For the best experience use full HD.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Carebears Do Not Exist to Facilitate Your Play-style

Undocking is permission for PvP. How many times have I read that? Far too many to recount here. That mantra is repeated so often it really has become banal. And whenever the PvP crowd feels their play-style threatened by those who would rather not PvP, the volume and tempo of the chant increases - exponentially. At points the shouters become unbearably absurd, as if they will rage quit if they can't shoot everyone anytime they want.

Yet I do not disagree entirely with the sentiment, volume and pitch of delivery notwithstanding. And that statement was just misinterpreted by every chanting PvPer reading this - both of them. Okay, maybe there are a few more than two, but I would wager ISK that every single one thought I just gave them permission to attack me.

I did no such thing. My comment is about a reality, not permission. When I walk out my door every morning, get into my car, and drive to work, I understand that it may be the last trip I ever make. The reality being life is dangerous. To be real, Eve Online must imitate life and that includes the possibility of death at any moment.

However, I do not seek death. I do not wish it upon myself and I must say I will resist it with every fiber of my being if it tries to pay me a visit. Fortunately that has not happened in a long time and in my previous encounters I obviously came out victorious. But I did not relish the encounters. Permission was never given. To this day I wish they could have been different. I did not ask for them and I certainly don't want them to happen again.

I believe that is a perfectly normal reaction for any living creature. I am sure all of you reading this who have had such an experience feels the same way: happy to have come out on top and just as certain you never want to go through it again. If you say otherwise you are lying to yourself. Life seeks to survive - it is in our biochemistry - and we can no more feel otherwise than we can deny evolution and not seem a fatuous luddite.

So let's paraphrase that famous Eve Online mantra in this light. Leaving your house is permission to be attacked. How does that sit with you? Oh, you don't mind? You're a realist - or a fatuous luddite - and proud of it? What about those you care about: girlfriend, spouse, mother, child or dog? That's different isn't it? You don't want them attacked when they leave the house. Why not?

Shove it. Your opinion doesn't matter. Leaving the house is permission to be attacked. The mewling masses need to understand this. Death is a fact of life. Life can end at any moment. I must make them understand this! And it's oh so easy to take out a child. They are practically defenseless and offer no real threat of turning the tables. All one has to do is get the drop on them and it's over before the child even realizes it; no chance of escape. I am so big and they are so small. They don't even realize the danger they are in. All I have to do is wait for the school bus to drive away and grab her. And wouldn't it be exciting if she cried and no one came to save her? Cry as much as you like little one, daddy can't find you. I've made certain of that. Maybe she'll plead for their life before the end. That would be a juicy memory - the tears; the begging. Delicious...

Repugnant isn't it? The child does not exist to be a victim of the murderer. No one does. No right minded person would ever claim this is acceptable behaviour, let alone defend it. That is why our societies have such detailed rules concerning when it is allowable to kill others and who are always off limits. Countries can go to war and kill millions and that is acceptable, but one man cannot abduct a child from a bus stop and torture her to death.

But Eve Online is just a game. And we can do whatever we want because it isn't real life regardless of what the motto says. Except we are all living creatures; driven by a biology that tells us the mantra is wrong when the victim is unwilling. So you see, undocking really isn't permission to PvP. Undocking is acceptance that violence may happen, but it is not permission. And if you take nothing else from this post, learn this truth. Carebears do not exist to facilitate your play-style. You have no right to view us that way. And you are wrong to believe you EVER have permission to shoot an unwilling victim.

Fly Careful

PS: I will be particularly picky and subjective on approving comments for this post. If your post contributes little to the discussion, I will not allow it.


  1. This whole 'permission' thing is not useful. It's just semantics, with each side assigning a different meaning/context to the word. An argument where each side isn't talking about the same thing is doomed to be nothing but a waste of breath.

    I find this passage interesting though, and you denote it as a main point of your post: " And if you take nothing else from this post, learn this truth. Carebears do not exist to facilitate your play-style. You have no right to view us that way."

    There are two main 'anti-carebear' camps. Camp A believes, pretty much, that carebears exist to facilitate their play-style, and that they have every right to view you that way. you state that you aren't, and that they don't--which they will just take as tears and thus validation. By stating your argument in terms of "we are not X, and we are not Y", where they believe X and Y are true, you are framing the argument in their choice of X and Y. Like the canonical example of when Nixon said "I am not a crook", he's putting himself in a bad light by associating Nixon and crook in the same sentence. Not that you, (or anyone,) have much of a chance of convincing anyone in Camp A of anything, but I thought it was an interesting observation. I'm not sure if you are familiar of the danger of making "We're not X, and we're not Y" statements, but basically it is that people's tendency is to put the statement "we're not X and we're not Y" into long-term unconscious memory as "we're X and we're Y"; a variant of the "don't think of a pink elephant" example, where "do NOT think of a pink elephant" is unconsciously processed as "think of a pink elephant", and then the negation comes second.

    Camp B believes that carebears need to be reformed into noncarebears. They don't think carebears are to be exploited, but educated and reformed. Your closing statement above doesn't apply to them, so it's not very useful when addressing that camp either.

    Anyone reading this who's not in camp A or B could possibly be convinced, although I think they'd be convinced more surely by an argument that didn't use the linguistic frames of Camp A to make the point with the pitfalls already discussed above.

    "At points the shouters become unbearably absurd, as if they will rage quit if they can't shoot everyone anytime they want."

    I don't think that's quite as absurd as you seem to. The only real resolution to this issue that I've ever personally witnessed is when game companies make their game more or less friendly to nonconsensual PVP, and the only tool/reaction/message either side really has to affect game companies is the power of the wallet. The quicker people jump to that endgame, the less time they waste on semantics.

    Personally, I don't agree that this should be debated so commonly. I think consumers should have a range of choices for MMO's with different amounts of nonconsensual PVP, but that for different MMO's to constantly adjust that ratio on-the-fly just results in people investing time into MMOs that then later change to be something fundamentally different. It'd be like if car companies changed which cars were larger, smaller, trucks, etc...and continued to adjust it after you bought them, so that the F150 I bought 3 years ago might be a subcompact car in my driveway tomorrow morning, though still named F150. Doesn't make sense to me, but apparently it does to many others.

  2. I can't help but feel we're operating at a semantic disadvantage when we call ourselves "carebears" then argue our corner. It's a term of contempt.

    By using their word for us we've already lost the argument.

  3. Nice argument. Wrong, but well written.

    The primary reason it's wrong: There is no lasting harm to anything but your /in-game/ wallet. Equating even a pod-kill to a murder is ridiculous hyperbole.

    If I were to expand on this, the 'You consent to PvP by undocking' is part of the social contract of Eve. It doesn't matter if you don't like it. It is commonly accepted, thus the rule. Complain all you want, just don't expect much sympathy.

    There is no place in Eve that you are 'Safe'. That's by design. Some places are safer. That's all.

    Oh, and before you dismiss me as a Rabid PvPer, all my PvP comes through Faction Warfare. The majority of my play time is as a High-sec industrialist.

    1. What about those who have quit the game because of abuse? I can think of one very public case of that just within the Eve community. When people give up on a game because they are the object of someone else's rudeness - or worse - doesn't that have a "lasting harm?" If you say it doesn't come back and read my next post.

    2. Seconded. It's a game. There is no lasting harm done by EVE, outside of the game, except for harm that you may do to yourself.

      If you want a better real-life analog, rather than using the torture of children, perhaps we might use rude language, or the sight of idiots walking around with their jeans worn at knee level. By stepping outside of your house, you "consent" to hearing rude language. You "consent" to seeing idiots with slumping pants. You're a victim of young Thuggy Slumpypants!

      Aw, poor Mabrick.

      Personally, I hate the sight of young Slumpypants. It's an emulation of criminals, and an assertion that they are role models. It's a big fuck you to civilized society. It is an attempt to piss off squares like me, and it works. But it's one of the prices we pay as a free people. This is where, in real life, HTFU comes in.

      As for EVE, I relish the fact that I can be attacked anywhere. Because if I can, so can any other carebear, and I am (usually) smarter than them. So I have a competitive advantage.

      Also, the slight chance of gank makes just about any in-game activity more interesting.

    3. What about those who have quit the game because of abuse? " you ask, Mabrick? True, some people quit the game because they get their ships blown up. Other people quit the game because they go down the carebear path early in their EVE careers, and eventually find it boring. Maybe they would have stayed on if they could have put aside the false notions of EVE honor that their early carebear mentors taught them, and tried a life of piracy for a change.

    4. "There is no lasting harm to anything but your /in-game/ wallet."

      While true, this argument can be used to justify anything relating to any game. ergo, "I think EVE should incorporate My little pony as a sponsor and inspiration, because it would cause no lasting harm to anything but your game experience as a pirate". "I think EVE should ban all PVP and replace it with roshambo, because that would do no lasting harm except to the value of ships and weapon systems, but that only affects your ingame wallet" etc. I.e., it's true but a red herring here.

      "Equating even a pod-kill to a murder is ridiculous hyperbole." Equating a comparison to an equation is ridiculous hyperbole, actually.

      One does have to be extra careful comparing events in reality to those in a game; in the end, reality is always what we compare things to, though, consciously or unconsciously. to pretend otherwise is quite unrealistic, pun intended but not as a joke.

  4. I used to Hulk jetcan in highsec, but the barge buff and crime watch changes have made it boring, so I don't do that anymore. I think Hisec is a little too safe now, but there also needs to be more cost to the gankers.

  5. I could not possibly agree with you more. I accept it as an inevitability, but I do not give permission.

  6. The danger here, my friend, is in comparing a RL scenario with a game. No sane, socially well adjusted, individual would contemplate such RL behaviour, let alone stand idly by and watch it happen.

    EVE is reliant upon the destruction/construction cycle - it is the corner stone of the economy of this simulated reality. The beauty in the mechanics of EVE is that your destruction is not predetermined as it requires risk evaluation by the perpatrator and the victim has the option of not being completely defenceless too.

    Now, if the argument is about a percieved mechanics imbalance (say, for example, the case of the freighter not having the opportunity to trade off cargo space for additional tank)then that is a different matter.

  7. As a PVPer and occasional tear farmer, I agree. Carebears do not exist to facilitate my playstyle. But neither does my playstyle depend on carebear consent. That is the nature of EVE. It is a system that permits certain acts while forbidding others. Regardless of your consent or lack thereof, unilateral attacks happen to fall under the category of actions permitted by the system. I perform those actions. The question for you is what do you intend to do about it?

    Righteous indignation feels satisfying, or else people wouldn't do it so much and so often. But it doesn't matter if you're morally right or wrong. It doesn't even matter if you're persuasive or end up only ever convincing yourself. That satisfying sense of moral superiority will still fill you up regardless. So then, if your intention was to blow off some steam, by all means, rant away. But if your goal was to affect tangible change, then you have to set aside that satisfaction and ask yourself what you actually hoped to accomplish by writing that post.

  8. As a bear myself I feel that your right and wrong about this one.

    Using a RL metaphore is quite difficult in this situation as you could argue that ourside your own house isn't as hostile as EVE space could be. If you lived in a warzone and left the base then yes I would agree that the same sort of situation would apply where the simple act of leaving a 'safe place' makes you an eligible target similar to EVE.

    Secondly your right about our nature of survial but I'm sure you'll well aware that survial falls unto two categories - either out living your competition, or eliminating them. Removing the threats to your survival is equally viable option than just 'out living them' and so I could see some people argue that PvP IS an act of survival; your removing the potential threats to your own survial - even if that means you strangle babies in their cribs because if you don't they could grow up and be stab you in the back.

    I think the phrase is merely a warning; its a nice little quote that sounds more serious that it is.
    At the end of the day I would think that PERMISSION to PvP is the last of any gankers worries - the lack of wanting or needing permission in order to engage is what adds to the pleasure of the kill.

    If anything it acts as a justification of the ganker to say you DID give me permission - you undocked and thats all the permission I NEED, regardless of what you WANT.

  9. I think what it boils down to is: EVE is a dystopia, and the only morality in the entire New Eden cluster is that which can be defended at the point of a gun. It's a nightmare world out there, one in which violence has no deterrent value, and the weak are always at the mercy of the strong.

    People who get pleasure from the suffering of the less fortunate are monsters in my book, but EVE is a game that encourages that behavior. Every time you undock, you're getting into a war zone. It's a bit like - this may sound weird, but it happened - stepping out of my office building when there was an incipient riot. You act differently. You're constantly aware that civilization has broken down, that you cannot depend on the authorities to prevent something horrible from happening to you. You don't wander, you don't dawdle, you do what needs doing and get back to safety as quickly as possible.

    At least some of the monsters out in EVE admit it. Of course, there are others who claim to be the good guys even as they act out the part of monsters. The ones who claim that ganking you and harvesting your tears is for your own good. The ones who claim that they are the true protectors, and you should be grateful for their "mercy".

    Face it, if you had to choose between New Eden's brand of civilization, and the one you're living in right now, wouldn't you prefer the modern age?

  10. Well, we can talk about rights and permission and all of this stuff, but it's missing the important, mindset-related component of personal accountability. You know what is out there waiting for you and you can either prepare for it and propser or ignore it and suffer.

    I'm a solo pvper and it's the same thing, even though I'm actively out pvping. I know there are blobs and people with pirate implants and booster alts out there. I'm choosing to solo pvp and I know what's waiting for me out there so I can either prepare properly, fly properly, use strategy and tactics to my advantage... or I can expect everyone to conform to what I want and whine on forums when things don't go my way.

    Carebears, like pvpers, should recognize that their environment has certain dangers and that they are responsible to prepare themselves for it.

  11. I agree with all you have said. I feel that anyone that is logical would agree with you. But you fail to realize that those that you are trying to influence to change their attitudes, do not operate on a logical level but on an emotional level.

    Few really take the time to think things through. Those that have already agree with you and those that don't, never will.

    The only way to reach those that disagree with you is to figure out an emotion argument that pleads you case. Otherwise they just ignore anything you say.

  12. It's funny how when defending their playstyle the self-proclaimed PvPers (really mostly just griefers and gankers) say Eve is sandbox where you can play how you like.

    But when it comes to other players they want to force us into playing or facilitating their playstyle rather than letting us play how we want too.

  13. I agree with what I think is the essense of your post, Mab. Undocking is not permission to PvP, it is acceptance, a subtle, yet important, distinction, not merely semantics.

    BTW, how's about killing the new background? Makes it exceedingly unfun to read the blog :(

    1. Killed. I didn't think I liked it either, and you confirmed the feeling. Thank you for saying so.

  14. I have said it before and I will say it again: People who victimize defenseless, inexperienced or unskilled players are no better in my eyes than the "carebears" they profess to loathe so much. Just like a mission runner they take a specially prepared ship against a pre-selected target that has no chance of survival. There is no risk involved for them. The whole grandstanding and tear harvesting is just their own way of dealing with that inherent hypocrisy.

    Then there are the nullsec superpower members who keep talking about carebears and consider themselves great PVPers. In reality, those people spend a lot of their time running missions, mining and ratting. Often with highsec alts safely embedded in NPC corps. They are like people raging against smoking Marihunana while getting drunk almost every night. Again, hypocrisy.

    I have spent time with dedicated PVP alliances. I have never seen or heard any of them behaving in such a way. They seek out worthy targets and they conduct themselves in a professional way, even if they annihilate you. I usually heard the FC ordering "good fight in local" rather than going for tears.

    If you call people like that PVPers, you are misrepresenting the PVP community just as others are misrepresenting people by calling them carebears. I personally never use that term except in jest against corpmates or other people I know.

    I myself like fighting in this game, but I also know I can not completely sustain myself by doing just that. I will have to do some PVE activity too, and I like to make sure I have safety when doing so.

    The sooner people admit that this is the way things generally are, the sooner they will stop with their hypocritical raging.

    All that being said, it is indeed hyperbole to compare in-game griefing to the rape and killing of a child IRL.

    1. The constant repetition of "undocking is consent" has grown ridiculous enough that we must suspect a certain amount of disconnect in the chanting hordes.

      Human history is a tale of the strong exploiting the weak, and a game that emulates a universe full of humans is going to attract players who wish, for once in their lives, to be on the winning side. That doesn't make them bad people, and if they have to keep justifying their game behavior with empty slogans--undocking is consent, amirite?--well, that's just the persuasive evidence that they, too, are human.

      If they've ever sat and watched The Magnificent Seven, they probably weren't rooting for the banditos, and they probably understood that the villagers' situation was terribly out of balance. Is farming consent to pillage by nomadic warlords? Of course it isn't.

      Mabrick's hyperbole in comparing gankers to murderers is instructive, but EVE really is only a game. It welcomes all play styles.

      I wouldn't ban the griefer sneak-thieves who choose to try to destroy what others build, but I won't listen patiently when they try to congratulate themselves for it.

    2. "Human history is a tale of the strong exploiting the weak, and a game that emulates a universe full of humans is going to attract players who wish, for once in their lives, to be on the winning side."

      Aside from the unnecessary stereotyping insult, you're starting off here pretty well, with a reasonable understanding of the human competitive extremes. But then you go off the cliff in your next points:

      "That doesn't make them bad people, and if they have to keep justifying their game behavior with empty slogans--undocking is consent, amirite?--well, that's just the persuasive evidence that they, too, are human."

      Your response to that behavior being empty insults--using words like 'ridiculous', 'repetition', and 'empty' replaces the need for an actual logical argument, amirite?--well, that's just the persuasive evidence that you, too, are human.

      "Is farming consent to pillage by nomadic warlords? Of course it isn't."

      If they had been given a choice to live in a world where farmers literally could not be pillaged by nomadic warlords (games without nonconsensual pvp), or in a world where they could be (EVE), then choosing the latter world to farm in would be consent to being pillaged, for a certain definition of consent. You could pick a different definition of consent for which it still wouldn't be(informed prior acceptance of ground conditions vs later acceptance of particular results), which is why that sentence being taken differently by the two sides is a semantical issue. However, someone making examples like yours takes it out of a semantical issue, and into a false analogy issue. Real farmers don't choose which of the above worlds to live in, so your analogy is not a good one.

      "I wouldn't ban the griefer sneak-thieves who choose to try to destroy what others build, but I won't listen patiently when they try to congratulate themselves for it."

      They don't want you to listen patiently, they want to harvest your tears by making you upset; so you're doing exactly what they want. How did you go from your initial good understanding of the ganker mindset, to a complete disaster like this at the end?

  15. EvE mirrors RL in this capacity as well: resource gathering takes time and effort, as does invention and manufacturing. To destroy or take away those resources is much MUCH quicker with (usually) way less effort.

    Don't tell me in game ganking has no impact on RL - because it does. You've just negated all the time that player put in to that particular resource or ship prior to that point at little or no risk or loss to yourself.

    This issue is worse for the casual player who can only play a couple of hours a week. Leaving all of the other considerations out of the picture for a moment: why would you want to keep playing a game when the limited time and effort you can put in can be destroyed at a moments notice?

    1. I agree completely with helenakhan. People play games for a reason, and that motivation comes from something they need and/or missing in RL. I'm not saying high sec should be completely safe. I am advocating for a game that allows a wide player base to enjoy the game in the manner which supports their play style. Obviously Eve lacks sufficient entertainment for PVP players. Perhaps that is the crux of the issue.

    2. "EvE mirrors RL in this capacity as well: resource gathering takes time and effort, as does invention and manufacturing. To destroy or take away those resources is much MUCH quicker with (usually) way less effort."

      There are more highsec carebears than there are highsec gankers. If it were actually true that it's quicker and easier to destroy resources than it is to collect them, then highsec carebears should easily be able to get together and destroy all of the resources of the highsec gankers, rendering the gankers unable to continue ganking on a meaningful scale. The fact is that it's not easy to destroy resources in highsec: you can hide them with perfect safety in NPC stations, you can fly tanked ships that it's horribly costly to gank, and you can fly effective but cheap ships that take a very small amount of resources to construct. The highsec gankers are using these tactics effectively: their targets are not. Any highsec carebear who uses these tactics effectively easily moves themself out of the target pool of highsec gankers. I know because I've done exactly that.

    3. Ahhhh, Rammstein. It HAS been a while.

      You appear to have chosen a certain segment of EvE players as a basis for arguing the point. Those who have been around the block and have time under their belts so they have reasonable if not good fitting skills, as well as having the in game knowledge to reduce or avoid risk.

      None of which helps a 3 week old player in an industrial taking his hard earned ore to market who gets popped just for the lulz.

      While a million iskies is chicken feed for most of us now, I can still remember when I broke my first mil. Losing a 900k iskie ship hurts a damn sight more when you have very little. The time you've just lost collecting said ore arguably hurts more.

      In fact, I seem to recall you arguing against a point I made while ago about needing to adapt because of the huge upswing in ganking prior to the barge changes. I take it from what you've written that you're now in favor of needing to adapt to emergent gameplay.

    4. "None of which helps a 3 week old player in an industrial taking his hard earned ore to market who gets popped just for the lulz."

      Yes, I too got popped when I was a 3 week old player in an industrial. "hey look, those goods are so cheap, I'll buy them there even though it's 2 jumps farther from rens." Set autopilot on a course which takes me to that lowsec system 1 jump past rancer, get popped in rancer. I learned something from that experience--I expect that other players will also learn from experience. I don't think I'm focusing on only one segment of EVE players--but it's true that the relation of very new players to my analysis of potential best strategies is observed more in the breach than in the observance. I haven't been playing all that long, so I don't see what makes 2013 players experience so different from mine (about 18 months for me, I think)

      "In fact, I seem to recall you arguing against a point I made while ago about needing to adapt because of the huge upswing in ganking prior to the barge changes. I take it from what you've written that you're now in favor of needing to adapt to emergent gameplay."

      Was that on this blog? That was like 12 months ago; I don't really remember what was said. Hulkageddon was right before the mining barge change, right? I think I mined in mission roid fields during hulkageddon in complete safety, which seems to support my point here that it's difficult to kill assets in highsec without player error on the part of the player losing the assets. What did we disagree on?

    5. It was Corelin's iirc, though could be wrong and yes it was a while ago. My point was about needing to adapt during Hulkageddon and the ice interdiction.

      To which the response was along the lines of "who are you to tell me how to play". Somewhat less politely it must be said. To be fair, I was getting it from more than one quarter as well.

      I have to ask: are there two different Rammsteins? Both there and on Jester's Trek there have been a number of posts. Forgive me for saying so, but you seem to be an awful lot more mellow than I've come to expect.

    6. More persistent googling than before shows a comment I made in reply to you on evehermit on june 5th, 2012, which I probably shouldn't have made. I apologize--that was a time of personal tragedy for my family, and not representative for that reason.

      Were I reply to that post in my current frame of mind, I would say that while of course players should always adapt to the environment; the question of whether mining barges should be rebalanced exists orthogonally to that truth, whereas you seemed to think otherwise. My opinion was that they were too paper-thin at the time; and now I think that CCP overcompensated and that they are now too tanky. I'm able to move from one side of the fence to the other on the balance issue, without affecting my position on the 'should players be adaptable' issue in the slightest, so I see them as quite unrelated.

      Pretty sure there's just the one Rammstein commenting on EVE blogs. I try to stay mellow in comments, but I tend to point out factual errors when I see them, and certain people respond to that with a string of profanity--especially EVE-famous people, I've noticed--and if someone comes away from that exchange with the impression that I caused the tirade of profanity, there's some real truth in that perspective.

    7. No need to apologize, though I do thank you for it. Understand all too well.

      You make some very good points in your postings. It would be a shame if those points were lost on people because of either tone or by being too hard nosed about something. I'm sure I've been guilty of that myself.

      In specific regards to the mining barges - I still believe that a specific albeit random spike in behavior does not necessarily warrant a rebalancing by CCP, especially if an adjustment by the barge pilots to temporarily mitigate them can be made for the duration of the spike.

      Yes, you won't be as efficient, but at least you're more likely to survive. The same discussion is relevant to any random (temporary) change imho. CCP made the changes though... so, you can draw from that what you will about the strength of my position on it :)

      In any case, water under the bridge. Thanks Rammstein. Keep on keeping on :)

  16. I always frame this argument in my mind as relative worth. Not "good or bad" overall.

    To destroy something it should take a similar relative worth to do so, or those being destroyed will be discouraged by the simplicity of it.

    On the other hand, if the relative worth on the line from the attackers standpoint is too high, they get discouraged.

    All that is stated so i can address your post and know where I'm coming from. Undocking in Eve is sadly consent to PVP, it says so on the tin when it advertises itself as a full pvp game, but it comes with the above clauses.

    Personally. I've played Eve a long time, and the overall direction is to make combat ships more powerful. It's easier to scan down the ships to gank than it was when i started, overall(baring the great nano nerf) ships are faster than when i started, ships do more damage than when i started, and they tank more. So if people get butthurt over highsec becoming more safe lately, or industrial characters getting a buff. I think they should get some historical perspective.

    Last year, before the mining barge buff and changes to crimewatch, it was easier than it'd ever been in the entire history of Eve to gank people in highsec. Lately it has not been a buff to carebears as much as putting things back in line that are out of true. Work still needs to be done on it though, some industrial ship classes haven't been touched in the entire time I've been playing and could be helped by a buff to put them inline with the current damage profiles.

    1. A very good point, thank you for bringing that up

  17. I agree with you, Mabrick as industrialist I do not exist in Eve to be a punching bag for pirates. I am proud to refute predator and prey (or farms and fields) cycle espoused by pirates as way the game is intended to be.

    there, the official page from CCP, and not word that the reason this class of player exists in Eve, for the target practice of others.

    But sadly permission is given all the time. Given the choice how many miners after the buff continue make it easy in untanked ships? Pirates have gained a sense of self entitlement that miners are there for their entertainment. That does not look like changing any time soon. Any challenge to this status quo is met with multiple forum warriors leading the charge against Bearism. And now with New Order (old odor?) whom I would judge has having a bark far greater than bite that they claim in-game. But nevertheless, miners will just pony up the isk for this protection racket as a "cost of doing business". Is this the enablers we hear so much about?


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.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.