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...

Sunday, January 27, 2013

COTW: Ganking isn't PvP and never was

Comment of the Week honors should probably go to all of the people that commented on the "Conflict of self interest" post from early this week.  The back and forth discussion on that post has been absolutely tremendous with both sides of the discussion on high-sec war-decs, safety (or lack thereof) in EVE, and social versus solo play staking out and defending their sides.  In particular, Alekseyev Karrde and Lee had an absolutely fantastic long discussion of both sides that really is worth your time to read.  I don't think Alek has written that much on this topic on the EVE-O forums, and that's saying something.  ;-)

Needless to say, you all gave me a lot to think about this week on this topic.

My overall favorite comment, though, and the one that really crystallized my own thinking on the subject was one written by an anonymous commenter.  Again, the comment itself was somewhat long but it's again worth your time to go read in full.  But I quote it here in part (edited slightly):
The PVP people have it all wrong. They have had it wrong from Day 1. Listen to me carefully, not everyone wants to shoot stuff. Not everyone finds pleasure from harassment of others...  See the problem is has been mentioned the strong get 90% of the benefits while the weak are basically punching bags that after a while quit.  Most weak people see the benefits of fighting back, but say a 4-year vet kills a 3 month old character.  Whoopdie-shit.. I can go ATTACK HIM?  Yeah, no thanks.
And yeah, I gotta say that kind of sums things up.

To me, the interesting thing about the argument that un-docking serves as consent to PvP is that the people who make this argument invariably make it from a position of enormous strength.  They have all the power in the relationship: all the knowledge, all the power, all the training, all the money... everything!  They are quite literally level 80 players preying on level 1 players and seeing nothing wrong with the relationship at all.  I'm currently rereading Alex Haley's Roots and was struck by several passages written from the perspective of white slave-holders whose characters argue slavery is both good for the slaves and a moral good in and of itself.  The slaves have cause to disagree.  The argument being made about "undocking equals consent" is rather similar...

One of the most famous examples of the strong preying on the weak and arguing it was for their own good happened in July 2009.  fmercury, observing a large cluster of mining barges ice-mining in close proximity in Kiskoken in high-sec, fitted out an Armageddon with smart-bombs and sufficent cap boosters to run them repeatedly until he was struck down by CONCORD.  He killed dozens of Retrievers and several more expensive barges and exhumers that day, and podded virtually everyone involved.  Two Orcas and a Mackinaw were all that survived it.  fmercury's sec status dropped to -9.99 in an instant, but by a couple of weeks later he was able to travel in high-sec again.(1)

At the time, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, plus much proselytizing on how the victims could have prevented this fate (wearing a longer skirt, a higher neck line, and not so much perfume, perhaps?).  But it's important to remember who had the power in the relationship.  After it was all over, the victims chatted on their corporate comms on how to rebuild.  Virtually all the victims were new players with very few resources.  The meme that lives to this day from the event is one of the victims offering assistance to his corp: "I have 17 mil.  Can I help?"  This simultaneously represents both the epitome of the positive EVE social experience and the pathetic, laughable state of the power of the victims in this event.  They lost everything.  Thanks to the mechanics of suicide ganking at that time, fmercury probably made a small profit.

How did this meme survive?  Because fmercury was spying on the corp comms of the victims and was recording it.  I'm not even kidding: he had all of the power in this relationship.
But always -- do not forget this, Winston -- always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler.  Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.  If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever.
1984, of course.  If EVE had a manual, that quote could be an introduction to one of the chapters.  ;-)

Most often, these are the victims that "need to get more friends and they need to learn to defend themselves better in a PvP game."  No doubt Alek would say that if they can't learn to PvP themselves, they should hire Noir.  Someone ask him if he'll work for 17 mil.

Am I exaggerating to make a point?  Maybe just a little.  But... just maybe I'm not exaggerating at all.  This sort of thing happens every single day in EVE and most of us have just come to accept it -- and the cost it wreaks in player unsubs -- as part of the game.  The question that started the philosophical debate: should we?  I still don't know.

Some of you have asked what my own opinion on this topic is.  I wrote part of the answer back in 2011.  The rest, I think I'm going to spend a day or three writing about this week.

Whew!  Didn't intend for this post to go on quite this long.  ;-)  Thank you again to everyone who commented on the "Conflict of self interest" post!

(1) Full disclosure: fmercury, presently a member of Pandemic Legion, was at the time a member of the corp Queens of the Stone Age.  This corp later went on to become part of the Rote Kapelle alliance, where they still are today.


  1. hehe good luck with this line of thought, you'll need it.

  2. "At the time, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, plus much proselytizing on how the victims could have prevented this fate (wearing a longer skirt, a higher neck line, and not so much perfume, perhaps?)."

    Equating the people who you're arguing against to Rape apologists is a great way to engender meaningful discussion.

    I'd have thought you were better than that, and I'm disappointed.

    By the way, every single person who's in a position of great power started in a position of no power, and spent time and effort to collect that power.

    1. "I started out as a n00b, too" fails as justification. The upperclassman who was once a plebe probably feels good as he hazes his inferior.

      Jester hasn't *equated* ganking with rape. He's *compared* the two, and meaningfully. The desire to ruin someone else's day? To take without consent while the victim watches? Yeah, there's a common thread there.

      "It's not a crime" fails as justification, too.

    2. I think the point trying to be made here is that there was nothing (realistically speaking) they could do to prevent the gank much like wearing different clothing would not help someone avoid rape. A poor choice of metaphor yes, but not an inaccurate one.

    3. I don't think Jester is directly equating it to rape - he's just drawing a comparison between the way that the victims of ganks are often blamed for it, in the same way that victims of rape are - and I can see where he's coming from. Hell, I've done it myself - blamed gank victims, that is - and while sometimes, yes, they were doing something really stupid that got them killed, I think we as a community could stand to do it less.

    4. He's not equating one to the other, he's showing the parallel between them. He's showing that they both use the exact same argument to justify their actions. One is just in a subject that is often better left alone.

    5. Jester's also exaggerating like crazy. He says so right in the post. ;-)

    6. So was Swift when he wrote "A Modest Proposal." The OMGyouequatedwithrape people in this thread probably didn't get Swift, either.

    7. There was nothing they could do to prevent the gank? Um. Perhaps not being so bunched up that a smart-bombing battleship could take them all out before CONCORD responded? If they were more spread out, their losses would have been minimised. If they'd been more spread out, the ganker probably wouldn't have bothered.

      By being so bunched up, they made themselves a JUICY target.

    8. It probably wouldn't surprise you to know that growing up, Swift was my favorite writer.

      After reading "A Modest Proposal" for the first time in high school, my (female) H.S. English teacher challenged us to write a similar paper. So I did. In my version, I proposed that English students bribe the husbands of their English teachers to get them pregnant so that the teachers in question would be too busy to give hard assignments. Swear to God, I simultaneously got both an "A" and a talking-to.

      I had forgotten about that until you mentioned Swift. ;-)

  3. I especially liked the part where you compared pixels in an MMORPG to rape.

    1. But slavery comparisons are A-OK? ;-)

    2. I actually missed that part on my first readthrough. Not to worry, I gutted you on Twitter for both of these.

    3. It's funny to me how people have a hard time telling when I'm being deliberately provocative. Ah well. I shall continue being misunderstood in my own time. It's the cross I must bear.


    4. Should have included a suicide comparison as well, very topical.

    5. I don't have a hard time telling, I know damned well you're being deliberately provocative.

      You can't just handwave your bullshit comparisons by saying you were being deliberately provocative. I can still call you out on your outrageous bullshit.

    6. Comparing something that actually happens to something else that actually happens, and finding commonalities, does not equal bullshit.

      Pretending that the parallels don't exist is.

    7. Jester is a rape victim, hence his feelings for this subject.

      Oh, I am deliberately provocative so of course I did not mean the sentence above. How DARE you interpret that as my TRUE meaning!

      Jester: Learn to say what you mean instead of hiding behind "being deliberately provocative" like some b-class Karl Rove.

  4. In a conversation a few days ago, I said something relevant.

    In gambling, to win big you typically have to risk big. As the size of your bet increases, so increase your possible earnings, and while, depending on the particular method of gambling, the dependency can be linear or non-linear, it's almost always there -- the size of your bet is your loss, and your winnings are proportional to it. Eve's holy "risk vs reward" mantra, something which I already said was nonsense not really meaning what it says it means, goes quite backwards. The more resources you commit to a task, whether by bringing in more people or by accumulating these resources inside your character, the less is your chance of failing at the task, while the rewards, if any, never change.

    And while this affects PVE in interesting ways, it is most visible in PVP, where situations where someone not in a position of power or influence already can win are few and far between.

    I could cite Zimbardo, my own research, but I shouldn't turn a comment into a blog post so I'll try to be brief:

    It's not that 'society is to blame for everything', but the situation people find themselves in -- which, in case of a virtual world, elevates game mechanics to the lofty place of physical laws -- affect just what kind of a society they will build. Eve's fundamental mechanical laws make it easier (than elsewhere) to become not just a sociopath, but a victorious and successful one, and as a result, more people find it a path to walk. It has been like this for almost ten years, and by now, criticising them from a moral point of view of a higher context is almost socially unacceptable, and their justification for such behaviour is unassailable, slavers or no.

    But the laws of game mechanics can be changed. It is not at all necessary to make undesirable behaviour impossible. Making it less easy is sufficient.

    Whether a behaviour is truly undesirable or not, however, is not for me to judge. You're the one running for CSM, tell everyone of your vision. :)

    1. by using more resources unless you goonswarm you are taking more risk. You form 20 to gank 2 and think your safe? A scout notices your fleet of 20. Now there is a fleet forming to counter you. your ships are at risk even if you dont realize it. At any rate you are at risk and you are gambling.....hell even if you are goonswarm. Just look at what PL did to them last night, do you think that super fleet thought it was at risk when DBRB was screaming for them to log in???? no they thought they were going to a gank like any other. Hell sometimes its actually a trap. If you want to be such a champion of noobs go out an bait the ppl preying on them, it turns out in Eve you can do that. You dont like young corps getting wardec'd offer to defend them for free. The point is you could be doing this and actually doing something, but hey your crying on text. The tools are in game for you if you want to help noobs i am pretty sure thats how eve uni started.

    2. first half of Your example only applies once out of hi-sec and is a pretty lame sounding one at that as it has little to do with miner ganking/noob ganking.

      i.e:its not a 20man fleet being baited out to fight other combat oriented pilots.

      Also with the new wardecing system you can't shield young corps with out putting them in a never ending spiral of wardecs.(if they join your alliance.)

      If you dec the corp decing them and camp the system with them it's something but a waste of time anyway since the griefing wardec corp will just leave to redec at another time and you can't help everyone everywhere by your self.

      there more to be said but the main point is new young corps don't havethe resources or skill points to defend themselves if they choose ot be anything other than pvp pilots. This isn't agame where you can respec and regear to better defend your self in 1day.

  5. Massively Multiplayer Online Rapist Protagonist Game?

    No thanks, I'd rather play a First Person Slaveowner game.

    Were you all out of Hitler references?

  6. Seriously? Ganking is rape and/or slavery? Wow. I sure know who is not getting my vote.

    1. In a game where the "Rape Cage" is a well known PvP tactic/term I think Jester's analogy is fair game.

    2. You do know that "fair game" doesn't mean "a legitimate tactic", but "a legitimate target", right? It's not a reference to game theory, but to game animals like deer and elk.

      Ironically, 'fair game' is exactly what that analogy has functioned as in these comments.

  7. Wow. Now there's an article that needed a second pair of eyes on it before hitting publish. In very poor taste indeed.

  8. Any competitive game needs a mechanism for stratifying players by skill and experience. Ensuring that new players can enjoy successes while playing the same game as veterans is an elementary goal of game design. Eve, failing to solve this problem in software, has to patch around it with rules against harassing rookies or repeatedly targeting the same player. Without those minimal safeguards, the "delicious tears lol" chimpanzees would camp new players into their starter stations, podding them when they tried to undock. And as it is, the game still only appeals to new players who enjoy being a tiny fish in an ocean full of sharks.

    If CCP wants to broaden the game's appeal beyond that demographic, the solution is obvious: Create a high sec island, 1.0, in which the use of offensive modules against other players is impossible. Bar the gates to freighters and Orcas, so the market hubs don't move there. Take all the L4 missions and decent rocks out. Give new players a safe space in which to start, and then let them decide at what pace they want to expose themselves to the greater risk and greater rewards of lower security space. Some will never leave gaysec, as it will inevitably be known, and that's fine. Eve is a sandbox. Plenty of room in it for everyone.

  9. "By the way, every single person who's in a position of great power started in a position of no power, and spent time and effort to collect that power."

    Absolutely untrue!

    IRL...what did Prince William and others like him do to "collect" their power?

    In game many players are given a hand up by others in their group..isk,knowledge, the META.

    Not everyone starts out as a wretch with 5,000 isk and no clue.

    Moving on.

    There needs to be a balance between pvp and player retention. I have heard the argument that we are better off without the players that are griefed out of the game. I strongly disagree, CCP survives on players subscriptions, the more they have the more staff they can hire and the more our game grows.

    However there must be risk, without it Eve is just another mote in the MMO universe as opposed to the blazing sun it is now. The changes we need are cultural ones, after all the griefers out there are all aping players, who are aping veterans who took their cues from devs way back when.
    PvP is and always must be the backbone of Eve but being an outright douche is another thing entirely.As long as we have a game where stupidity is encouraged by the developers Eve will never grow to its full potential.
    I think the devs are seeing that now and are trying to change the culture of Eve slowly.

    p.s. As I wrote this I realized my skirt IS a tad short.

    1. He means in the game, Jesus. Everyone in Eve who has anything had to get it somehow, or convince someone to give it to them. This is in contrary to how the real world works, so applying the same moral framework (ludicrous as it is to do so anyway, to a game) is flawed in the whole.

  10. Yes.

    My Vexor was ganked in a lowsec mag site a few weeks ago by Rapier + Basilisk. Of course the immediate response is "why did you stop pressing 'scan' every 10 seconds" or and "well you should pick a ship that can break a basi's tank / isn't useless when webbed/pointed at 25k". But when half a billion ISK of ship + fitting is going to gank a 30m ISK target in a 15m ISK mag site, what can I really do but die obediently.

    The ganker even has less workload: dscan the system and only probe if I'm in the results, while I have to dscan constantly. Then they warp cloaked to me and only engage if they know they can win. On my side I need hyper-vigilance to dscan every 10secs while evaluating every new arrival in local.

    My question is: where's the balance? Nullsec is supposed to be unfair, how come lowsec is no better?

    1. Wait, now you want to be safe in lowsec? Getting scanned down and killed in lowsec is now considered a gank?

      Bring on the roller coasters and and skee ball.

    2. No, I want there to be a more equitable distribution of non-fun mechanics between the ganker and gankee.

    3. He said fair, not safe. Though you have to remember, after all this bullshit, it is still just a game. If you can't do anything in a fight but sit there and watch the well prepared gank destroy you, without hope to do anything, without ability to learn, and no chance for success...

      how long would you stick around with a game that kicks you in the balls so someone else can feel good about their elite ganking skills?

    4. How is spamming D-Scan and warping away if stuff appears there "hypervigilant?" It's just being observant. It annoys me that EVE doesn't put this in a tutorial somewhere, because it's so integral to the game outside HighSec. There needs to be an accessible, yet unavoidable guide to the D-Scan and avoiding undesirable PvP. 90% of the emorage I've gone through in this game could have been prevented by using D-Scan more, and the other 10% is due to typos.

      Even just a short video clip of someone spamming D-Scan, spotting XYZ ship, and warping away with a "Oh, a Hookbill...can't beat that in my ....bye."

    5. It requires hypervigilant behaviour because I need to press scan every 5-10 seconds or I will miss the ~15sec period combat scanner probes are on scan.

      So for the couple of hours each session I spend running sites I'm pressing a button every 10 seconds which says "you're safe" for all but one or two times each week. Sound fun to you?

    6. So according to this genius the one being ganked should spam d-scan all the time nonstop. Let's see how long a human being can click that d-scan button if said person need to spend 1-2 hrs in space (say, mining).

      Oh wait some people don't have to press the butan continuously i forgot. The ones warping in to kill the rest of us.

      CCP should make gankers click their guns every cycle (no auto repeat). Not as dire as having to click that d-scan butan every 5 secs but hey HTFU bitches :D

  11. I can see the point you're trying to make (I think) but no one's going to turn up to debate it now. They're all going to give you shit for the rape analogy.

  12. to what end? allow that safe haven for the weak to build their piles of stuff and deny them the chance to learn and grow


  13. I still see this as folks trying to make it in tiny corps. The issue as i see it is those barriers to forming up larger high sec corps. Those of asset protection, roles being terribad, low numbers of divisions and so on.

    The idea of moving all the markets? Wow. Funny but wow. At that point why not just dis-allow combat.

    Starting new characters so i can haul to/sell in 1.0 and .9 systems? pass.

    War decs more expensive? Fine. "If you're in a war-dec'ed corp and try to leave: again, a sizable bribe." I'm not sure how this helps newer folks?

    Credit to you for running for a position and actually taking a hard stance.

  14. Given how much the word rape is used in Eve, rape cage, rape face, we raped them and so on the point is very appropriate.

    But Jester you miss the best part of the post, edited a bit for the comments box.

    "The Carebears need teeth" and "Give the weak a chance to be even MORE evil than those that smote him, and you might see a dramatic upturn in fighting."

    These are excellent points!

    Dracoth Simertet
    RvB Red Fed

    1. Some carebears were given some teeth a while back thanks to the dog piling exploight. That got nixed pretty quickly!

      Even now agreesor alliances can pull out of mutual wars.

    2. If the carebears need teeth, it's **their responsibility** to give it to themselves. They have the same tools available to everyone else in the game.

    3. Yeah yeah - i pull out a gun on you and mug you on the sidewalk and after that tell you "you should have exercised the responsibility to carry heat on you always"

      Easy to say when you are guy holding the gun and pulling the trigger.

      CCP should make it such that suicide gankers can't dock in highsec. You want to be an outlaw, why don't you live like one?

      That's the "harsh reality" crap that you gankers feed us all the time, how about tasting your own shit for a change? Oh wait - gonna pull out a "it's just a game" card? Right! So don't get all huffy puffy over someone making it harder for you to explode pixels in a game?? Heh.

    4. That's a minor inconvenience - we'd use rolling safespots, private poses and friendly Orcas.

      We gankers have adapted to change after change, nerf after nerf. Prohibiting us from docking in highsec would be par for the course, and it would offer at most a few days reprieve for our victims.

    5. Good! Then finally we can probe down your alt orca/POSes and blow it up. Keep rolling those safes.

      Maybe once you start losing ISK you will fuck off from the system and go screw miners in another easier system yes?

      That's consequences at work in EVE finally!

    6. "Good! Then finally we can probe down your alt orca/POSes and blow it up. Keep rolling those safes. "

      um, the rebels can't even manage to blow up my retriever without failing and getting themselves concorded as I sit at 50% shields. How will they be able to gank an orca in highsec? You're really quite the joker.

  15. To be fair, the rape meme is fairly ingrained in the game. It is used as a metaphor by just about every PvP entity in the game. It probably shouldn't be used as such but that is an entirely different debate.

    Eve is an interesting beast. It is precisely the 'do whatever you want, give no fucks about anyone' nature of the game which attracts people to play - but those people who are attracted to it quickly become victims of it and leave.

    Eve needs to strike a balance and doing so would be incredibly difficult. How do you balance power without making it seem like you are making the game a carebear paradise?

    I believe the consequence side of the equation is the answer. Right now, dedicated suicide gank alts can do whatever they want - the consequence is minimal, they may actually profit...

    Or they can join corps and awox repeatedly.

    I support the ability to do these horrible things but I reckon the consequences need to be more severe. A single awoxer can end the game permanently for a bunch of new players who will quit the game - and all it cost the awoxer was a little bit of his time. This seems way out of kilter to me.

    1. +1 to you, Anonymous. You just missed taking it one step farther: EVE is an amoral game, but God help you if you remind EVE players of it, *particularly* the gankers and the high-sec war-dec'ers. They don't want to be written as the villains of the piece.

    2. Actually they love playing the villain, most of them. The step further is Perfect Safety advocates going down this road want a game with no bad guys because they want a game where nothing bad can happen.

      And there's 0 evidence that would benefit EVE in any way.

    3. You know its not just Eve. The winners raping and looting goes all the way back to b4 the vikings

    4. They love playing the villain as long as they never face any real consequences for their villainy. I don't think you need to implement "Perfect Safety" in order to force gankers and highsec wardeccers to assume more risk. If the increase in risk they're exposed to is aysmmetrical, that's fine, because the objectrectifying the present asymmetricality, which falls on the victim of the gank/war-dec.

    5. Alekseyev Karrde: Original Anon here - pretty sure I didn't advocate for complete safety in my post - just that there is a fundimental imbalance on the consequence side of the equation for gankers.

      I support and uphold the right of internet hardmen to be internet hardmen to 1 day old n00bs in a game of spaceships. I do not believe those internet hardmen should be able to repeatedly act like that without any consequence, especially when the consequence exacted on those newbs/industrialists will potentially impact on CCP's bottom line and indeed the game's future.

      Surely there is a middle road here....

    6. "it is precisely the 'do whatever you want, give no fucks about anyone' nature of the game which attracts people to play"
      Yes to the first half, hell no to the second half. That is a crappy ethical stand, out- or in-game. There's a lot more things about Eve that attract players than what you have listed here.

    7. Jester: "You just missed taking it one step farther: EVE is an amoral game, but God help you if you remind EVE players of it, *particularly* the gankers and the high-sec war-dec'ers. They don't want to be written as the villains of the piece."

      People are hardwired NOT to see themselves as villains. Either it's somebody else's fault, "shit happens", or they're doing a "greater good", either because :God: or :evolution:.
      Somehow I doubt even Hitler himself set out on his quest saying, "I am going to be the biggest DICK the world has EVER SEEN!!! bwahahahahaha!" There. Filled in your missing analogy for you, and Godwin is satisifed. ;-)

    8. I play EVE to be the bad guy.

      I get my "bad guy" out so it is easier to be a good guy in real life. I find I'm able to turn the other cheek much easier in real life because I can be horrible here.

      I do feel guilt for doing bad things to people in EVE - especially if I feel they may quit the game after - I will teach them if they have questions, I will encourage them to pay me back or even be bad like me one day to see what its like - and remind them I was once like them.

      It's all been done to me - had I been protected from this, I wouldn't have kept playing years ago

    9. I can understand the 1st two paras, but the last two paras . . .

      All I hear is my grandfather espousing his support for the beating of kids as method of teaching/hardening them up.

      I agree entirely that you have the right to be a evil in EVE. But, as has been said before, the current cost of evil actions is out of whack with the consequence of those actions.

    10. too much reward for being bad guys, too little to no rewards for being good guys.

  16. I was the target of a suicide gank early in my eve career, and it was devastating to me financially. However, I always made sure I had enough to rebuild, and I soon learned how to significantly decrease the odds of being bothered.

    I think this is the true key. You are never completely safe from harm, but there are very simple methods for avoiding attention. None of these require SP investments, and are easy to pick up on.

    For instance, as a young miner, I would make sure to avoid busy systems, and go find places off the beaten path. This not only resulted in better ores(or more of what I wanted), but less trouble from vagrants.

    The other method is "double wrapping" courier packages. I understand, this is a somewhat complicated method for a new player to pick up on, but with some help it's easy enough to do.

    Doing those two things alone reduce your chances of being harassed significantly. Yes you might need to be taught these things from other players, but there are plenty of corporations recruiting fresh noobs.

    1. That makes you the exception. The one that stayed. The other 99 guys all unsubscribed.

  17. In EVE, people use the term 'rape' on a daily basis. Especially to describe what Jester just wrote about. There are plenty of EVE bloggers who use the term. In this case Jester didn't actually use the term, but made you draw a conclusion, and there is nothing wrong with that.

    I wonder if you readers who are against the term 'rape' or the comparison, are just as adamant to hold the banner of righteousness, or intelligent conversation when your corp mates, alliance mates, or idiots in local start spewing racist, and homophobic epithets in chat or comms. Based on what I've seen. I'm going to say no.

    Jester, I'm surprised that you're re-reading Roots. Actually, I'm surprised that you're an EVE player and have actually read Roots to begin with. Very encouraging.

    1. See, rapecage, etc, are fairly offensive euphemisms. But they are euphemisms for murdering someone, which is worse than rape, probably? Both fairly horrible activities, but the comparison here is strictly ingame.

      In contrast, the analogy between the player being smarter and avoiding the fate of his pilot, and someone being raped, then implies a comparison between 'playing EVE, as a real life activity, in a smart way, or not so smart', and 'getting raped, as a real life activity, as a result of one's intelligence and avoidance strategies'. That's horribly offensive, thousands of times worse than the above one. surely you can see that? Now, you could argue that people who are reading this blogpost this way are in error, that Jester meant the latter comment to also be interpreted ingame. But how does that make sense? Is sexual assault possible ingame? Does the experience of the person behind the ingame pilot matter, in terms of ingame morality? Does ingame morality exist, and if so, is it uniform? Do pirates get judged on their own scale, according to their differing goals and methods? to me, none of these questions have reasonable answers, and the situation is clearly just that Jester, and you, have gotten ingame and outofgame 'morality' mixed up with each other, with disastrous results.

    2. My thought exactly. It seems like a lot of Eve players will use slurs/vulgarities for fun but once you use anything in a context to disagree with them it's GEEZ THAT'S INSENSITIVE.

      I've noticed it a lot when I've encountered players being sexist and call them on it they'll retort with, "No, you're the sexist because you think women can't defend themselves!" Non sequitur and totally stupid.

    3. "It seems like a lot of Eve players will use slurs/vulgarities for fun but once you use anything in a context to disagree with them it's GEEZ THAT'S INSENSITIVE."

      No one but you had used the word insensitive in these comments. The situation is more like this: Jester enjoys lowsec and nullsec gang pvp. I come in and say that "people who enjoy that kind of pvp probably are the kind of people who go shoot 20 schoolchildren in Pennsylvania. the only decent EVE players in real life, are the carebears" Would that be insensitive of me? Maybe, but more cogently, it's an utterly ridiculous analogy, and that ridiculousness is what people are objecting to, primarily.

      that's what Jester should be worried about. If these insanely illogical analogies are allowed to flourish, driving EVE in a direction away from its roots...ganking goes first, but low/null pvp as we know it goes next. This idea of aiming for the happy middle ground, so EVE can be a Harsh Cold Universe, but now with more newbie friendliness!--when has that ever worked? Tasteless middle of the road pablum has been tried, and it's failed, over and over again.

    4. @Rammstein

      You pretty much wrote a whole lot to make my point. Thank you.

    5. @Rammstein

      "...and the situation is clearly just that Jester, and you, have gotten ingame and outofgame 'morality' mixed up with each other, with disastrous results."

      In game it's not acceptable to spew racist and homophobic epithets. Nor is it acceptable in real life. Far too many EVE players attempt to use the logical fallacy of "in game and out of game morality" as a justification for the stupidity of their actions.

      Rammstein, I'm sure that you've either used the term 'rape' while in conversation with your corp or alliance mates to describe the killing of another capsuleer, and you thought it was acceptable...because it's "ingame". That terminology and justification for use is just as harmful as the actual gank itself.

      Why would anyone want to be involved with a culture of gamers that preys on the weak, spews racism, homophobia and crass sexism, yet at the same time tell themselves that it's okay because it's "in game"? Oh, wait. Based on subscription numbers I supposed I answered my own question.

    6. @Anonymous

      I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you one of the 30 other anonymous posters in this thread? if you're going to make multiple posts referring to each other, you might want to pick a new name. But...you're welcome, anyway.

    7. +1 to you, Sir ! Speaks my mind about the comments so far : bigotry.

  18. Jester, usually I like reading your site, but the rape thing was a bit much.

  19. I'm glad you enjoyed our conversation Jester - the result has been quite an amusing and eye opening evening! (Thanks again Alek!) :D

    I'm sure Alek would agree that in many ways the victims had enough power to prevent their own death by simply paying attention and moving away. If anyone I don't know comes near me while I'm mining I'm paying a lot of attention to them and wondering what their next move is. If I need to run I need to align and get ready to run if I think its going to go badly.

    So when people in high sec die its usually down to their inexperience or just being plain stupid - but then is it right to abuse that inexperience to our own advantage?

    One part of me says well yeah... its a tough universe and either you can learn how to protect yourself, take precautions and learn to accept the inevitable loss in EVE. If they quit then fine, they probably wouldn't have contributed anyway...

    The other part then says "Well these guys are gonna quit otherwise, surely that's bad for CCP and their income - less income means less cool stuff for us / me to play with"

    Should we protect the weak and hope that they flourish or do we watch them suffer and they either die or come through the experience much stronger than ever before?

    It would be interesting to know if any of the victims of that gank are still playing and if they would say that they are a better player because of it?

    I think most would agree that a gank isn't PvP - but I think we also have to consider that the victim isn't always completely powerless.

    So the question really is "Do we protect them from themselves?" Do we protect them from their own inexperience and poor judgement?

    Is it down to the players themselves or the game to try and educate players?

    "The weak ones are there to justify the strong" - The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson

    1. Very early in our eve careers, my brother and I decided we wanted to investigate the manufacturing and research side of EVE. We pooled the funds we had, purchased the necessary materials to start our new venture. We had selected a backwater system to use, plenty of manufacturing slots, even some research slots, and plenty of open moons for when we decided to expand. This was all before warp to 0, and while I was at work he decided to load up everything in a bestower and begin the 30-ish jumps. Halfway through the route he was suicided by a rupture. He had armor resistance mods, but poor skills, and was on autopilot.

      We had nearly everything we owned in that ship, not the best idea to be sure, and other mistakes were made, but it happened. I had a few months of experience in the game, and convinced him to not ragequit. We used his insurance, outfit a couple frigs, and ran missions to build up our cash. He played for about 3 years after that incident, then life got in the way.

      I worked with a guy who had his freighter ganked about four years ago. He had a one-man corp and was setting up for large courier contracts. For whatever reason he was wardeced and while moving his freighter to Jita he got ganked. He never payed much attention to his evemail, corp wars tab, or notifications, and had no experience at all with the war system. After losing his empty freighter he logged off and never returned.

      EVE is a social game, unlike many MMOs out there a player needs the social aspect to get very far. But there are some people who want to fly shiny spaceships, alone, against impossible odds in level 4 missions and win. They don't want to deal with corp drama, theft, or the other crap that can come with being in a group of real people. They just want to do their own thing, alone, and not be bothered by others. Is EVE for them? Maybe, maybe not. There's certainly a place for such people in EVE, but their learning curve it more like a learning cliff, and heaven help them if they attract the ire of someone who just wants to see tears.

  20. Undocking equals consent because that is the way the mechanics of the game are designed. Logging in WoW in Stormwind or Orgrimmar (or similar area not labeled "Contested") doesn't equal consent. Why? Wait for it... BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY THE MECHANICS OF THE GAME ARE DESIGNED.

    I would consider myself an ardent supporter, more often than not nodding in agreement as I read your columns, ready to throw my CSM votes your way. But, this argument is beyond "out of left field" -- it's from the next area code.

    Agree that the rape comparison was a really nice touch, too.

  21. I was recently in a new corp that was war dec'd by a griefer corp. This corp had war decs against 6 corps that were all less that a month old. I can't speak for the other corps but in ours, 90% of the players had been playing for less than a month. Thanks to the war dec mechanics these griefers could fly around all day popping players who had no idea what they were doing. So, the first question that popped into my head was why can the declare war on 6 corps at one time? Why can't high sec war decs be limited to one corp at a time? Also, 50 mil? Really? I'd think having the opportunity to grief an entire corp of clueless new players would be worth at least 500 mil. Especially if you're a skilless pvp'er who can't get his kills any other way.

    1. Murdering 12 members of the Caldari empire in a senseless act of violence is an act of war and you would be dealt with as such. Personally, I think these actions should have consequences.

      If your corporation or alliance is responsible for enough high-sec deaths or crime, then the Empire responsible for the space conducts warfare on you and your corporation. This means random spawns on you anywhere you are, even sovereign space incursions where no POS is safe.

      Actions like suicide ganking should have long term repercussions in Empire space, not just a simple concordokken.

    2. Just some thoughts and controversial suggestions:
      - All corporations (including NPC) have an affiliation to the various empire factions (maybe based on office location).
      - Ganking pilots from those corporations in highsec (not at war or part of FW) will lower the ganker's standings with the affilated empire faction. Eventually they will become outlaws and will not be able to dock at the faction's stations.
      - Outlaws can still operate in that faction's space but only in deep space via the use of mobile bases (add it CCP!)/orca/pos.
      - The pirate associated systems will allow outlaws to dock without any problems and come with pirate sentry guns on stations/gates to "keep the peace". No bubbles in those systems (e.g. Guristas pirates own the system, and will shoot you if you make trouble on their home turf). A pirate trade hub becomes a possibility? Yes!
      - Faction police shall no longer hunt outlaws down in deep space or asteroid belts/sites, only engage them at gates/stations/planets.
      - Faction police sentry guns shall have their damage ramp up over time to make tanking of gate/station guns forever impossible (so that a huge force of pirates can run amok in the system but never lock down a pipe/system - no "rape cage" or station siege scenarios should occur with this provision. Allow damage to reset after a duration where no outlaws are present on grid at the gate/station)

      - Concord shall be removed from systems below 1.0 sec status (omg!). New starter systems shall retain Concord and be upgraded to 1.0 status with a single exit gate to an highsec system. To prevent old accounts from hiding in 1.0 systems forever, characters over 1 month ingame playtime shall have their assets+character ejected to the highsec system's station next door and be unable to jump into the starter systems. (gate lock)

      - Since the outlaws must now field bases,logistics and POSes they have high value assets and supply chain that inhabitants of the system may attack to remove/hinder the outlaws' operations in the area.
      - Uncovering the location and identity of the gankers' logistic assests (if they use alts)/bases supports a viable sub profession akin to information brokers. Make characters assisting outlaws lose standings/sec status eventually?
      - Mercs will find ample employment opportunities (and recruits) to take part in the conflicts springing up throughout New Eden.
      - Overtime, corps and alliances will stake claims to highsec system, not via sov mechanics but via real action (e.g. policiing the system, attacking pirate bases that move into their home to create a safer environment for their PVE activities).
      - There will once again be benefit to join player corps (mutual protection) and communities will develop in many of the systems where lots of players "live" in.

      tldr; make highsec into a modified lowsec with significant changes to certain game mechanics. Change how gate/station camping works in highsec. Let "home" mean something to players. Let EVE be the real wild wild west where safety is found in communities.

  22. There's really no argument about whether veteran players killing two week-old players are being dicks. They are, and all the "Eve is a sandbox" rationalizations don't change that one iota. I think the question Jester is asking is this: is player retention important enough to limit a vet's ability to do things that will likely drive a new player out of the game?

    The answer is obviously yes. Anyone that argues so vehemently for the "freedom" to shit on someone with a trial subscription is only defending his juvenile power fantasies, and gives no thought to the *consequences* he sees so fit to crow about.

    1. Ganking people on trial accounts? Are you referring to something specific? Your post reads like a giant strawman, since i didn't see any references in Jester's original post to ganking trial account players. there was a long example with retriever and mack pilots...trial accounts can't fly those ships.

  23. Never saw the thrill of beating someone that has no chance of winning, much less fighting back. But to each his own.

  24. 2 months into the game, with no external help in any form, I was griefing, scamming, robbing and podding people.

    The people who are the "victim" in Eve very much create that situation for themselves, and should be punished for it. Both your examples had an innate victim scenario (slaves, female rape victims) yet in Eve, we are all created literally equal on day one. We don't have to huff and bluff, postulate and cry about whether its bad to "prey on the weak" -- because there are no such players. At least, not without having put themselves there.

    And of course, your article is hideous in equating rape and slavery to a player losing pretend ships in a game.

    Lose the false emotive argument, please.

    1. Let's say we both created a new character and you trained gunnery/pvp skills while i trained science/industry skills.

      One month later you blew me up in space while i am hauling PI/datacores.

      All things being equal - number of accounts, characters, sp progression etc, pray tell how did i deserve to be "punished" for pursuing a different (and legitimate) career in the game?
      Your real message seems to be saying, play EVE the way i envision it should be or get fucked.

      I think that's incredibly shallow.
      Psst - btw, if i deserve to get blown up for training industry instead of gunnery, whats your deserved punishment for training gunnery instead of industry? (hint: none, not even isk income cause you would loot it off my wrecks via salvage and drops)

      Maybe i should get friends to fly escort? Yeah... maybe but remember this is a 1-1 comparison. Might as well say i should run 5 accounts instead?

    2. "One month later you blew me up in space while i am hauling PI/datacores."

      And exactly why would I want to do this? Were you in lowsec, nullsec, WH space? Were you carrying such a large number in highsec that ganking you was profitable? Do I have a grudge with you?

      There's no part of that wherein you haven't made yourself the victim. I've been "the victim" more than once, and each time it was my fault it happened. The difference is I didn't blame other people or game mechanics, or cry that something other than myself should have helped me.
      Here's me exploring a WH and being ganked as a newbie: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=12700881
      Here's me being can-baited as a newbie: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=12763747
      Here's me losing a wardec fight: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=12791844
      Here's another: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=13049995
      I also once lost ~700mil to a market scam, when buying in a hurry and just not checking. I could go on, and on.

      Nothing about this is "play EVE the way i envision it should be or get fucked" except that there are certain realities in an open-world sandbox, that people content to be the victim won't accept.

      If you can't protect what you have, hire someone to do it. If you can't do either, expect to lose it.

    3. You'll never understand until you get past these ideas of "punished" and "deserve".

    4. Rubbish.

      The fact remains that can blow me up if you feel like it.
      Why? Because your suicide destroyer costs way less than my hauler+cargo. It IS profitable for you. The only difference is how much profit - 1mil isk is also a profit. Don't tell me about 1mil being a waste of time. Your ganking is like putting a hand into a meat grinder that is switched off with the power cord cut off. Boring perhaps, pointless perhaps, but NO RISK.

      The amount of isk and time you need to put on the table to explode me is minimal. For me to hit you back i need to either spend way more isk to hire mercs (who may not honor contracts), or spend way more real hours to train gunnery skills, or spend way more cash to get a SECOND account to train gunnery skills. See the imbalance in time/resources required?

      Assuming i want to spend those resources/time to escalate and get revenge as per what EVE advertised (consequences right?) And i realize your gank character is an alt? How do i hurt your main back in return? (can't identify him) I can't screw with your alt's income (gets isk from main via wallet) nor can i shoot him in the station (undock, gank, wait out timers, dock)! Duh!

      btw, you said this:
      "... the "victim" in Eve very much create that situation for themselves, and should be punished for it."

      Other players that did not pursue gunnery training are by GAME DESIGN, weaker in combat - its a legit path advertised by CCP. The industry player did not make a "mistake" and sure as hell should not be treated to a "you deserve it" pie in the face.

      (Obviously this does not apply to old characters who had way enough time to cross train mind you).

  25. This is something I've argued before.

    I agree strongly that suicide ganking is a broken mechanic, even still today (although it seems less of an epidemic now).

  26. "This sort of thing happens every single day in EVE and most of us have just come to accept it -- and the cost it wreaks in player unsubs -- as part of the game."

    So, what exactly are the stats on players that unsub because of ganking. If you don't have actual numbers for this -- and numbers for other games for comparison -- you lose the point.

    1. Oh probably very few to be honest. I've suicide ganked the same miners sometimes 4x in the same week, and they're back out there again the next day, same exact spot, same exact tankless fit. They never learn, they just keep grinding on.

    2. The "unsub" argument is a giant red herring. 10 years of ganking, scamming, and general asshattery have seen growth, not decline.

    3. how many of that growth was from same person, multiple accounts? Hope CCP will release data on it soon heh.

  27. But ganking IS for their benefit, Jester.

    We, the Knights of the New Order of the Code of Halaima, will put an end to AFK mining. We are committed to take whatever loses CONCORD deems fit in order to police and clean up high sec.

    Botter and the Bot aspirants will, by Holy Antimatter, be purged!

    All praise to James 315 and the new Order!

    1. I remember James 315 when he was a penny-ante extortionist.

      Protection schemes and extortion rackets are a perfectly viable gameplay choice, but attempts to cloak them in righteuosness?

      At least the Goons don't pretend to be heroes.

    2. The 10m ISK is merely a token of submission to the Code. The Code is what is important, and not the measly 10m ISK / year that it requires.

      If a player cannot afford the 10m ISK for a whole year's worth of permit, he can get a 24 hour indulgence by requesting the Questions Three.

      If you go to the website, you will see that our actions are funded by billions donated by supporters of James 315.

      We are not in this for the ISK ... in fact we are burning all that ISK donated by plowing it into gank ships for Knights.

      We are here to enforce the Code, and to make Hisec a better place for all. By Holy Antimatter will these AFK and non-compliant miners be purged!

      All praise James 315 and the New Order!

    3. Hi there Anonymous.

      You have severely misunderstood the entire point of the New Order of Highsec and James' role as Saviour of Highsec and Wizard of Laughter.


    4. The point one intends to make is not always the point one actually makes.

      I'll grant that the delusions of grandeur may be an act.

      But even if the amount demanded is a token, all the elements of extortion are right there in the original demand: "giev me 1 mil or I bump".

      "Extortion. The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. 18 U.S.C.A. §871 et seq.; §1951."

      - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (1990).

  28. This is precisely why I've quit playing Eve. Without an existing power-base, it is literally impossible to build one. Say what you want about how I'm a carebear bitch, 10v1 is an impossible battle and this is the result of pretty much any small scale engagement or gank. No amount of planning can avoid the result, only minimize losses.

    1. scout: 10 enemy's jumpping in.

      0 losses......just saying......

  29. I've been playing for about 4 months, I'm in an Indy corp of about the same age, we've been wardecced twice. I haven't lost a ship and corp losses have been minimal.

    Does that mean we docked up? No! What it does mean is that we changed our usual habits based upon what we could learn from killboards etc of the SOP of the wardeccers.

    This has had a number of positive effects, we are doing different things in different areas, it's a big universe and it's nice to see a bit more of it! We are getting into the habit of checking local regularly because even if we are in a safer area, it's still not actually safe.

    Overall it's expanding and enhancing our EVE experience.

    1. Tell us who you are, instead of posting anonymously, and we'll "enhance" your experience further... lol.

    2. How did you find out about killboards? How did you work out what to change? What is this checking local thing? What are you even looking for in local?

      I've done the tutorial and I must have missed this whole section!

    3. @Anonymous 4.10am It's funny seeing seeing someone who's posting anonymously whining about me doing it...lol

      @Anonymous 6.15am I read the forums, I checked out the eve uni wiki and googled a bit. There's a ton of info and guides out there, but if you can't be bothered even looking...

  30. Look its simple freedom isnt free. If you want a game like eve with so much freedom of choice there are going to be victims. That is freedoms dirty little secret you are free to fall flat on your face and fail. And in eve much like real life these failures make or break people. I been playing for about 6 years now and in the first 2 or 3 years i cant count the number of times i lost everything i had. But now i have trillions and I cant remember the last time i had to pay for my subs. Maybe I am just a sick sick person but that difficulty and the fact that it is still entirely possible for me to lose everything are pry the only reasons i keep playing. That said EVE is pretty hard core its never gonna be a game for everyone. I personally think there are plenty of things that can be done to make the game better without watering down what makes Eve Eve. Personally I think CCP has been headed in this direction better UI better T1 ships make pvp cheaper. There are plenty of hard core MMO players out there and thats where CCP should stay focused.

  31. Not sure what the issue is. It's a full PvP game. Nothing you do is entirely risk free in the game even in highsec. Miners get destroyed everyday. Part of the reason EVE is so popular is due to the game mechanics and the full sandbox nature of the game.

    It doesn't take that long to deck out characters with a solid skill set. A 3 month old player can be just as viable as a 4 year veteran with the support of a solid corp and some focus.

    Watch some dev videos and listen to their constant reference to carebears in EVE and their mission which is to drag players out of their safe space bubbles in highsec. There are so many ways to earn easy money in this game and that doesn't include grinding roids using a Retriever at 4 mill a load every day.

  32. Personally my opinion is that EVE must remain a game where any player can be killed in space by others anywhere. I very much prefer suicide ganking to exist as a method for players to "get even" or deliver consequences to other players but not as a "profitable" profession.

    Simply put, the risk and cost balance for both sides involved in a suicide gank needs to be adjusted. An even better outcome (which should reduce suicide ganks frequency) would be if CCP introduces mechanics that allow for highsec piracy (like privateers,not restricted to wardecs or FW) but that is remote indeed..

    I think Jester brings up valid points in his article, a pity that some readers here choose to be fixated on the "rape" thing.

  33. A rapist and a slaver, good thing I like ebony skin.

    Question is, is it still rape when she's my property though?

    (firmly tongue in cheek. (And no that is not a rimming joke!))

  34. Great post and great analogies (implied or otherwise).

    To anyone who has posted here and used the word 'equate' with regard to players & rape. Please go buy a dictionary and use it. Thanks.

  35. Wow, some people need to get out more. This was a collection of a lot of valid points and still people are talking about the 'rape' analogy. This is a word which is used very lightly in Eve. So all you people who have such strong moral compasses need to just breathe deep and count to 10.

    Also, there have been more than a few instances where people ingame refer to themselves as terrorists, murderers etc. Ofcourse, it's all meant to be taken only in the spirit it was intended.

  36. I can blog too baby

  37. I have to agree with the statement "ganking isn't PVP".

    Ganking - and wardeccing - noobs is just ridiculous, and it isn't PVP anymore than shooting puppies with a shotgun is hunting.

  38. Hello Jester,

    I read your blog as time permits me, and although I rarely comment, today I will as the subject is directly relevant to me and my playstyle.

    The question of whether or not suicide gankers, griefers, thieves, etc, are "justified" is, to me, a moot question. It doesn't *matter* because a justification is not needed. Only a motivation.

    I have a character running a Procurer right now, mining away at a modest rock of Massive Scordite for some very modest profit. His ship is properly tanked, sacrificing a little yield for more survivability, because I know that the gankers are out there, and I know what sorts of targets they are looking for. Instead of whining about the external environment (which I cannot control), I adapt myself to it, and succeed.

    This miner of mine currently has some Medium Core Defense Field Extenders I's on the market and I've calculated that, if I can pull in at least 50 million ISK a day from Industrial activities, I can PLEX both of my accounts and have some ISK left over to save. Right now, as I mine, my task is researching the market to see what I can comfortably sell to earn that money.

    Reading this you may think "Oh, this industrious fellow is one of the workerbees of EVE; a veritable carebear hard at work grinding out ISK in an honest fashion and keeping the wheels of economy turning." Well, you would only be half right.

    My other character is a -10 criminal who I have often used to suicide gank other miners when not running around FW space antagonizing war targets. Sure, she used to fly Freighters, Viators, and Orcas until she unfortunately had a string of drunk poddings and lost Gallente Industrial V. I never bothered to retrain the skill. Now that the first toon I spoke about can fly his own Viators and Freighters, she doesn't need to, and she better serves me training her PvP skills.

    Do I perform industrial activities, and make ISK off of it? Yes I do. Am I also a thief, a griefer, and a suicide ganker? Yes I am. I do both. Why?

    Because EVE Online is a game and I can. I play an immortal demigod who can control ships **with his mind**. I can do whatever I want, from running an Industrial empire to flying Avatars and destroying entire fleets of carriers. I don't need any justification for killing your mining barge beyond "it was there and I wanted to." If you don't like it - well, I'm sorry. You know I'm out there hunting you. You can reduce your chances of getting ganked by having ECM drones orbiting your barge. You can also fit a DCUII and some shield rigs to make yourself an even less desirable target. Or you can cry when you get ganked and demand that CCP hold your hand and make HiSec even more safe.

    The thing is, EVE Online is a game of cat and mouse. But here's the rub; **you** decide if you're going to be the cat or the mouse. Unlike the rape victims in your distasteful comparison, being a victim in EVE Online is **absolutely** your own choice.

    Anyone who wants to argue over this, tell me I'm a "psychopath", a terrible person, "I have no right" etc - I don't care. EVE Online affords me the freedom to play however I want, and that is exactly what I'm doing and will continue to do.

    1. That's an interesting question. I'm not sure I have adequate exposure in the community.

    2. Good for you Justin.
      Did those you suicide-ganked know who your main revenue generating character is?

      Once those non-afk miners/industrialists you exploded with your -10 ganker alt have an actual and meaningful target for revenge, i hope you will continue to champion this mindset.

  39. All these people playing a game that simulates killing other people acting outraged at rape and slavery metaphors. LMAO!

    The game itself utilizes slavery, kidnapping and rape in the background story and missions. Why don't all you outraged players petition CPP for their apparent insensitivity?

    1. CCP is clearly insentive, or have a lack of understanding of any culture outside of their own existence.

      Why in the world would the only 'black' race in the game (Minmatar, Brutor bloodline) somehow become enslaved 20,000 years into the future? And not enslaved by an 'alien' race, but effectively white (Amarr) oppressors. The folks who wrote the EVE lore could have done better than that.

      Somebody didn't think that one through.

    2. @Tiye Q - As a scientist it's hard for me to address you post since there is no actual thing as "race", and phenotypical classifications for people tend to fall on a fuzzy spectrum. However, looking at both the Minmatar and the Amarr -

      Amongst the Amarr you have the Khanid, who are Asiatic in appearance. You also have the Ni Kunni, who appear a bit eastern European (did you know that not all Europeans are white, didja didja?).

      Amongst the Minmatar you have the Sebiestor, who are distinctly white (English punk rockers?), and the Vherokior who are Asiatic (perhaps Cambodian).

      Only the "True Amarr" and the "Brutor" fit your statement. As far as "CCP lacking any understanding of any culture outside of their own existence" - I'm unaware of any history of Iceland where they owned African or "non-white" slaves? Perhaps you're aware of this and I am not - in which case, can you point me to the appropriate reference? Thanks.

      (Also I would like to point out that you can now apply any skin tone to any character in the character creator)

  40. I think this particular issue with ganking is getting mixed up with the war mechanics and probably needs some clarification.

    In many ways this is a reply to Aleks post about our adventures last night (http://noirmercs.com/entry.php?62-8-Things-Perfect-Safers-Can-Learn-From-Airports) but is also relevent here.

    Firstly I don't think anyone is saying that EVE should be perfectly safe - Alek and everyone else is right that if EVE had any sort of completely safe zone the game would die very quickly.

    Also I think we should clarify the terminology a little here as well:

    Gank (ie, NOT at war):

    When we say "ganking isn't PvP" we don't mean the mechanics of PvP, I think what were trying to say is that ganking isn't in the spirit of a competative player vs player fight. A gank is usually a completely one directional where the defender has little or no chance of survival.

    Now to me ganking IS very important in a game like this, and we shouldn't discount the amount of skill and risk involved in pulling off a successful gank. This isn't as simple as a playground bully pushing over the first little kid they come across, most good high sec ganks require a lot of investigation, scouting and co-ordination to pull off enough DPS to bring the target down before CONCORD shows up. They also need to be clever enough to understand that the risk and loss of their own ships is outweighed by the benefit that the gank will take and so a bad ganker will go broke if they never picked good targets.

    Even the 'not so good' ganks that you see or read about where its completely one sided and looks like the kill is of little or no benifit to the ganker than just tears the victim still has enough tools available to do a half decent job of getting away. Most of these 'bad ganks' come down to bots, people using autopilot in hostile space or simply being afk and as such I think we'd all agree that they are completely avoidable and therefore the victim has no real excuse for complaining when they turn into an egg and level up.

    I like to think of this as the same as walking around the bad parts of town showing off your brand new iPhone 19h gigawhatzit. If you don't take care then sooner or later someone will want what you have and they feel that it is an acceptable risk to try and take it from you - so either accept that fact and take some steps to avoid it, or wait to get your stuff nicked.

    High sec essentially means 'safe enough, but don't push it'

  41. PvP (ie, NOT at war):

    General PvP on the other hand is something that is or should be understood well enough for the player to take the expected risks and rewards into consideration. If you want to mine in low sec then expect some attention sooner or later. Even new players get a nice little pop up box telling them that low sec is bad mmmkay and if they ignored that message then more the fool them.

    Again I don't think anyone would say that they want to remove this sort of PvP activity as it is the backbone of all elements of EVE, both positive and negative.

    War (Mutual)

    Pretty much the same as PvP except it includes high sec. If your in a corp that is in a mutual war then you should be well aware of what that means and how it affects you. No complaints from anyone here.

    War (non-mutual):

    Now this is the point where Jesters blog got a little mixed up as the article started off discussing a high sec gank and lead into his history with being war deced and while both involve PvP they are still very different animals.

    Alek you said that its right that not all businesses are underwritten to prevent failure and I agree completely - failure is usually an important element to success and some of the wealthist people in the world have lost everything at one point or another.

    You also said that if a indy corp wants to push someone out of their terriroty then they can just declare war on them and shoot them out - but I think you'd find that most indy corps would find other ways of pushing out the competition either by sucking up all the rocks or by undercutting the competiton.
    I would think that if anyone would be beaten at their own game, fair and square really cannot complain. They can either compete for the area, live on whatever scraps are left behind or move on.

    So just as a shop that is in competition with other retailers if they get beaten by the competition they need to keep up or admit defeat - again they can't complain if they've been beaten fair and square.

    War on the other hand isn't fair and its impossible to 'make it fair' within the current mechanics. In the business analogy its the same as sending some tough guys around to your competition to wreck their office and steal all their stuff - if the competition had no way to compete then its not very fair and most governments wouldn't like it if you went around simply destorying your competition as it would lead to lower income from taxes and a potential monolopy company who could charge what they liked without competition to drive prices down.

    The non-mutual wars in EVE is like having a a group of wrestlers waiting outside a school for young children to come out and then kicking them over. Yes they can fight back but what are they going to do, kick you in the shins? And yeah, maybe the experiance will toughen them up and they'll come back stronger and take them down, but its unlikely.

    Its been said that most of EVE comes down to player choice. You chose to pimp out that battleship with officer mods, and so you can't complain when someone wants to gank you for them. You chose not to keep an eye out, go AFK or run away when a suspicious ship came into your belt and so can't complain when you get ganked. You chose to jump into hostile space and can't complain when someone wants to shoot you down for the fun of it. You knew (or should have known) the risks going into it and therefore you have no right to complain.

    The non-mutual war situation however is when that choice has been made for you. All space is now hostile space and all those things you used to enjoy are now too risky.

    The decision has been made for you and your choices are limited - run or fight; Adapt or die - it sounds very EVE in its simplicity.

    Its a tough choice for anyone, but maybe too much for new players who can't see any more choices other than L1s in the same area they started in. Again it comes down to education of newer players either through the game itself or from the more experianced players?

    1. What if CCP simply removed the non-mutual war mechanics? Suicide ganks I don't have an issue with - it makes hauling interesting. But the non-mutual war mechanics seem to mostly consist of tough guys getting open-season to pick on weak guys, and then immediately docking up if it looks like they might be threatened. I don't see that they add much to the game.

      The big issue I can see is POS removal. Some random ideas:
      (1) on-grid (or within, say, 2000 km) with a POS is considered low-sec.
      (2) you can war-dec a POS. After the spool-up time, you can attack the POS at-will, but you receive no CONCORD protection (effectively suspect flagged) while within 2000km of it.

  42. Jester launches his run for CSM8 by kicking a hornet's nest with a steel-toed boot. I'm impressed.

    My argument starts with a factual disagreement: The argument that "you consent to PVP when you log in (or undock)" does not always come from people with all the advantages. I've used it, too, and my killboard is a string of harsh lessons. It's a mantra I repeat every time I undock in some slow, helpless tin can industrial (which is all of them, now). It's why my personal fleet is resolutely T1, except for a couple of frigates.

    I don't believe that ~forcing~ people to play a certain way is desirable. You can provide incentives. You can educate. You can persuade. But if people have figured out how to grief in WoW, and they have, then they're going to figure out how to grief in EVE.

    I don't want to see less ganking. The possibility of a gank is pretty much the only excitement that loading and flying an industrial will ever have, and also, it's EVE. What I would like to see less of is the rape metaphor. I don't mean Jester's use of it, I mean the mindset he was getting at, which uses rape as a metaphor quite freely. I would like to see less victim-blaming. I've read plenty of posts from mercs and pirates who took the time to talk to the people they just blew up, especially if they were new, and who ended up helping their "victims" get into the game a lot more than the crap that passes for a tutorial. I wish I'd run into one of those myself, instead of the single evemail filled with sneering condescension (and zero information) that is the sum total of my correspondence with attackers.

    This is not something that I, or anyone, can possibly require. I'm not waving the EULA around, or anything coercive like that. I'm just saying, when your ship blows up another ship, do you need to feel that you as a person have compromised the other person? Or can you talk to them as a peer and fellow player whose avatar lost to yours? If not, fine. If so, think about it. In EVE, other players are the bulk of the new player experience. We get to determine what it is. That's a freedom, and therefor a responsibility.

    1. "I would like to see less victim-blaming."

      This is where the rape comparison goes awry. In real life, rape victim-blamers (rape apologists) are often speaking from a perspective of sexism and misogyny. In EVE Online, however, the "victim-blaming" is actually a backlash to all the whiners calling for rule changes, saying that the game "*SHOULD*" be a certain way, and implying that the people who are playing the games well within the constraints put in place by CCP are the ones who are wrong.

    2. In EVE Online the call for CCP to review suicide ganking is a backlash to all the suicidal wankers constantly putting their boots to carebears' faces and mocking them after exploding 100-200mil mining ships with a mere 15-30mil investment.

    3. Misogyny doesn't explain male-on-male rape (think about the in-game use of "surprise buttsex," or in the case of one corp's name, "sudden buggery"), or the uncommon but extant female-on-male rape. Rape is fundamentally an assertion of dominance and power over another person.

      With that in mind, let's give Richard Bartle a visit. From [http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm]:

      "Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves on others. [...] The more massive the distress caused, the greater the killer's joy at having caused it. [The killer may adopt the conventions of the other types, but it's] all just means to an end [...]; only in the knowledge that a real person, somewhere, is very upset by what you've just done, yet can themselves do nothing about it, is there any true adrenalin-shooting, juicy fun."

      But Dersen, you say, they can do something about it! Well, that's theoretically true, but quite complicated in practice. Killers in EVE will only strike in situations where the target *feels* helpless (e.g., in something that can't shoot back, or fight effectively), and the victim-blaming is designed to reinforce that feeling of helplessness. It has nothing to do with whining about rule changes--though that is a proven way to attract the attention of killers specifically and gankers generally, because all you're doing is certifying that you are a fountain of tears. The goal of victim-blaming is to convince the target that it's all on them. They brought it on themselves. Their helplessness and their pain is their fault, and the killer is just a consequence, not an actor with a motive. It's gaslighting, basically. No wonder the targets feel that their only recourse is to petition CCP and whine about rule changes. Killers are very good at instilling that feeling of helplessness, because that's how they get their rush. If you take your lumps and fight back (only to find the killer isn't around, because they don't play to be killed), or just fly off silently, they've failed.

      Re: The dilemma that Jester is considering, consider this: EVE was built expressly to accommodate killers, and (per Bartle) killers drive off other kinds of players (specifically, achievers and socials) if they become too numerous. That's the nub of the problem. As the date on Bartle's work proves, it's much older than EVE is. I'm not going to pretend that I have a solution to that problem. It's a difficult question.

  43. ...been thinking about writing a post in much "worse" taste, using recent events and current RL political discourse to make EVE a little more "real" vis a vis this "safe hisec" stuff...at least to Murricans.

    "You Don't Need An Assault Ship in Hisec".
    Coming soon to a terribad blog near you.

  44. More often than not I agree with you. Not this time. I am a firm believer in learning through experience, and if I wanted a different experience I'd play a different game. I've never bought a character - just the one account I've trained up myself. Got blown up by both rats and players in the first months of playing, and learned how to not be an idiot for doing so. And thus, you learn to avoid, grow, and become stronger and more successful.

    "So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak."
    - Sun Tzu

  45. I'm sorry mate, but I think this kind of thinking is wrong. EVE has always been a PvP game that is designed to be hard on you, it's one of it's key features that keeps it exciting and different from any other game out there.

    I am also sorry to say that after this post and chain of thought, you will no longer be getting votes from me for CSM.

  46. I am surprised to see that several in this threat actually agreed with your ludicrous assertion that ganking is not PVP.

    Words have meanings. Player versus player. Gankees are players. If you want to assert that ganking is not difficult, or nice, or fair, or whatever -- fine. Kumbaya. But please don't try to push the idea that gankees are not players. They are. I take heart in seeing many of the later posters in this thread remind you of that.

  47. You consent to PvP the moment you undock , such has been eve since the beginning consensual pvp is nonsense , if it is implemented why just stop at miners and freighters? why not also protect people roaming around in lowsec if they get ambushed by a bigger fleet?
    or maybe protect a titan that accidently hit jump instead of bridge?
    That is not EVE stop trying to change the game to suit your need and learn how to play the game as is like the rest of us who manage to pvp , mine and haul stuff without high loses when I loose a barge or a freighter yeah sure I am pissed but its part of the game and I love it.
    Highsec pvp has been nerfed enough already, why should an AFK miner be invincible ? hell why should a mining ship have more thank that a combat ship ? that doesn't make any sense people who are smart don't afk all the time survive.
    new players like all of us when we first started adapt and learn to play EVE and accept the fact that people in local want to hurt you
    either via guns or contracts.

  48. My opinion is that ganking is a good and desirable game mechanic. I play a harsh, unforgiving game where just by getting by I am playing at a higher level than level 80 endgame in any other MMORPG. And this includes 10 year old vets ganking 1 week newbs.

    Put another way: I seek excellence. If just anyone can play a game, it's probably not right for me.

    Yes, there is a cost to this: many players who think that for them EVE can be a cuddly place are ruthlessly educated. No kumbaya for you! Then they HTFU -- or they leave. It's a pity they have to leave; more players would be nice for several reasons. But it's necessary. What's important is the filter effect. The survivors make EVE the place it is, which is what I want to be.

  49. Although I am a follower of this blog for a very long time, I was surprised to see that I've missed that oct 2011 post you linked.

    I was even more surprised to see that all of that post's proposals involved punishment as a method of turning the tables around.

    Although I agree with you on general principles, I find today's post highly political in nature, and frankly, a very easy (and somewhat cheap) way to deal with a problem of this magnitude.

    I am fairly certain, that there are more imaginative ways to 'fix stuff' in a way that creates a whole lot less of ripples on the game's general social group. Unless you are interested in purging a large part of it.

    I would aim for a solution heavier on actual positive reinforcement of said 'afflicted group' and lighter on omission training of your 'predators'. It can be done. That is, giving to one, without taking from another.

  50. I have to say as a less than year old player I simply must disagree with this. I've died, I've killed, I still have less than 10 million SP and I hardly feel disadvantaged. There are some types of players who are prepared for this game and some who aren't.

    You're completely right, older players hold all the cards; but for new players turning the tables is a matter of little effort. Making friends, learning the metagame, is all something that you'll have to do at SOME point, and why bother playing the game if you don't?

    Although I'm not a big fan of the movement, James 315's response to this article was very well-stated at his website. I like your articles, Jester, but I really don't agree with this one.

  51. I started out in EVE in 2008. I got podded inside of my first hour. For me it sealed the deal: this is my kind of place. I didn't wait for the trial to end, I bought the full license after three days because I wanted to be able to fly industrials.

    I have been a miner for years. I lost 3 Orcas, I have no idea how many Hulks I lost, I haven't bother to keep track of anything less. At what time have I considered stopping mining or quitting EVE altogether? Absolutely never.

    This piece is on the desirability of non-consensual PVP. It is not about desirability, it is about the fact that it is an essential ingredient in the game. EVE thrives on conflict, blowing ships up is part of that. If you don't like the shaking of the screen or the loud noises, maybe this is not the place for you.

    If you're in trouble with a war-deccing corp, you need to learn to deal with it. If you get blapped by a fleet, you need to learn how to deal with it. If you find yourself overwhelmed by a ganker, you need to learn how to deal with it. The key part, the essential part of EVE is that you learn to deal with adversity. That is how you get better. You don't deal with adversity by picking up your ball and going home. You need to learn to deal with how the place works.

    I am a miner. I have lost more mining ships than most of the posters here. I do not want EVE to become safer. It is way too safe as it is.

    The most important argument here is: maybe you don't like how the place works or you can't be bothered to learn how to deal with it. And that's fine, it's perfectly ok. EVE is not for everybody. Many people leave because they can't deal with losing 250 mil worth of ship and fitting. You have the liberty to not have to like it. What I don't want though is that these players are going to tell me how to play and what I should like. I learned how to deal with it. So can you.

    When I started, a Hulk was 90 - 100 million ISK. Tritanium was 1.1 ISK/unit. Hulks now cost between 250 - 300 mil sans fitting. Tritanium is between 5 and 6 ISK, market depending. That means that, even with the risen cost of Hulks, it is now easier and faster to replace a Hulk that went Kablooie. Don't act as if losing your Hulk means the end of the world for the player. Don't act as if you're a poor defenceless baby who can't learn to fend for himself.

    I have lost many Hulks, I'll no doubt lose many more. I don't even care about losing Hulks anymore. You know what I do when I lose a Hulk? I dock up, get a new Hulk, put a fit on it and go back to the belt. The first Hulk was a drama, it's true. The Hulk was shockingly expensive [at 92 mil] and number 4 was just unfair [got stuck in the belt]. You know what? It doesn't matter.

    Don't whine about non-consensual PvP. Don't ask for a safer EVE. EVE is great the way it is. You get to shoot back in EVE. What are you going to do? Train mining skills for 5 years? I've got news for you: before you know it, you're going to have great combat skills because that's what you're going to end up learning anyway. You get better over time. You can't help getting better over time.

    You know what to do when you lose a ship: get another one and carry on.

    Learn how to deal with the environment.

    If you -really- can't learn how to deal with the environment, and there will be those people, it's real easy. Close your account, go do something else and don't be in the way of the people who want to be there and who want to learn what to do and what not to do in EVE Online.

    When you hit the 'Undock' button, gentlemen, the ship is lost. I don't agree that it's a 'consent' button for PvP, but it is the reality of the place. When you hit 'Undock' you have to consider the ship lost.

    If you can't deal with that simple reality of EVE, it is not the place for you and please, very seriously, don't tell the people who understand what they're doing how to play the game.


    1. As you are speaking, my high sec corporation gets the fourth war declaration in a row since december.
      ....6 weeks of permanent war, newbies leaving us, the corp itself deviding in a secure 0 sec branch (in the catch region) and a potion of players using their NPC alts.

      Each time a war ends the portion of returning player gets smaller. The corp chat of casual play is plain dead now and i am starting to feel that about 80% of my corp mates are gonna choose "eve is not for them".

    2. But here's the thing though. Your condition is not new. You are not the first guy this ever happened to. Your corporation is special in the fact that it got war decced in no way whatsoever.

      Other people had the same problem. They found a way around it. Try different things, find a way to piss off your opponent.

      My newbie corp got war decced too once. The guy was sitting at the undock, just waiting for me to leave the station. He had all the patience in the world.

      I had a conversation with him later on. He had been waiting for hours, doggedly hanging on.

      I had been asleep for 7 hours. I wasted his day.


      I talked to other people, learned about how EVE works, I studied the market. I bought some fits. I engaged the guy and got my ass kicked.

      What I did not do, and what you might have, is whine about it. Whining is what the pirate loves more than anything. Tear extraction is nectar to these people. NEVER give it to them.

      I bought hauler contracts and flew 20 jumps out. I learned how the place works. The occasional loss is what you are there for. It is the nature of the place.

      The guys war deccing you are doing you a favor. They beg you to learn. Why are you resisting the lesson? Adapt, overcome.

      In showing leadership when dealing with adversity, you are forging alliances with people that will last for years. "kyshonuba and I go back years in this place. The guy's solid. We went through a bunch of shit together and had a blast."

      But only if you address the situation. Only if you figure it out.

      If you are war decced, find out who the enemies of your enemies are. Forge alliances.

      Have you any idea what intel work goes on behind a war dec? I had people who traced the antecedents behind every member they could identify in the opposing corp.

      It's an adult place, it takes an adult attitude.

      You got four war decs in 6 weeks? Learn how to deal with it. Seriously.

    3. My corp has to deal with wardecs too but we fuck the harden up and became stronger. You have probelms with war decs ? - well we like to hear if a competitor fails because the share of ISK became bigger for my party.

      Last time in war we have to deal with a corp which starts more than 12 wars at once. We wrote to the other victim corps around to create a coalition against this agressor .. not once was willing to fight.
      Why should i advocate for corps & players which not willing to take a chance even it someone will offer.

      Our newbies are excited, all our WH carebears crept with combat ships out of there holes.. we still lost this war by ISK Numbers (loosing 2 T1 Frig while showing our theets) but we have a good time. After a week not loosing any ships in Belts, Gates or Dock/Undock the war was end.

  52. What Im seeing is basically this:
    #1.) Your ship is lost the second you undock it
    #2.) If you get blown up, its your fault and you need to harden the fuck up
    #3.) Ganking is a "necessary" part of this game.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the very reasons this game sucks!

    Ok, Let me spell this out for you PVP'ers and I'll use small words so you can follow along. EVE has 2 sides to the coin, making, and blowing shit up. Almost all the buffs for the past 3 years have been for you neanderthals that like blowing shit up...

    But the people that provide you the very ships and toys you need to fly you have decided to Jihad upon. Now, some of these players do go out and begin to shoot back. However, a very large majority of passive, mellow mining-types quit. I'm betting the turnover in miners/industrialists is higher by a factor of 5X.

    This is why each and every one of you that purports to support this game is so hilariously dead wrong its tragic.

    This game needs an influx of new players daily. CCP needs the $$. And wht do you "leet" pvp'ers do?...yeah, thats right..."Whoo Hoo, I killed a Freighter!!!"...fag..

    Indys and Miners are the backbone of this game you fricking idiots. Many of the guys I knew for years have all quit, tired of the one-sidedness of how the fighting goes.

    Frankly, all killmails that don't involve combat need to be removed from the game. Is this what you "leet" PVPer's claim is fighting?.....beating up the defenseless?

    I look forward to the day of the 250 Mil Drake. Its coming folks. We've all been watching prices rise...In a few years new games will pop up and you will watch every one of the very people you DEPEND upon to keep you supplied walk away to a game where they can do what THEY enjoy in a game that will offer them some recourse for protection.

    What about them doing what they like to do?...Oh yeah, this is EVE...."Fuck you, I got mine"...Target another Mackinaw...

    TL/DR?...Grow the fuck up, shoot other ships with guns, and lets all grow the game rather than trying to be the biggest fucktards who scramble like good little sociopaths all ringing that Killmail bell for an HTML document that shows that when it comes to fighting like a fair and decent player....you failed. If you like EVE, you;d better start supporting it rather than fucking over those that after a few bad experiences....walk.

    "Well good" you say, "EVE is harsh, we don't want the weak in here"...Let me give you a preview of EVE circa 2015...250 Million Drakes, even further locked down powerblocks that refuse to fight to protect their moons...and 5K players on...

    You claim fun and game mechanics, I claim bullying, cowardice and a self-centered attitude that will eventually be the very downfall of this game.

    But then of course, most of you "Leet" PVP'ers are cowards at heart. "Oh god, I can't risk my Titan, I can't risk my Dread, I cant risk my carrier".....LMAO....Fags....all of you...

    1. I look forward to blowing your Exhumer up.

      Be sure to let me know if you are going to rage quit and biomass your character.

    2. So, let me take the point of view of an industrialist, since I have a character who's a budding industrialist.

      Let's say she sinks some hard-earned ISK into BPOs for mining barges, and invests time and ISK into the materials and research necessary to research exhumers. Now, let's say that people stop blowing up industrials. What does this do for her? Every industrialist who sold industrial ships is now out of that business, because none of them ever blow up anymore. (Belt rats? LOL.)

      There's a reason that industrialists are among the sponsors for Hulkageddon. The more ships blow up, the better business is for them; the more kinds of ships blow up, the better business is for more of them.

    3. You have to understand that you fail to understand the point of the place.

      Your ship is just your temporary host. You will lose them. Don't get attached to them. Your only attitude can be: get another ship, carry on. Nobody's ship gets blown up every day. Some times you lose 4 ships in a day *cough*. It happesn.

      Don't whine about it. EVE is a dark place, it is intended to be a dark place. It is not My Friendly Pony Land.

      I have lost very many ships, but never to Hulkageddon.

      If you have a problem losing a ship in EVE, you have a problem understanding the place. It is your problem. It is nobody else's problem.

      Get a new ship, don't fly what you can't afford to lose, carry on. Just move on to the next thing. Losing ships is the natural state of being. Look at the heat map. Ships are lost in their thousands every day. It is not a drama. You are not special, you need not be catered to.

      I will have a titan too one day. In fact, I have a plan for it :-). That titan will be blown up. I will only regret that fact if I have not been able to press the shiny red button at least one time to 'make that ship go away'. If I can do that, it will be one of the better days in EVE.

      Then something will happen and I will lose the titan. You know what I will do then? I'll get another ship and carry on.

      If you don't want to deal with that, if you can't handle that simple reality, you are not the clone we're looking for. Don't come to EVE, don't put yourself through that. Many people have come and they have left for that very reason.

      "You blew up my 300 million ISK battleship, I can never replace it, you ruined the game for me. I hope you're happy now."


      My first Maelstrom had 1400 mm artillery, you're knocking on the door with those puppies, believe you me. The guns alone were 110 million. It lasted 30 seconds. What did I do? I docked up and got a new ship, because that's the only thing you can do. Nobody has time to hear you whining about losing a ship.

    4. Let us find out who is your main isk earning character and we will see who will biomass first. Wanker.

    5. Next to not flying what I can't afford to lose I also follow that other golden rule of EVE: don't fly alone.

      I was really bad at PvP in the beginning. It was embarrassing. I got better, I don't just keel over anymore.

      'My main ISK earning character'? What is this, amateur hour? You think I'm looking at kill mails and calculate how much $ a ship costs?

      You should feel free to come join me for a friendly bout of exchanging ammo. I can't say where I am, intel and all that, but I can say that: if you find yourself inside a bubble, hold your cloak and wait for me :-).

      It's a way of life, man. It's not about blowing up pixels.

    6. you completely miss the point moron Howard.
      I am responding to that New Order "Agent" that gank folks with an ALT and is taunting them to biomass their characters.

      Suicide ganking my mining barge, the ganker fucked over my income source. Yet i cannot find his income source and fuck him over in return (revenge is a very much touted and valid theme in EVE thank you) because he uses an ALT CHARACTER to shield his identity!

      And in the end you also hide your location, so what's the point in your reply except trying to look like some tough guy eh? Exchange ammo after i am caught in bubble? What - you too noob to fit a warp scambler? Or are you one of those lame shits that fit sniper guns and sit 80km away picking kills on bubbled ships? <^> fuck off seriously!

    7. Don't hold back, Anonymous. Let it all out, man.

      I'm coy about my location because it's part of operational security. You in your cute little mining barge have the luxury of being blown up on your lonesome. I have to keep into account that when the bad people come, the come with a lot of friends. And they read these pages too.

      You completely fail to understand the nature of the place.

      You could be engaging in PI and you would have a steady income stream. You could be doing a ton of other stuff and get to know that side of EVE. You could find yourself a cozy worm hole and learn how to use that to your advantage.

      But you're not doing any of that. You get shot at a few times by a guy in a destroyer and your whole world crumbles.

      I sincerely hope you get a feel for EVE real soon, because right now you're not doing it right. And that's not me being smug, that's me speaking from experience.

      Everybody, every single body, starts out as a n00b, Anonymous. Some people get to know how the place works and they thrive. Other people can't look past their current minor inconvenience, and they speak about losing a ship worth a couple hundred million ISK as if the very universe had collapsed around them. That's not it, man. That's not the way to do it.

      Work the problem, find new ways to address your life between the stars, and you'll do fine. Trust me. In a couple of years you'll look back at this post and you'll tell people 'yeah, I was a n00b, I didn't understand what I was doing. So sue me.'

  53. Just a quicky. Because you seem to be pulling a lot of **** from this.

    I support the rape analogy. It was hyperbolic, but correct from the frame of reference you'd just finished painting. The sad part is I can't come up with a comparison that fits half so well as Rape does. There aren't any clear cut crimes so centered on the dynamic of power as it is. Bullying? But that doesn't really fit either.

    Anyway, interesting piece. The slave bit didn't really hold together, but it was food for thought.

  54. tldr; Deal with it pilots.
    No problem with "dealing with it"

    Just requesting that CCP tweak the current situation of suicide gankers alts in dessies blapping ships that cost 10x of theirs without breaking a sweat.

    What? Not happy that it may cost more isk,effort to banzai another player in the future?

    Deal with it. vOv

  55. Who wants to play a GAME with no RISK?

    Eve isn't IRL so people need to quit acting like the rules should be the same...

    1. something that all those leet pvpers fail to register:

      Even carebears are not 100% advocating for removal of risk from EVE!!! Yes there exist some deluded carebears that think highsec should be a safe zone like hello kitty online, NO!!! If we can identify them, we will fly beside you guys and vaporize them together!!! seriously!

      What we are asking for CSM and CCP to do is to stop rewarding risk free gameplay! Suicide ganking in a cheap throwaway dessie with a 10hr hero alt is the very definition of risk free (and profitable) gameplay!!! Wake up EVE!!!

  56. Non-consensual PvP is an essential part of Eve, but the punishment for ganking should be harsher. What is the point of negative security status if you can grind it back to positive in a week of nullsec ratting? You can't lose security status in null, so you should not be able to gain it there either. CONCORD isn't out there watching you so it doesn't even make sense.

    1. CCP is going to let those wankers turn in tags for security status. Making it even more easy to get away with suicide ganking. Yay!!!

  57. Now that i' am in my 2. year of eve playing i am starting to feel that the key mechanic in eve grief play is the multiple account alt mechanic

    Can you fight back a suicide ganker player who just podded you with his 4 th account on 2. alt ? .... you can't. As long as you dont know the suicide gankers "mains", which earn them their income, there is no chance to bring back consequences.

    Can you effectivly fight back in a non mutual war against an 8 player, alt corporation ? No (again) because you cant damage their main account(s) income(s). Basically, all you are doing is chasing alt "ghosts" in 100-200 mill fits.
    Is it worse fighting these guys ? Everybody knows, that losses of 100-200 mill can be regained by established player in 0 sec in a matter of a few hours.

    I want to make this clear. The problem of unbalancy in high sec wars is not so much about uneven distribution of skillpoints (and knowledge) its the fact that the money making,industrial process of a small corporations become fully exposed to PvP while the isk earning of the agggressor corporation stays "cloaked" because of alt accounts.

    If we agree, that its alt's mechanics, that prohibit (social) consequences to grief play and ,maybe, are making this play style too easy we may start to see the real magnitude of the problem.

    Everybody knows that multiple accounts are a big part of eve's onlines financial sucess. So maybe CCP placed has placed itself in a kind of "wealthy" trap by becomming dependent on a multiple account play-style.

  58. You are being bad at Eve. Please show your Twitter account on this blog.

  59. I agree Ganking is not the same as PVP

    sure its part of the game but i tend to tell new players when i have the chance they should know of two things.

    1# Background checks .. this means check up the corp that want to recruite you, this is especialy true for thoes 5-10man industriy/mining corps in highsec. they are cannon fodder.
    Same goes for Corps .. learn corp security, learn what you need to be looking for spies etc. is very common.

    2# Decided how you want to play. then YOU go and find a corp that suits your need. don't jump on the first corp you find it might be a costly mistake.

    3# Never pay in to griefers ... just don't undock they can and will find you (locator agents, corp spies etc). if a wardec is unsucessfull in yelding kills and only cost isk it will be dropped in a week or so. If your going to mount a defence for say a pos log out in space inside the pos shield have the guns online and pos stronted, and a dedicated pos,gunner with correct rolls in the corp. logged in (afk) inside the pos.

    4# look out for neutral repers the normal griefers is using them as a standard. the new agresssion system tho allows you to take them out so kill off the reppers if you can.

  60. This game is going on 10 years now. Suicide ganking, Scamming and general ganking are not new. Matter of fact, they're much harder to perform now due to CCP nerfs along the way. I personally wear a lot of hats in this game...one day I'm mining/missioning and the next I'm ganking. I do what ever is fun for me at the time. My point, It's a game! No one is forcing anyone else to "pay" a subscription. If you want to PVE in true safety then log in and play on the test server. Piracy and risk are what makes this game different and I hope that never changes.

  61. I'm seeing some great comments from this thread. Here's the question I have though, if ganking was removed from the game altogether, what would be the true loss?

    Seriously, what would the loss be?...

    That's right...nothing.

    The only thing it would mean is that those that do the ganking (Ususally ALTS of peeps in 0.0 space)would no longer have a easy way to pad a killboard and steal stuff.

    What this is showing me is that if the 0.0 guys HAVE to come to Jita to get some fun, then the PVP side of this game is broken as well.

    1. - what would the loss be?

      The very character, the heart and soul of EVE.

      Only so you could safely hang your miner near a rock and suck on some roids.

      People like you, who don't understand what that place is, need to make it easier because you don't know how to handle yourself when you're in there.

      And for that sole idea, -your- level of discomfort, all of us have to give up the essence of the place.

      It is way too high a price to pay.

      I will be advocating for a harsher environment in EVE at fanfest.

    2. how many of you, vs how many of us?
      We are taking over son - time for you to fuck off via the back alley.

    3. You're in the wrong place. There is a world of wonder and amazement waiting for you, where you can do everything your heart desires. It's called World of Warcraft. Download the free trial via their web site.

      If you don't want to be a capsuleer, don't waste our time logging on.

      I need to create a ganker toon. I bet if I start a corp 'systematic war dec' I won't have any trouble finding enough people to help me rid New Eden of useless players like you.

      I always wanted to fly bombers anyway.

  62. I' been playing this game for 5 years now and I'm not a bittervet. On another note, I've only suicide ganked two times in my whole Eve career. I've never baited newbies through cans, or griefed them in their starting systems. I've never station camped players for days on end in their stations. But I never criticize those who do.

    Yes, I have flipped cans in belts. And killed a lot of mission runners back in the day. I've had my share of highsec decs too. I've always played this game within its defined set of rules. And lately I've found this set of rules getting heavier and more strict by the day.

    What worries me the most is that Ripard is no fool. Had he chosen to open his CSM run with a post like this a couple of years back, it would be a political suicide.

    So why does he do it now? He must feel a pulse or a trend, or something else that I fail to see. Perhaps I am still a romantic. But perhaps it's an indication of the total breakdown of Eve culture as we've come to know it.

    I understand the need for change. But is Ripard, a self-acknowledged bittervet, my type of chosen advocate for that kind of change?

    Suddenly, I highly doubt it.

  63. Personally, for having the balls to even open this door for discussion shows me that Ripard DOES have his finger on the pulse of this game.

    Maybe he sees the writing on the wall as many do and realizes its time to grow this game in its entirety for ALL players rather than just the privileged.

    PVP'ers have a notoriously narrow point of view, much to their detriment.

  64. What constitutes PVP is something the neckbears will argue over for centuries.

    However, when fmerc bombed those miners, while recording their TS. Well... "This. Is. EVE."

    It was one of the better things that has happened in this game.

  65. I see a lot of talk about people unsubbing because mean Internet pirates violence them in the face, but no proof. The fact that subs in Eve are growing right now is a counter to your cries that Eve will die unless CCP nerfs ganking or creates a safe high sec. If people are actually unsubbing because they get ganked, we have to ask ourselves, if they didn't quit today because today we can create a magical safe high sec, would they not quit next month when they realized how pointless mining for hours is?

    The whole rape/slavery analogy is false as well as offensive. A more apt one would be big powerful nation states vs. smaller weak ones. We are all playing a game that it centered around killing other people and taking their stuff. It drives the economy, the politics and the every day actions of everyone who logs in. That ore you are mining can only really be turned into more mining ships, or equipment and ships that will in turn be used to kill people. By participating you have blood on your hands. You are either directly an arms merchant, or you are a part of an arms merchants empire by selling your wares on the market. If you cry that you never intended that your weapons would be used to commit genocide or maim the innocent, you do not grasp the reality of weapons and human nature. This is not a game in which you can use your veldspar to build hospitals and orphanages. it is a place where you have the chance to build an empire, an imaginary space nation with all of the moral, philosophical and ethical dilemmas that you can cram into a game. It is a chance to spend time and actually have some sort of impact on other people and groups. You are either a cog in the war machine, someone who drives it, or a random victim of the violence and terror that is part of large groups of people clawing their way to the top of a largely zero sum game. If you crave safety play a solo game where every upset can be erased by reverting to the last save game.

    To return to the complaint that current eve mechanics cause people to unsub, should the maker of a first person shooter change their game so that it's more attractive to people who abhor gun violence and instead want to play peace corps online? This is a game about violence on a grand scale. Get over it. Attempting to buy the votes of the people who haven't clued into that fact yet with this "modest proposal bullshit" is either super cynical, or utterly pretentious. Probably both.
    ~A. Telsa

  66. what fucking proof you want dipshit?

    When ppl declare they quit in local or forums the trolls go and post those standard "Can i havz your stuffz plz!?" rubbish and laugh them off. Even minerbumping posts some articles that show the owner of the character biomassed himself due to griefing. Can you still claim everything is roses and rainbows??

    You fucking trolls want the poor sods to film themselves clicking the unsubscribe button after humiliating them in the game/forums before you are convinced there is actual subscriber loss?

    Even if the active no. of accounts rises, can you really claim growth?? With all the power of 2 promotions going on in the past year alone, how many of those are alts? I have 5 accounts myself for fucks sake!!! Even CCP themselves said they are interested in finding out whether the growth is really coming from real subscriber numbers or just alt character accounts. Get a clue you wanker!!!!!

  67. That was a great post. I'll follow now because of it.

    As an 8 month, high-sec player I simply accept status quo as the game. High-sec is neither too dangerous nor too safe.

    New players (me, for instance) don't throw up their hands and quit because of getting ganked. Rather, time investment is a big factor, of course, and the lack of space. Eve doesn't like to share space.

    The existing function of time and space makes the fun task of growing a small corp into the vast expanses of EVE a daunting proposal. Many would simply postpone, defer and then give up on it. Danger is great, but suicide for the jollies of long established players -- not all that appealing.

    I think new players simply grind to a halt; then stop.
    Ganking ... not an issue.

  68. Most of those in support of it sincerely sound like my 16b year old nephew and his friends reasoning.

    Tell you Gankers what, We leave Ganking in place!...Yaaaa

    We also make all Loot Drops from Said Ganks disappear...Just as "Coffee is for Closers", "Loot is for REAL PVP'ers"

  69. LMAO at comparing "ganking" in a video game to real life slavery. I had no idea you were such a delusional little carebear.

    Ganking - also known as "this guy blew me up when I didn't want to be blown up :(" has been a part of EVE from the start. EVE was created by a bunch of "Gankers/PKers" from ... was it UO?

    Complaining that people can shoot your space pixel without your consent in a game designed solely around shooting other peoples space pixels is as stupid as you can get. Go play hello kitty online instead of spreading such dreck

  70. The references to rape and slavery were to provide a point of view, and the few comments I've read at the top really seem short sighted on the fact that no moral boundaries were crossed. Because he used those specific examples really has no barring on what he was trying to get across. The fact of the matter is that he was trying to state how the gankee's have no power over the gankers.

    The examples he used are good and actually pin home the effect that he wanted, at least in my eyes. At least consider the possibility that if you've suicide ganked someone ever, you might be part of the reason why more people aren't playing eve.

  71. This comment thread actually was educational for me : realizing that this game bears more school yard bullies who can write cohesive paragraphs than I had ever thought.

    Jester, you have my vote.

  72. I think what gets missed here is that many of the solo PvE people pursue that because its more challenging. When I started playing a while back I got heaps of corps offering to provide me free ships and train me in PvP but I soon realized there was not much to it your corp did it all for you.

  73. This comment and thread were interesting, and I'm writing up a somewhat longer and rambly response elsewhere.

    But first, two edge cases for you-- if ganking isn't PvP, what about bombing runs or blobs? In a blob situation, you bring an overwhelming force against someone who can't really resist. I'm not talking about a 20 v 17 fight where the 17 "got blobbed", I'm talking about 10 v 1 where almost nobody will survive.

    In a bombing run, there's not even a chance to fight. Sometimes you can pick off the bombers, although it helps if your instacanes don't shoot the bait: http://sound.mindflood.org/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=17079545 . And if you are aggressed or bubbled or the bombers are set up right, you *will* run into the bombs. The only way to avoid it is to go around the system with bombers in it, and if that's your pipe...well.

    Lastly, setting aside the question of tackiness, suicide ganks differ from crimes like rape in the way that most ganks are, in fact, preventable via a change in tactics (ie, making sure your ship is never efficient to gank). For all the talk of "tears", I suspect that if everyone switched to procurers tomorrow or brought a blackbird guard, miner ganking would disappear in all but a few vendetta cases. Unfortunately, the tools aren't there to "lock down" a highsec system or easily tax corp mining ops (to pay guards), and the idea of "mine in a group or a procurer" is not viewed as the default.


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