most awesomest thing to happen in a mmorpg, ever!

[213374U]

It DOES, however, establish that it's not their property. As Magical Volo would say, "period".

So? Legally it's not their property, but it de facto is. Are you going to start living in denial as Volo, too?

 

 

I said closer to "GG" than whatever you were proposing. There's no complaining about what happened, and the comments are even IC. To me, it seems that the player is accepting it as a valid way to play the game.

I wasn't proposing anything, for starters. And the fact that she doesn't lash out against them in that particular article doesn't mean she doesn't anywhere else. It's not an open "GG!" declaration, so its validity as a support to your argument is nil.

 

You can read whatever you want from it, but the facts are that there is not a single hint of approval or admiration in that communique, or whatever it is. You are just twisting it to support your untenable stance. Good luck with that.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"So? Legally it's not their property, but it de facto is. Are you going to start living in denial as Volo, too?"

 

I guess if I steal something it's de facto mine, right?

 

"You can read whatever you want from it, but the facts are that there is not a single hint of approval or admiration in that communique, or whatever it is. You are just twisting it to support your untenable stance. Good luck with that."

 

There's not a single hint of disproval, either.

[metadigital]

"Read the article again. The economic damage has been equivalent to some $16k. Yes, that's RL currency."

 

Yes, that would be all fine and dandy, if it was the property of the players. Which, I'm afraid it wasn't:

 

B. Rights to Certain Content

 

You have no interest in the value of your time spent playing the Game, for example, by the building up of the experience level of your character and the items your character accumulates during your time playing the Game. Your Account, and all attributes of your Account, including all corporations, actions, groups, titles and characters, and all objects, currency and items acquired, developed or delivered by or to characters as a result of play through your Accounts, are the sole and exclusive property of CCP, including any and all copyrights and intellectual property rights in or to any and all of the same, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.

 

edit: Oh, please, Schu, Meta, spare my thread! Have I not done the same to your threads in the past?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[213374U]

I guess if I steal something it's de facto mine, right?

Let's see if I can simplify this enough for you. If not, I'm afraid I'll have to resort to sketching, and I'd rather not do that if I don't have to. I suspect you're just being purposefully obtuse so you don't have to admit that you are wrong, but I'm still going to grant you the benefit of doubt.

 

The assets associated to an account and the account itself have zero value, as they are the property of CCP. However, the right to control those assets inside the game world is what has value, and what is sold on the Ebay. It may be argued that even that is under CCP's control but that is only theoretical, as they would not exercise such control arbitrarily lest they drive players away. Now, if such assets are destroyed and/or stolen, they are not under the control of the original players. Those players have effectively lost control over an in-game resource, and that control right in turn had real world value. Hence causing real world economic damage to the players that controlled said assets.

 

Don't try to steer this into the direction that "any player looting is evil" because it's not the economic damage what matters, but the means through which that damage was caused. Burglary will get you jailed, while stockbroking will not.

 

 

There's not a single hint of disproval, either.

Irrelevant. You posted it as "proof" that Mirial's attitude towards the whole mess was "GG!". Which is not, and therefore the whole purpose of your post is defeated. Are you trying to add something to the debate or you are just posting randomly in an attempt to "win the thread" by getting the last post?

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"It may be argued that even that is under CCP's control but that is only theoretical, as they would not exercise such control arbitrarily lest they drive players away. Now, if such assets are destroyed and/or stolen, they are not under the control of the original players. Those players have effectively lost control over an in-game resource, and that control right in turn had real world value"

 

Aren't the MMORPG devs trying to stop that stuff because it is driving the players that make money for the devs away?

 

"Irrelevant. You posted it as 'proof' that Mirial's attitude towards the whole mess was 'GG!'. Which is not, and therefore the whole purpose of your post is defeated.

 

Irrelevant? It's irrelevant that Mirial isn't venting off anger, judgement, fire and brimstone on GHSC and their actions? Ok then, I don't know what we're talking about.

 

And, as a sidenote, I haven't claimed Mirial went all "WONDERFUL GUYS, THAT'S SO AWESOME!" or anything like that. I'm claiming the betrayal wasn't much of a heart-breaking affair.

 

Oh, and by the way, since I missed this so long ago:

 

"I don't care if she had done it herself before. If that is indeed the case, it's only proof that that community is even more rotten than the article shows, and to what depths will those people sink to pursue their virtual vendettas or take over others' virtual fortunes."

 

Yeah, I guess you don't get the game?

 

"Are you trying to add something to the debate or you are just posting randomly in an attempt to 'win the thread' by getting the last post?"

 

I'm totally convinced now. I was wrong, you were right, let's hug.

[Squidget]

Irrelevant. You posted it as "proof" that Mirial's attitude towards the whole mess was "GG!". Which is not, and therefore the whole purpose of your post is defeated.

 

From the discussion thread on the Eve forums:

 

For those interested heres how it actually went down. Mirial was in-game eve-mailed by someone claiming to be from pcgamer magazine , i dont know maybe a month or two ago, she mentioned it to us and we figured maybe it was a joke. She ignored it, they went with the article. <-- theres the facts

 

Again I point out some other "FACTS". We of UQS were robbed. Rather devastatingly (hence the article and all this attention). We have since then moved on and our alliance is progressing very well tbh and we take this all as "lesson learned" "move on" and so on. We are past it and it made us stronger as an alliance. And from now on if you have questions about UQS and what not (to clear up possible misunderstandings or to gain knowledge) ask me or another leader of AM. Cool

 

p.s no matter who was on what side of the stick it was a good article and great advertisement for EVE Very Happy

 

...

 

For those that get the blood all in a pantie twist about the theft need to chill, it's called "Lesson learned"; albeit this is a big one, but everyone can look back at something in EVE that happened that sucked (mistake you made do to ignorance etc.) and remember saying to yourself "well crap, I'm not gonna do that again." If your smart you take steps to ensure that it dont happen again. We did and have (if you been paying attention to news) recovered to the point to where if you didnt know about the theft you wouldnt be able to tell it ever happened.

 

The article is definitely a good thing, even if they do seem to insist on talking about us (UQS) in the past tense. I assure you we've more than recovered

 

On the subject of the theft itself, obviously at the time i was a little bit annoyed. BUT-this is exactly why i play EVE, and not World of Borecraft. This is the kind of thing that can only haappen in EVE, and it should NOT be banned or petionable or anything else.

 

Also on a controversial note, i was quite impressed by the execution too

 

My corp is one of the victims numpty. Its just Isk. I don't get ****ed when someone blows up my ship, and I don't get ****ed when someone steals something from me. Its part of the game. You don't get ****ed off at a friend when you land on Mayfair and he has a hotel on it, in Monopoly. If you want justice then you do it ingame and war dec GH-SC, at least they are open about robbing you unlike most thieves.

 

That enough for you? Sounds like 'GG' to me.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

Squidget

[213374U]

Aren't the MMORPG devs trying to stop that stuff because it is driving the players that make money for the devs away?

I honestly don't know what the hell are you talking about here.

 

 

Irrelevant? It's irrelevant that Mirial isn't venting off anger, judgement, fire and brimstone on GHSC and their actions? Ok then, I don't know what we're talking about.

Again, you are trying to establish a direct link between the fact that Mirial doesn't attack the GHSC in that communique and the possibility that she isn't angry. That link exists only in your mind.

 

 

And, as a sidenote, I haven't claimed Mirial went all "WONDERFUL GUYS, THAT'S SO AWESOME!" or anything like that. I'm claiming the betrayal wasn't much of a heart-breaking affair.

You have failed to back that up. And at any rate, it's the intent that matters.

 

 

Oh, and by the way, since I missed this so long ago:

 

"I don't care if she had done it herself before. If that is indeed the case, it's only proof that that community is even more rotten than the article shows, and to what depths will those people sink to pursue their virtual vendettas or take over others' virtual fortunes."

 

Yeah, I guess you don't get the game?

So how about you make some sense for a change?

 

 

I'm totally convinced now.

It's about damn time. )

[213374U]

That enough for you?  Sounds like 'GG' to me.

Enough? I don't see Mirial going "GG" in any of these quotes, so whatever. Read my posts next time before replying to them. It will save you a whole lot of embarassment. Also, only one of the quotes actually expresses admiration for the feat. If you went through the hassle of hand-picking quotes from a forum to back your stance, at least you could pick the ones that actually do that.

 

The third quoted player apparently isn't very pissed about the whole affair, and he shouldn't be. He seems to view it as an in-game defeat, and for him it was. Not for Mirial, though.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"I honestly don't know what the hell are you talking about here."

 

I'm talking about how the devs of the game do not condone the selling of even the right to control the assets you mentioned. It's is not the players, not even if they think it is.

 

"Again, you are trying to establish a direct link between the fact that Mirial doesn't attack the GHSC in that communique and the possibility that she isn't angry. That link exists only in your mind."

 

It wasn't the only one I read. It was the one Google gave me afterwards. Hey, Squidget's given us tons now. And, you know, remember that betrayal stuff and all that you talked about? You haven't given any shred of evidence to prove that. I think I stand on a firmer ground.

 

"And at any rate, it's the intent that matters."

 

Clarify.

 

"So how about you make some sense for a change?"

 

Didn't you argue that the reason why what happened was bad was because the GHSC went "out of the game" to accomplish what they did. Now, if that's how the majority plays the game, it's no longer really outside the limits, is it? Now, you say don't care if they do that -- I guess that means you don't get the game they're playing.

[Squidget]

Enough? I don't see Mirial going "GG" in any of these quotes, so whatever. Read my posts next time before replying to them. It will save you a whole lot of embarassment. Also, only one of the quotes actually expresses admiration for the feat. If you went through the hassle of hand-picking quotes from a forum to back your stance, at least you could pick the ones that actually do that. 

 

The third quoted player apparently isn't very pissed about the whole affair, and he shouldn't be. He seems to view it as an in-game defeat, and for him it was. Not for Mirial, though.

 

Well, she didn't post, did she? In general though, I'd say the leaders of the corp (which Lord Artemis is) probably speak for at least a good percentage of them, and I'm pretty sure they also stood to lose quite a lot as a result of this.

 

Remember, the vaults and hangars were raided, not just Mirial. All sorts of stuff was probably lost, belonging to all sorts of different people. I doubt a single person who posted didn't lose something, but they seemed ready to pick themselves up and walk away.

 

And it's not as if Mirial was booted from the game. She just had to return to an earlier clone. Not a huge deal, and it sounds as if they've recovered fine. In fact, judging from Page 9 of that thread it sounds as if PC UK may be doing a follow-up article detailing their miraculous recovery.

 

I honestly doubt anything any of us can say will convince you, but there are some games where screwing over other players is not only legal, it's expected. The monopoly analogy is an apt one - you might not congratulate the guy who takes all your money with a Boardwalk hotel, but if you lose the game because of it you don't shout at him for 'cheating' or being mean. It's just how the game is played.

 

And judging from what I've seen of EVE's community, I honestly doubt that Mirial would have ever gotten as far as she did if she didn't understand that. In fact, it sounds as if she screwed over a fair few people in her time. It's not wrong, anymore than it's wrong to roleplay an evil character so long as you do so within the expected confines of the game.

[213374U]

I'm talking about how the devs of the game do not condone the selling of even the right to control the assets you mentioned. It's is not the players, not even if they think it is.

Of course they don't condone it. They would probably get in legal trouble if they did. But the bottom line is that it's beyond their power to stop it.

 

 

And, you know, remember that betrayal stuff and all that you talked about? You haven't given any shred of evidence to prove that. I think I stand on a firmer ground.

I don't need to. All the evidence I need is in the original post of this thread.

 

 

"And at any rate, it's the intent that matters."

It doesn't really matter if Mirial was emotionally devastated or not. Each person reacts differently to that sort of things. What matters is that that agent dude befriended her with the only purpose of betraying her later.

 

 

Didn't you argue that the reason why what happened was bad was because the GHSC went "out of the game" to accomplish what they did. Now, if that's how the majority plays the game, it's no longer really outside the limits, is it? Now, you say don't care if they do that -- I guess that means you don't get the game they're playing.

You were right... until you began drawing conclusions from my statements. The problem is not who did it. The problem is that it may be (I don't know Mirial's or other big guild CEO's specific tacics) a common practice in that community. Hey, sure. If everyone does it, it must be right.

 

 

[snip]

Right. How many of those thought the infiltrated were their "friends" (in as much as a total stranger from the other side of the world can be your friend)?

 

 

I honestly doubt anything any of us can say will convince you, but there are some games where screwing over other players is not only legal, it's expected.  The monopoly analogy is an apt one - you might not congratulate the guy who takes all your money with a Boardwalk hotel, but if you lose the game because of it you don't shout at him for 'cheating' or being mean.  It's just how the game is played.

 

And judging from what I've seen of EVE's community, I honestly doubt that Mirial would have ever gotten as far as she did if she didn't understand that.  In fact, it sounds as if she screwed over a fair few people in her time.  It's not wrong, anymore than it's wrong to roleplay an evil character so long as you do so within the expected confines of the game.

Oh, please! Don't give me a lecture about losing and winning. I have played my share of online games and I understand those basic concepts. A game that doesn't involve the risk of losing isn't a game. However, metagaming is cheating, as it gives you an advantage outside the planned game mechanics.

 

And while it has been said that Mirial raided others and took their BPOs (whatever the hell those are), it doesn't really matter. I'd applaud the whole thing if all the manipulation and deceit had been carried out IC, but that's not the case.

[alanschu]

Again, you are trying to establish a direct link between the fact that Mirial doesn't attack the GHSC in that communique and the possibility that she isn't angry. That link exists only in your mind.

 

You're also 100% speculating that she is angry. None of us know either way.

 

However, if her executives don't seem overly pissed off, I doubt she is. If she was fuming at pissed at the world, that attitude would rub off.

[213374U]

You're also 100% speculating that she is angry.  None of us know either way.

Fair enough. But something like that is not very pleasant. Would you be happy about it? I know I wouldn't.

[Squidget]

Fair enough. But something like that is not very pleasant. Would you be happy about it? I know I wouldn't.

 

Happy about it? Probably not, but I wouldn't be angry about it either.

 

As neither of us play EVE, I'll try to draw an analogy to a different medium.

 

Say you're in a tabletop PnP game. Your party has been playing for a while and you've worked hard to reach the mid levels of power.

 

However, one of the players has been secretly working with the DM all along as an evil force, dedicated to befriending your party and betraying them at a crucial moment (don't laugh - I've had games where I played exactly that role.)

 

So, at the important plot line, he betrays your party masterfully and as a result your character is killed and the rest of the party barely escapes. The DM puts them through a difficult quest over the course of the next few weeks to resurrect you, at which point you are back in the game and fully recovered. The betrayer's character, no longer interacting as a member of the party, is essentially out of the game except if the DM plays them as an NPC.

 

Say you'd made friends with the player OOC during the game. Would you still feel any qualms about meeting him outside the game even though he betrayed your character, or would you feel that your friendship was over because you were temporarily inconvienced in a roleplay?

 

Sure, you might not be exactly happy about it, but it probably wouldn't be anything more than an annoyance OOC. It's 'just a game' after all.

 

I think it's a tribute to the EVE online community that they seem capable of differentiating between the two so easily, and not being emotionally devestated because they lost some cool bit of loot.

[213374U]

It's not the same thing. In the example you propose, friendship (real life friendship) is not being establised as a selfish means to achieve an end. Again, I have no problem with betrayal, as long as it stays IC. I wouldn't be angry with my friend because I know that our friendship isn't something established just to lower my guard.

 

Keep trying to make me believe that befriending someone with the sole purpose of betraying them in a game is perfectly fine. No matter how much you spin it, that's what it comes down to.

[Guest Fishboot]

I think it's a tribute to the EVE online community that they seem capable of differentiating between the two so easily, and not being emotionally devestated because they lost some cool bit of loot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the defense of non-players like me, the incident was sold on the internet as total devastation, back-to-square-one for the victim player and grievous harm to the lesser victims. If they were able to bounce back so easily it obviously wasn't that bad of an injury, or that EVE is set up so that the real capital is organizational and assets are trivial. And by extension the facts of the betrayal itself were probably overblown as well, since it's not like the betrayer-player was handed utter control over the fate of the victim's character, just a chance to kick his shins a bit.

[alanschu]

It's not the same thing. In the example you propose, friendship (real life friendship) is not being establised as a selfish means to achieve an end. Again, I have no problem with betrayal, as long as it stays IC. I wouldn't be angry with my friend because I know that our friendship isn't something established just to lower my guard.

 

Where was real-life friendship attained in the Eve scenario?

[metadigital]

You're also 100% speculating that she is angry.  None of us know either way.

Fair enough. But something like that is not very pleasant. Would you be happy about it? I know I wouldn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's all fun until somebody gets hurt. Tears before bedtime, for sure ..!

[213374U]

Where was real-life friendship attained in the Eve scenario?

This sounds cliche and all, but Read The Article. It says they were personally close.

[alanschu]

I did read the article and I don't remember hearing them say that.

[213374U]

You didn't pay enough attention. Read the description of Arenis Xemdal, for instance. Or Istvaan's description of the infiltration procedure.

[alanschu]

Arenis Xemdal is what we call a Valentine Operative." Shogaatsu explains.  "Essentially his job is to seduce and entice an objective into a state of trust and confidence.  As such, we'd describe Mirial's relationship with him moments before the strike....'endeared.'"

 

Is this what you're talking about?

[metadigital]

You didn't pay enough attention. Read the description of Arenis Xemdal, for instance. Or Istvaan's description of the infiltration procedure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As long as you don't use "penetration" to describe the man

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Before this goes out of topic - more discussion fodder.

 

I particularly enjoyed DarkUnderlord's post.