Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Your choice always comes back around

My post yesterday about Garmon's use of an exploit to destroy Jump Freighters in low-sec is getting me attacked by various Garmon white knights, and people who otherwise think that I'm trying to destroy the name of a great solo PvPer.  It's not anything that I didn't expect, but it deserves some comment.

First, it shouldn't surprise anyone.  If people do things in this game that I think are wrong, I do not hesitate to go after them.  I've gone after The Mittani, Seleene, Mynxee, Rooks and Kings, Pandemic Legion, Goonswarm, EVE News 24, the CSM generally, CCP itself... the list goes on and on and on.  These are all people or entities that are beloved by some fraction of the EVE player base.  I've also praised all of those people and entities when I feel they've done something right.  That's the nature of the blog I'm writing here.  I write about big picture EVE topics and that isn't going to change.  The personality of the game itself and the people who play it are one such aspect of that big picture, and I'm going to write about it.

And from time to time, I'm going to call out people who have a hand in shaping that personality of the game.

The "things I think are wrong" are my opinions, and I never say they aren't.  Many people agree with my opinions, and many don't.  I'm totally OK with that.  Sometimes I say a beloved person or entity in EVE has done something that I think is wrong-headed or dumb and I take flak for it.  I'm totally OK with that, too.  I have a thick skin and I can take it just as much as I dish it out, if not more.  Sometimes, people say in blogs or on fora that I'm the one that's wrong-headed.  I'm also OK with that.  People are entitled to their opinions of me.

So no, I'm not surprised at the outburst in the slightest.

My opinion on this matter is straight-forward: Garmon is a great solo PvPer and I think his videos are terrific.  However, Garmon could have gotten just as much fame out of this incident and maintained his reputation by producing a video of him using this tactic to destroy a JF on Sisi, then explaining how the tactic works.  He obviously destroyed one or more JFs on Sisi as test runs before committing to the tactic on TQ; the first kill is too clean to believe otherwise.  Publishing such a video would have gotten him just as much fame, and there's good reason to think that CCP would have rewarded him for it in some fashion, for instance by linking to his website from their Facebook wall or from an ISD news post on the EVE log-in screen.

I also don't buy the explanation of him going to a GM and asking "is this working as intended?"  That's just silly.  Seriously, Garmon's been playing this game for a long, long time.  You don't ask such a question of a GM without already knowing the answer.  The comparison with AHARM's asking GMs about their use of wormhole e-war mechanics is unavoidable.  They knew what they were asking, too.  And the fact that AHARM had a GM response covering their ass in no way negated their responsibility in that matter.  The fact that Garmon had some GM response covering his ass does not negate his responsibility, either.  The simple fact is that Garmon found an exploit, surely realized it was an exploit, and could have advertised it as an exploit without using it.

Instead, he specifically chose to use the tactic to get himself some cheap kills.

Choices have consequences.  The consequence of this choice is that he sullied his own reputation.  He didn't sully it with everyone, to be sure.  Garmon will always have his defenders, no matter what he does.  But there's now going to be a percentage of EVE players that can't think about Garmon without thinking of his use of this tactic.  After all, I'm sure most of you knew what I was talking about when I mentioned AHARM.

To me, that loss of reputation -- built up over years! -- wouldn't have been worth a couple of JF kills.

That's why I wrote about it.

And the next time something like this happens, I'll write about it then, too.  And if I ruffle feathers along the way, then that's my choice and the consequences of that choice.


  1. I agree with you, but disagree with your idea that Garmon's reputation was sullied by this endeavor. As I stated on my blog comments, I don't find Garmon to have the clean reputation that would be mired by such an action. (The action of using an exploit to kill a JF).

    I did white-knight eve is easy . com though. But that is for the right reasons.

  2. Funny, you are trying to explain basic human behavior in a game that rewards cut-throat tactics. What Garmon did, was hiding and taking advtange of a game mechanic.

    Wrong doing? hell yes! as this mechanic was from the get go an exploit (and quite easy to identify it as such).

    Lame? you bet

    Absolutely irrational? nope

    If players found any kind of tactical advantage over the rest of the people out there (who are, will be, or have been their competitors), why would you go out in public and expose it?

    This is the sort of behavior expected from a game that fosters extreme competition and griefing. That rewards players who make others ragequit and leave the game.

    EvE is about securing dominance .....and some will go to great lengths in ensuring they attain it and maintain it.

    You wish to expose it as a bad choice? i guess you could say so....i would say, it's the expected choice if you want to remain competitive. Is it the "best" choice? no, not by any standard.

  3. Agree with you completely.

    You can always find a GM who is going to say that a broken mechanic is "working as intended" (in fact, rarely do they respond otherwise to an initial query or petition).

    Garmon knew that this was an exploit and did it anyways. Fail. His attempt to CYA with a GM can also be considered an exploit, since he had know how they would respond, too. More fail.

    And, more so, a deliberate violation of the EULA. Utter fail.

  4. I find it funny how bent out of shape people get over things like this. It's pretty obvious Garmon was using an exploit. Does that make him bad at solo pvp? No. I still respect Garmon as one of the best pvpers in the game. That's as far as my respect for him as ever gone and likely as far as it's ever going to go.

  5. Krixtal IcefluxorMarch 21, 2012 at 1:16 PM

    I support your opinion here 100%.

    This is just another example of the self-entitled thinking of those who are aged, let's say "under 30", have when dealing with absolutely anything in life. Push it as far as you possibly can and secretively......utterly blind to the fact that "The Truth Will Out". ALWAYS.

    A blind, grab-all now mentality that somehow has slapped EVE with the FALSE dual endgames of 'largest padded KB' and 'most ISK ingame'.

    Sad really.

    1. I could hardly call flying around engaging blobs with a Loki link alt/fleet mate "solo" PVP. Prom highlights solo pvp, Garmon..."flashy" PVP, but not solo PVP.

    2. Trying to list selfishness as something that involves age only makes you look simple. If you wish to dispute this, go check the average ages of CEOs.

      As for the situation at hand, I do personally think that it could be a PR hit for him... Perhaps not with the major PVP crowd, sure. Certainly not with lots of his fans. But then from what I've understood about it - and I could be wrong - a good portion of what he's trying to draw in with eveiseasy is new players. People that aren't necessarily as inundated in the dog eat dog culture of EVE, and could be considerably more offended by the idea.

      Personally, I find the fact that he used this exploit as he did lowers my opinion a tad, but not just due to the exploit itself, but also the pointless use of it. If you have that kind of advantage, save it for something that matters, not lolkills on industrials.

    3. Your reply makes no sense here ????

  6. Thanks Jester I read your blog just because I am confident that you call it like you see it. Just a positive comment to counter one or two of the negative ones.

  7. Totally agree with what you wrote Jester.

  8. "Sometimes, people say in blogs on on fora that I'm the one that's wrong-headed"

    You said "on on" instead of "or on".

    Now you are a poopoo head. You must appreciate my majesty.

    Yeah, and now Garmon is a narna and if you feel the need to defend him you're a narna by association.

  9. I can't put the blame on Garmon any more than I can for those who use fleets of Titans and blapped subcaps. It is through the exploitation of imbalanced mechanics that change is elicited and it is not the player's job to ensure balance in the game.

    1. No, this is an exploit because any other time (than undocking) using 3 fed webs on a freighter without a point is basically backing his bags for him. This uses a glitch in the mechanics (that the speed doesn't drop low enough to meet the new warp requirement due to undock) and is therefore very much an exploit. Anyone who doesn't see this as an exploit is either misguided on the term or is simple (or using it to their benefit, though I'm sure even Garmon would tell you it's an exploit).

      It would be like finding out logging right as your Doomsday hits would somehow not cause a 10 minute cool down so you could log in and use it again... it is obviously not meant to be that way and as such, logging titans wouldn't be "imbalanced mechanics".

    2. I think you misunderstood my point.

      I agree it is an exploit. I disagree that it is the responsibility of the player to have to limit their gameplay.

      A hotfix could be implemented the same day with a 15 minute emergency downtime. The burden is CCP's to bear and diminishes the quality of the sandbox experience when you have mandatory, self-imposed limitations to follow.

  10. AHARM continued to use their exploit after a GM told them it was a sploit. Garmon used a trick, CCP decided it was an exploit (agree) and probably he has stopped now. So I don't think Garmon has done that much wrong but I do think it the mechanic needed stopping.


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