Monday, March 17, 2014

Reavers and bloggers

Ripard started a series of posts about "EVE community are reavers", who derive joy from the suffering of others. I don't like these posts at all.

It would be madness to deny the existence of reavers, especially since my group is at war with the largest reaver horde (including those who pulled off the scam that broke the camel's back for Ripard). We are at war with them exactly because they are reavers. We don't want their space or assets, don't care about our killboard, our only purpose is to make them reform into decent humans or leave. However I strongly disagree that the majority, or even a large minority of EVE players are reavers. Let's start with numbers! CCP published the creation-destruction graphs. In about 10% of the 1.3T/day losses happen in highsec. That's 130B/day, 47T a year. If we assume 200K highsec players, that's mere 230M/player/year. So even if all of them are suicide ganks against little guys (they are obviously not, as there are highsec wars and most gank targets aren't little guys, but freighters and 20B Golems), only one hulk is lost by an average player. That's really not that bad. I mean one Hulk loss won't destroy anyone.

Secondly, even among groups responsible for reaver activities, most players are just there for their own ends. I doubt that most CFC members give a damn about Miniluv. Or that RvB members are having a tear collection. They just "do as commaned", and while they indeed enable the reavers, they could equally enable non-reavers too! Just look at the corps that are now Goon slaves, enabling reavers, but used to be in TEST, fighting reavers. Granted, it's indeed Nuremberg defense, but true nonetheless.

Thirdly, because no one is born as victims of reavers. Posters like Rippard and other "protect the newbies" people make it look like that players are at the mercy of the reavers, inflating the ego of the reavers. The truth is that you can mine in their miner ganking event and taunt them while not being ganked, you can fly an Orca to the freighter-ganking event, taunt them while not being ganked, they can burn inhuman amount of manhours to hurt you just to lose more than you did (at the hands of other reavers nonetheless). You can protect yourself. The "reavers" can seriously harm only bad players.

Finally, you can walk an extra mile and fight back the reavers. We slain 222B worth of reavers and their slaves last month, we destroyed their monuments and replaced them with mockery. We revealed and shamed their slaves.

I'm burning near 40B/months on fighting reavers. Let me ask you something, dear Ripard: what have you done against reavers? Wrote some posts? Not good enough. Why don't you use your famous small gang flying skills against reavers? I'm sure that hundreds, if not thousands would join "Ripard's avengers". You could also get more donations than me. Why don't you make reavers taste their own medicine? Gank their ratters and send them the famous "customer satisfaction survey" mails! Of course, elite PvP is more fun than fighting a war.

This post isn't about the person of Ripard, but his behavior that is shared by many: whining about obnoxious assholes, but doing nothing about them. The decent people have the same tools as the reavers and I strongly believe that we are the majority, they are just a very loud minority. We can simply defeat and - as divine justice - troll them out. All it needs is those who don't like reavers put their money or PvP-time where their mouth is. I did. For all who think as Ripard, I have a simple question: are you more risk averse than me and stop at just talking?


PS: Someone forgot that Jita is our lawn! Or that it doesn't welcome Goon inner slaves.

Look at this busy RvB fleet repping a POCO:
But hey, the POCO is still reinforced and it's an RvB POCO. So, RvB could have all the POCOs as no one else had force in highsec. Yet they "signed a treaty" to split up the POCOs with Goons, only to make them form up day after day to defend Goon POCOs. Now their POCOs are at risk too and Goons don't form up for RvB POCOs of course. Anyone still claim that this "treaty" is fair and not just a politically correct term for "slave"? If you still doubt, please explain what did RvB win with this "treaty"?

47 comments:

Foo said...

All it needs is those who don't like reavers put their money or PvP-time where their mouth is

Agreed.

Otherwise Who's job is it?

To the readers of these comments, if you want changed behavior, you too could do anybody's job.

Arrendis said...

What if we don't want changed behavior?

Even when I was living in high-sec and in W-space, in a mining corp, the idea that the people who destroy other peoples' stuff are somehow 'wrong' just seemed very alien to me.

Loss drives the economy. Loss drives industry. No, Burn Jita and Hulkageddon aren't even close to the economic stimulus that B-R5RB was, but really, how much demand is 'enough'?

As it is, I sell ice products I and my friends produce - everything from heavy water to pos fuel. Loss still drives the economy. I still want as many reavers out there as I can get. Murder the world, and shower me with isk. Unless everyone is mining, I'll sell more than I lose. Just like every other miner, ore or ice.

Burn New Eden. Keep it burning. Keep it burning forever. My wallet thanks you.

Gevlon said...

@Arrendis: you mix PvP-ing with being an asshole. Shooting a T1 industrial with 2 PLEX in it is just good play.

Telling the guy that he is a pubbie shitlord instead of telling him the EHP/cargo ratio is being an asshole.

New Eden burning and people not being reavers aren't mutually exclusive: look at any PvP game, characters die all the time, yet the obnoxious asshattery isn't there.

Anonymous said...

I'm still a little bit confused over your usage of the word "pet".
I mean, I had a pet back home. It was a cat.
The cat in question never did anything useful - we kept it for entertainment.
We gave it food, shelter, medical treatment, and cleaned it's toilet without getting anything tangible in return.
The relationship was indeed somewhat onesided - but it was the pet that received all the benefits.
You, however, seem to be using the word "pet" to describe someone who does all the work, but doesn't really get anything in return.
Am I missing something here? Does the word have a specific meaning in this context?

Gevlon said...

"Pet" is a term for "slave" in EVE, but you are right, it's a dumb term, so I'll just use "slave" from now on.

nightgerbil said...

Care to comment about this? http://www.minerbumping.com/2014/03/kills-of-week-freighter-edition.html. They have started to gank empty freighters in high sec. "Professional freighter gankers carefully select their targets for maximum profit. They let many freighters go by before choosing one stuffed with expensive items. The New Order, on the other hand, kills freighters who violate the Code. It doesn't matter what they have in their cargo holds--what matters is what's in their hearts. The New Order will not hesitate to gank even an empty freighter if the pilot shows indifference to the Code." The war against the carebear menace has been expanded.

Arrendis said...

Gevlon:

No... no I'm not mixing the two up at all. The solo hunter roaming through W-space or null-sec, ganking PvEers? He's an asshole. The guy wardeccing a mining corp and making all of them dock up for a week to avoid getting shot at because, shock of shocks, they don't want to PvP? He's an asshole.

Forcing someone to do something they expressly don't want to do, to fit your idea of how things should be - intentionally laughing over someone else's misfortune and tears (And oh yes, Marmite harvests tears. That's what wardeccing is all about.), that's all being an asshole. And you're doing it why? Because you can. Because you want to. The exact same reason the CFC took Fountain last year. The same reason N3/PL took the East from the Russians the year before that, and are taking it back now.

By the way, kicking someone else out of their home because you want it? Asshole.

If you're shitting on someone else's gameplay, you're being an asshole.

And for the most part, Eve is about being an asshole.

When you tell people that being in a PvE highsec corp is indisputably wrong and bad, no matter how well they know those people - which you've done - you're being an asshole. You are openly shitting on other peoples' relationships, friendship, in many cases, family.

Bad news, old son, you're an asshole. I'm an asshole, too. I just don't try to claim I'm somehow a virtuous person for following up my being an asshole by rubbing their nose in it to point out their perceived faults.

There's nothing wrong with being an asshole in Eve. Be reavers. Be raiders. Go a-viking, for the love of dog, and bathe in the blood of the people who never saw you coming until it was too late.

Just never have any illusions that somehow, you're not doing exactly that any time you crow about killing an industrialist on the Jita undock just because he flies with guys you don't like.

Arrendis said...

And by the way, 'look at any PvP game'?

Show me another game where PvP deaths actually cost you your stuff that's newer than say, EverQuest or UO (where PvPers were pretty much acknowledged to be assholes).

Gevlon said...

@Arrendis: you try to dilute the term "asshole" to let decent players fit into it, so not just your masters and such are there.

Being competitive isn't being an asshole. Goons took Fountain for more space for their coalition to rat and rent. N3 and Russians detto. I took someone's wormhole because I wanted it. Marmite is getting a good killboard. These are all valid, competitive goals. Just because they involve someone losing, it doesn't make it worse than killing someone in Counterstrike or beating in Chess.

Defeat in every PvP game comes with loss. You lose rating, you lose your championship, you LOSE, sometimes front of thousands of spectators. Of course in the time of WoW and WoT where losing is almost as rewarding as winning, this might be an alien concept to some.

Again: there is nothing wrong with Goons blowing up a 10B freighter or a 500M T1 indy. There is everything wrong with them trying to make defeated players feel helpless in stop being defeated.

@Nightgerbil: talk is cheap. I'd wait to see how New Order performs against freighters. Killing a freighter needs serious manpower or ship cost.

Anti said...


@Nightgerbil & @Gevlon

more importantly isn't the New Order run by Goon alts just like RvB?

its just another hisec wing of CONDI

Gevlon said...

@Anti: above all, the New Order respects the 10M permits, so it can be called a pirate organization. You pay a trivial sum and they leave you alone. Piracy is legitimate way of playing EVE, just like camping lowsec gates for loot.

Anonymous said...

I call New Order EVE's mafia as it resembles mafia in its methods and self justification.

Gevlon said...

Even roleplaying mafia in EVE is legitimate playing. Again: reaverness comes out of the game. When you misinform and insult fellow players.

Shooting Orcas make no man more bad than taking down the pawn of the opposing chess player.

Provi Miner said...

A few things, firs the rvb treaty if you care to read soem responses to my posts on your blog you will see the BS reason given. Something about maximized thier initial poco grab. Followed by something about guud fights.

Next identify a problem without offering viable solutions (at least as you see them others might not agree) is called whining and is typically reserved for busy bodies and children.

Your right killing someone in eve is fun, being an ass about it is just being an ass. Pretty simple, even if you don't want help your victim at least just move on. No need for useless insults.

Professor clio said...

You want to know what we gain from this treaty? Easy. Have you seen the size of the goon fleets mobilized to defend their POCOs? Just look at the one you posted a screenshot of yesterday. It was 60ish guys in ishtars and logis. Having that on our side rather than having to fight it is what we gain.

Could we eventually prevail? I think so, but it would be bloody, costly, and would take us away from regular RvB for months. All in all we'd lose too much even if we won. Not to mention that unlike goons we can't afford to endlessly replace our members ships and buy new POCOs to replace the destroyed ones. Remember, the only reason we have as many war target ships to hand out for free now is because of our POCOs.

As it stands we have about 350 POCOs in the forge, the goons have 50ish. Theirs are a bit better but it's a split that RvB considers fair.

Gevlon said...

@Professor Clio: so your mutual defense pact with Goons protect you from only one threat: the Goons themselves. Textbook extortion racket: you agreed to serve the Goons in return of nothing else but not being harmed by Goons.

You know, a REAL mutual defense pact protects you from third parties, but such third party does not exist (Lemmings/Noir wouldn't attack RvB if you wouldn't serve the Goons), did not exist in the time of creating the treaty and doesn't even seem to be forming.

Lucas Kell said...

It does protect RvB from third parties. If RvB POCOs came under attack and they wanted goons support they would get it. And no, its nothing like an extortion racket. It's a standard treaty to protect the best interests of both sides. Neither side wants to fight the other as it would be too costly for all involved. So both sides mutually agree to not attack each other, and in fact help each other so they have their combined strength to protect their assets.

If the exact same deal were struck between TEST and Marmite, you'd be supporting their political prowess, not claiming that since Marmite has high sec presence and TEST does not that Marmite must be TEST pets. As far as you are concerned, everyone should oppose everything the goons does, so RvB by not adhering to your ruling is doing it wrong.

Professor Clio said...

We're protected from the goons and they're protected from us. I call it being rational, but call it whatever you like.

Gevlon said...

@Lucas: a non-aggression pact would serve that purpose.

Such Marmite-TEST pact would indeed place Marmite into the HERO coalition. The treaty placed RvB in the CFC. I call them "pets" and "slaves" as it's clear that only Goons won on the treaty, as RvB was unchallenged in highsec until my project.

@Professor Clio: last time you liked good fights and called being attacked "content". However if you call that rational, than I was right from the start by not even attempting diplomacy: you just admitted that if someone poses a credible threat, RvB becomes obedient. So we can get anything from you if we can pose big enough threat: you don't even attempt to fight, you just obey and serve.

Lucas Kell said...

@Gevlon
"Such Marmite-TEST pact would indeed place Marmite into the HERO coalition."
Would it? So when the HERO coalition called a mandatory CTA, Marmite would have to attend? I don't think they would.
RvB are not a part of the CFC. They can in fact even fight against the CFC without breaching the treaty as long as it doesn't involved high sec POCOs. It's exactly the same way as how right at this very moment PL have a treaty to not attack parts of CFC space while CFC will not attack part of theirs. That doesn't mean PL is in the CFC.

RVB and the CFC made the treaty so they can both benefit and they clearly both have. I know you think RvB should have just attacked goons and spent billions doing it, but they knew that it served them better to simply skip all of that and make a deal to take a bigger overall slice of the highsec POCO pie by working cooperatively.

Honestly though, continue believing what you want. It changes nothing and continues to display your lack of understanding of EVE politics, which in turn leads to most people not taking you seriously.

Gevlon said...

@Lucas: PL and CFC agreed to NOT attack each other. They didn't agree to form up for each other.

I believed that the RvBee treaty is such non-aggression pact: they split the POCOs and don't attack each other. I never imagined that RvB agreed to actively defend Goon POCOs. They gain nothing from that (they mutually gain from non-aggression, just like PL and CFC gains)

Also "RvB should have just attacked Goons" isn't my opinion, it's a PROVEN FACT. We can take POCOs from Goons despite we are having much smaller forces than RvB AND RvB is defending them. If we can beat Goons+RvB, then RvB clearly could have defeated Goons.

Arrendis said...

Gevlon:

@Lucas: a non-aggression pact would serve that purpose.

A non-aggression pact would not secure Goon assistance if RvB required it in order to defend their POCOs, no. That would require a Mutual Assistance Pact.

Which is what's in place.

As for me 'diluting' the term 'asshole'? No, I'm really not.

There's a kid playing in the sand. You can run up and kick him in the head. Nothing in the rules stops you. Sure, the cops might arrest you for it, but they'll only arrest you after you do it. So you can still do it.

You kick that kid in the head, you're an asshole. It doesn't matter if you laugh at him or not. He wasn't trying to compete with you. He was playing his own way, enjoying himself quietly without bothering you. You kicked him in the head.

You want to be competitive, that's great. Market-trading is the economic competition. You want to be competitive in mining? Shoot his rocks, snipe them out from under him. Bring a bigger mining fleet.

In order to be competitive you have to be competing. If you're just walking up and kicking some hauler in the head, that's not competition, that's assault.

Just because you can justify it with 'he was being stupid, hauling 2 PLEX' doesn't change that fact. And again: There's nothing wrong with that.

That's the game. That's what we're allowed to do, so we do it.

We didn't take Fountain for more ratting space. Jesus, Gevlon, until PBLRD, we had so much unused space it was obscene. I can remember driving from Branch to the Torrinos Gate in EC- without seeing more than a handful of active systems.

We took Fountain for the moons. We took Fountain because we could. Because someone else had something we wanted, and despite slowing us down w/the help of N3/PL, they could not stop us.

Did we mock and insult them for losing? No. The guys who showed up to fight showed up, and that's more than their leadership did.

We mocked and insulted their leadership for being horrible, horrible administrators and utterly corrupt, self-serving douches.

Defeat in 90% of PvP games comes with no cost except a psychological one. You lost. Next match of Starcraft, you don't start off at -50,000 Vespene Gas. Next time your teach plays football, you don't start off down 3 goals. Oh no, you lost your championship - your championship is bragging rights, and nothing else. It is nothing tangible, it is nothing that actually affects your ability to succeed.

You don't actually lose your stuff. You don't actually have your ability to recover from that loss compromised by the loss itself.

And if you think doing that to someone doesn't make you an asshole, then you, sir, are a supreme asshole.

As for RvB being in the CFC: If they show up in tribute, I will shoot them. No hesitation. They are not blue to me (not even Blue!), and if I do not shoot at them, I am endangering the assets of everyone else in the area.

They are not blue, they do not have safe passage, they do not share our infrastructure, and they are not anyone I will get in trouble for murdering in their sleep. They are not CFC.

Lucas Kell said...

"I believed that the RvBee treaty is such non-aggression pact: they split the POCOs and don't attack each other. I never imagined that RvB agreed to actively defend Goon POCOs."
So it's a mutual defense pact. What's your problem? Perhaps that distinction is what allows RvB to have considerably more POCOs in the deal, because both parties know that for the smaller wars it will mainly be RvB, which they are happy to do anyway as it gets them fights. It still doesn't mean it's anything more than a single political treaty. You fail to draw a distinction between that and a full blown membership of a coalition.

"Also "RvB should have just attacked Goons" isn't my opinion, it's a PROVEN FACT."
No, it's not. No matter what you think is happening right now, that doesn't change the fact that when the POCOs were taken originally Goons would have gone full swing into defending against a group the size of RvB. Both sides would have had incredibly heavy losses.

"We can take POCOs from Goons despite we are having much smaller forces than RvB AND RvB is defending them. If we can beat Goons+RvB, then RvB clearly could have defeated Goons."
You can't "beat Goons+RvB". You've taken a few POCOs that were uncontested while Noir have taken a few from a group that is not announcing timers thus can't be defended. You don't even attempt to fight when they get contested even by a junior sized fleet. There is a huge difference between that and winning.

Tell me honestly, do you actually believe the stuff that you type? Do you really think that a group of random people, a pocket change amount of isk and a group that camps Jita undock for tears is all it takes to declare a victory against a sizeable opponent? All you've done is, once again, twisted your metrics of success. If you were even a vague threat, coalition resources would be freed up for a realistic highsec defensive wing and you would be repeatedly blobbed.

Louis Robichaud said...

I think being concerned about excessive griefing in Eve is a conversation worth having. If this is a concern to you, you *should support RvB*.

Think about it. RvB teaches carebears how to fight. RvB allows people to engage in mutual PvP. It channels pvp players towards each other. Every red vs blue fight is a fight where no pve player is being shot at. Now I will admit that sometimes RvB members do attack non RvB members, but overall RvB helps with this reaver problem.

Kate 'On said...

I don't know why everyone is equating it to standard ganks and PVP. He was clearly talking about stuff like the $1000 Raven scam, or (BL?) telling a guy to buy plex to build a cap that they would AWOX.

The kind of thing that makes people look at it and just feel off about it. It's hard to quantify, but you know them when you see them. Even martini and his death threats at fanfest were there.

It's the difference between stomping someone in monopoly, vs threatening to kill their family if they don't sell you park place, or taking their hotels when they are in the bathtoom

Sucks to say for the sociopath wet dream, but without new people, this is going to be as good as it gets, and no one is going to join something that anally violates them as normal operations

Gevlon said...

@LR: I supported RvB. Read my older posts how many times I mentioned you positively, exactly for the reasons you mentioned.

I am very sad that you betrayed that ethos and became The Mittani's bitch.

nightgerbil said...

@Kate 'On said

While I see your point I honestly have a hard time sympathising with morons. The $1000 raven is a case in point, it was just so fing stupid its staggering. How would you drop that amount of money on a game without even paying attention to how its played, its culture, none of which is hidden if you go and actually look. So many of the extreme cases of griefing I can't muster any sympathy for the victims.

That said I was mining in my procuer in perimeter watching people drive catalysts in newbie ventures. At one point there were 4 frigate wrecks in the belt with me. I saw that and just shook my head. THATS bad for the game. Theres no "isk war" here, its just camping thrallmar on your level 90 all over again, except in this case no horde level 90s can come and drive the griefers away for you.

Oh and RvB guys? I stopped mining there after you kept harrassing me. I dont think your new player frly at all.

Anonymous said...

It's comments like this that will prevent any approach at diplomacy. Further more, such comments encourage a group to never side or meet your demands/requests.

I mean would you ever cater to, help, or even try to see the view point of a person who called you someone's bitch?

Say it was all Prof Cleo. Say he did pull the wool over the leadership of RvB, or it was him and Mang, or any group of leaders. Do you think the masses would come to you, praising you for seeing the light despite the terms used, or more likely have you just continued to cross the line to the point that no matter what the outcome, no one in RvB will ever respect a word of what you say?

After a comment like that, I tend to think the latter. Good luck, -1 viewer.

Gevlon said...

@Anonymous: why should anyone in RvB respect a word I say? Is that a pre-requisite for their ships to blow up?

You believe that I MUST come to an agreement with RvB. I don't. I can just defeat them.

Arrendis said...

Kate:

There's a definite line between the things that are acceptable in the game, and things that simply aren't. That $1000 raven scam? An in-game scam is just as much 'standard' game-play as anything else, or Jita Local wouldn't be the cesspit it is. What's more, if the guy hadn't been such a colossal douche as to start lobbing around threats against people offline, it would've just been a normal gank and scam combo, but no, he had to go and take it outside the game. So who was the bad guy there? The guys playing the game, or the guy making threats against people RL?

Same thing w/Mittens' drunken episode @ fanfest: he crossed a line. What's more, when he sobered up, he knew he'd crossed that line. He resigned from the CSM entirely, gave all of his assets to the guy, and made damned sure nobody was going to actually try to push the guy to commit suicide.

Does that absolve him? Hell no. He fucked up. But he knew he fucked up. Even the man considered the worst bastard in EVE acknowledges there's a line, and that line isn't to be crossed. That line is at the edge of gameplay. Should certain behaviors not be allowed in-game? Maybe, but if they can be done, they will be done. The only way to change that is to get CCP to list them as exploits.

You know, the guys who recorded a song where they tell people 'Harden the Fuck Up.'

Goons don't ever tell people to buy PLEX. I know in the example you listed, it was BL. Goons will tell you that that crosses the line - that's taking it out of the game. If someone else chooses to PLEX for ISK, that's their issue, but Goon scamming explicitly does not allow anyone in CONDI to tell people to buy PLEX to get their 500M deposit.

A deposit, you'll note, that the Goons' own publicly viewable recruitment page tells you 'DO NOT DO THIS, IF YOU ARE PAYING MONEY, YOU GOT SCAMMED.'

To use Gevlon's own comparison of 'other PVP games', what he's objecting to is nothing more than the same trash talk you'd hear in Counterstrike or Battlefield or Call of Duty or Starcraft or in any professional sports league. 'They called me a pubbie' is like complaining that the 400lb defensive lineman who just picked you up and sent you face-first into the turf said 'Stay down there, little girl.

If you're going to find something objectionable in adults beating up little kids for their lunch money, it should be in, I don't know, adults beating up little kids and taking their lunch money, not in whether or not the kid got called 'shorty'.

Saying 'beating kids up is just good gameplay, calling them names is just mean'... that's ludicrous. At that point, you're already being mean. Trying to claim some kind of moral high ground while beating up people who offered you no threat is just craven.

Bing Bangboom said...

Gevlon,

You missed what nightgerbil was saying in his post. It wasn't that the New Order was going to gank freighters. It was that the New Order HAS started ganking non compliant freighters.

Five freighters and one jump freighter were destroyed Saturday evening by the New Order of Highsec. 20 billion ISK lost.

I realize that its not relevant in your war on the Goons but it is part of the "reavers" controversy. Full details on Sundays Kills of the Week posting on www.minerbumping.com .

Gevlon said...

@Bing Bangboom: I read it after it first came up. Good job!

You might know that I was in New Order for months and left it because I found it too casual. Then I ganked 124+135B worth of miners all by myself in two consecutive months.

I do not consider you reavers. You don't collect tears, you collect permits and as far as I saw, you don't hurt permit holders. Piracy and roleplay-religion are in-game things.

I haven't seen James calling anyone "pubbie shit" or such. Also New Order treats all agents equally, there are no paplinks for pubbies but free pass for SA.

@Arrendis: in every game pwning noobs is normal. But teaching them is normal too, but Goons purposefully misinform players how to play EVE badly.

I'm far from telling that every bad thing in game comes from Goons. No holes barred collects singing ransoms, that's pretty disgusting, even when they did it to my enemies RvB in order to let them burn my wormhole.

I picked Goons as target because they do one more thing: they evaluate everyone else but themselves. That's favoritism and unacceptable in any game. I mean good luck in competitive gaming tell "my buddies from some forum can come to the team despite being useless"

Arrendis said...

(Well, it happened again... PART I of II)

@Arrendis: in every game pwning noobs is normal. But teaching them is normal too, but Goons purposefully misinform players how to play EVE badly.

No, they scam people. They lie to them to get their money. That's not teaching them to be bad.

If anything, Goons have done far more for the new player than you have. When you plan out a fit, do you use EFT? Say thank you to the Goon who made it. Do you ever look at an ALOD? Whole lot of 'guys, don't do this' right there.

And that's just it: there is no One True Fit for any hull. There's only 'this fit does X better, that fit does Y better, it's all tradeoffs'. There are plenty of ways not to fit out a ship, though, and a lot of basic principles that get covered every single time.

Like 'don't put a whole lot of expensive stuff in a ship unless you're so rich, you don't think that stuff is expensive'.

Like 'don't fit out a dread with mining lasers, and don't try to warp one to a gate and jump through'. No misinformation there whatsoever.

Ship rebalancing? In large part, due to Goon efforts. Alchemy to get around the Technetium bottleneck? Drone assist no longer the One True Strategy? Goons have repeatedly pointed out where CCP's mechanics will break, and where those break points will get abused. And when CCP hasn't listened, Goons have gone to great lengths to demonstrate how broken and not fun this stuff is, until it gets fixed.

Who benefits? Really, Gevlon, think about it. Who benefits from CCP being made to see where their mechanics are exploitable and fixing them? Is it the guys with the wherewithal to exploit them? Or is it the little guy, who's no longer falling behind farther and faster just because he doesn't have a small army of friends looking for the loopholes?

No holes barred collects singing ransoms, that's pretty disgusting, even when they did it to my enemies RvB in order to let them burn my wormhole.

Why? Why is 'yes, we could kill you, but if you hop on our comms and sing a song, we won't' disgusting? Do they mock you for singing badly? Do they somehow come to your house IRL and force you to sing?

Let's look at it from a purely business perspective: You tried to buy them off. They don't need your money. Collectively, they have more money than you do. So what is your pittance worth to them?

Apparently, it's worth less than a song. Because they're a bunch of guys who like songs, and like laughing and having a bit of fun with other people. If those other people can laugh and have fun with that, then everyone wins. How is that 'disgusting'?

Arrendis said...

(And Part II)

I picked Goons as target because they do one more thing: they evaluate everyone else but themselves.

If you truly believe Waffe doesn't self-evaluate constantly, you're mad. Here, let me put this in another framework for you:

I fuck up, and I fuck up bad. My corp CEO comes to me and says 'what the hell happened?' We talk, and I get him to go to bat for me, when people up the Coalition org chart are calling for my head. He talks to Wibla, and convinces Wibla that whatever it was was an honest mistake, and it won't happen again. Wibla then goes to cool off Mittens and Blawrf and whoever else is furious with me.**

Guy in Waffe fucks up, and fucks up bad. Let's see who he's got between him and Mittens.

Hrm.

He's got his CE-oh, that's Mittens. Ok, his Alliance CE-oh, Mittens.

He's fucked.

Think that doesn't happen? We cleared out an incursion last night in Deklein, and a guy in a destroyer kept zipping into the mothership site, not in fleet even though it had been pinged as a fully reimbursable stratop (gotta keep the JBs working, yo). If he'd landed the killshot, he'd have screwed every person in that fleet out of 90M isk.

90M isk is peanuts, mind you, but there's the principle of the thing.

He was told to fleet up twice. After that, if he came back in, we'd have killed him. There were people calling for him to be kicked from Waffe, CONDI, and the CFC completely.

No buffer. No safety railing on that ledge. You make a misstep, you can be gone as easy as you got in.

Never, never think they're not constant self-evaluating. Just because they don't air their dirty laundry for your entertainment doesn't mean they don't wash their own socks.

And seriously, Gevlon, how fucking arrogant and condescending is it to say that you get to dictate the internal membership policies of a corp that you're not a part of, in an alliance that you're not a part of, in a Coalition that you're not a part of? Goons might call people names, but they don't tell anyone else how to run their corporate shit. Just to make sure that corporate shit doesn't become a problem for people outside that corporation and alliance.

They keep their shit clean. They don't want to step in ours. That's a reasonable expectation between people who actually work together successfully.

What've you done for them, that they should give your desires any consideration? You're shooting up POCOs, and making it harder for people who are not Goons to get to their stuff on those planets.

In effect, you're telling Waffe, 'Do what I say or I keep kicking children in the head'.

Is that really what you're going to claim is the moral high-ground here?




** Note - this probably would not play out this way in my case, in part because the loudest voice calling for my head when I fuck up is usually mine.

Lucas Kell said...

@Gevlon
I know this is unlikely to see the light of day, but do yourself a favour, read it and take it on board.

"I do not consider you reavers. You don't collect tears,"
I'm sorry, what?
I had to double take on that one because I wasn't sure I'd read that right. New Order don't collect tears? I'm fairly sure we are playing different games. New order not only collect tears and make up obscure reasons for why basically anybody has invalidated their permit, but they actually have a whole website devoted to posting about those tears. Erotica 1, a member and their biggest shareholder by far records hours of teamspeak chats where people are told to sing, and taken for all they own when they lose, then those recording are made public.

To be honest, your definition of what is "bad behaviour" seem to change a lot and be pretty narrow. Is it safe to assume that your real answer is "goons + pets = bad, all others = not bad (even if they do exactly what goons do)", as that seems to be your reasoning seems to be. You keep talking about "pubbie shitlord", which I've seen said, but pretty rarely in comparison with other insults from other people. In fact, googling it links back to your site and references to what you've said more than anything else.

"But teaching them is normal too, but Goons purposefully misinform players how to play EVE badly."
Bullshit. Utter bullshit. 99% of the time in this game all people do is ridicule their enemy. You refuse to admit it, but that's all you did too. that's why you you spout off about the kill and mass send them arrogance. They didn't play the way YOU wanted them to, so you took the piss out of them. That's all it was, no matter how you tried to decorate it. And I've never seen goons teaching people wrong.

"Goons as target because they do one more thing: they evaluate everyone else but themselves."
Again, bullshit. You know absolutely nothing about how the goons do their evaluation. On top of anything else, no corp in the rest of the CFC is evaluated by goons, only whole alliances. So why would Goonwaffe be any different? It's up to them as the alliance holder to run their internal corps. All of the CFC alliances have corps that contribute less or even zero to coalitions operations directly, but the alliances as a whole contribute. On top of that, from actually being in the fleets I can tell you first hand that there are many Goonwaffe members in attendance every time.

Gevlon said...

@Arrendis: no, they don't tell others how to run their corp. They tell them to quit the game.

@Lucas: Yes, that's reaver behavior you listed and shame on them. They weren't like this when I was there.

Goons keep telling people that power lies in groups and having friends. That's the most destructive lie you can tell to a player. The truth is that power lies in knowledge and in himself. He alone can defy a coalition. I did. They tell people that they lost the game before it started, that "pubbies" cannot win. Disgusting.

Lucas Kell said...

"They weren't like this when I was there."
Their site states differently. It goes back before you were there with many a tear harvest.

"Goons keep telling people that power lies in groups and having friends"
Could you show me where they state this? The only way I've seen this stated by them is through the fact that there's lots of them and they are winning. At the end of the day, most of the player base likes to socialise, that will never change. Goons (and the rest of the CFC for that matter) aren't the most elite players in the game, and they do a lot due to sheer numbers of players. That's the whole basis behind Goonswarm. To be honest, it's what you are aiming towards with lemmings, hence the open recruitment and the focus on membership levels.

"He alone can defy a coalition. I did."
You defied them, but you haven't yet proven it actually does anything. It's no good saying "you can go against anyone! But of course they will just carry on anyway...".

"They tell people that they lost the game before it started, that "pubbies" cannot win. Disgusting."
Again, any chance you can show me where they state this? A lot of these things they "say" I'm hearing for the first time from you.

Babar said...

Can you show us some examples of when Goons have said that?

And when you say you alone defy CFC, don't you mean you, 450 (and growing) Lemmings, 300 Marmites and Noir? Isn't your whole project a good example of how important numbers are in Eve?

And you've said multiple times here that CFC cannot win, that they've already lost etc.

It's amusing when you try to take the moral high ground here. Ganking is ok some times, but not others. It's ok to mock people after a fight if you do it a certain way, but not another. It's ok to only recruit from some places, but not from others. It's ok to grief high-sec players in some ways, but not in others.

The only thing in common here, is that whichever way (some people in ) CFC does it, is not ok. Done slightly differently, but for all intents and purposes the same, is perfectly ok as long as it's not CFC doing it. I just don't think many people buy your narrative.

Louis Robichaud said...

@Gevlon
"I haven't seen James calling anyone "pubbie shit" or such. "

Have you read http://www.minerbumping.com/ lately? The language is very demeaning towards miners.

"Also New Order treats all agents equally, there are no paplinks for pubbies but free pass for SA. "

Are you saying that agents are bumping and ganking each other?

BTW, the singing to No-Ho wasn't embarrassing, it was all in good fun. We were eager to do it to get access to the WH. Now erotica 1 getting people to cover themselves in mayonnaise and taking photos... That is kinda disturbing.

@nightgerbil: I'm sorry about that... A few RvB members have been ganking miners lately, and quite frankly I think it is a distraction from usual red vs blue combat or purple vs 3rd party. Rest assured that we remain welcoming to newcomers.

Anonymous said...

This is one of the best responses I've seen to Jester's dumb post. He complains about a problem but won't lift a finger to do anything about it. I'm curious to see how he reacts.

Also, I don't know that I agree with the point about insult/provocation/misinforming your opponents being some separate category of conflict between players. Eve, more than almost any other game with conflict, models total, rather than limited, war. Destroying your opponents' morale is oftentimes a more reliable path to victory than destroying their ships. So, when the supreme art to war is to win without fighting, why restrict yourself?

Arrendis said...

By the way, since you added the postscript...

Now their POCOs are at risk too and Goons don't form up for RvB POCOs of course.

Did RvB ask Goons to help, or tell them they'd need help w/the timer?

Bobbins said...

@Gevlon
'@Anti: above all, the New Order respects the 10M permits, so it can be called a pirate organization. You pay a trivial sum and they leave you alone. Piracy is legitimate way of playing EVE, just like camping lowsec gates for loot.'

It is not the '10M permits I object to it is the fact that they declare 'the miner' are inferior and they wear a mark in their bio to indicate this.

Also they also promote extreme griefing/scamming on the blog not only content with taking someones last isk and provoking adverse response they feel the need to brag about it and further humiliate them outside the game.



Petri Petrified said...

Pet is a MMORPG term used to describe an expendible creature/robot/something that fights for you. Or, to be more EVE specific: a drone ship could refer to it's drones as pets.

In fact, it would be better for EVE to switch the word use from pet to drone - because that is what they really are: mindless drones doing their master's bidding.

It is ironic that RvB is not being supported by Goons when RvB POCOs are attacked. So... not much of a mutual defence treaty.

RvB would be better off joining lemmings and burning every Goon POCO to dust. Maybe then Goonswarm would actually come to defend their assets... or will more pets, no sorry: drones be revealed?

Petri Petrified said...

Oh, forgot to add: Yeah, goons pretty much are a farce in space. They are more than happy to use and abuse people without explaining why. They, like James315's New Order are a joke that feeds off of people and does not give back - sure they create content: their own at the expense of others.

Petri Petrified said...

@Gevlon regarding "Goons keep telling people that power lies in groups and having friends. That's the most destructive lie you can tell to a player."

Actually, it is not a complete lie, which is why it is an effective lie.

Knowledge grants power.
Friends give power as well.

Knowing how to use friends and groups gives you a lot of power - which is why goons perform so well despite some of their absurdities: they have top people with good knowledge of the game despite a number of morons that follow them around.

Bing Bangboom said...

The point of the New Order was always to provoke a response from the carebears. People being people the response is mostly negative, at first anyway. Recognizing that over-reaction to having a ship bumped or ganked resulted in some pretty funny situations creates continuing interest in both the blog and the New Order. The miners tears are funny and interesting because they are so extreme.

The Code is written to force people to respond to our presence. The bumps and ganks don't allow them to ignore what we tell them. In the end, the New Order exists because of steady increase in safety in highsec and the drumbeat from the carebears to change the game to provide them with a non-pvp environment for their ISK making activities.

I don't go a day without someone insisting to me that highsec means safe and that what I do should be taken to lo or null because that's what they are for. Or that not letting players mine in peace drives them from the game.

Some Knights are admittedly reavers and just like to explode ships. Many of us though turned to the New Order because we didn't like what was happening. Safety switches, built in battleship like tanks on mining ships and ore holds the size of Montana created the idea that AFKing was not only allowed but a good idea.

The New Order says if you AFK outside a station you are dead. I'm not sure what Gevlon thinks has changed about us. Other than moving from bumping to ganking miners to ganking freighters which are just tactics we still have the same message.

Follow the Code or bump.

Anonymous said...

C'mon Gev...

Kudos on the good work against CFC but Jester's posts topic goes beyond just them.

Being an ashsole to any new player is counter-productive to the game evolution.
That's not attached to which corps are involved.
Neither on whether or not someone might think it is justified on some type of new players.

Comparing your crusade to Jester's blog, as if he was supposed to be as committed as you are, is not really fair.

More to the point, your own anti-CFC crusade was not designed to fix the attitude problem in the EVE community.
You put that together to fight off the Goon hegemony (which I do think is a great cause).
That most Goons happens to also be reavers is a coincidence.

Subscribe to the goblinish wisdom