. Their is no controlled "hardening up". Then reality finally hits them and all kinds of crazy stuff happens.
Same with eve. You dont introduce them to the harshness of eve a little at a time and first high sec becomes carebear land then lowsec and finally null. Carebears get a foothold in highsec and they start their whining about "how hard it is". Under pressure CCP makes it easier and easier in high sec. Which only attracts more carebears. CCP becomes the enabling parent instead of the discipline teaching parent. Letting the kids dictate the rules.
Now only consensual pvp is allowed in high sec. No ganking, no scamming, and no stealing of loot. Wardecs must be approved by both parties.
The carebears push further. Now lowsec is consensual pvp only, but you are allowed to steal others loot. No pvp is allowed in highsec cause some carebears turn it on accidentally. No wardecs in highsec either as it interferes with carebears abilities to do mining and missions even when they arent involved. High sec pve now pays almost as good null with virtually no risk.
Little more time progresses. Now lowsec is just a version of high but with tougher rats. No pvp allowed here. Any ship lost in highsec for any reason is now automatically replaced as soon as you dock with all the fittings right down to the 1627 caldari scourge cruise missiles you had on board automatically. No need to file a ticket and wait. You can only take space in null from others by wardeccing them. cloaks are only allowed in W-space. Items on the market have lost a quarter of their value. You can now by a rattlesnake for about 375 million. Skill injectors? T2 mods are almost considered as worthless as T1 now.
More time passes. Need more room for carebears. ALL K-space is no pvp. Instead we will have battleground systems for those that want to pvp. Fights in these systems will be fairly evenly matched based on ship types and sizes and skill levels. The winners will be rewarded with special currency that can used to by "pvp gear"...gear that has a bonus when used against other players but is almost completely ineffective against rats. W-space now has local pvp is consensual. Its the only place you can kill another player outside of battleground and only with their permission. The market has tanked. You can buy a rattlesnake for 100 million now. veldspar will bring you 0.05 isk per unit. Freighters are a mere 250 million.
to combat these problems CCP moved all complexes and sites to highsec. 11/30-20/30 DED plexes were added to lowsec. and 21/30-30/30 DED to null. The new plexes require special unique abilities to progress such as you have to sensor damping this rat, hack that can, use missiles on this while using lasers on that one. Meaning you need a group of specific ships that all do specific tasks at specific times to proceed. Its no longer called plexing, its now called raiding. The "raids" are static and you are allowed to do each one once a day .the rewards are very powerful pve ships and mods! Ships that have such bonuses as 100% damage bonus against sansha.
Welcome to WoW in space.
Catering and coddling of carebears in a pvp game is like catering and coddling of children, Its going to turn out bad for everyone later. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
FETID
2998
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 15:42:16 -
[74] - Quote
i dont really know what thats gotta do with this conversation, im not against ganking in the slightest i just dont consider it pvp
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Nitshe Razvedka
846
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 16:20:11 -
[75] - Quote
Mike Adoulin wrote:Goddamn Nitshe threads, they're everywhere. *turns on the firehose* And yes, 'ganking'........aka......'ambushing'....is PVP. Guns get shot, ships blow up. Next the damn carebears will be saying dropping a few dozen bombs on a drunkfleet sitting on a gate isn't PVP either...... "Oooooh, they didn't have a chance, the bombs, the evil bombs!!!" Damn right they didn't have a chance. That's the whole point.
Talking about fire hoses, Mike, you need a good enema to clean those gerbils. Das hamsters are smelling like crap. Let them out occasionally to see some daylight. Uranus is too far from the sun to count.
Ganking not PvP; Run back to Jim Jones for a new mantra. Your current script is obsolete like Code.
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Mike Adoulin
Adolescent Radioactive Pirate Hamsters
1768
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 16:51:31 -
[76] - Quote
Nitshe Razvedka wrote:yawn
*munches sandwich*
Hmmm?
Oh yeah.
You're the guy everybody ignores.
Vimsy, you know you aren't supposed to respond to the idiots, it just makes them feel special.
*goes back to munching his sandwich*
Everything in EVE is a trap.
And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)
You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.
Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
|
Dom Arkaral
Axios
447
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 16:51:55 -
[77] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:i dont really know what thats gotta do with this conversation, im not against ganking in the slightest i just dont consider it pvp
then why are you here?
you're losing any credibility you ever had by being a zombie repeating the same crap over and over...
your description is way too accurate lol, it's almost scary
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester. #b4r
Gù+Montreal EVE Meet Organiser
Gù+Come talk in the ingame chan "EVE Montreal" for more info or just to chill!
|
Mike Adoulin
Adolescent Radioactive Pirate Hamsters
1768
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 16:53:24 -
[78] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:i dont really know what thats gotta do with this conversation, im not against ganking in the slightest i just dont consider it pvp
Then you'd be wrong.
By your 'logic', pipebombing must not be PVP either.
Everything in EVE is a trap.
And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)
You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.
Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
|
Nitshe Razvedka
850
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 17:24:30 -
[79] - Quote
Roenok Baalnorn wrote:[ Biggest Off Topic War n Peace novel this morning  .
I feel ya Roenoky, always said you guys were girls blouses. Man of you to admit it.
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Exaido
Fire Over Light
9
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 17:33:53 -
[80] - Quote
Ganking being permissible and therefore PvP is a logic trap.
"All cats are mammals. Therefore all mammals are cats."
The definition hinges on your concept of 'versus' which doesn't presume context, it presumes the ability to present opposition. Ganking is a scenario, with the party being attacked cannot present any meaningful opposition against the attacking force.
That players are free to attack another player, more or less at anytime (with degree of repercussion depending on security status / sector), allows for ganking to occur, and ganking to be a viable game mechanic.
Ganking is Players Attacking Players (PaP) and that's fine. It's a form of warfare without 'rules of engagement' which is also fine because that is the Eve universe. But to call it PvP implies it is something other than a soft-target. |
Exaido
Fire Over Light
9
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 17:42:53 -
[81] - Quote
I should add, I have no issue with the presence of 'ganking', it makes the game more interesting, and the risk of ganking makes people better pilots, for those that don't rage quit.
There's even a branch of 'ganking' that I would respect, that is targeting the 'soft-targets' of enemies in war-dec or the like to break their supply-chains; that's good tactics. I might not even consider that 'ganking' because it requires coordination, targeting and study of the enemy.
But this likely isn't the ganking that we're talking about. |
Nitshe Razvedka
850
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 17:43:12 -
[82] - Quote
Mike Adoulin wrote:Nitshe Razvedka wrote:yawn *munches sandwich* Hmmm? Oh yeah. You're the guy everybody ignores. Vimsy, you know you aren't supposed to respond to the idiots, it just makes them feel special. *goes back to munching his sandwich*
Vimsy aint gunna help ya Mike Hunt Adoulin. She's stamped her petite little foot n huffed off.
Now if you were ignoring me you would not have mentioned my name as you entered the thread. Logical as your ganking definitions.
Let me put a steamer in there so you can munch down again. Enjoy you lunch break.
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Dom Arkaral
Axios
447
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 17:43:43 -
[83] - Quote
Exaido wrote:Ganking being permissible and therefore PvP is a logic trap.
"All cats are mammals. Therefore all mammals are cats."
The definition hinges on your concept of 'versus' which doesn't presume context, it presumes the ability to present opposition. Ganking is a scenario, with the party being attacked cannot present any meaningful opposition against the attacking force.
That players are free to attack another player, more or less at anytime (with degree of repercussion depending on security status / sector), allows for ganking to occur, and ganking to be a viable game mechanic.
Ganking is Players Attacking Players (PaP) and that's fine. It's a form of warfare without 'rules of engagement' which is also fine because that is the Eve universe. But to call it PvP implies it is something other than a soft-target.
What is pvp?
Player versus player
What is ganking?
Player versus player
What is pve?
Player versus environment.
Ganking is a subset of PvP. So it's safe to say that all ganking is pvp.
But pvp is not always ganking.
ganking definition
Quote:Ganking is the process in which a group of charecters gang up on one or more players that do not have a chance to defend themselves
Ganking happens in all area of spaces.
So does PvP.
So;
Ganking=/=PvP
=false
If
PvP=Player_versus_Player
Kthxbai
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester. #b4r
Gù+Montreal EVE Meet Organiser
Gù+Come talk in the ingame chan "EVE Montreal" for more info or just to chill!
|
Mike Adoulin
Adolescent Radioactive Pirate Hamsters
1772
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 17:47:48 -
[84] - Quote
Anything can be 'ganked', soft target or not.
The Veldnaught could be ganked. Skiffs with over 120,000 EHP are ganked.
It's just a matter of bringing enough alpha strike damage.
In all cases, target is attacked, and either target explodes, or doesn't. In hisec, CONCORD kills the attackers, who most definitely explode. Unless reasons.......
Shots are fired, ships explode.
Welcome to PVP. You undock from a station, you can be attacked, whether you like it or not, wardec or not.
So-called 'non-combat ships' have numerous ways to defend themselves, ranging from being aware of their surroundings to armor, shields, EW, bulkheads, speed, cloaking, among others.
Everything in EVE is a trap.
And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)
You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.
Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
|
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
232
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 17:49:18 -
[85] - Quote
Exaido wrote:Ganking is Players Attacking Players (PaP) and that's fine. It's a form of warfare without 'rules of engagement' which is also fine because that is the Eve universe. But to call it PvP implies it is something other than a soft-target.
What... the... ****? I don't even. What? Are we just throwing random words together and calling them terms now?
Players Attacking Players (PaP) is not even a thing. But I guess it is hard to argue with someone, who can just come up with random terms on the fly in order to support their arguments.
Gotta love them internet arguments. |
Mike Adoulin
Adolescent Radioactive Pirate Hamsters
1772
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 17:51:45 -
[86] - Quote
Nitshe Razvedka wrote:yawns
You're going to have to speak louder.
I don't think anybody is listening to you.
And aren't you a Holeysheet alt?
Funny how he gets (hopefully) permabanned from the forums and you pop up again.
I believe using another alt to avoid a forum ban is in itself a bannable offense.
Can we get an ISD to confirm this ain't Holy?
*makes another sandwich*
Everything in EVE is a trap.
And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)
You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.
Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
|
Exaido
Fire Over Light
9
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 18:04:37 -
[87] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:Ganking is Players Attacking Players (PaP) and that's fine. It's a form of warfare without 'rules of engagement' which is also fine because that is the Eve universe. But to call it PvP implies it is something other than a soft-target. What... the... ****? I don't even. What? Are we just throwing random words together and calling them terms now? Players Attacking Players (PaP) is not even a thing. But I guess it is hard to argue with someone, who can just come up with random terms on the fly in order to support their arguments. Gotta love them internet arguments.
The actual term for Eve Player Combat would be called: 'Free For All'. |
Dom Arkaral
Axios
448
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 18:12:54 -
[88] - Quote
Exaido wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:Ganking is Players Attacking Players (PaP) and that's fine. It's a form of warfare without 'rules of engagement' which is also fine because that is the Eve universe. But to call it PvP implies it is something other than a soft-target. What... the... ****? I don't even. What? Are we just throwing random words together and calling them terms now? Players Attacking Players (PaP) is not even a thing. But I guess it is hard to argue with someone, who can just come up with random terms on the fly in order to support their arguments. Gotta love them internet arguments. The actual term for Eve Player Combat would be called: 'Free For All'.
No.
PvP
Holy mama we have some speshul bears in here that don't understand the simplest definition
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester. #b4r
Gù+Montreal EVE Meet Organiser
Gù+Come talk in the ingame chan "EVE Montreal" for more info or just to chill!
|
Nitshe Razvedka
850
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 18:14:49 -
[89] - Quote
Mike Adoulin wrote:Nitshe Razvedka wrote:yawns You're going to have to speak louder. I don't think anybody is listening to you. And aren't you a Holeysheet alt? Funny how he gets (hopefully) permabanned from the forums and you pop up again. I believe using another alt to avoid a forum ban is in itself a bannable offense. Can we get an ISD to confirm this ain't Holy? *makes another sandwich*
Sounds like the hamster life style has got you all buthurt Mikey.
No need taking it out on me. Ignoring me is good, so is the cold-sholder.
But, what you did is what we call a self-inflicted wound.
Suggest you dock up and see a proctologist in the next space station.
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Exaido
Fire Over Light
9
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 18:21:23 -
[90] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Exaido wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:Ganking is Players Attacking Players (PaP) and that's fine. It's a form of warfare without 'rules of engagement' which is also fine because that is the Eve universe. But to call it PvP implies it is something other than a soft-target. What... the... ****? I don't even. What? Are we just throwing random words together and calling them terms now? Players Attacking Players (PaP) is not even a thing. But I guess it is hard to argue with someone, who can just come up with random terms on the fly in order to support their arguments. Gotta love them internet arguments. The actual term for Eve Player Combat would be called: 'Free For All'. No. PvP Holy mama we have some speshul bears in here that don't understand the simplest definition
That criticism cuts both ways. The definition of 'PvP' versus 'Ganking' depends on 'your' definition of the term 'vs'. For me that implies opposition or context, a war-dec for example provides context.
Eve is the rare instance of a game, where 'ganking' is not a dissuaded dynamic, as in most other games it is mitigated by GMs or programmatically, to deter a kill where the opponent cannot present opposition.
By no means, am I saying, 'Ganking' is not a valid form of play-style. Though, CCPs changes to bumping in many senses proves, that a Gank where the player has no means of escape - is not PVP - which makes my point about resistance and PVP.
The best counter-argument to mine, is the one that people can provide defense against the gank through their fit - that's a good point, and it's how I fit my freighters, it's why I use blockade runners through Udema.
'Speshul' people can't discuss a definition, whereas I'm perfectly comfortable talking through a notion and gaining perspective, and accept that fit is a form of resistance to a gank.
|
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
233
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 18:22:13 -
[91] - Quote
Exaido wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:Ganking is Players Attacking Players (PaP) and that's fine. It's a form of warfare without 'rules of engagement' which is also fine because that is the Eve universe. But to call it PvP implies it is something other than a soft-target. What... the... ****? I don't even. What? Are we just throwing random words together and calling them terms now? Players Attacking Players (PaP) is not even a thing. But I guess it is hard to argue with someone, who can just come up with random terms on the fly in order to support their arguments. Gotta love them internet arguments. The actual term for Eve Player Combat would be called: 'Free For All'.
Think you are getting several terms mixed together now. The term 'Free for all' is a term that describes engagement rules. It has nothing to do whether a game or aspect of a game is PvP or PvE.
PvE is an overall group of activities. These activities are further divided into subgroups such as mining, ratting, incursion running, missioning, etc. PvE is when you are engaged in conflict with AI characters.
PvP is another overall group of activities. These activities are further divided into subgroups such as Fleet combat, solo PvP, market trading, ganking, awoxing, etc. PvP is when you are engaged in conflict with another Player character.
Seriously, this is not rocket science. But I love the effort and the attempts to redefine well-known terms so they fit your arguments.
|
Exaido
Fire Over Light
9
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 18:23:49 -
[92] - Quote
I'll even +1 Mike Aduolin for his comment. So summary, CCPs actions with bumping indicates that inability to provide resistance, is a form of Ganking (PVP) that is not endorsed, but that counter-fit allows resistance to Ganking, may well have changed my view on Ganking as PVP, by virtue of recognition and resistance to the threat. |
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
233
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 18:26:49 -
[93] - Quote
Exaido wrote:That criticism cuts both ways. The definition of 'PvP' versus 'Ganking' depends on 'your' definition of the term 'vs'. For me that implies opposition or context, a war-dec for example provides context.
No it doesn't. The term "Player vs Player" is a well-known term for gamers with a formulated definition. I linked a book that describes some of these concepts in one of my earlier posts.
You may not agree with the definition of "PvP", but that doesn't change it. Just like my disagreement with the definition of a banana, doesn't change that either.
You may have the OPINION that ganking is not considered real PvP, but that doesn't change its general definition. |
Exaido
Fire Over Light
9
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 18:29:09 -
[94] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:That criticism cuts both ways. The definition of 'PvP' versus 'Ganking' depends on 'your' definition of the term 'vs'. For me that implies opposition or context, a war-dec for example provides context. No it doesn't. The term "Player vs Player" is a well-known term for gamers with a formulated definition. I linked a book that describes some of these concepts in one of my earlier posts. You may not agree with the definition of "PvP", but that doesn't change it. Just like my disagreement with the definition of a banana, doesn't change that either. You may have the OPINION that ganking is not considered real PvP, but that doesn't change its general definition.
You should go to my last post. The conversation has evolved.
Oh Tomatoes got reclassified as a vegetable. Damn definitions! |
Caim Naberius
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 18:31:01 -
[95] - Quote
Man, this thread derailed quickly.
PvP is what it means, nothing more and nothing less. You doing something against someone else in whatever form that may be. Read a dictionary or something before splerging all over these forums. |
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
233
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 18:35:17 -
[96] - Quote
Exaido wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:That criticism cuts both ways. The definition of 'PvP' versus 'Ganking' depends on 'your' definition of the term 'vs'. For me that implies opposition or context, a war-dec for example provides context. No it doesn't. The term "Player vs Player" is a well-known term for gamers with a formulated definition. I linked a book that describes some of these concepts in one of my earlier posts. You may not agree with the definition of "PvP", but that doesn't change it. Just like my disagreement with the definition of a banana, doesn't change that either. You may have the OPINION that ganking is not considered real PvP, but that doesn't change its general definition. You should go to my last post. The conversation has evolved. Oh Tomatoes got reclassified as a vegetable. Damn definitions!
Not really. From what I can see, you think that your opinion decides what a definition of a well-known term is.
But it doesn't. You may have an opinion on a matter, but that opinion doesn't change definitions of reality.
But in honesty, this whole discussion doesn't matter. Whatever your beliefs are have no effect on my reality. If you want to believe the earth is flat, then you go and believe the earth is flat.
I just find it amusing and surprising that you can't understand the concept of a definition.
|
Nitshe Razvedka
850
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 18:39:49 -
[97] - Quote
Hey Mikey your proctologist called to say he found your Lemmiwinks
Your Radioactive Hampster Corp will go up to a grand total of 5
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Roenok Baalnorn
Sadistically Sinister
40
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 18:43:22 -
[98] - Quote
The definition of pvp can be argued all the way from trading( you are competing directly with players thus trading is pvp) all the way to consensual duels. The standard definition accepted by the gaming community across all platforms for the last 20 years is " PVP is gameplay in which a player can attack another player". It doesnt matter if one player is armed or not, it doesnt matter if the attacker gets killed by newbie protection forces. It doesnt matter if one side as 10 players and the other has 1( and he is unarmed). None of that matters. The only thing that matters to define something as PVP by the standards of gamers for the last 20 years or so is that game mechanics give you the ability to attack another player.
The conditions in which that attack takes place are completely irrelevant in determining if its considered pvp. In eve you consent to pvp the moment you undock. It doesnt matter if you are in an ibis with 3000 sp or in a leviathan with 100 million sp. You consent to being in a pvp environment where you may be engaged by other players anywhere at any time for any reason. |
Exaido
Fire Over Light
9
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 18:44:43 -
[99] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:That criticism cuts both ways. The definition of 'PvP' versus 'Ganking' depends on 'your' definition of the term 'vs'. For me that implies opposition or context, a war-dec for example provides context. No it doesn't. The term "Player vs Player" is a well-known term for gamers with a formulated definition. I linked a book that describes some of these concepts in one of my earlier posts. You may not agree with the definition of "PvP", but that doesn't change it. Just like my disagreement with the definition of a banana, doesn't change that either. You may have the OPINION that ganking is not considered real PvP, but that doesn't change its general definition. You should go to my last post. The conversation has evolved. Oh Tomatoes got reclassified as a vegetable. Damn definitions! Not really. From what I can see, you think that your opinion decides what a definition of a well-known term is. But it doesn't. You may have an opinion on a matter, but that opinion doesn't change definitions of reality. But in honesty, this whole discussion doesn't matter. Whatever your beliefs are have no effect on my reality. If you want to believe the earth is flat, then you go and believe the earth is flat. I just find it amusing and surprising that you can't understand the concept of a definition.
I actually think this is a healthy conversation about Eve and to a lesser extent definitions, that aren't fixed - see tomatoes. To that extent, my position on Ganking has shifted, and shifted in line with the original premise of the discussion.
"James' post deals with the nature of Power in EVE, and explores the arguments rehearsed by many players about consensual and non-consensual PvP; an argument which still drags on, unresolved, apparently."
1) CCP has shown that 'Ganking' that does not offer a valid form of resistance, such as the recently popular bumping that was used by Code is not a valid form of PVP. So to that effect, it is relevant to the very root discussion. This is my classic form of 'ganking', which I don't regard as PVP as there is no mechanism of opposition.
2) By undocking in Eve, one is consenting to risk - so the notion of consent is under taken by leaving station. So consensual and non-consensual once undocked is not relevant. There is no 'gank' there is only PVP.
3) That players can fit their ships to provide resistance to a gank, is a form of opposition and therefore not a hard form of 'ganking'.
From there it basically comes down to, if you think an 'alpha strike' is ganking or not.
By setting expectations for new-players what it means to undocked, what it means to be attacked by overwhelming numbers, what the risks are in Eve, and the means of defence is heathy.
|
Exaido
Fire Over Light
10
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 18:48:02 -
[100] - Quote
Exaido wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:That criticism cuts both ways. The definition of 'PvP' versus 'Ganking' depends on 'your' definition of the term 'vs'. For me that implies opposition or context, a war-dec for example provides context. No it doesn't. The term "Player vs Player" is a well-known term for gamers with a formulated definition. I linked a book that describes some of these concepts in one of my earlier posts. You may not agree with the definition of "PvP", but that doesn't change it. Just like my disagreement with the definition of a banana, doesn't change that either. You may have the OPINION that ganking is not considered real PvP, but that doesn't change its general definition. You should go to my last post. The conversation has evolved. Oh Tomatoes got reclassified as a vegetable. Damn definitions! Not really. From what I can see, you think that your opinion decides what a definition of a well-known term is. But it doesn't. You may have an opinion on a matter, but that opinion doesn't change definitions of reality. But in honesty, this whole discussion doesn't matter. Whatever your beliefs are have no effect on my reality. If you want to believe the earth is flat, then you go and believe the earth is flat. I just find it amusing and surprising that you can't understand the concept of a definition. I actually think this is a healthy conversation about Eve and to a lesser extent definitions, that aren't fixed - see tomatoes. To that extent, my position on Ganking has shifted, and shifted in line with the original premise of the discussion. "James' post deals with the nature of Power in EVE, and explores the arguments rehearsed by many players about consensual and non-consensual PvP; an argument which still drags on, unresolved, apparently." 1) CCP has shown that 'Ganking' that does not offer a valid form of resistance, such as the recently popular bumping that was used by Code is not a valid form of PVP. So to that effect, it is relevant to the very root discussion. This is my classic form of 'ganking', which I don't regard as PVP as there is no mechanism of opposition. 2) By undocking in Eve, one is consenting to risk - so the notion of consent is under taken by leaving station. So consensual and non-consensual once undocked is not relevant. There is no 'gank' there is only PVP. 3) That players can fit their ships to provide resistance to a gank, is a form of opposition and therefore not a hard form of 'ganking'. From there it basically comes down to, if you think an 'alpha strike' is ganking or not. By setting expectations for new-players what it means to undocked, what it means to be attacked by overwhelming numbers, what the risks are in Eve, and the means of defence is heathy.
For the record, I don't think an Alpha Strike is an 'unfair kill' (gank) in Eve. I do think 'Bumping' on a gate is. |
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
235
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 18:55:05 -
[101] - Quote
Exaido wrote:I actually think this is a healthy conversation about Eve and to a lesser extent definitions, that aren't fixed - see tomatoes. To that extent, my position on Ganking has shifted, and shifted in line with the original premise of the discussion.
Definitions change based on proofs. The reason why the definition of a tomato changed, was because proof of the opposite was presented.
If you can give me proof that ganking does not involve two Player characters, then I will gladly call it whatever you prove it to be. But as it stands, all arguments show that ganking, alpha'ing stuff or bumping is "PvP". |
Exaido
Fire Over Light
10
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 18:58:02 -
[102] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:I actually think this is a healthy conversation about Eve and to a lesser extent definitions, that aren't fixed - see tomatoes. To that extent, my position on Ganking has shifted, and shifted in line with the original premise of the discussion. Definitions change based on proofs. The reason why the definition of a tomato changed, was because proof of the opposite was presented. If you can give me proof that ganking does not involve two Player characters, then I will gladly call it whatever you prove it to be. But as it stands, all arguments show that ganking, alpha'ing stuff or bumping is "PvP".
Bumping that blocked the ability to go to warp has been removed as it did not allow resistance (versus). There is your proof, the tomato (bumping) ceased to be a fruit. There is my definition of a Gank. |
Exaido
Fire Over Light
10
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 19:01:16 -
[103] - Quote
Maekchu. Don't think I don't appreciate the debate. I do. |
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
12115
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 19:02:20 -
[104] - Quote
So many electrons wasted that could've been used to make more pairs of spectacles, so sad...it's the senseless waste of it all that gets me. :'(
Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .
Bumble's Space Log
|
Exaido
Fire Over Light
11
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 19:06:08 -
[105] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:So many electrons wasted that could've been used to make more pairs of spectacles, so sad...it's the senseless waste of it all that gets me. :'(
It's Obama. Not you of course. It's Obama's fault (TM). |
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
235
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 19:07:09 -
[106] - Quote
Exaido wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:I actually think this is a healthy conversation about Eve and to a lesser extent definitions, that aren't fixed - see tomatoes. To that extent, my position on Ganking has shifted, and shifted in line with the original premise of the discussion. Definitions change based on proofs. The reason why the definition of a tomato changed, was because proof of the opposite was presented. If you can give me proof that ganking does not involve two Player characters, then I will gladly call it whatever you prove it to be. But as it stands, all arguments show that ganking, alpha'ing stuff or bumping is "PvP". Bumping that blocked the ability to go to warp has been removed as it did not allow resistance (versus). There is your proof, the tomato (bumping) ceased to be a fruit. There is my definition of a Gank.
Bumping has not been removed, there just exist a limit on how long you can bump someone.
So yeah, since bumping still exists you have proved nothing. Also, even if bumping was removed it wouldn't change the definition of "bumping", it would just have been removed. Having something removed like that, doesn't change the definition of "PvP".
Anyway, we are going round in circles here and you don't seem to come up with any credible arguments. But it was entertaining. Gave me an insight into why some people truly believe the earth is flat. If you believe your opinion shapes the definition of reality, then reality can be whatever your mind can come up with. |
Exaido
Fire Over Light
11
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 19:09:35 -
[107] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:I actually think this is a healthy conversation about Eve and to a lesser extent definitions, that aren't fixed - see tomatoes. To that extent, my position on Ganking has shifted, and shifted in line with the original premise of the discussion. Definitions change based on proofs. The reason why the definition of a tomato changed, was because proof of the opposite was presented. If you can give me proof that ganking does not involve two Player characters, then I will gladly call it whatever you prove it to be. But as it stands, all arguments show that ganking, alpha'ing stuff or bumping is "PvP". Bumping that blocked the ability to go to warp has been removed as it did not allow resistance (versus). There is your proof, the tomato (bumping) ceased to be a fruit. There is my definition of a Gank. Bumping has not been removed, there just exist a limit on how long you can bump someone. So yeah, since bumping still exists you have proved nothing. Also, even if bumping was removed it wouldn't change the definition of "bumping", it would just have been removed. Having something removed like that, doesn't change the definition of "PvP". Anyway, we are going round in circles here and you don't seem to come up with any credible arguments. But it was entertaining. Gave me an insight into why some people truly believe the earth is flat. If you believe your opinion shapes the definition of reality, then reality can be whatever your mind can come up with.
Dude. Bumping to the point where someone can't offer resistance. Entering warp provides an exit / resistance. |
Exaido
Fire Over Light
14
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 19:25:35 -
[108] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:I actually think this is a healthy conversation about Eve and to a lesser extent definitions, that aren't fixed - see tomatoes. To that extent, my position on Ganking has shifted, and shifted in line with the original premise of the discussion. Definitions change based on proofs. The reason why the definition of a tomato changed, was because proof of the opposite was presented. If you can give me proof that ganking does not involve two Player characters, then I will gladly call it whatever you prove it to be. But as it stands, all arguments show that ganking, alpha'ing stuff or bumping is "PvP". Bumping that blocked the ability to go to warp has been removed as it did not allow resistance (versus). There is your proof, the tomato (bumping) ceased to be a fruit. There is my definition of a Gank. Bumping has not been removed, there just exist a limit on how long you can bump someone. So yeah, since bumping still exists you have proved nothing. Also, even if bumping was removed it wouldn't change the definition of "bumping", it would just have been removed. Having something removed like that, doesn't change the definition of "PvP". Anyway, we are going round in circles here and you don't seem to come up with any credible arguments. But it was entertaining. Gave me an insight into why some people truly believe the earth is flat. If you believe your opinion shapes the definition of reality, then reality can be whatever your mind can come up with.
I'll break it down for you.
PVP requires that people be able to apply resistance or response; that mechanism may not work but they have opportunity to do so. As offence (an attack), defence (a fit) or escape (a warp). When people cannot do any of the three they are being unfairly 'ganked' and that is not PVP. I have proved CCP removed a 'Gank' that fits that category. In other games being killed on-load would be a 'gank'.
I have also stated, that I don't consider an 'alpha strike' a gank, a gank is not simple numerical superiority, it shares similarities because the person cannot resist the mass of damage. We're talking also about 'fairness' in PVP, and again that circles back to the ability to apply a resistance or response.
And yes it has been entertaining. |
Mike Adoulin
Adolescent Radioactive Pirate Hamsters
1774
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 19:30:02 -
[109] - Quote
Nitshe Razvedka wrote:rabblerabble
*chews sandwich*
Who are you again?
Why are you relevant?
I forget.
Are you a furry? I think you're in the wrong topic area.
*nomnomnom*
Everything in EVE is a trap.
And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)
You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.
Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
|
Nitshe Razvedka
850
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 19:43:27 -
[110] - Quote
Mike Adoulin wrote:Nitshe Razvedka wrote:rabblerabble *chews sandwich* Who are you again? Why are you relevant? I forget. Are you a furry? I think you're in the wrong topic area. *nomnomnom*
You started munching that sandwich at 1651 hrs.
Your ears are read with steam rising off the tops.
Go back to work and.......
.........Be happy Mikey your proctologist did find Lemmiwinks.
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Nitshe Razvedka
851
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 19:51:16 -
[111] - Quote
Exaido wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:I actually think this is a healthy conversation about Eve and to a lesser extent definitions, that aren't fixed - see tomatoes. To that extent, my position on Ganking has shifted, and shifted in line with the original premise of the discussion. Definitions change based on proofs. The reason why the definition of a tomato changed, was because proof of the opposite was presented. If you can give me proof that ganking does not involve two Player characters, then I will gladly call it whatever you prove it to be. But as it stands, all arguments show that ganking, alpha'ing stuff or bumping is "PvP". Bumping that blocked the ability to go to warp has been removed as it did not allow resistance (versus). There is your proof, the tomato (bumping) ceased to be a fruit. There is my definition of a Gank. Bumping has not been removed, there just exist a limit on how long you can bump someone. So yeah, since bumping still exists you have proved nothing. Also, even if bumping was removed it wouldn't change the definition of "bumping", it would just have been removed. Having something removed like that, doesn't change the definition of "PvP". Anyway, we are going round in circles here and you don't seem to come up with any credible arguments. But it was entertaining. Gave me an insight into why some people truly believe the earth is flat. If you believe your opinion shapes the definition of reality, then reality can be whatever your mind can come up with. I'll break it down for you. PVP requires that people be able to apply resistance or response; that mechanism may not work but they have opportunity to do so. As offence (an attack), defence (a fit) or escape (a warp). When people cannot do any of the three they are being unfairly 'ganked' and that is not PVP. I have proved CCP removed a 'Gank' that fits that category. In other games being killed on-load would be a 'gank'. I have also stated, that I don't consider an 'alpha strike' a gank, a gank is not simple numerical superiority, it shares similarities because the person cannot resist the mass of damage. We're talking also about 'fairness' in PVP, and again that circles back to the ability to apply a resistance or response. And yes it has been entertaining.
WELL DONE YOU GOOD THING!!!!! sometimes you have to bash ganker heads together to make them see sense. (personally I don't care if they see sense, just like seein their brain goo)
Appears Exaido's argument has carried the day. Hip Hip HUSSAR!!
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
7716
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 20:53:14 -
[112] - Quote
So this is about what PVP is, eh? I'll just leave this here then.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Bing Bangboom
DAMAG Safety Commission
482
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 21:08:32 -
[113] - Quote
Not only is ganking PvP, its ELITE PvP. Who says so? James 315 says so and as the leader of the New Order of Highsec he's a lot more believeable than some forum alt hamster who's bushido requires a combination of leather gloves slapped across the face and meeting at dawn. Except they are fine with blobbing.
And the reason CCP modified bumping wasn't because they analyzed it and it didn't meet the secret CCP definition of PvP. They nerfed it because CODE. and Miniluv had gotten so good at it that no freighter could get through the Uedama pipe if loyalanon and friends decided they weren't. Even AFTER all the nerfs the devs threw at freighter ganking before that.
Ganking, for a purpose, is power projection. The New Order ganks in order to exert control over highsec. You can debate how effective we are. I would say that the bumping nerf proves our power but you might want to retain some shred of dignity and go down swinging by denying it. But you cannot deny its why we do it.
Welcome to another Code relevance thread. You just can't avoid talking about it.
Highsec is worth fighting for.
By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.-á www.minerbumping.com
|
Dom Arkaral
Axios
451
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 22:16:30 -
[114] - Quote
Exaido wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:Maekchu wrote:Exaido wrote:I actually think this is a healthy conversation about Eve and to a lesser extent definitions, that aren't fixed - see tomatoes. To that extent, my position on Ganking has shifted, and shifted in line with the original premise of the discussion. Definitions change based on proofs. The reason why the definition of a tomato changed, was because proof of the opposite was presented. If you can give me proof that ganking does not involve two Player characters, then I will gladly call it whatever you prove it to be. But as it stands, all arguments show that ganking, alpha'ing stuff or bumping is "PvP". Bumping that blocked the ability to go to warp has been removed as it did not allow resistance (versus). There is your proof, the tomato (bumping) ceased to be a fruit. There is my definition of a Gank. Bumping has not been removed, there just exist a limit on how long you can bump someone. So yeah, since bumping still exists you have proved nothing. Also, even if bumping was removed it wouldn't change the definition of "bumping", it would just have been removed. Having something removed like that, doesn't change the definition of "PvP". Anyway, we are going round in circles here and you don't seem to come up with any credible arguments. But it was entertaining. Gave me an insight into why some people truly believe the earth is flat. If you believe your opinion shapes the definition of reality, then reality can be whatever your mind can come up with. I'll break it down for you. PVP requires that people be able to apply resistance or response; that mechanism may not work but they have opportunity to do so. As offence (an attack), defence (a fit) or escape (a warp). When people cannot do any of the three they are being unfairly 'ganked' and that is not PVP. I have proved CCP removed a 'Gank' that fits that category. In other games being killed on-load would be a 'gank'. I have also stated, that I don't consider an 'alpha strike' a gank, a gank is not simple numerical superiority, it shares similarities because the person cannot resist the mass of damage. We're talking also about 'fairness' in PVP, and again that circles back to the ability to apply a resistance or response. And yes it has been entertaining.
The regular gankee doesn't get bumped.
So he can still warp out (which is his resistance)
So if the miner can warp away, your whole rabble is irrelevant :)
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester. #b4r
Gù+Montreal EVE Meet Organiser
Gù+Come talk in the ingame chan "EVE Montreal" for more info or just to chill!
|
Exaido
Fire Over Light
18
|
Posted - 2016.05.25 05:11:18 -
[115] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:
The regular gankee doesn't get bumped.
So he can still warp out (which is his resistance)
So if the miner can warp away, your whole rabble is irrelevant :)
No one gets ganked AFK. Under any condition. They were reckless.
If miner is AFK. They were not present to defend themselves. Miner failed.
If the miner doesn't tank his ship, have a flight of light drones. Miner failed.
If the miner rolls over and dies without making an effort to escape. Miner failed.
Being bubbled in low sec and alpha struck. Lack of preparation.
Being alpha-struck in FW coming through a gate. Lack of preparation.
If a player fails to prepare, to take precautions. Is it a gank? |
Sasha Nemtsov
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
121
|
Posted - 2016.05.25 05:20:01 -
[116] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:
So if the miner can warp away, your whole rabble is irrelevant :)
Precisely. D-Scan.
|
Saeger1737
Bite the pillow
Archetype.
1557
|
Posted - 2016.05.25 05:25:07 -
[117] - Quote
Instead of arguing over the morality of ganking ask yourself why the the gankers ganks the gankie in the first place? Is it for pure Gankidom, that the gankers not only gank his ship but gank the gankie 's wallet as well? Is flying a freighter or mining that boring that the gankers would rather gank himself IRL then touch a mining ship? At the the end of mining, when the gankie has become bored with it enough doesn't the gankie just become the gankers and thus completing the cycle of GANK?
MERC WITH A MOUTH, Send me DPS and my fleet will double it back! Special offer!
|
Dom Arkaral
Kiss. Kill. Destroy.
452
|
Posted - 2016.05.25 09:23:58 -
[118] - Quote
Exaido wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:
The regular gankee doesn't get bumped.
So he can still warp out (which is his resistance)
So if the miner can warp away, your whole rabble is irrelevant :)
No one gets ganked AFK. Under any condition. They were reckless. If miner is AFK. They were not present to defend themselves.
You invalidate your own argument... Gg
There's nothing left to argue about
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester. #b4r
Gù+Montreal EVE Meet Organiser
Gù+Come talk in the ingame chan "EVE Montreal" for more info or just to chill!
|
Morgan Agrivar
Peace.Keepers
331
|
Posted - 2016.05.25 11:10:16 -
[119] - Quote
You know what is absolutely amazing?
This thread is still alive due to its irrelevance. You will never convince the other that you are correct. Let us just get one true fact in and hopefully the ISD will close this thread.
Eve is PvP.
That is all. Please return your seats to its full and upright position and make sure to take your luggage with you.
This would cure me of the fear...
|
Nitshe Razvedka
856
|
Posted - 2016.05.25 15:44:46 -
[120] - Quote
The Duke said: "There are real men, an all the rest just smoke pole..."
RIP John Wayne, the only true American o7
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
lollerwaffle
Black Serpent Technologies
The-Culture
307
|
Posted - 2016.05.26 14:47:01 -
[121] - Quote
ITT: OVER 9000 definitions of 'PVP' |
Lisbeth Riraille
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 14:36:03 -
[122] - Quote
Dont close the thread, its the most interesting one in C&P in ages (Where have all the scam-topic threads gone?!)
I have a few views to offer on various related topics.
Firstly, the thread title is 'the Unfairness of Eve'.
I played 10 years ago for a year or so, purely in hisec, mining. Then I quit, came back 7 years ago (I think), played for a year (?), again in hisec, mining, in hisec with a bit of 'ooh aren't I brave' Ventures into losec to mine pricey ore and run away back to hisec again.
I don't recall eber actually meeting any CODE players at all, although of course they shout so loud on the forums that they apoeared to be a bigger hisec presence than they are.
Quit, came back a month or so ago, moved to null.
My attitude to 'unfairness', the much-proclaimed 'hardcore' status of Eve, and ganking eyc has changed dramatically sinve my orevious visits. My overall feeling is that Eve isn't really all that hard or unfair, it simply has no tutorial. New players get dumped into the game and quickly become embroiled in a largely fakse sense of being tiny minnies surrounded by alpha predators etc. which is nonsense, really, but having no tutorial allows CCP to claim some sort of superiority over other MMOs, 'Eve isn't WoW, noobs, lrn2play, rahrah!'
If there was any sort of tutorial that went out of its way to get newbies used to the fact that getting their ships blown up is no big deal, and it worked, then Eve wouldn't be so scary.
Nobody playing Counterstrike gets killed the first time and quits playing forever, or rages on the forums about it.
Secondly:
Ganking is pvp, imo. So is trading. So is not undocking. And so is forum pvp. If you get one of the guys from Halloumi to go ooc in the forums, you've scored a win against CODE.
Years ago I recall reading about some infamous evescepade where some metc corp infiltrated a big corp over a year or something and then at the Appointed Time, they blew up the corp leader's Titan etc and stole all their assets, and iirc until that moment the undercover merc leader and the victim corp bigwig had become rl friends and he'd been to her house for dinner or something.
'Hi, how you doing, here, I've brought some wine, let's eat, friend!' was pvp.
Now I personally couldn't do sonething like that, but where's the line?
Eve's not unfair. It's badly organised. Gankers know more about the game than 2-month old players mining in hisec. Sure, the info is out there, but other games dekiver the info to noobs ingame. Eve doesn't, very well.
It's a really cool game, but much like the roleplayers in CODE, it needs to get over itself. |
Dom Arkaral
Kiss. Kill. Destroy.
464
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 15:21:20 -
[123] - Quote
Lisbeth Riraille wrote:Dont close the thread, its the most interesting one in C&P in ages (Where have all the scam-topic threads gone?!)
I have a few views to offer on various related topics.
Firstly, the thread title is 'the Unfairness of Eve'.
I played 10 years ago for a year or so, purely in hisec, mining. Then I quit, came back 7 years ago (I think), played for a year (?), again in hisec, mining, in hisec with a bit of 'ooh aren't I brave' Ventures into losec to mine pricey ore and run away back to hisec again.
I don't recall eber actually meeting any CODE players at all, although of course they shout so loud on the forums that they apoeared to be a bigger hisec presence than they are.
Quit, came back a month or so ago, moved to null.
My attitude to 'unfairness', the much-proclaimed 'hardcore' status of Eve, and ganking eyc has changed dramatically sinve my orevious visits. My overall feeling is that Eve isn't really all that hard or unfair, it simply has no tutorial. New players get dumped into the game and quickly become embroiled in a largely fakse sense of being tiny minnies surrounded by alpha predators etc. which is nonsense, really, but having no tutorial allows CCP to claim some sort of superiority over other MMOs, 'Eve isn't WoW, noobs, lrn2play, rahrah!'
If there was any sort of tutorial that went out of its way to get newbies used to the fact that getting their ships blown up is no big deal, and it worked, then Eve wouldn't be so scary.
Nobody playing Counterstrike gets killed the first time and quits playing forever, or rages on the forums about it.
Secondly:
Ganking is pvp, imo. So is trading. So is not undocking. And so is forum pvp. If you get one of the guys from Halloumi to go ooc in the forums, you've scored a win against CODE.
Years ago I recall reading about some infamous evescepade where some metc corp infiltrated a big corp over a year or something and then at the Appointed Time, they blew up the corp leader's Titan etc and stole all their assets, and iirc until that moment the undercover merc leader and the victim corp bigwig had become rl friends and he'd been to her house for dinner or something.
'Hi, how you doing, here, I've brought some wine, let's eat, friend!' was pvp.
Now I personally couldn't do sonething like that, but where's the line?
Eve's not unfair. It's badly organised. Gankers know more about the game than 2-month old players mining in hisec. Sure, the info is out there, but other games dekiver the info to noobs ingame. Eve doesn't, very well.
It's a really cool game, but much like the roleplayers in CODE, it needs to get over itself.
The purpose of EVE is to not have every single ounce of information delivered at your feet... trial and error will get you further than being spoonfed by CCP...
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester. #b4r
Gù+Montreal EVE Meet Organiser
Gù+Come talk in the ingame chan "EVE Montreal" for more info or just to chill!
|
Lisbeth Riraille
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 21:13:56 -
[124] - Quote
You should run your sig through a spellchecker. |
StonerPhReaK
AFK Inc.
416
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 22:05:55 -
[125] - Quote
lollerwaffle wrote:ITT: OVER 9000 definitions of 'PVP'
WHAT 9000!
/me smashes ship scanner II
Signatures wer cooler when we couldn't remove them completely.
|
Dom Arkaral
Kiss. Kill. Destroy.
468
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 22:43:09 -
[126] - Quote
Lisbeth Riraille wrote:You should run your sig through a spellchecker.
Honer is a thing btw ;)
No mistakes were made
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester. #b4r
Gù+Montreal EVE Meet Organiser
Gù+Come talk in the ingame chan "EVE Montreal" for more info or just to chill!
|
Lisbeth Riraille
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
63
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 23:06:05 -
[127] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Lisbeth Riraille wrote:You should run your sig through a spellchecker. Honer is a thing btw ;) No mistakes were made
Really? Hm. Faur enough. I googled it but the two definitions I found didn't seem to fit the rest of your sig. Could you explain it? |
Dom Arkaral
Kiss. Kill. Destroy.
468
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 00:11:33 -
[128] - Quote
Lisbeth Riraille wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Lisbeth Riraille wrote:You should run your sig through a spellchecker. Honer is a thing btw ;) No mistakes were made Really? Hm. Faur enough. I googled it but the two definitions I found didn't seem to fit the rest of your sig. Could you explain it?
Some guy told me I had no honer back when I was in Black Hydra (when it was CODE.'s wardec wing), we laughed so hard that I had to put it somewhere :D
Quote:n++[ 2015.09.23 01:58:34 ] Jin Shosan > youre code Dom Arkaral so you have no honer in your moms basement
War targets at their finest
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester. #b4r
Gù+Montreal EVE Meet Organiser
Gù+Come talk in the ingame chan "EVE Montreal" for more info or just to chill!
|
Lisbeth Riraille
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2016.06.02 04:44:53 -
[129] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Lisbeth Riraille wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Lisbeth Riraille wrote:You should run your sig through a spellchecker. Honer is a thing btw ;) No mistakes were made Really? Hm. Faur enough. I googled it but the two definitions I found didn't seem to fit the rest of your sig. Could you explain it? Some guy told me I had no honer back when I was in Black Hydra (when it was CODE.'s wardec wing), we laughed so hard that I had to put it somewhere :D Quote:n++[ 2015.09.23 01:58:34 ] Jin Shosan > youre code Dom Arkaral so you have no honer in your moms basement War targets at their finest
So it's a private joke, but 99% of people who don't know the origin will just think you can't spell?
Interesting. |
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
273
|
Posted - 2016.06.02 12:19:10 -
[130] - Quote
You all probably think he meant to write "honor". But I am sure he meant to write "boner".
Not having a boner in your moms basement is the ULTIMATE insult! :D |
Dom Arkaral
Kiss. Kill. Destroy.
Section.Nine
480
|
Posted - 2016.06.02 12:27:53 -
[131] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:You all probably think he meant to write "honor". But I am sure he meant to write "boner".
Not having a boner in your moms basement is the ULTIMATE insult! :D
I knew he meant honor, but he had no balls hahaha
Talking crap from station is easy :P
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester. #b4r
Gù+Montreal EVE Meet Organiser
Gù+Come talk in the ingame chan "EVE Montreal" for more info or just to chill!
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |