Monday, January 28, 2013

Jester's Dreck: Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ripard Teg for CSM

I suspect many of you are at least somewhat familiar with Ripard Teg, author of the long-running EVE blog "Jester's Trek". Ripard recently announced his intention to run for CSM. Since Jester's Trek is one of the most widely-read EVE blogs, it's quite likely that he will gather enough votes to win a seat. And while this post will not prevent him from getting onto the CSM, I think it's important to raise awareness about the CSM candidates' beliefs concerning the nature of EVE, and how they would like to change it. Even if Ripard's blog guarantees him a spot on the CSM, I would still urge as many people who read this not to vote for Ripard Teg, and to tell every potential voter they know, not to vote for him.

The fundamental decision facing CCP is whether or not they should try to boost subscription revenues by transforming EVE into a carebear-friendly theme park MMO. Some people think there's too much non-consensual PvP in EVE. They think it's unfair that powerful players and alliances can attack weaker ones. They think this is "griefing", and that it drives people to cancel subscriptions. The answer to this "problem", they say, is to reduce non-consensual PvP in EVE, and to shift the game toward mutual PvP.

I have occasionally read posts on Jester's Trek. Some of them are even good. That's why I find it disappointing to be in a position where I must inform you that Ripard Teg is one of the people I described in the preceding paragraph. He is firmly in the carebear camp, and not just a little bit.

Earlier this month, I wrote about the CSM minutes, and called your attention to the CSM members who openly opposed the existence of non-mutual wardecs. Despite the fact that wardecs have been repeatedly nerfed to make highsec safer, CSM member Trebor Daehdoow (and others) called for the elimination of wardecs as we know them. You should only be able to declare war on people if they give you permission, they said, because it's fair, and prevents alliances from attacking enemies they can easily defeat.

Ripard Teg is a strong supporter of Trebor's. He hopes Trebor will run, and plans to save one of his own votes to cast for Trebor (the remaining votes being cast in favor of himself). Ripard's support for Trebor is a big red flag, but that's not the reason you shouldn't vote for him. Instead, I'd like to direct your attention to one of Ripard's most recent blog posts.

In a post entitled "Ganking isn't PvP and never was", Ripard explains why he thinks it's not such a good thing that people can shoot at someone's spaceships without their consent. Everyone in EVE has probably heard the old saying that when you undock in a ship, you consent to PvP. Ripard disagrees:
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...
I applaud Ripard for his effort to re-broaden his horizons by rereading Roots, but I think he has the wrong idea. The fact that there is no perfectly safe space in EVE, and the fact that PvP is good for EVE, really has little to do with slavery. But Ripard goes on to make a more pointed analogy about the "victims" of suicide ganking:
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?).
Ripard's hyperbole shouldn't shock the readers of MinerBumping, who are accustomed to seeing things like miners who compare ganking to the Holocaust. Yes, Ripard is a more articulate, well-known version of the carebears who call you Hitler when you shoot their Retrievers.

But it's not the hyperbolic analogy that I want to call your attention to, but rather its logic. The substance of Ripard's argument is that in the same way women shouldn't need to alter their clothing to avoid sexual assault, a miner shouldn't need to fit a tank to avoid being ganked. Miners shouldn't need to scan, watch local, mine in safer systems, or mine in groups with defense ships. They shouldn't need to do these things, because regardless, decent EVE players won't gank a miner, in the same way that decent human beings won't rape a woman regardless of her clothing.

Ripard's position is more extreme than that of the "moderate miners" who claim they only want to limit ganking, not eliminate it. Moderate miners always argue for "one more nerf" because they think it's too easy to gank. (Of course, they always think it's too easy, no matter how often it's been nerfed, so they effectively argue for its elimination.) Yet moderate miners will admit that miners should at least try to fit a tank, and that going AFK in a 200 million isk ship with nothing but a Civilian Shield Booster is probably not a good idea. By contrast, Ripard thinks it's blaming the victim to suggest such a thing. He's on the extreme end of the carebear camp, though better at hiding it than most of his fellow travelers.

Now let's take a closer look at the root of Ripard's problem--what he perceives as the unfairness of EVE:
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.
You can see from Ripard's comment that he fundamentally does not understand the nature of power in EVE. To understand where Ripard goes wrong, I'd like to share a brief story from my earliest days in EVE, all the way back in January 2006. On my first day in the game, I did what most people do: I went through the tutorial and tried to figure out at least enough about the game to maneuver my ship around and complete the basic missions. On my second day in EVE, I went to lowsec.

Going into the game, it was my understanding that there was no isk to be made in highsec, and that nullsec was too well-guarded for a new player to enter. I was wrong on both counts, but I had no way of knowing that, so I got into a Bantam mining frigate to ninja-mine in lowsec asteroid belts. I quickly decided that killing the rats would be more fun than mining the ore. Within a week I was throwing missiles around in a Caracal cruiser. I knew to keep an eye on local, since anyone could kill me. Most of the time, people who appeared in local were just passing through. And at the moment I became complacent, assuming I could warp away if pirates appeared, I got ganked. My Caracal went boom.

The Ripards of the world would say the incident proved their point. I had no chance, because the pirates had the knowledge, the skillpoints, the money, the ships. But the story doesn't end there, because I didn't unsub from the game, cursing its unfairness. It never occurred to me that the game was unfair, or that I should quit. Instead, using almost every last isk in my wallet, I purchased another Caracal. I was determined to take passersby in local more seriously, and I replaced my damage mods with Warp Core Stabilizers.

My second Caracal didn't die. I went through lowsec belts ninja-ratting at will. And when pirates got too fresh on the gates, they discovered--much to their chagrin--that I was fitting Warp Core Stabilizers. As I escaped, it was they who howled about the unfairness of it all. According to Ripard, the pirates had "everything", but did they? I was willing to sacrifice damage mods (to a ratter, this is essentially yield) to protect myself from pirates. Pirates, on the other hand, were not willing to sacrifice an extra midslot for another scrambler. So even though I had nothing in Ripard's view, I won, and the people who had everything lost.

Miners are not defenseless. A mining barge is unlikely to defeat a combat ship in a 1v1 battle, true. A pigeon is unlikely to beat a cat in a 1v1, and a gazelle won't fare well against a lion in a 1v1. So why do pigeons and gazelles still exist, and for that matter, why do mining barges blanket highsec? Because their defense is to avoid getting into a situation where they're trapped in single combat against those who can beat them at it.

Now let's set the record straight about non-consensual PvP. Not only is it PvP, not only is it fair and legitimate, it's 100% essential to the game. If you're in a money-making ship, you're prey. You can succeed at evading your predators, or you can fail at it. When you fail, your ship needs to blow up. We can't have a game where the pirates need permission to attack you, because you'll never give them permission. Likewise, the pirates won't give permission to be attacked when they get ambushed by a more powerful force.

It goes back to the idea of the PvP food chain. You need something to form the base of the chain, ships that don't stand much chance against an attacker. It's not always a mining ship or hauler. It can even be a titan. According to the official reports about the big supercap brawl from the other day, the whole thing started when a Goon FC accidentally jumped his titan to a cyno rather than sending his fleet to it. The titan found itself ambushed by Pandemic Legion. At this point, the titan was just as defenseless against his attackers as a mining ship. He stood no chance; it was classic non-consensual PvP.

Then the Goons sent in a much larger force to back up the titan and kill the Pandemic Legion ambush party. Again, non-consensual PvP. If they didn't have reinforcements, PL might have said, in a Ripard version of EVE, "We decline to engage in mutual PvP, because you brought too many ships. See you tomorrow, or not." But because we're not in a theme park MMO (yet), PL instead sent out a call to everyone with a ship and a desire to kill Goons. Now the Goons were heavily outnumbered. Once more, non-consensual PvP took place, and several hundred billion isk evaporated.

Consider that it all took place because some people in PL decided to take advantage of a poor, defenseless titan who pressed the wrong button and stood no chance against them. The titan wasn't "defenseless", of course. The defense was to not push the wrong button in the first place. Great battles are built on mistakes, though. You don't need to be defenseless to be caught.

The PvP food chain requires that someone has the potential to be caught some of the time, from the miner to the pirate to the defense gang to the pirate ambush to the defense fleet. Each is trying to gain an overwhelming advantage against its prey, while avoiding being caught by its own predators. This is not a flaw in the game; it's the whole point of the game.

I know that some carebears will say that they would prefer not to take part in the multiplayer, PvP aspect of the game. Their opinion is no more valid than the guy who plays a multiplayer FPS to take a stroll through the battlefield without getting shot at.

Yes, it's a sandbox, and no, your AFK Mackinaw doesn't get to be invincible.

Ripard claims to be concerned about poor, defenseless noobies (like my week-old Caracal) being preyed upon by powerful, experienced pilots:
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.
The reality, of course, is that people with hundreds of millions of isk to spend on a mining ship, and often hundreds of millions more on implants, are not noobies. They frequently have plenty of money and skillpoints. But do they defend themselves? Some do. Others choose not to. And that's why Ripard's rape analogy is so important: In Ripard's mind, the miners shouldn't need to defend themselves. Rather, it's the "griefers" who need to stop picking on weaker players.

Ripard's premise about ganking not really being PvP is silly. Conceptually, it's as absurd as saying ratting and mission-running aren't really PvE because the player always wins. You overpower the rats, which is unfair. Maybe PvE should be nerfed, so the NPCs have a fighting chance.

So what's the point of taking such a ridiculous position? There's only one reason for Ripard's effort to undermine the legitimacy of ganking: If ganking isn't PvP, then there's nothing wrong with removing it from the game. If it's not valid to attack the poor, defenseless miners, then why not nerf it into oblivion, or even ban it?

One thing that jumped out at me from the CSM minutes that I didn't mention in my earlier post was a statistic listed on page 104:
"For reasons that are left as an exercise to the reader, Exhumers are now blowing up at historically low rates."
Aggression is drying up across highsec. It's been nerfed over and over. Yet many on the CSM were busy arguing for the elimination of wardecs and other sources of "unfairness". This is what I warned you all about from the beginning. It wasn't just the impending nerfs of 2011 and 2012 that I opposed, it was all of the nerfs that would continue to be imposed in the future. If you share Ripard's view that it's unfair and illegitimate for the strong to attack the weak, then such attacks shouldn't be nerfed once, but nerfed until they no longer occur at all. If it's horribly unjust and griefing to shoot a miner, why stop when you reach "historically low levels"?

On occasion, Ripard attempts to soften his position by saying he hasn't fully made up his mind on the "philosophical debate" about whether non-consensual PvP should occur. Going by what he's written, his mind looks to be pretty well made up. After all, why would he run for the CSM if he didn't know which side of the debate he was on? Either he's against aggression, or he's running for the CSM without knowing what he stands for. In either case, he doesn't deserve your vote.

CCP may or may not listen to the CSM's suggestions about new features for the game. But I think they do pay some attention to the vote results. When people like Ripard get votes, it sends the message that EVE players don't want "unfair" PvP in the game. The more Ripard Tegs that get elected to the CSM, the more support it gives to those in CCP who would make mutual combat the only combat in EVE.

If EVE is doomed to a theme park future, let's not do anything to speed up the process. Cast not one vote for the carebears.


  1. I don't see what's so hard to understand about what's wrong with the game. All CCP has to do is make a few simple changes and all will be well.

    (1) I should be free to attack anyone, at any time, with no limitations or repercussions.

    (2) I should be safe from attack by anyone else at all times, even if in the middle of my attack on them I change my mind.

    In other words, total and unrestricted freedom to play MY game, the way I want. Isn't that a perfectly logical solution?

    Oh, and by the way, sarcasm - yes, well, sometimes I do resort to using it.

  2. I think you missed a key point, he states that he has no problem with Mackinaws being ganked, likewise he has no problem with people blapping 3 billion tengus with no buffer tank on the Jita undock. Nor is it a problem when newbies die in low sec. The problem is when newbies, in highsec, are wardecked, are camped into stations, and develop a terror of pvp/undocking that drives them from the game.

    1. I have a guy in my office, will not ever play eve online again becuase of being camped in station via 3 separate wardecks.

      All five of my accounts will be voting for Ripard Teg.

    2. I have no problem with you, an adult, playing a (currently) violent spaceship game on the internet, EVE online. however, because I'm worried that children, in real life, may get access to such a game, I'm lobbying my congressman to ban EVE online, and if that doesn't work, to invade Iceland with the US military to put a stop to this horrible game. For the children. It's true that this will mean that you, an adult, will no longer get to play EVE online...but I don't see why you care about that. Aren't children more important than adults?

      Similarly, ruining EVE online, for the newbies, is the price we will have to pay. Obviously, newbies, for the few weeks where they are still newbies, are more important than their experience over the next years of gameplay. Anyone who plays EVE online for more than 2 weeks really needs to get a life anyway. Why should CCP cater to people who are willing to pay for the game, instead of just quitting after a trial subscription? They are losers.

    3. All 5 of your afk icemining accounts no doubt.

    4. If you have a terror of PvP... YOU'RE PLAYING THE WRONG GAME. WoW, STO, and SW:TOR are that way ------------ >

    5. I can't really play right now, as the Corp my friends and I are in is constantly wardec'd by different groups of players that we've never so much as had a conversation with, and of course, out-SP us by a factor of 10+.

      What I don't get is how people can wardec without ever having a reason to. We didn't do anything to them, they're just looking for people to gank while they themselves are safe in high sec.

      PvP; Player versus player. "Versus" implies opposition. What opposition could I possibly offer to someone in a Marauder with a Neutral Repper friend? That's not PvP. And it only works in a Vet Vs. Newb situation.

      Yes, I could join a neutral corp, or even a major alliance. But, the idea of building something with my friends, in a persistent sandbox... in fucking space? That's why we started in the first place.

      To tell us we can't have that because some gankers want high-sec safe ganking, is the same thing as telling us to just quit now (or wait months/years for the skills you need to fight back).

      So bittervets, please don't acted all fucking high and mighty or surprised when people quit as fast as they do. No matter how huge your epeen is, it's not impressive enough to keep me logging in just to queue skills for a monthly fee.

    6. Please tell us what this "high-sec safe ganking" is, because every time I see someone in engage in high sec ganking, he loses his ship and incurs a security status loss.

      The subscription "bogey man" was a nice touch, too. Despite ganking FOR 10 YEARS, the subscription numbers are growing, not shrinking.

    7. Just because you believe you are helpless does not make that the case and is far from compelling in terms of requiring EVE to rewrite the philosophical underpinnings of the universe.

      If someone has a Marauder and a neutral repper, put your friend in a Blackbird and go kick his ass instead of sitting on your hands and crying about it.

    8. This constant threat of a tsunami of unsubs...

      I must suck at Google because I can't find any evidence whatsoever to back your assertion.

      Either that, or it's a myth, or to give its proper term, a deliberate falsehood.

      And do please mind your language. This site is private property.


    9. why would he have a neutral repper?

      "Suspect acts: ... Assisting a non-corpmate who has a PVP flag and is in an active war."--from the retribution patch notes.

      It would be much safer to have the repper as a corpmate of the marauder, as the wardec is a smaller risk than suspect flagging.

      Ironically, this blog has methods for dealing with unwanted wardecs.

    10. I didn't read your 5000 words, but this person with his 30 words understands me better than you do, James.

    11. I DID read your 5000 words, Jester, and I understand you only too well. Did you make any proposals that only apply to week-old newbies? I certainly didn't see any in your long blogpost that sparked this whole argument. So there are really only two possibilities: A. You intentionally bring the debate back to week-old newbies any time you're challenged, despite stating the argument in incredibly general terms "ganking is not pvp and never was", in a disingenuous attempt to escape the consequences of your deluded statements (It's for the children!); or B. You simply lack the ability to communicate effectively.

      Either way, you've gone from one of the top CSM candidates, to one of the worst.

    12. Jester, you really ought to engage with James on this. I expect a CSM candidate, when challenged on his views about the fundamental nature of EVE online, to be able to respond. It is lame to dismiss such a challenge as 'too many words'. And I find it especially lame given that you write that you "don't know" whether "we" should allow highsec PVP like that spectacular "I have 17 mil. Can I help?" gank.

      Look, James lays it out here, in the 5000 very readable words you didn't read, why we should allow that. If you "don't know", a clear argument for the affirmative is worth reading. Right?

      I like your blog. I think you generally are a strong CSM candidate for many reasons. If James does not run I might still vote for you if are willing to take a position for PVP -- PVP which is not consensual, and which includes ganking by definition. I am certainly not seeing it in this breezy drive-by comment.

      If you are really only concerned about newbies in newbcorps getting wardecced, well, you certainly did not communicate that.

    13. This is disappointing, Jester. Your original post was obviously intended to stir debate. Now that challenge has been accepted and we are confronted with a CSM candidate who can't be bothered to read.

      Ironically, this candidate himself is commonly known as the Robot Blogger.

      I would suggest you respond to the man. While I dread the prospect of an extended discussion between *two* bloggers who could write 5000-word essays on the essence of "concise", I do believe a CSM candidate should engage in an honest debate when challenged to do so.

      It might also help you get a grip on high-sec interactions. Your understanding of those is sorely lacking (is ninja salvaging dead yet?)

  3. James 315 for CSM!

    1. Pay your fee. It's only 10 million.

    2. i suppose if i approached noob james 315 and charged him 10m to be whitelisted in my sov (unrealistic, yes) he would have, right? yes he would~ because unlike some players he has no overweening self-pride. unfortunately ccp has to cater to all demographics in some way.

  4. but by being blown up when you're a noob is how you learn to pvp. So that by the time you're flying your 3bil tengu you don't go making stupid mistakes.

    1. Completely ignore everything that makes a game? people need progression, and there is no progression when you fly a frigate and die in gatecamp after gatecamp. People are not killed by PVP, by soloists hunting them down, they are killed by 4 people in a perfectly coordinated gatecamp, stationcamp or other shit where the person basically learned nothing, and stood no chance.

      If you were playing COD, and the map was empty, then all of a sudden ten players joined, killed you repeatedly every time you tried to play, you'd quit that too.

      it needs to be more than bullying. So far the bounty hunting was the best change to help new players adjust, but it's a far cry from OK.

      Gank miners all day if you want, who cares. But fuck, the miner that gets mad, goes and tries to PVP, and dies 20 times to gank squads without learning a single thing about PVP will quit. It's still a game, not a sociopath breeding ground

    2. There are many ways to avoid being killed in camps.

      Fit your ship so it enters warp before you're targeted. Be able to break a target lock. Have a scout. Have tactical boookmarks that help you to know what's going on. Have insta undocks, have bookmarks at zero to the station. Use dscan etc. pp.

      There are tons of blogs, forum posts and you tube videos that teach you how to survice. If a noob dies again and again without learning, it is not the game's fault.

      I play the game for 4 months now. What dragged me in was that it is NOT the usual soft, optimized fluffy game like all the other MMOs that have been released in the last couple of years. It's rough, it's difficult, it is dangerous and you have to learn how to survive. There are plenty of games out there that are safe, but there is only one EVE. And there ought to be a game like that. At least one!


    3. I would like someone to point to one thing in Eve that is NOT PvP, barring ship spinning and maybe running a few tutorials. What definition of PvP is Ripard Teg using?

      Is selling ice at .01 ISK below the lowest sell order not PvP? Is mining out an asteroid belt before someone else mines it not PvP? Is scanning down a mission runner, stealing from his wrecks including the mission objective and ransoming it back to him not PvP? (ah, good times...) Highsec research slots, dumping THOUSANDS of Graviton Pulse Generators on the Amarr market, depleting the P1 off my planets so I have to go move my extractors... will you people just please GET OUT OF MY WAY!?!?

      If Ripard Teg gets his way, they are going to have to introduce leathercrafting into Eve to produce all the gloves we will be required to smack people in the face with before we pvp with them.

      Screw that "Space Bushido". I thought that died with BoB.

      Highsec is worth fighting for.

      Bing Bangboom
      Agent of the New Order of Highsec
      Belligerent Undesirable

  5. I frequently play with my younger brother who has a learning disability. We don't get to see each other often, but we mine together in hisec and chat almost nightly. If a combat ship comes into the belt, I call to align and he does, so far no ships lost, but that's an accepted risk and if it happens the ships can be replaced.

    But if our little "corp" gets grief-decced, pvp is not something that his RL capabilities will really allow him to do. I'd still probably undock for some gf's, but he won't get the feeling of contribution that I know he enjoys. This specific case should absolutely not dictate CCP policy, and I love the NO for blapping afk'ers, but is there room for my brother in the sandbox? Can we at least have the conversation about hisec war without screaming about the death (or worse, WoW-ization) of EVE?

    1. Unfortunately the hot topic is that hisec PVP ties in with the death of Eve's unique selling point. So no can do.

      As to your other request: please contact any agent in game with 10 million ISK ready. We'd be very happy to help your brother secure a mining permit.

    2. Ha no I think I'll hold onto the 10M. We're not the afk targets the NO is looking for, and buying a "permit" will do precisely fuck-all to prevent some random grief corp with a couple of t2 destroyers from war-deccing us. Which is sort of the point.

    3. You're defending yourself by a) not being afk and, b) aligning and warping out. Being under a war dec doesn't change this. It means that if you're camped in station that you'll need an insta undock and to change stations OR, get this because it's big news, join an NPC corp and pay for the protection you desire.

      There is plenty of room for your brother to play, especially with a guiding hand. You could be a valuable addition to a non-botting, non-afk null sec mining corporation.

      There are also plenty of MMOs that have places for him that are perfectly safe if you really worry. I think it'd be rad if he could say that he was a null-sec miner who doesn't get caught.

    4. your points are null there considering

      a) they scout you with a cloaky and a catalyst gank squad (1 for a retriever 3 for a mack 14 for a orca) warp to fleet member and pop you. the whole time you were watching.

      b) aligning is practically impossible for any long term mining ship because theres no fine control for speed (that im aware of atm). The way the server handles your ship, if you don't have velocity, you are an orb in space. So unless you have active speed, you have to take the entirety of the warp time. Also, have you tried mining with a retriever/mack for money? if you are able to sit there for 8 hours staring at lasers cutting up rocks and watching your overview without getting bored, you aren't human.

      On the other hand I've repeatedly ran into this problem of strong vs. weak. In some cases it is a learning experience. In others its an insurmountable obstacle.

      When i first started I entered a mining corp and we had a lot of fun together, mining, running missions, ect. Along comes this corp who wardecs our alliance (which had 4 corps including us, the other corps were corps consisting of 1 or 2 members each so our 44 man corp was the target). They each were 2 to 4 year vets flying t2 ships with ecm and logi back up that ran in fleets of 10 around our staging grounds in the aussie time, euro time and US time.I was 2 months old. Even if i read a BILLION words on how to survive, how am i to do anything but run (i couldnt even use a cloak yet)? I'm completely unable to fight back. The oldest member of our corp was a year an a half, most of that in the industrial. They used locator agents to find us, and ended up completely locked our gameplay out for two weeks. As they racked up kill mails on mining frigates, barges, and shit fit pve hulls that most of our little rookie selves could manage.

      Fast forward a couple months later. I made some friends, expanded my abilities, and joined a null sec corp. I now spend most of my time in null sec and make loads of money for it. I understand that neuts in system will to kill me if they get the chance. I understand that if/when i undock/leave pos that that ship is at immediate risk of being lost. This new alliance I joined had fairly well established members and some even had a high-sec pos for r&d. We got wardecced. The enemy alliance put our pos in reinforce, we knew what needed to happen. We needed to show up, and we did. But they brought a bigger force with logi, due to time zones/unavailability, we only brought about 7 to 9 people to their 10-14 (3 to 4 battleships with logi and battlecruiser support). Should we cry over that? I do for a specific reason, but no we did not field the force we should have and lost our assets for it. I understand that and am ok with that (btw on this outting i netted my first pvp kill so yea)

      The only difference between highsec/null is in null sec I can actively engage you and hunt you at my own discretion. These corps that live off of wardecs are pilots that cant hack it in null imho. There is a disproportionate amount of time that they spend being the hunter and not the prey. The reason that is so isnt solely because they are more powerful, it is because they can safely hide behind concord until they pick a victim. Then they can wail on that victim until he calls for help/meets a superior force (usually only works if the corp/alliance has contacts or lots of money to hire allies, but wardecs inherently make money dwindle) or the defender docks up and doesnt come out until the aggressor gets bored and goes to pick another victim because currently, theres no way for the defender to win; either the defender docks up and bores the attacker enough to let the wardec fall off or they spend money for allies and lose the resources anyway.

      in low and null, everyone is as much a victim as they are a predator. This is where pvp is pure. This is where I live, this is what I love.

    5. -cont

      On the subject of ganks: annoying and stupid but while i don't think they should be banned tbh I dont think it should be profitable (currently its profitable if executed on a wide scale, see Goon G. Ice interdiction 2.0 for exact number crunches on stuff like this). Yea I honestly dont have a problem with stuff like that 39 billion palidan going down (honestly that idiot was asking for it with an explosion hole that big in a ship that shiny) but ganking a ship that is by nature slow, bulky and hard to maneuver and calling that pvp is like saying a suicide bomber uses fair combat tactics. typically the attackers dont lose enough isk in comparison to the ships they are ganking. A 9 mil catalyst can sink a 32 mil retriever, 3 catalysts (or ~27 mil) can sink a tanked mackinaw (~200+ mil), the trend is more visible in that paladin gank which has 7 tornados and raven, being generous thats about a 1.5 bil cost to explode a 39 or w/e bil paladin but that KM and ship is a different monster (mainly because of the cost to stat ratio getting excruciatingly high when the stats plateau)
      Fix wardec to where there is at least some compensation for nooby alliances/corps getting wardecced by a much larger and/or more skilled power. Having an algorithm based on SP to handle this, defenders can recruit allies that circumvent partially (or entirely this would require balancing) this so as they can use an escalated show of force but attackers can only receive allies that take due process (maybe at a decreased penalty of size/sp or something that increases for each ally that enters so that an attacker eventually can't afford to keep the war going). and/or give the defenders a way to fight back, which is a general and difficult to answer generalization. some people say "this isn't realistic" well neither is paying off a police officer to beat the shit out of somebody; it happens but it isn't a socially accepted norm.
      TL;DR high sec wardeccers are from my experience generally wimps that cant hack it being pvp 100% of the time (RvB excluded this alliance is the essence of cool when it comes to organizing fleet battles and such for noobies to learn)

      Fix war decs

      Ganks should cost more for the ganker.

    6. "Ganks should cost more for the ganker."

      ...because blinging a ship is absolutely required to be successful.

  6. "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."

    My emphasis added to the stink emanating from that giant, rotting red herring. 10 years of EVE, and it grows despite the so-called horror of non-consensual PvP.

    1. Your conclusion is completely illogical. Unsubs are not the same thing as subscriptions. As long as current players unsub at a lower rate than new players continue subbing, Eve's subscription count will climb. But that doesn't mean that the *percentage* of new players unsubbing instead of continuing to play isn't rising. Or isn't unacceptably high in the first place for that matter.

  7. There needs to be a distinct separation between "consensual wardecs" and "consensual pvp"

    Wardec, as is, can ruin the game for some players. It has ruined many corporations I enjoyed being in, especially when the wardec is rather childish reasons of "let's just blow them up for shits and giggles". Did it ruin my experience and cause me to quit? Yes. But shit happens and I came back. I do not think it should be made more difficult to wardec people, but there needs to be more thought in its design so the people who ARE getting fucked over by the system has some method to not to be overwhelmed with being exploited.

    "Consensual PvP" is a different story. This can not be argued to getting mad and losing subscriptions. PvP is part of this game, and /anyone/, from miner to mission runner, must be aware that their ship can be lost. It can suck, but it's inevitable. You learn quickly that the more you love your ship, and the more it costs, the more you'll take precautions to prevent its death.

    The problem is the overlap between the two. Ganking is well balanced. Survive 15s in high sec and your ship is rescued. If you can't survive 15s? Learn how to decrease that time or increase your tank. Not a problem. Being wardec means one player has all the time in the world to take you down, and as many youtube videos can attest, sometimes you can do massive damage to one person with industrial ships. This can easily be seen as unfair and quit-worthy. I think CCP wants to prevent this the most, but can't separate this overlap.

    As many people cringe to the mention of the game; WoW had a good system when it came to PvP. You had 'safe zones', where you couldn't get attacked by others (but could attack them and risk your life), 'contested zones' (where you could be hunted at any time) and so on. EvE, however, is nothing but these 'contested' zones when a corp is wardeced. It can and has been exploited, and that's the issue at hand.

    Is there a method that both appeases the code's philosophy (to blow up anyone not holding a permit) and those of the people who honestly can't defend their 7-man corp against an experienced 20 man one? I don't know, but hopefully the collective group can think of one.

    1. "WoW had a good system when it came to PvP. You had 'safe zones'"

      They're called stations in Eve: universally accepted as safe havens for all.

      But for the life of me I can't see how anything out of WoW could be called "a good system".

    2. They also have the 100% wardec free NPC corp. BUT ZE TAXES, OH GOD ZE TAXES. Pay them or deal with War decs, it's your choice.

    3. Fair enough. I suppose people just don't want that though, huh.

  8. In truth the answer to being wardec camped is to join an alliance that will/can fight back. I understand how demoralizing it is to be frequently war decced by an agressor and feel helpless to do anything about it as a player but in truth you hold the power, get in an alliance that doesn't put you in that situation.

  9. How can people who play Eve for so long forget what the game is actually about and then try to turn it in to the exact opposite?

    What's Malconis law again?

  10. The way I see it: If EVE is too hardcore for some wimpy carebears then this is the perfect chance for some company to make a friendly, carebear-wonderland spaceship game. Let's see how that works out.

  11. I stopped reading when you compared your experience in low-sec with what Jester argued about high-sec. Going to low-sec is a total different story, and you actually get a warning when you do so. I understand you are preparing to run for CSM8 too, so please, be at least cool enough to mark your comments a propaganda. Cheers.

    1. Yes, it's a different story, that's the point. If a high-functioning individual like James can prosper in low-sec with a day old pilot, then even a mouthbreather like you can prosper in the much safer highsec with a week-old pilot. If James told a story about highsec, then people could just say that "but you're the Savior of Highsec, of course you did well in highsec your first day".

      I understand you have problems with logic, so please, be at least cool enough to mark your comments as uninformed and incorrect.


    2. Nice name calling! Are you mad? Cheers.

    3. Nice...not having a name to call you. Are you mad? Cheers.

  12. I'm a rebel. The James gang is gonna have to gank me if they ever want to see a single isk from my wallet. That said, I pretty much agree with everything James said here.

    I pretty much hate him otherwise.... ;)

  13. If that were the only article I'd read by Ripard, I might not vote for him. Luckily I can put the article in context. For example, I know that Ripard isn't a carebear, that he understands what makes Eve great, and that he is capable of viewing both sides of an issue. And I know he'd be a great pro-PVP CSM member.

    Also, were you going for a new strawman density record with this post?

    1. A strawman, which is a false argument, is still better than no argument, which is what you've supplied, Gern. Your comment was of zero value, as you gave zero support for any of your assertions--including your false strawman insult.

    2. Firstly, a false argument is NOT better than no argument, by virtue of the fact that it is WRONG. At least no argument isn't misleading anyone. Or making you look dumb.

      Second, if you can't see the strawmen in the OP for yourself then I don't think you are up for a discussion. Because they are legion and over the top.

      Third, not every comment to a post has to be a fully reasoned argument. Ain't nobody got time for that. Sometimes you just point out some facts and hope the smarter members of the audience can do the reasoning themselves.

    3. No argument is worse, because it shows you can't even be bothered to try. Making mistakes is how people learn. We are talking about people here, not bots, right?

      Thus, you exemplify the typical afk-miner attitude. 'It's better to play afk than not to play at all, it's better to comment without using your brain than not to comment at all--who has the time these days? '

      If you don't have the time to make a worthwhile comment, or play EVE atk, then just go away. You're not wanted, and you're not really here, so just fade away. That's a nice afk miner. Fade away.

    4. Making a misleading argument - which is what James is doing by setting up and arguing against strawmen - is worse than no argument as it spreads false information to others and biases them in a way the original piece wouldn’t. Look at all the people in this comment section calling Jester/Ripard a carebear based solely on how James has misrepresented his arguments.

      Frankly if you refuse to acknowledge the strawmen James has raised in this post you're probably going to ignore any that I point out. Possibly you’ll set up one of your own, making assumptions about how I play to dismiss me as you've already done with Gern. On the other hand, let's not say I didn't try.

      The 2nd paragraph opens up with a strawman with "The fundamental decision facing CCP is whether or not they should try to boost subscription revenues by transforming EVE into a carebear-friendly theme park MMO". To the best of my knowledge, James and his acolytes are the only people who believe this. There is no evidence from CCP that they are considering such a radical change or that it could even succeed - the sole example of a conversion from sandbox to themepark was Star Wars: Galaxies, which cost the game much of its existing subscriber base and failed to bring in a crowd of new players. Meanwhile CCP are apologetically telling players they don't have the resources in place to revamp POS for the next expansion and yet James is presenting a total conversion from sandbox to themepark as a plausible option for them. That's a strawman so he can argue purely in black-and-white terms of "Keep EVE as is" vs "remove all non-consensual PvP".

      "I must inform you that Ripard Teg is one of the people I described in the preceding paragraph. He is firmly in the carebear camp, and not just a little bit" would be another strawman - Jester has never argued for the removal of all non-consensual PvP from EVE or from Hisec and has celebrated highsec suicide ganks on blinged out mission ships. His only arguments on the topic have been centered around protecting newer players from being harassed out of the game by older veterans. Based on that, setting him up as "firmly in the carebear camp" is a strawman.

      "In a post entitled "Ganking isn't PvP and never was", Ripard explains why he thinks it's not such a good thing that people can shoot at someone's spaceships without their consent" - a couple of paragraphs on, another strawman. The post in question is specifically about players who have achieved power - ISK, skills, knowledge - using that power against those who have none. Ripard is not talking about every case of "people shoot[ing] at someone's spaceships without their consent" and yet James deliberately misrepresents the case, again to set up the "No non-consensual PvP" strawman.

      "But Ripard goes on to make a more pointed analogy about the "victims" of suicide ganking" except that actually Ripard was making an analogy about the veterans' response to new players getting ganked, not the gankers themselves. It's a subtle distinction, but it changes it from a criticism of the culture of the strong blaming the weak for their own actions to presenting it as a personal attack on gankers, which sets up the "Ripard is a more articulate, well-known version of the carebears who call you Hitler when you shoot their Retrievers." strawman. Even if James was correct that Ripard was comparing gankers to rapists (which, again, was not the case) this would still be a strawman as it implies that Ripard is like a carebear in all aspects, not merely in a predilection for calling gankers names.

      That's just the first few paragraphs and James' post was a long one; would you like me to go on, or have I demonstrated sufficiently that there are a number of strawmen being used here?

    5. "To the best of my knowledge, James and his acolytes are the only people who believe this. "

      The best of your knowledge isn't really very good at all. I have seen this very point discussed hundreds of times over the years. This argument of yours is 100% wrong. Syncaine and Tobold had a celebrated blogwar over this a few years ago, for the most memorable example. But I've seen this topic in so many other blogs and EVE-O posts over the years, it's hilarious that you make this claim.

      "Based on that, setting him up as "firmly in the carebear camp" is a strawman."

      Naming things that he is currently implying should be banned as noncarebear viewpoints, only highlights how much of a carebear he is. This argument completely backfired on you.

      "Ripard is not talking about every case of "people shoot[ing] at someone's spaceships without their consent" and yet James deliberately misrepresents the case, again to set up the "No non-consensual PvP" strawman."

      You continue to quote case-by-case from James, but you have no quotes from Ripard backing up your view of what he says. You're building an arched bridge across a canyon, but you're leaving out the northern half. Surely you can see that half an arch cannot stand? Realistically, I don't need to say anything to dispute your argument, James's article stands on its own against your attack, which lacks any substance. This argument of yours has absolutely zero merit. Next time, include quotes from Jester saying things like "Of course, if a 2 week old ganker takes out a 4 year old afk-miner, of course the miner deserves it" I don't believe he actually says things like that; which is why he's a carebear. Even if he were to backtrack and say it now, I wouldn't believe him. He was too honest over the weekend.

      "Even if James was correct that Ripard was comparing gankers to rapists (which, again, was not the case) this would still be a strawman as it implies that Ripard is like a carebear in all aspects, not merely in a predilection for calling gankers names."

      Yes James is correct, and no that doesn't imply that. Saying that "this is why X is like these carebears Y" doesn't even imply that Y are carebears in every single aspect, let alone X. Such basic errors of logic seem irreparable. You make a number of assertions, but don't back any of them up with any reasoning or quotes, failing in both logic and effort, it seems very bleak for you indeed. This duality of failure is just like the afk-miners that the New Order will always win against.

    6. "That's just the first few paragraphs and James' post was a long one; would you like me to go on, or have I demonstrated sufficiently that there are a number of strawmen being used here?"

      None of your arguments had any worth whatsoever. If I were grading your paper, you would receive a zero, and that would be me being charitable. Would I like you to go on? That's up to you, but I hope you put some effort into it this time.

      I'd advise you to limit the scope of your efforts this time, though. Just pick one point. If you actually find a quote from Jester backing up one of your assertions, then I'll find a quote from Jester contradicting himself, since it's clear that he actually is a carebear, overall--and then you have the argument about which of his statements is his real belief, complicated by his oft-made 'joke' that he can comfortably believe two opposing things at one time. "I joke lots on this blog that I'm capable of simultaneously believing two contradictory things at once." -- Ripard Teg. Do you see where I'm going with this? Your entire approach, burrowing down to individual arguments and calling them fallacies, is doomed to failure with someone who disclaims any certainty about individual statements. It's much more productive to take a larger overview. What is this larger view in this case? The title of his piece was "ganking is not PVP and never was". That's really all one has to know, sadly enough. He's a carebear.

    7. Yep, that's pretty much the exact response I predicted above, right down to likening me to an AFK miner for disagreeing with you. Tempting as it is to keep arguing, I'm done feeding the troll :)

    8. Good call. It's as if he recently read an article about logical fallacies, but didn't internalize a word of it. Or, if he did, it didn't help him at all with his own ability to debate or even communicate coherently.

    9. What a coincidence, I expected you guys to give up and resort to vague useless insults like troll and incoherent, as soon as I made a detailed logical response. It's like we're all fortunetellers here. One big happy foreseeing family, eh?

  14. This is not a full solution, but it could be a starting point for one:

    What if declaring war hurt SecStatus? Being on the defense didn't, but offensive war declarations slowly lower the security status of the aggressing party. In this way, we do not limit the freedom to declare war on whomever, but it comes at a cost. Not a big cost, just a cost. So that if your corporation goes around war dec'ing every carebear you find, eventually you won't be able to come into highsec without being shot.

    1. There already are consequences for declaring war - the wardeccer can already be attacked by the defender (and their allies) at any time while undocked. There is no need for further consequences to the party initiating the wardec.

    2. What Lin says. Given that the wardec machanism is there to provide some form of revenge, and theoretically, bears will want revenge and therefore declare war (yes, it does happen) what you suggest is that a bear should start no war at all under pain of standings.

      As a Knight, I find this strangely hilarious.


    3. If it is possible to make a carebear corp that cannot be wardecced ... The New Order would make one immediately, have all of their Knights join it, and continue ganking.

      We would also require miners to join our "carebear" alliance as well as pay for permits to avoid ganking.

      This idea of yours is both hilarious and great, anonymous.

      Please please please, let us be able to create a corp that cannot be wardecced without a penalty.

  15. First paragraph you wrote, "I would still urge as many people who read this not to vote for Ripard Teg" Hmm lost me there. I thought you were going to give details of would Ripard Teg believes. Not what you believe. No one gives a fuck. You aren't suppose to do that by the way. I hope other people don't blindly follow you like sheep as you hope they do.

    1. You seem confused. If you want to hear what Ripard Teg believes, go to his blog. If you want to hear what James believes, go to his blog. Simple, eh? Of course, this relies on you being able to remember which blog you're on.

      Now, if you want to find out who "no one really gives a fuck." about...look in the mirror, at the nameless anonymous person looking back with gentle cow eyes. Yes, you are the winner.

    2. Audrik, I've been skimming through this post and considering carefully both sides of the debate. I really can understand James' position (though I do believe he has a tendency to evangelize, albeit in a convincing manner (like a good evangelist should)) and feel he may have a legitimate concern about the game we love/hate to play. I do not know if this is genuine, or of it's part of his NO schtick, but regardless it still makes me think. At the same time, Jester also brings up interesting and thoughtful points in his blog which create a good dichotomy when juxtaposed to the NO's (or James315's) arguments, beliefs and propaganda.

      You on the other hand, are a fucking blowhard.. The NO's position is, I think, HURT by the way you are derogatory towards others with personal insults that are irrelevant and degrade any points they make with shitty hyperbole; like calling their differing opinions "hilarious" (I'm sure you don't find things said by other well written posters, like hivemind or Gern above, actually funny. Like, I would bet you didn't actually laugh. Maybe you fumed. But no laughing). And sure some people deserve it, I guess, in Internet land because "they started it" or whatever.

      Yet everytime I read your replies to actual thoughtful DISAGREEMENT posts, to the NO- it's policies and it's savior, I just know that I could never support a candidate or a position with agents and acolytes such as yourself. This is my firs time posting on this blog, so consider me a lazy-eyed cow or whatever, but I believe you, and you personally, are actively driving away potential support and delivering more CSM votes to Jester.

  16. i have a way to fix the problem with mining vessels, take away some tank and add a couple more slots to the mining vessels. just one or 2, that way the miners can fit a tank and have no reason to complain. Getting ganked is fine, normally it is your fault, you could have prevented it, when you are in a mining vessel alot of times their is no way you can prevent it.I have fit the maxium amount of warp core stablisers to my skiff and been ganked, and help hostage in low by 1 man in a tengu. In a mining ship i cant sacrifice productivity to be able to escape as well as you could with your carcel. I helped destroy the 3 goon titans the other day, yes they made an error, this game should be unforgiving to errors. But if they make it so that their is no way you can error, that is when they enter wrong.
    wardecs on the other hand can be used for griefing, an easy way to fix this is not allow war decks on corps that are less than 30 days old. Because when your account is only 20 days old and you and a bunch of friends (about 60 new people) decide to make a corp, and a experinced pvp corp declares warp on you and camps your entire corp in station for two weeks, and you have nothing to combat them with but cruisers. It can be a bit disincouraging. That is the best solution i can come up with, although it is far from perfect
    And james, if you where to run for csm i would vote for you if for nothing less than to add a little more balance to the council, Also i know you are probably busy but if you could tell me your thoughts on this idea it would be much apreciated.

    1. > wardecs on the other hand can be used for griefing, an easy way to fix this is not allow war decks on corps that are less than 30 days old...

      Why should new corporations have special protection? If players are not ready for the rigors of war, they are free to not form a player corporation and remain in an un-wardeccable NPC corporation.

    2. Being wardecced is the price you pay for having a corp and its privileges.

      If you dislike wardecs, you can have everything a corp has by keeping your members in NPC corps, and just creating passworded chat channels.

      If you want to have a 0% tax rate, and own POSes and Customs Offices, you have to play with the adults and deal with war declarations.

    3. "If you dislike wardecs, you can have everything a corp has by keeping your members in NPC corps, and just creating passworded chat channels.
      If you want to have a 0% tax rate, and own POSes and Customs Offices, you have to play with the adults and deal with war declarations."

      You do realize you just contradicted yourself, right?

  17. if you make all the miners leave or not mine, who will make your ships to pvp with? your missles? your charges? your cystals? who will give you shiny things to play with? making people stop building things for you to pvp with means you will be flying noob ships with base fitings if you go far enough? do you want eve to break? ccp doesn't sell much at all anymore, well other than plexes

    1. Your statement ignores the player created market in EvE online.

      If all of the AFK miners leave, the price of minerals will go up. Those miners that actually stay at the keyboard, and hire scouts to watch adjacent systems for gankers will make money hand over fist.

      Hell, newbs in free Mining Frigates ( Ventures ) will be making money hand over fist on mining.

      "make all the miners leave or not mine" is a nonsense statement. If the price of minerals go up because of ganking, some players will take the risks for the increased rewards.

      Some will even pay for New order permits.

    2. I pre-emptively apologize if this gets long for a reply, and is a bit all over the place but my gratitude to those who read it.

      NOONE wants to "make all the miners leave or not mine"
      EVERYONE wants miners to mine...theyre MINERS.
      Is it then too much to ask that they be around WHILE theyre mining...i would hope not.

      I am, by definition, a carebear. I started 2 yrs ago, ran the tutorial, spent about 7 weeks total in game, then CCP upgraded the servers and the like, i found my Shader 1 module capable laptop obsolete.
      Fast forward 18 months. The same guy that invited me to the 21 day trial, who had burnt out on EVE decided he was ready to play again. I had recently bought my wife a newer laptop and decided to see if it could hopefully support the game.


      So there i was, reactivated. What to do now?
      To this point, I've done PVE, manu, and even...GASP... mining.
      Its all fun. I was THERE for every second of it.
      mostly i run missions, dont make enough to earn a PLEX for myself, am generally alone on the mish while i convo with corp, and other chats. ive died to rats, and there was noone to blame but myself. BUT I WAS THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED.
      Ive been to lowsec twice, once on accident. i died. got podded too. i didnt cry about it, i didnt petition ccp to remove lowsec cause i got my ass shot off, i woke up in a station and made my way back to run my next mission.

      im generally happy in highsec, i can make enough money to cover any losses without being afk for 10 hours while my 200 million isk ship fills itself with a load of space rocks.
      if i want to shoot someone, every hub has a local chat FULL of people who talk more shit than they could ever back up.
      easy frig 1v1s, noone can just walk up and shoot you in the face without your knowledge, or risking concordokken unless you arent paying attention to the game that should be in front of your face.
      if you want to mine, and youre in highsec, pay the New Order 10 mill isk, stay at your keyboard, or dont complain.
      dont like that.....then find someone whos willing to help you.
      if you can bear to sit at your computer long enough to have a conversation with another human that is...
      10 mill is a pittance to give when you are mining at your keyboard, and the guy next to you blows up because hes a robot. dont be the guy next to you, be you, be at your keyboard, and say hello to the agent who just increased your profits far beyond any amount you might have paid out.
      i cant say ive seen a great amount of mining corps wardecced, but eve DOES provide you with 3 chars per acct, take some of that "hard earned" money youve got, create a char to defend yourself, or hire some mercs. if youre too scared or feel youre too weak to defend youself, start a new char, do SOMETHING besides siting and complaining about how bad the world is.
      if youre complaining about problems like this, you obviously know youre capable of defending youself, youre just too lazy to do it.
      i hear a lot of "anonymous" complaints about the problems, but i dont see any "anonymous" solutions.

  18. I like to engage in PvP without permission, but very oddly, I do not support slavery or rape. Weird?

  19. A blogpost from Alekseyev Karrde.
    "8 Things Perfect-Safers Can Learn From Airports"

    1. Great blogpost...although I couldn't see how to leave a comment on his blog...and I couldn't tell, does he really think Trebor originated that uber-famous Voltaire quote? Or was that sarcasm?

  20. I used to oppose your view, sir. But, having spread my legs a little bit in Eve, I've seen a lot more. I remember getting wardec'ed. I remember firing back in my mission ship. I remember doing some research to "even" the odds and saw a huge waiting time to hop in the same ship that got me. Useless starter ships WERE a problem. With the new ships, NO one has an excuse to not fight back. I wish more of your posts expanded on how this is a pvp game with a extraordinarily fleshed out support system. People are missing the point of this game by building for isk, and mining for isk. Perhaps one day, I will live to see your great writing sans the condescension that accompanies/spoils such genius and talent. -Oreb Wing

    1. Perhaps one day, I will live to see your decided average writing sans the hilarious misused idioms that accompany and spoil your dubious point.

      (hint: Spreading your legs a little bit in EVE implies that you've broadened your horizons by engaging in sexual intercourse with a large cross-section of the male populace of New Eden, most probably for money or advancement. You're looking for "started to spread my wings"--or so I would imagine.) A most amusing error, for someone signing their message with the surname 'Wing'.

    2. Pathetic.

      -Oreb Legs

    3. Bathetic.

      -Oreb Synecdoche

  21. I am a 0.0 PVP pilot and agree with Jester. Ganking is not PVP, its gay tbh. And sitting on hi-sec gates is gayer then gay, it's care bear PVP. Sitting around in in cheap thrashers with no risk at all.

    If CCP makes hi-sec more safe, it will not affect me in the slightest unless it drives these hi-sec pvp care bears down to us then I welcome ccps change with open arms

  22. Ongoing discussion on reddit:

  23. I am a 1v1 pvper in lowsec, and I disagree with Bryan Clanton. Nullsec is not PVP, its gay tbh. And sitting around in huge fleets, doing what you're told, is gayer than gay, it's care bear PVP. Sitting around in cheap drakes with no individual risk at all. If you die, you just get reimbursed by imbalanced tech goo riches, I hope CCP nerfs null-sec soon.

    If CCP makes null-sec more nerfed, it will not affect me in the slightest, unless it drives those null-sec pvp care bears up to us, then I welcome ccps change with open arms.

    1. I am a ganker in highsec, and I disagree with Crying Blanton. Lowsec is not PVP, its gay tbh. And sitting around in empty systems, hoping for a fight, is gayer than gay, it's lonely bear PVP. Sitting around in sebo'd rapiers, hoping to catch someone in transit from places worth being to other places worth being, how boring.

      If CCP makes lowsec more crowded, it will not affect me in the slightest, unless it drives me down into lowsec for more interesting action, then I welcome CCP's change with open arms.

    2. I am a sneaky pvper in w-space, and I disagree with all of you. K-space is not PVP, its gay tbh. And sitting around gates or stations looking at locals, is gayer than gay, it's cheat bear PVP. Sitting around in hotblobs waiting for cynos to light, or roaming around for 3h finding nothing more than trashfrigs to fight, or whatever happens in highsec.. how boring.

      If CCP makes k-space more safe, it will not affect me in the slightest, unless it drives the bitters and ragers who are disgusted by it into whs, then I welcome CCP's change with open arms.

  24. While I visit this site daily for amusement, I'm going to have to make two points here.

    1:) I appreciate the masterful level trolling this guild uses, and the idea behind the trolling, (player driven interactions) one of the things you are going to have to realize is, the will of the masses trumps all. It doesnt matter if you want unrestricted ganking like the guild, or actual PVP, like some people claim to want. If the overwhelming majority is sick of online douchebaggery, then the majority will continue the "arms race of asshattery". Every time you figure out a way to irritate people, the developers will figure out way to stop you.
    (And lets for a moment, just one shining moment, acknowledge that irritating players is in fact your goal. Not PVP, or high-sec, or any other thing. It all boils down to Just. This.)

    2:) Im surprised you dont realize that this post on your otherwise amusing blog, puts you directly in the same boat as the "carebears". Both you, and they, are complaining, and whining, to the people you feel will agree with you. You, James, are crying about the possibility that CCP will, and I think I quote here, "take away your ability to play the game you want, without fear of being punished for playing the sandbox in your own special way". Stop me if that sounds familiar. Those might not be your words, but they are words you bandy about, quite often. You use the concept of forcing miners out of their comfort zones, but this blog post basically boils down to you crying that CCP might force you out of yours.

    And finally, you cant have your cake, and eat it too. Either you feel that the last X years worth of constant growth, despite asshattery, is a good sign, and that EvE is doing fine, and that youre confident your playstyle is correct and welcome...


    You feel that your asshattery playstyle is, on some level, damaging EvE, and that any moves by CCP to "save" itself, will ruin your fun.

    You cant have it both ways. So which is it? Is the asshattery fine and just? If so, you have not a thing to fear from whomever is added as a community leader. So, if this confidence is well founded... Why this whiny, crybaby post? The only way this, or any other CSM related posts, are relevant to this site, is if youre afraid somewhere, that those mean ol miners will effect changes that you claim to scoff at.

    1. "Guild" would be a player made organization in a carebear game like World of Warcraft.

    2. wahwaaa!!?!? A poster used a word from another type of game which has the same effective meaning in this one? Ludicrous!! Obviously, his post was worthless and not deserving of an actual counter-argument.

      I'm starting to agree with some previous poster--James315, your own followers cost you more followers.

  25. pvp and griefing not the same thing. Sure griefing requires pvp, but you can pvp without griefing. I don't know how often i shot somebody down to hull, and let him go after a often fun conversation (for both sides). But griefing without a real reason is completely beyond me. I never podded random people in unless we where in war. Why should I? The opponent is on the ground and hurting him further would be no gain for someone with a healthy attitude.

    1. We are at war.

      The New Order is at war with miners who do not follow the Code.

      So podding is completely OK by your own definition.

    2. Everything is ok in Eve.. quit whining and come for a real fight. I'll see you in TXW-

      Anderson Williams


      You are serious yeah?

    3. ( New two week hero here, Anderson. Give it some time, and I'll be the ganker who gets the killmail.

      I did spend some time in GENTS. Got bored with nullsec, and went back to WH space on my main and ganking for fun.

      If I wish to role-play being a rat-bastard authoritarian in highsec, I will do so. )

      By holy antimatter, the non-Code Compliant will be purged!

    4. Seriously:

      I'm not the one who is howling in comments because Ripard Teg was told to mind his own business.

      You do not see us even trying to tell folks in nullsec how to address issues there.

      I am OK with people like Two-Step on the CSM, because they know their subject. Two-step did have AHARM blow the snot out of one of our POSes in Class 6 space and drive us out of one of our more lucrative holes ... but those are the breaks in WH space. I still trust him to know what the hell WH space players need or want.

      Ripard is probably very good with Nullsec small gang and small corp issues, and I would gladly vote for him on such a platform.

      But he doesn't have a proper set of clues on what is going on here in highsec between non-consensual PvP players and the hello kitty crowd. We are committed to not letting the AFK crowd turn EvE into PVE server WoW.

    5. Besides, where else would you find hilarity such as this:


    this guy is a carebear. yes.

    sorry james, i just can't take you seriously until you surpass HALF his kills at least.

    1. Carebears don't have kills? You must never have watched Carebears on TV, they battle by shooting rainbows out of their chest. Someone who pvps constantly, but advocates only loving, consensual rainbow cuddlebrawls, is a much better metaphor for carebear than an afk miner. An afk miner isn't a carebear, it's an empty chair.

      Sorry anonymous, I just can't take you seriously until you surpass half a name, at least.

    2. Carebears try to pvp and realize...

      They just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...


  27. Most excellent responses, gents. Too bad neither of your sterling posts addresses his point. Dipshits.

  28. I seriously don't understand why these people can't go and play WoW.

  29. I don't see a problem with making highsec perfectly safe. Just move all the ores except Omber to lowsec to compensate.

  30. Dear Supreme Protector, Agents and Knights of the New Order,

    I just started playing this game and I love it.

    I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and the many Agents and Knights who have helped make my Eve experience such a challenging and enjoyable one.

    I've been ganked, blown up, accidentally FC'd a fleet into oblivion and been pointed and podded at a highsec gate at least once, and I enjoyed every single second of it (actually FC derping is Fawn Tailor's specialty, she really is a noob).

    For all your tireless efforts to keep people from screwing this game up before I and many others like me get a chance to experience it's many wonders, I salute you all.


    1. You're DEAD Beer, you hear me? DEAD!

    2. And you are as threatening as an un-subbed account.. grr

  31. Sorry, going to have to call you on the rape analogy. You equate something fundamentally okay (pixels blow up) with something fundamentally not (rape).

    Worrying about alienating subsets of the PvP/PvE spectrum, and what that does for the future of game, seems pretty trivial compared to casually displaying attitudes that offend, and drive off, half the population of the world.

    1. Boy, are you going to be surprised when you realize that you're agreeing with James.

  32. I have now nearly played EVE for 5 years,and in that time have developed other accounts that are mainly indy based miners.
    But in that time have never had a problem if my miners have got ganked in high,low or null sec. I see its just part of the eve life, which means I adapted my miners to survive ganking. Either by skill training, mods fitted to ships, rigs etc to working with players i have made friends with to supply defending combat ships.
    So all I can say is dont change eve, let it be the game its ment to be. And thats FUN, either it be pve, pvp or indy.

    1. well said. put your name on it next time

    2. Rennseslear my ingame name is Leia Jadesol.

  33. Pot, meet kettle.

  34. Is this serious or satire?

    >> I don't have the time to address the points but just want to make a general comment [...]


    >>[...] try making a cogent argument

    As well as:

    >> Most of all, stop crying like little bitches


    >> Most of all, stop crying like little bitches

    You managed to contradict yourself quite a lot without saying anything. Unless, it i satire. Then...kudos to you!


  35. Currently I can't get to the gankers. The New Order has enemies and should make for a good PvP fight but they hide behind game mechanics. Why is that? You argue for PvP but the is no better carebearing organisation than the New Order!

    1. The New Order makes their point using these mechanics, because it is you and your miner ancestors who lobbied to get those mechanics in the game in the first place!

    2. As Anonymous above me points out, James 315's flagrant use of wardec evasion is to draw attention to how easy it is for highsec entities to avoid targeted aggression. I believe evasion used to be considered an exploit, until CCP bent to demands and allowed it.

  36. I have turned to AWOXing as this is a much easier to get miner kills, the reason i give when they ask me why i do this to “poor, defenceless miners” is threefold.

    1. 90% of you are not poor
    2. Nowhere in eve should be 100% safe
    3. The tears, those delicious tears

    I think the safer they make highsec the more AWOXing will rise. Miners should not be safe no one is safe this is eve.
    If you want safe go play hello kitty online you noob with girl parts

  37. Mr. Ripard Teg is getting my vote!

  38. He better run for the csm equivalent of guild wars 2 instead.

    His simple streamlined mode of thinking is further revealed in his 'why dust514 sucks' post, where he actually talks about how his eve years have been a total chore, and how he would never choose a game of that complexity level again.

    And to think that I was an avid fan of his for a very long time... I now feel cheated and betrayed.

  39. I AFK mine in hi-sec (even 0.5 if I'm feeling adventurous) all the time and I've never once heard of these New Order guys. Are they just stealth marketing their edgy wannabe pirate corp themselves?

    1. Would you like to purchase a New Order T-shirt for 10 mil? Looks great in the character viewer!

    2. whose the best troll here? Anonymous 1, Alana Charen-Tang, or anonymous 2?


    That is all...

  41. I am voting for Ripard despite what some well-respected "miner bumpers" (sorry can't say that with a straight face) have to say.

    1. 1. Make a snarky comment about someone else's lack of a good reputation.
      2. Neglect to sign your name to your post, to really make your point about how important reputation is to you.
      3. ??????
      4. Profit!
      5. Get ganked by the New Order, lose Profit! and more.
      6. Back to 1.

  42. Jester is being incredibly dishonest with... well all the things he's saying. Ganking, war decs and generally non-consensual PVP have been part of this game since it started, for ten long years. Know what's happened throughout that time? Subscriptions have increased. So much for the utter bs about the horrors of pvp causing newbies to quit.

    Even if it was though - and it ISN'T, just to repeat that point - so what? Newbies join game, realise game isn't kind of game they want to play, newbies quit game. That's not a bad thing. That's just what happens. What IS a bad thing is fundamentally changing the game that people have payed for and played for years in order to keep players who never wanted this kind of game to begin with.

    Would you argue in favour of removing killing from TF2 because some newbies joined in order to collect hats, but the "PVP" is causing them to not play?

    Summary: jester is bad and should feel bad. Do not vote for this dunce.

  43. When there is a way for a miner to actually defend against a gank in a realistic, viable way then I'll support the actions of james.

    When there is a way for a miner to defend himself against a ganker and not have to invest 10x more isk in to it then said ganker, I'll support the actions of james.

    Gankers should not be able to hide behind concord. There is no risk in ganking.

  44. hiya. no one will read this far down but whatever.
    last week my 10 mill SP drake pilot was in a corp that gat war dec'd.
    almost all the corp live in a wh so they ignored it.
    the rest stayed docked up so they ignored it.
    i stayed doing solo exploration but started cloaking whilst scanning. spent more time wh diving and stayed in areas where i could watch the pocket ingress with a neutral alt.
    If you are war dec'd and your corp won't fight you can just carry on nearly as normal but stay away from high traffic areas and take a few extra precautions. It isn't hard.


Note: If you are unable to post a comment, try enabling the "allow third-party cookies" option on your browser.