For the best experience use full HD.

Friday, January 20, 2012

What carebears need isn't protection but empowerment.

So it is fairly obvious from the latest Blog Banter that no one wants to see PVP in EVE hampered. Even carebears feel it is a so inherent to the EVE experience that altering it would ruin the experience - even when it means so many of us suffer as clearly indicated by this graphic provided today.
There is still some support for "protecting" new players among carebears. Perhaps that will come to pass one day; perhaps not. Only time will tell on that score. If it does come to pass, sagging subscriptions will likely have more to do with it than any other motivation.

As for older players like me, I don't think we should have any protection. The pirates are correct. When I undock that is my acknowledgement that I accept the risk. But what is the risk to the griefer? What is the downside for him or her? It isn't the security status they'll lose. If that was a deterrent we wouldn't have griefers at all. Most of them love their low security status an wear it like the badge of dishonor it is.

I've long wished there was some risk to those who prey on hi-sec carebears; some consequence for their actions. Today I was reading through the Hulkageddon V thread on Failheap and saw this post by Xiang Jiao,
"For an alliance like the goons, they would pretty much have to completely forsake their relationship with the people who organize Incursions, and I have a funny feeling that most players will want to be able to run Incursions again if ever they should happen to leave their current alliance one day. For example, my current corp, being sometime griefers, would never dream about pissing in the Incursion swimming pool since we use it as our primary source of income. It's like the one and only rule we impose."
Now that's how a deterrent works! It's risky for griefers to go after Incursion fleets. The consequences make them think about their future. That's what needs to happen all the time. Currently there are no serious drawbacks to griefing hi-sec carebears. That is the nature of the problem.

As an Industrialist, I know exactly how I'd like to make griefers think twice. I'd not do any business with them. Currently I can't do that. When I put my goods on the market anyone can buy them - even people I don't like. I want control of my own business. It's my right.
Perhaps CCP could give Industrialists the ability to deny a sale to any capsuleer, corporation or alliance in their contact list with a bad standing. That would give us a tool to start blacklisting griefers. If enough hi-sec carebears blacklist griefers, the griefers might actually start feeling a little pain for their anti-social behavior. Then they would have some risk analysis to do themselves. In a perfect system, the 'no sell' flag would carry through to subsequent trades as well. That way griefers couldn't use alts to buy their gear for them. The griefers would have to deal with their own thieving ilk. Shouldn't pirates have to use a black market anyway? Isn't that part of the romanticism of being Pirate? What would the Spanish Main have been without Tortuga?
I don't think I'm asking for too much. I just want the right to refuse service to anyone I've got a gripe against. There is no need for daddy Concord to do anything. Just let me handle it. But I need tools to do that and only CCP can hand those out. What do you say CCP? You're all into war these days. How about letting us wage a little industrial war against those that pod us for nothing more than giggles? Let us control who we sell to. Think about how the Goons' ice interdiction could have turned out if the ganked ice miners started denying sales to the Goons and their associates? Give us a little love and let us fight back our way.

Fly carefully.

5 comments:

  1. I dont think such a tool will ever be implemented to deny service to a sector of the playing community as even the griefers. Yet i support you in trying to think of some way to fight back as well from a Industrialist standpoint since being a somewhat Industrialist myself also.

    EVE is certainly not balance and even the griefer knows that certainly as well. They take advantage of game mechanics or broken mechanics and will usually find some way to game the system when and if changed to suite their style. The penalty for their action is just not severe enough at the moment to act as a true deterrence and who knows if it will ever get better or worse as well.

    Allot of Industrialist who have build up sizable business empires servicing the economy all do have blood on their hands with blood money. As many the things they build and sold end up being used to gank, grief and wage the engine of War by others. This all in the end grease the economic heart of EVE. Its all shady business in the end.

    It be nice to find some good way for CCP to combat the grief element but at the moment, the highsec voice that may cry out gets drowned in all the other noise by those that cry the hardest the PvP element.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wouldn't alt's reduce the effect of said modification to almost nill?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, you bet'cha. That's why, as I said, I'd love to see the prohibition carry through to subsequent trades. However, that is very unlikely to happen because I don't think CCP would do it. It would then be up to the individual to do their research and find out who is doing the buying for the folks they don't want to sell to and not sell to them as well. I didn't say I wanted it easy. I just want the option.

      Delete
  3. I'm sorry to be a little blunt, but I'm not sure you understand the full picture, here.

    1) You claim the incursion griefers getting blocked is your model for this change, but have you not seen the incursion systems? They are rife with people looking to hurt carebears, for whatever reason they want. Getting blacklisted doesn't discourage them; some actively seek it. The fact that some uptight corps or alliances ban their members from griefing incursion runners is evidence only of their own cowardice.

    2) The larger point / issue I want to make is thus; you seem to think "griefers" or "PVPers" don't do any industry. We do. Whether it is PI, manufacture, invention, or station trading, we do it on the side to make money. The difference between a PVPer and a carebear, is that the former is ALL the carebear does. If your change went through, the following would happen:
    a) Your profits will go DOWN rapidly. Why? Because you just decided to block your target market. Where do you think all that stuff you manufacture is getting used and lost, exactly?
    b) Doing industry on the side suddenly becomes much more lucrative, and so even more PVPers take it up. They wont be putting it on the market in highsec, so the cost to fit out your mission ship suddenly goes up.
    c) Bare minimum, there will always be someone, even in the most hardcore pirate group, who have alts churning out ships and modules for corp members. Most of them already do this, as manufacture is pretty easy in lowsec and replacing ships in this manner actually lowers the risk from logistics, not to mention its cheaper than buying locally.

    Also - the idea of blocking the buyer of the buyer of an item is a little silly. What happens when I want to sell my ships off, and they're on their fourth owner? The number of blocked owners per trade is exponential to an insane degree. How will you avoid players simply abandoning their ship and then letting the alt hop in it? You can't stop people getting in adandoned ships without breaking a LOT of things.

    tl;dr - I think this change can only harm industrialists who choose to limit their customer base, and their are huge implications to making it work that are game breaking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me be equally blunt. I don't care what you do. This isn't about you. It's about me and I want to control who I sell to. If your principles say sell to whomever then follow them. Mine say otherwise. And yes, blocking subsequent sales is silly. That's what the preface "in a perfect system" means. We all know CCP is far from perfect. As for breaking the game, it's already broken in so many ways one more will hardly kill it. We still play it for better or for worse. Claiming this will break EVE is like claiming the super-cap nerf will break EVE. It's pure hyperbole.

      Delete

Be civil, be responsible and most of all be kind. I will not tolerate poor form. There will be no James Hooks here. We are all better than that.