Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mizhara]

It's that time of the year again.

This argument has been had pretty much since Eve started and it's never going to really stop until either CCP significantly changes the game (which is possible given the latest CSM minutes) or the game itself kind of dies. It is however always worth bringing up once in a while, either to see if the community has changed in its views on it, or if the game itself has, or perhaps just to give newcomers to Eve RP a chance to see what it's all about. Is non-consensual PvP acceptable in Eve? Can you expect other RPers to not engage in PvP against you, if they're enemies and so inclined? Should what happens in a chatbox be exempt from consequences? Should what we do in space be exempt from consequences, if it's done IC? Or OOC?

This has been brought up many a time, since Eve is a pretty unique MMO in that regard. There's no safe place in the entire game, except the newbie system and even then only if you're in the newbie corp. Well, or the depths of Delve or whatever other nullsec fortress you may be in, but that's a different subject altogether. This has been the case pretty much since beta. If they want to, someone out there can horribly fuck up your day. Suicide gank you, wardec you, blow up your structures, hunt your blingy mission runners, drop a citadel within range of your home pocket and invade your space, sneak in enough guys into your WH, then control the holes and destroy your citadel, etc etc. If you play Eve, someone's gonna be dangerous to you. It's kind of the charm of the game.

Now, I bring this up because I've been getting a resurgence of complaints about exactly this. As some of you may know, I've wardecced pretty much the entire AmarrBloc and occasionally hunt them in high, low and null. I've killed Ventures in a Tengu (I swear I thought they were doing L4 combat missions, not L1 mining missions. Who the hell does that?), HACs in T3Cs, frigates and T3Cs in Battleships etc etc. I've hunted explorers into Providence, Orcas all the way across Eve into Minmatar space and bearing Rattlesnakes into Solitude, etc. It's a lot of work, it's shit in terms of killboard shinies and efficiency (seriously, I get more action in a month in any decent null corp than the entire lifespan of this wardec), but it's pretty good RP stuff. In lieu of RPers getting it together enough for some proper low/nullsec shenanigans, these are the perfect IC enemy targets. They have both publicly voiced themselves to be enemies of Miz's people, and regularly conduct combat operations against her people, documented on the killboards etc. Still, of course, I'm pushing non-consensual PvP on bears some of the time as I do this.

So, I figure I'll list up some of the complaints I've been getting lately, and give my view on them here. Perhaps others can chime in with counter-points and so on.

"You cant dictate how people play"

Correct. This isn't what I do, though. My powers being many and varied, they still do not encompass being able to force anyone to do anything in Eve. What anyone does in Eve is their own business, and I will never be able to dictate what they do or how they're supposed to react to what others do, etc. However, this goes both ways. You don't get to dictate what I or anyone else in Eve do, or how we play. For as long as we all play this game, we all labor under the exact same rulesets. The rulesets regarding wars may change soon, but before then and after, we all have the exact same terrain to navigate, the exact same conditions to labor under and so on. This means that indeed, none of us can dictate how people play. Only CCP can.

"Pretend we dont exsist"

No can do. This is a single shard persistent universe. It's the one sandbox, and as long as what we do ripple out and affect anything but ourselves, we also kind of have to acknowledge everyone else's existence when either we affect them, or they affect us. From the newblings mining in a venture in the newbcorp to a several hundred man combat focused corp dropping a few dozen caps on something, it's all part of the universe that we kind of have to acknowledge.

It's a bit strange to expect being able to publicly push being a certain kind of character and loyalist, and for opposing loyalists to pretend you don't exist?

RP in Eve.

"dont call what you do RP cause we dont care for it"

Well, we return to "not being able to dictate other people", don't we? To me - and it used to be far more widespread - that is the most outright RP you can really get in Eve. Undocking and fighting for what you stand for. It's honestly very odd to claim that an X Loyalist taking on Y Loyalists in PvP shouldn't be called RP. What we are or are not into in Eve doesn't really matter much. What Eve is, does matter. I am really not into a whole bunch of stuff in Eve, like Triglobytes and Doriftos, most of the bearing events and so on and so forth, but we really can't just go "Well I'm not into X or Y or Z, so it's not RP if your character is into X, Y or Z." That's nonsensical.

This one log is around nine-thousand characters and it's one of many. I've even been getting RL threats some times. However, in the interest of making this a discussion rather than an endlessly long ramble on how RP and PvP are intertwined in Eve, I'll just write up a quick conclusion and hopefully we can get some mature and reasonable discussion on the subject instead of that sort of thing:

Eve is PvP. There's just no way around it. From the outright combat oriented through markets and economy, or even the humblest Venture miner will be competing with other players in some form or another.

Eve: Everyone vs Everyone

We're all under the same rules and start under the exact same conditions. We get to risk what we decide to risk and we get to reap the benefits and rewards of our actions. More importantly, in a single-shard persistent world, we get to reap or enforce the consequences of our actions and choices.

Choose to side with X or Y. Make decisions that makes you enemies of these or those. Choose to not make enemies. Choose to make all the enemies. Choose to do whatever you want. That's what Eve is all about. Of course, when you choose to be the enemy, is it really reasonable to expect that those enemies can't touch you? Is it reasonable to expect that we can do whatever we want, say whatever we want and do all of it without risking consequences at all?

I say... no. As roleplayers we are particularly beholden to this persistent universe. Our actions and choices matter that much more since our interactions are what forges the stories and progress of our characters and universe. This includes facing the consequences of our choices. This means that just like all other Eve players, when we log in, slap loyalties, words and actions onto our characters we consent to everything we've put ourselves at risk for. If we're in a player corporation, we're at risk of war. If we undock, we're at risk of suicides. If we anchor something, we're at risk of losing it. When we take a stand... we consent to someone trying to break us down.

We are not exempt from Eve players playing Eve at us, when we're playing Eve.

... also, we probably should go easy on the real life threats when someone does RP at us via F1-F4. I'm chill with it, but others would have reported for a ban. Let's keep the crushing of dreams in-game, hmm?

Also RP in Eve.

[Samira Kernher]

I am pretty much entirely in agreement with this. The ability to have non-consensual pvp is one of the most important parts of EVE, and a very essential element for good, immersive roleplaying. It's one of the many things in EVE that makes the game come across as a real alternate universe rather than just a video game. I get that it can be hard to deal with for some people, but removing it would hurt RP far more than it would help it, because the ability to separate and isolate RP into separate little bubbles results in communities becoming distant and the world getting smaller. Yes, having to share the world with people you might not like, or people who do things that you do not like, can be hard, but it is a fuller experience and one that is necessary for having depth and breadth of storytelling. The best RP communities I have ever been in are the ones where the community comes together and works together to build one whole, interweaved community and story, rather than those who split off into isolated cliques running their own storylines in small circles because they don't want to have to deal with anyone/any plot that they don't approve of. Learning how to deal with things that don't always meet your approval or aren't exactly what you want, whether pvp or otherwise, is a far healthier mentality than always constantly worrying, and it's one that translates to real life as well.

The problem specifically with pvp, of course, is that people have an instinctive, kneejerk reaction against it, because they have not really trained themselves to be prepared for it. PvP does not actually affect you in any way, even in a game with real loss like EVE, but if a person hasn't learned how to deal with it it can be a trying experience.

My very first MMO was EverQuest 1. I played it around when I was 13 or so, and had joined a guild of people my mom knew from work. The server we played on was Rallos Zek, which was a full-time pvp server. On EverQuest, pvp worked in that you could pvp, or be pvp'ed, by anyone within 4 levels of you, anywhere in the game (though strong city guards made cities somewhat safer). In addition, they could take items off of your corpse when you died (unless those items were in bags - which resulted in the equivalent of 'unplugging your implants' in EVE where you rushed to put everything on you in a bag when you knew you were going to die). Initially, I hated pvp. I was always the ganked, not the ganker, and I used such tactics as "pulling the net cable while moving zones to force a safe DC" to "whining and crying to my killer". But I, nowadays, consider it to have been a very positive experience to me, because it taught me from an early age how to deal with it. I got my anger and frustration out, and adapted. It was just a game, it was part of the game, and the only issue was my mindset. I later moved on to SWG, where I played a Jedi in the early days and had to deal with getting bounty hunted by other players (which would result in exp loss if they killed you). By this time, I found I loved the rush of it. Always being on the lookout for the chance someone might be after you, watching for the telltale 1 fps lag spike that indicated a person had 'spawned' into your nearby area, pve'ing on less-used planets where the presence of a blip on the minimap was almost surely a hunter, being on constant guard when in populated hubs. Prey mentality. And if they won, oh well, no big deal, because it's just a game. I later went on to an RP-PvP server in WoW, and now, EVE. In those, well, it's just, again, about always being prepared.

It is about your mindset. And mindset is something that can be changed. There is no one playing right now that can't decide for themselves to adapt how they look at PvP into a healthy one. There is no one that can't learn how to say, "I know there is non-consensual pvp in this game. I know that someone can or has warred against me and my guild. I know that they can attack at any time. So, before I undock, I should make sure that I am mechanically and mentally prepared for the chance that I get attacked." It might be hard to get yourself to that mindset, because the shock and surprise can be "traumatic", but once you do, your experience in not only EVE but in any game will be so much better. It even helps you in non-pvp-related roleplay, because that same mindset is one that helps you deal with negative consequences or losses that you incur during RP: "Okay, my character lost this fight/this argument/someone yelled at me, I can get angry and complain at them OOC, which won't accomplish anything, or I can just accept it and move forward."

It's honestly very odd to claim that an X Loyalist taking on Y Loyalists in PvP shouldn't be called RP.

...

Choose to side with X or Y. Make decisions that makes you enemies of these or those. Choose to not make enemies. Choose to make all the enemies. Choose to do whatever you want. That's what Eve is all about. Of course, when you choose to be the enemy, is it really reasonable to expect that those enemies can't touch you? Is it reasonable to expect that we can do whatever we want, say whatever we want and do all of it without risking consequences at all?

I say... no. As roleplayers we are particularly beholden to this persistent universe. Our actions and choices matter that much more since our interactions are what forges the stories and progress of our characters and universe. This includes facing the consequences of our choices. This means that just like all other Eve players, when we log in, slap loyalties, words and actions onto our characters we consent to everything we've put ourselves at risk for. If we're in a player corporation, we're at risk of war. If we undock, we're at risk of suicides. If we anchor something, we're at risk of losing it. When we take a stand... we consent to someone trying to break us down.

We are not exempt from Eve players playing Eve at us, when we're playing Eve.

+1

[GoGo Yubari]

Q: What is best in life?

A: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!

'nuff said.

[Veiki]

Because the majority of rp conducted in other games is usually done in the walled garden of a guild, with little outside intrusion and where pvp is usually either consensual or restricted to specific areas.

Also: 99% of rp in Eve is mostly complaining about rp in Eve.

[Silas Vitalia]

You all know how I feel about this, I'm sure

I want to add one slight bit of nuance on the matter though, which is an idea of 'appropriateness' or 'deservedness' to unconsentual RP pvp.

Basically applying an 'appropriate' level of force and destruction on targets only up to a level appropriate with their game experience and veteran status.

-RPers whose characters 'run their mouth' IC and aren't expecting a rp pvper to smack them in space are delusional, and are due a proper spanking of their shinies to learn how this works.  This is an important lesson that a few exploded expensive ships can teach very quickly.

-Younger, newer RP corps and players, I always felt more appropriate to take a 'lighter' approach.  War decs of limited scope, hunting of limited nature, not trying to crush people out of the game overwhelmingly out of the bat.  Just because you are a 6 or 7 year vet and you have friends and resources to shit on younger RPers doesn't mean you necessarily -should-.  You can get your RP points across with an appropriate amount of destruction and not totally make people want to quit the game.  I think the idea is to show them that what they do and say in game has consequences, but that you'd rather them be a part of the community for the long haul and have them around, and that pew pewing them doesn't mean you don't like them.

-Veterans with resources and means, no holds barred. If you've been in the game a few years and know what you are doing, you are in the deep end and should not fear getting trashed most violently in any capacity.  You should know how to handle loss and realize its just game assets, you are gonna be ok.

You'd be amazed how many supposedly tough talking IC RPers after a few years in the game can still be brought to IRL depression and angst after losing a few space shinies, totally ridiculous.

[Veiki]

Frankly, you never know what's considered 'appropriate' by people until the dec goes live.

[Mizhara]

-Younger, newer RP corps and players, I always felt more appropriate to take a 'lighter' approach.  War decs of limited scope, hunting of limited nature, not trying to crush people out of the game overwhelmingly out of the bat.  Just because you are a 6 or 7 year vet and you have friends and resources to shit on younger RPers doesn't mean you necessarily -should-.  You can get your RP points across with an appropriate amount of destruction and not totally make people want to quit the game.  I think the idea is to show them that what they do and say in game has consequences, but that you'd rather them be a part of the community for the long haul and have them around, and that pew pewing them doesn't mean you don't like them.

I'd agree with all of it, but the above needs one more qualifier: If the lesson does not take, the gloves come off. Especially if there are "vets" involved that should know better. I'll gladly nurture and guide a little newbling - Ferra Orta currently of Ushra'Khan and doing WH spoopypewpews on another character now is my proudest achievement - but if they go ultrasalt and just refuse to take kind advice or hints, instead just basically wallowing in self-pity about being 'bullied'... well, sod them.

[MakotoPriano]

So, without wading into this topic, I'll note this:

If you receive any threats or excess salt from anyone in ARC, be sure to give me a heads-up so that I can talk some sense into the person.

Cheers.

[Louella Dougans]

It's a game. played by people.

the setting of blocs against blocs means that there is very little room immersion wise to ""play nice"".

for example: take the situation of House Sarum vs House Ardishapur. Now, for two player entities, it's possible for a war between them, to result in a resolution whereby house Sarum agrees to something with house Ardishapur. And so, the sarumite characters and ardishapuritan characters can then choose to bear a grudge, or let bygones be bygones.

now take the example of Amarr Orthodox vs Sani Sabik. There Can Be No Resolution. There is No reasonable end to a war between those player entities.
"While vile mutants still draw breath, there can be no peace. While obscene heretics hearts still beat, there can be no respite. While faithless traitors still live, there can be no forgiveness.", as wh40k would say.
It can be argued that it is a betrayal of an Amarr characters fundamental nature, to allow a Sani Sabik to persist, to allow their organisation to exist in any way, shape, or form. They must be killed wherever they are found, their supporters and followers executed, their supplies and equipment burned.
From an IC sense, there is no reasonable force to be employed. YOu hit them hard, and keep hitting them, until they're dead.


Now, there are plenty more of these bitter conflicts, amarr vs minmatar for example, there's not really much of a middle ground there, is there.

So it ends up, that the only rp pvp that can be resolved, is the 'internal' disputes - between Houses in Amarr, between Megas in Caldari, between Tribes/Clans in Minmatar, between fashionistas in Gallente.

But for the big IC disputes, the only immersive resolution is to drive the enemy characters out of existence. Which usually requires making it extremely un-fun for the player behind that character to play at all.

So a lot of the time, the only way for a resolution ends up being to drive the opposing players out of the game. and you end up playing with yourself.

[kalaratiri]

Personally I am a big proponent of RP in space and actions having tangible consequences.

However.

I believe the issues with RP wardecs are the same issues that plague all of highsec wardecs. The problem isn't the RP side of things, it's the game mechanics behind it:

• Immense psychological and tactical advantage of being the agressor
• No tangible "win conditions" (unless player set) to dictate how long a war should continue for
• Neutral alts/scouts, older player advantage through locator agents and general mechanics knowledge

I very much agree with Silas' point about appropriate force. As much as an RP-inspired war can be about 'winning', I believe that in the spirit of collaborative story telling the war should, as best as possible, be fun for both sides. The relentless harassment of a group in the long term often does considerably more harm than good, especially if they're not a PvP motivated group.

Yes, of course, Eve is a PvP game and a non-consensual one at that, but the simple fact is some people aren't interested in space combat and aren't suddenly going to become budding space marauders just because they've been wardecced for the last 6 weeks. Some groups aren't going to fight no matter how hard you push them. We've seen this repeated thousands of times across more than a decade and a half of highsec wars.

In these cases, I believe there needs to be a point where the war is ended by some other means, whether that's IC negotiation or straight up surrender conditions.

I think the biggest point for me is that the game, and the RP, is more fun with enemies. Much like Batman and The Joker you can't just eradicate your enemies entirely because then what would you do all day?

[Ukeko Ahrzi]

I'm of two minds on the issue.

On the one hand I hate to see the low trodden upon. I want to help people and try to save them, even though I can't.

On the other I love that EVE has consequences. Smack talk someone with a gun, get shot.

[MakotoPriano]

Essentially +1 for Kala's post. Essentially all components of that are in play here. I doubt anyone with any sense or experience in EVE is going to be arguing in favor of safe spaces or words-without-consequences, so not much to say excepting that it seems a bit of a straw-man.

[Veiki]

I think there needs to be a differentiation between filing a wardec to achieve a specific RP political objective or goal against another group; and just slapping a group around because there's been such a breakdown of trust and respect between the players involved that any IC negotiation becomes impossible and the only thing left to do is just harvest the salt and killmails because you can.

[Mizhara]

In my experience, diplomacy is pretty much always on the table... from the aggressors' side. Every war I've been involved in since I started Eve a decade ago has been wars where diplomatic solutions could be reached, be they the RP wars, un-official non-CONCORD wars, burning the north and so on... There's never been a war that couldn't just end.

... you know, if the defender offered reasonable surrender terms. Over the last ten(!) months, I've been approached for diplomacy once. The diplomat drunkenly fell asleep at the keyboard and it was never resumed/finished.

I don't think the self-destructive tendencies inflicted by pride and so on should really be blamed on the attackers. If a war drags on while it isn't wanted, but no one is willing to reach out to end it... well. That's a thing. As an example: yesterday I had a conversation with someone who genuinely felt that I was supposed to end all these wars out of nowhere. Not because I had an IC reason to. Not because I'd have an OOC reason to. I would, IC or OOC, be given no incentive to give up the wars. I should just do it, because... well, they didn't want to be at war, but they also didn't want to negotiate it, and they didn't want to RP it and so on and so forth.

It's this strange duality and dishonesty, where you are demonstrably having some sort of impact - the amount of privchats and other logs are kind of conclusive - but at the same time acknowledging this in any way IC is utterly unacceptable. Can't really have it both ways, can you? This then is the reason why there does need to be a victory conditions update for wardec mechanics etc: When the losing side decides to go down with the ship, stubbornly and out of pride refusing to simply lose and agree to terms, instead just crying out OOC about 'bullies', it really is not the attacker that's being unreasonable as far as I'm concerned.

I have genuinely never seen someone wardec someone else in Eve without being open to ending it with terms. The amount of times I've seen the losing side self-destruct rather than lose though... well, that's a rising number.

[MakotoPriano]

So, I can't speak on all of it, as I'm sure there's more going on that I haven't seen. However, it seems a bit of a misrepresentation. After all, the "I'm so reasonable" line falls flat when ARC directly stated its intent to provide freed slaves to Khaprice Heska of U'K during the Dawn of Liberation event, and your OOC and IC response was, "Good! You're undocking!" and to hunt people who'd be freeing Matari and giving them to a Matari loyalist and loyalist organization.

And, of course, you then seemed to ignore when 2.75m freed slaves were provided despite your very concerted efforts to hunt people.

So, not saying that there couldn't be more done, but it seems like you're sort of overstating your position there.