It was my impression that EVE was rife with camping & ganking… ?
Yes, but that’s actually intentional. EVE is actually unique right now in the MMO-sphere in that anything can and does go. The devs have made it clear that there are no rules beyond what the game allows you to do. If you want to act like a little psychopath within the game, that’s entirely cool with them.
Yep, Eve is supposed to be anarchic, and deliberately attracts that sort of player base. That still doesn’t stop them from making tweaks to game balance on a very frequent basis, nor stop the players from endlessly arguing about what is or isn’t unbalanced.
It’s not all that different really 
Ah. Then Finn was engaging in a little sarcasm & irony. (I am so easily whooshed.)
Even that’s not entirely true. I only dipped my toes into the waters of Eve and even then I heard about one: ganking someone in high-security space and then finding a way to escape the retribution of the game’s police force is strictly forbidden. Apparently, that’s been possible at various points in the game’s history, or they wouldn’t have made such a rule.
Well, has it been fixed in game?
See, in EVE I would be on LOUNE’s side. The creators explicitly set it up so what the game allows you to do is fine by them. If something becomes not okay, then it gets changed. That’s the creators’ attitude, so I’m cool with that. That’s not the case in City. The devs say something different, so that has to be taken into account with the game as a whole.
Hell, even in EVE I’d wager they kick people’s asses for exploiting and not reporting actual bugs.
Would you be similarly complacent if one of your friends, say, lied to you constantly? Or told you exactly what he thought of you, all the time? Or stopped bathing regularly?
After all, none of those are against ‘the written rules’.
Spinagain. Bad analogies.
I guess I’m just not getting your argument.
Are you saying:
a.) He wasn’t being a jerk, because it wasn’t against the rules, or
b.) He was being a jerk, but it doesn’t matter because it wasn’t against the rules, or
c.) Something else?
d) He may be a jerk, but not because of the game. It was broken, he thrived. It’s fixed, and he bails. Problem solved.
No, not at all. I was totally serious.
I wouldn’t play EVE if I didn’t like it, and I freakin’ love this game.
The thing is, in EVE, the players can enforce their own rules. If someone’s harassing you and your buddies, then you can all team up and fight back. The problem with what’s happening with this guy is that the trick he was using didn’t really have a counter, so nobody could fight back against it.
It’s possible that the EVE developers are a little more vigilant, that they didn’t allow an imbalanced tactic of this magnitude to exist. Of course, it’s also possible that they were just lucky in that regard.
Well it seems we agree.
Because breaking them makes the game worse for everyone, drives away players and hurts the game. What the devs should have done is simply banned him for a few days; or forever if he didn’t learn to behave better. They’ve done it in the past, including with other Teleport Foe griefing ( like teleporting someone into a place where geometry won’t let them get out of ).
CoX is NOT a game where “if the game engine lets you do it, it’s fair game”.
Well, not entirely. Because now he’s written a paper about how gamers are violent little sociopaths who make death threats when they lose a game. Expect this paper to be used the next time a congressman wants to make some headlines by trying to ban a popular video game. Not only was this guy a jerk, but he’s actively hurting the gaming industry as a whole. He’s moved up from griefing one server in one game, to griefing the entire hobby.
…Because of the inability from the developers to take action.
This guy is seriously fucked up in the head. I read the linked article and his entire paper before any of the comments in this thread or the threads in the CoH forums, and there’s a pretty stunning gap between his account of his behavior and what appears to be the whole picture.
I think it’s really telling that the only mention of “debt” in the guy’s entire paper is in a snippet of guild chat; nowhere is the meaning of the term explained. I’ve never played the game so I thought it was a reference to him owing his guild leader some in-game currency or something. Now that I know what was actually going on, it’s pretty stunning how childish and dishonest his entire perspective on his “breaching behavior” is. You’d think a PhD writing about a community’s response to somebody violating its norms would, if he had any interest in academic integrity, would actually explain to the reader why the community is opposed to the behavior in the first place.
LOUNE’s point isn’t especially compelling. Who cares if it was a mistake to allow the use of the teleport ability in this particular way? It’s probably a “design flaw” that people are allowed to drive themselves to a bar alone on a Saturday night. Doesn’t mean the drunk driver isn’t a dick.
It gets more compelling if you remove the alcohol or the driver from the issue, which is pretty much what I’ve been saying the whole time.
I’m not sure what action the developer could have taken to prevent him from publishing an academic paper.
Had they acted sooner in the game, the paper probably wouldn’t have been published. Realistically, not much. It’s up to him if he’s going to write a paper on the experience or not.