These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why risk versus reward doesn't matter
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#141 - 2013-04-03 12:00:01 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:

Players work to make Null stable. They build that Empire and make it safe. They are the Concord. That is why they deserve much better rewards.


Making just about everyone ally and watching local for afk cloakers is hard work. Big smile Def deserves all the rewards. Roll

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#142 - 2013-04-03 12:01:46 UTC
That's not how it goes, but thanks for your input mr uninformed hisec guy.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#143 - 2013-04-03 12:16:13 UTC
Mocam wrote:


In a civilized nation, you can spend billions buying parks, sponsoring education for less fortunate, etc. Get drunk and hit someone in your car and you'll be crucified for it no matter how many people you've saved and improved the lives for.

As such, if EVE's environment were based upon civilized nations, you couldn't "rat your sec status back" after ganking someone and even in "the bad part of town" (lowsec), the cops would swing by on occasion looking to nail the criminals. Only nullsec - outside of *ALL* jurisdiction, would such "freedom" exist.


Nelson Mandella would not agree.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#144 - 2013-04-03 14:28:29 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
HS does indeed provide protection. The fact that your attacker will lose their ship prevents most attacks that would otherwise happen.

What it doesn't provide is "prevention."

say it to miners who don't tank their hulks.
say it to freighter pilots who get ganked (and will be when Burn Jita NNN will come)
say it to pilots who get ganked "for fun"

yes, CONCORD removes some part of dangers but this is not "protection". This is more "limitation of dangers". It's like speed limit on roads: you still can lose your car on this road. However speed limitation makes is somehow rarer (but totally possible).

Technically protection = prevention of agression + compensation of loss.
High-sec does not provide prevention and does not provide compensation.
So nope, i can't agree that high-sec provides protection.


Quick, what does a Bulletproof Vest provide? Protection.
What's the generic motto of a police force? Protect and Serve.
What's the purpose of the Secret Service Protective detail? To Protect the President.

None of these are preventative agents (the Secret Service has a different part of the structure that does prevention), all of them are referred to as protective. (The US Supreme Court has even ruled on a case saying that the Police have no duty to prevent any specific crime, and thus cannot be held responsible if they fail to do so.)

Concord provides Protection. The Secret Service provides Protection (not one Presidential Assassin or would-be Assassin has gotten away). The Police provide protection (even though a lot of criminals get away wit their crimes). A bulletproof vest provides protection (even though it does nothing to stop someone from shooting you).

March rabbit wrote:

Can't agree.
- NPC farming: better than missions + pirate spawns
- mining: (before the bots) better than in high-sec (ABC and all this stuff) + officer spawns
- exploration: better than in high-sec
- PvP: unlimited thus better
- SOV: not in high-sec
- player owned outposts: not in high-sec (don't forget about taxes for services)
- PI: better than in high-sec + POCOs (lett taxes for you + taxing other people into your wallet)
- ..?

And if we speak about "how better it is and how better it should be" then we need to use some numbers i guess. Without pure numbers this can't be discussed properly.


Ratting: Worse than (maybe on par with) Incursions (esp using similar Equipment/Equipment value). Missions are no longer the comparison point for HS red-cross-shooting income.
Mining: Clearing a hidden belt is similar income to (as Dave pointed out) Scordite. You can't cherry pick in Null the way you can in HS. Also export costs, because (due to the state of Industry in Nullsec) there's no significant local consumption to sell to.
Exploration: Maybe. But 4/10s drop some of the most expensive deadspace items around.
PvP: is a cost, by any economic measurement.
SOV: is a cost. What income do you gain simply from holding Sov?
Outposts: Worse than HS stations, and the Fees are simply removing a cost of living there, at best (they do not create any ISK or material, they just adjust who gets to keep it).
PI: Sure. We'll give Nullsec PI. Well... except factory planets, which are HS or maybe LS.

Come to Nullsec: We have marginally better PI!


March rabbit wrote:
2 years ago i was mining in 0.0. made lots of money. No one even tried to speak "0.0 mining is bad" that days. What happened next?

Maybe ABC came to high-sec? Nope
Maybe megacyte, zydrin, etc... do not needed anymore? Nope

Market. Supply/demand. Reduce supply and you get it more lucrative.

BTW: what about officer/faction/transpost spawns? Do high-sec has better of it? Lol



What happened? The Drone regions got nerfed, eliminating a huge source of highly compressed Low end minerals (also High end minerals, but the way the Industry upgrade system works, that doesn't matter so much). Also M0 drops were eliminated, and Hidden belts were rebalanced to produce more High Ends.


Concord does not provide protection. They provide punishment for transgressions. They are NOT a bullet proof vest. They are the executioners.

Please look up "suicide ganking" for further details.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#145 - 2013-04-03 14:31:59 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
You might try to pretend you are doing this for CCP's benefit, but you aren't. You're doing this for your own benefit. Just like everyone else.

Otherwise we'd be in a different subforum discussing this.


Actually, general forums are where folks mostly discuss this stuff. I rarely posted on the class and other forums on the WoW/Rift/EQII forums. Everyone who was anyone parked themselves in general.

And I truly don't do it for the politics and headaches it can cause (especially the dogpiles and bait/report games), but do it because I like to play with many people, not more niche numbered games filled with dinosaurs. It's a MMO, it's suppose to be m-a-s-s-i-v-e. It's suppose to support a variety of playstyles.

And I talk about all the issues not just the talking points...then claiming to be "independent".

I'm truly independent. Could n-e-v-e-r be on the powerblocks leash.



My comment was in reference to Jenn mentioning the good of the people in regards to CCP's actions.

This forum is to talk about existing mechanics and opinions, and well, generalities.

When you start saying how CCP should make improvements or should do things, it belongs in a different subforum.

=)

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#146 - 2013-04-03 14:35:38 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Concord does not provide protection. They provide punishment for transgressions. They are NOT a bullet proof vest. They are the executioners.

Please look up "suicide ganking" for further details.

And? Concord does provide protection, it's just a soft protection and not a hard protection. And just like a bulletproof vest, it doesn't stop all gankers from ganking you. In some cases, ganks are avoided because the ganker doesn't want to take the punishment, in somne cases ganks are avoided because the ganker underestimates your HP, and sometimes you're just shot with an armorpiercing bullet.

Life sucks, wear a helmet.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#147 - 2013-04-03 14:59:02 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Concord does not provide protection. They provide punishment for transgressions. They are NOT a bullet proof vest. They are the executioners.

Please look up "suicide ganking" for further details.

And? Concord does provide protection, it's just a soft protection and not a hard protection. And just like a bulletproof vest, it doesn't stop all gankers from ganking you. In some cases, ganks are avoided because the ganker doesn't want to take the punishment, in somne cases ganks are avoided because the ganker underestimates your HP, and sometimes you're just shot with an armorpiercing bullet.

Life sucks, wear a helmet.



A "deterrent" can be used for "protection" as a semantic argument, but that's why we have people circumventing that deterrent by realizing that the cost to do what they are doing is the lose of their ship.

They do not get away scot-free. Hence why it is not protection. Only a deterrent for those not willing to lose those ships, or security standings.

Miners are not protected, criminals are punished.

There is a difference.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#148 - 2013-04-03 15:06:32 UTC
No, that deterrence is the protection they get. Sucks for them if that's not enough. Wear a helmet.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#149 - 2013-04-03 15:32:17 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Wear a helmet.



Indeed.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#150 - 2013-04-03 17:16:04 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Alarm clock CTA's??? -really???
Does this really happens in this game and are there really so many idiots doing it?-this community never ceases to amaze me.


It does depending on the alliance & the persons roll within the alliance. It even happens in highsec. It's amazing what people will do to get you safely kicked out of their corp after you awox everyone then AFK cloak in system for the rest of the day.



Then I must be a very lucky player.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#151 - 2013-04-03 17:28:21 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
No, that deterrence is the protection they get. Sucks for them if that's not enough. Wear a helmet.



Can it be a Judge(Judge Dredd) helmet? Is that what you are trying to say what Concord is? I don't understand the reference. I think concord and highsec et al sucks to begin with. It's horrible.

So maybe instead of "getting a helmet", maybe you should take the blinders off? Suicide ganks happen, concord doesn't protect. It punishes.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#152 - 2013-04-03 18:04:28 UTC
March rabbit wrote:

I don't get it. You mean policeman will stay and wait until you attacked/dead and then take weapon of "bad guy" and let him out independent of attack result?
And your "protection of MrPresident" doesn't include analyzing of possible attacks, defensive measurements up to direct cover of his body and all this stuff? You mean i can get right next to him, put my gun to his head and no one will even pay attention up to my shot? Shocked

I can't say about your USA laws but here in Russia we have different rules for different crimes. At least you won't get out just thrown your weapon after attack. And known outlaws always tracked. And police will try to recover my stolen stuff (at least this is written in laws).

The CONCORD only reacts to happened aggression. It won't try to rescue your stolen stuff. It won't track known criminals (it will but only 15 minutes, LoL).

Even on this terms i don't see reasons to pay anything for this service on top of my taxes.


Policemen do not, as a rule, have the responsibility (or ability) to prevent any specific crime. All they can do is investigate and punish (simplifying) the criminal after the the crime has occurred. They punish that criminal according to certain laws.

CONCORD does not have the responsibility (or ability) to prevent any specific crime. All they can do is investigate (which they're perfect at) and punish the criminal after the crime has occurred. They punish that criminal according to certain laws.

What punishments are being enforced are irrelevant to the question of what role the Police/CONCORD fill.

If you don't see them as worth paying anything for, where's your thread demanding that CONCORD cease protecting HS?

Quote:
i think you overestimate your "bulletproof vest" effect.

RL:
- How many suicide attacks happened last 100 years? Lots
- How many presidents were killed? I know about 1 (Cennedy). Maybe it was someone another too tho.

You really sure by only killing attacker they could get this result? I'm sure - it's not.

Eve online:
- How many hulks were killed last year? Lots.
- How many suicide gankers stopped their business because of CONCORD (read: in the fear of loosing this precious and f... expensive catalyst)? I'm pretty sure - not one.

Result: i still have to see any reasons to additional payments.


Once again, I made no claim as to what level of protection CONCORD provides. Just that protection is what they provide.

Proof: People are using catalysts to gank Hulks instead of Proteus's. Ergo, CONCORD is affecting their behavior (i.e. providing protection).
Proof: An AFK Mackinaw in HS gets ganked a lot less often than the same AFK Mackinaw in any well traveled LS system. Ergo, CONCORD must be affecting the ganker's behavior (i.e. providing protection).

Quote:
i guess you have never finished 1 lvl4 mission. Or maybe have it forgottten completely. I will refresh your memory:
- different NPC (damage/tank profiles)
- mission location few jumps away
- different EWAR from NPC (jamming, tracking disruption, sensor dampening, ...)
- ...?

Compare it to:
- 1 NPC type
- predefined and well-known damage/tank profile
- predefined and well-known EWAR
- no jumps outside of your system
- faction spawns
- escalation (at least there was escalations from Drone Horde in 2011-2012) which leads to great bonus

Add here effort about salvaging/looting: jumps from station to mission system, gates and all this stuff.

And stop using incursions please. Only small part of players do it. The main ISK source is lvl4s.


And the best ISK source is Incursions. If you want to compare high end ratting (Carriers and such), you compare it to high end HS PvE (Incursions). If people don't want to do that, that's their business.

By the way, you forgot one important thing to include in your ratting/missioning comparison: the very best system can accommodate maybe 6-7 people making ~100m/hr at a time. How many people are running missions in Umokka right now?

Quote:
don't like PvP? Welcome to high-sec then. Don't ask CCP to reward you to having PvP in areas MADE for PvP.
Reward of PvP: your killboard and killed enemies. If this is not what would you like - don't do it.

If SOV is a cost then welcome back to high-sec. Leave 0.0 space to those who will love to mark that space by their name.

For me personally: SOV is a reward. This is mark: I OWN THE SPACE. THIS IS MY EMPIRE.

Outpost is like SOV but better: nothing can change the fact that you have BUILT it. I have one outpost i've built in 0.0. It's under some barbarians control but i don't care: i built it! And some time of its story it has had my name on it. This is REWARD.

You compare it to NPC station? Why? 0.0 is not empire. There was no outposts in 0.0 before players started to build. This is your station. You rule it. You don't care about ruling the space? What the hell you do in space MADE for it?


Never said I didn't like PvP. Just that it is an economic cost, like any hobby.

What income do you receive directly from owning SOV? None. And it costs ISK in Sov fees. So it's an economic cost.

Outposts are also worse than conquerable stations and 0.0 NPC stations.

Quote:
there is 2 options:
- you have never did any PI
- everything has changed since September 2012

Because as far as i remember in high-sec you pay taxes (crazily big) and in 0.0 you have your own PoCo where you can tax other players. When i was building my outpost i used 0% of tax. It made me pay for 1 launch 0ISK, while with 2.5% i paid 5 million. In high-sec it was even more expensive (according to prices).

Add here better planets in 0.0 and ....

Yes, "marginally better"Roll


The taxes aren't particularly significant in a Factory planet, and LS offers the same Tax savings. And the quality of the planet has no effect on a Factory set up.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#153 - 2013-04-03 18:30:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
RubyPorto wrote:
Once again, I made no claim as to what level of protection CONCORD provides. Just that protection is what they provide.

Proof: People are using catalysts to gank Hulks instead of Proteus's. Ergo, CONCORD is affecting their behavior (i.e. providing protection).
Proof: An AFK Mackinaw in HS gets ganked a lot less often than the same AFK Mackinaw in any well traveled LS system. Ergo, CONCORD must be affecting the ganker's behavior (i.e. providing protection).



This one seems weird...

You can gank in a catalyst within a week, yet need to skill for over what, 2 months? to get into a Proteus. Let alone afford the hull/fit.

That would also seem like Concord, in a bassackwards way, is protecting the ganker not the miner in helping "guide" the new ganker in how to effectively gank while minimizing costs.

As an economic lesson to ganking that is =P.

You wouldn't see that as compounding the problem? I'd rather see the Proteus NOT get Concorded, be allowed to gank, gain that flag, and try to get to station to reship into a hauler to get him some loot and/or salvage without getting blown up and in time to not lose those spoils.

That woould actually encourage a non bot aspirant behavior with mining, or would atleast encourage people to be more social in regards to hiring our mercs or enlisting people to help with their mining ops.

Alot more emergent gameplay... all because of Concord "protecting" the ganker in his catalyst... heh.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#154 - 2013-04-03 19:30:58 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Once again, I made no claim as to what level of protection CONCORD provides. Just that protection is what they provide.

Proof: People are using catalysts to gank Hulks instead of Proteus's. Ergo, CONCORD is affecting their behavior (i.e. providing protection).
Proof: An AFK Mackinaw in HS gets ganked a lot less often than the same AFK Mackinaw in any well traveled LS system. Ergo, CONCORD must be affecting the ganker's behavior (i.e. providing protection).



This one seems weird...

You can gank in a catalyst within a week, yet need to skill for over what, 2 months? to get into a Proteus. Let alone afford the hull/fit.

That would also seem like Concord, in a bassackwards way, is protecting the ganker not the miner in helping "guide" the new ganker in how to effectively gank while minimizing costs.


If CONCORD did not exist, the ganker would not have any costs to minimize (well, ammo, but Roll).

"Destroying a Ship is helping the ship's owner"-Murk Paradox.

Roll

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#155 - 2013-04-03 20:14:33 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Once again, I made no claim as to what level of protection CONCORD provides. Just that protection is what they provide.

Proof: People are using catalysts to gank Hulks instead of Proteus's. Ergo, CONCORD is affecting their behavior (i.e. providing protection).
Proof: An AFK Mackinaw in HS gets ganked a lot less often than the same AFK Mackinaw in any well traveled LS system. Ergo, CONCORD must be affecting the ganker's behavior (i.e. providing protection).



This one seems weird...

You can gank in a catalyst within a week, yet need to skill for over what, 2 months? to get into a Proteus. Let alone afford the hull/fit.

That would also seem like Concord, in a bassackwards way, is protecting the ganker not the miner in helping "guide" the new ganker in how to effectively gank while minimizing costs.


If CONCORD did not exist, the ganker would not have any costs to minimize (well, ammo, but Roll).

"Destroying a Ship is helping the ship's owner"-Murk Paradox.

Roll


If you are going to quote me, use the quote function and please don't misrepresent something I said when you were the one who said it. I'll show you how to quote it properly...

Quote:
Proof: People are using catalysts to gank Hulks instead of Proteus's. Ergo, CONCORD is affecting their behavior (i.e. providing protection).


Concord forcing people to be economically smart in their ganking is not a deterrent sir. Or maybe NO's Knights are doing it wrong? Is that what you imply?

Because if Concord did not exist, and we only had crimewatch as "protection" we would see FLEETS of people warping around and checking areas for suspect/criminal flags and lots of podkills.

Don't believe me? Visit your local trade hub in highsec.

Now talk about any costs to minimize.

Gah do you even READ what you type?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Ginger Barbarella
#156 - 2013-04-03 20:17:59 UTC
Nexus Day wrote:

Risk versus reward is bozo. Lo sec is about freedom, hi sec is about sacrificing those freedoms for protection.


You were actually kinda making sense until this statement. The only "protection" that exists in high is the 24-hour cooling off period for war decs, and that really only applies to people with small or medium towers that can't be arsed to fit them for defense (or man those guns). CONCORD is not protection, and merc corps are not protection.

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#157 - 2013-04-03 20:26:09 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Concord, in a bassackwards way, is protecting the ganker.


If CONCORD did not exist, the ganker would not have any costs to minimize (well, ammo, but Roll).

"Destroying a Ship is helping the ship's owner"-Murk Paradox.

Roll


If you are going to quote me, use the quote function and please don't misrepresent something I said when you were the one who said it. I'll show you how to quote it properly...


I didn't misrepresent anything.

"Concord... is protecting the ganker" ... by blowing up his ship. That's what you said.


Quote:
Concord forcing people to be economically smart in their ganking is not a deterrent sir. Or maybe NO's Knights are doing it wrong? Is that what you imply?


Sure it is. The guarantee of ship loss deters people from using the most effective ship for the job (Talos, Proteus, whatever), and deters people from ganking literally everything they see, because they'd lose significant amounts of money from losing their ship all the time.

Quote:
Because if Concord did not exist, and we only had crimewatch as "protection" we would see FLEETS of people warping around and checking areas for suspect/criminal flags and lots of podkills.

Don't believe me? Visit your local trade hub in highsec.

Now talk about any costs to minimize.

Gah do you even READ what you type?


I live in LS which is functionally equivalent to HS without CONCORD. The fleets you claim would pop into being to hunt pirates simply do not exist.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#158 - 2013-04-03 21:02:25 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Once again, I made no claim as to what level of protection CONCORD provides. Just that protection is what they provide.

Proof: People are using catalysts to gank Hulks instead of Proteus's. Ergo, CONCORD is affecting their behavior (i.e. providing protection).
Proof: An AFK Mackinaw in HS gets ganked a lot less often than the same AFK Mackinaw in any well traveled LS system. Ergo, CONCORD must be affecting the ganker's behavior (i.e. providing protection).

Concord providing protection seems rather subjective. I'll agree that they provide consequence which may deter some attackers or narrow the list of commonly use tools, but they don't prevent any attacks, forbid the use of any ship or module, or seek to actively prevent harm or provide aid to those attacked. The attackers change in behavior is not mandated by concord, it's simply a response to the function of concord which people willingly take.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#159 - 2013-04-03 21:10:06 UTC
Andski wrote:
imagine a space-themed amusement park and you have several rides

that's what eve is basically going towards



Then stand with me in making all resources limited, even in nullsec, so that as surely as highsec belts can be mined out entirely, nullsec moons can be sucked dry.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#160 - 2013-04-03 21:54:22 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
So maybe instead of "getting a helmet", maybe you should take the blinders off? Suicide ganks happen, concord doesn't protect. It punishes.

Suicide ganks does happen, yes, and they would happen a lot more if concord hadn't been there. Thus, concord protects.

Please, take away concord from hisec, and I'll show you just how much concord does protect. You won't like the answer.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat