These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Plea for Rationale in the System of Natural Consequences

Author
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#221 - 2012-05-28 10:12:02 UTC
Oddball Six wrote:
I do not live in my mother's basement.

I am fortunate enough to have full time employment as a fairly successful Solution Architect for a Global consulting firm. I play from a custom built home office and hotels all over the United States. My identity is defined as a father, a husband, and a businessman. Eve has woven itself in as an on-again, off-again diversion where for the last three years I can apply business acumen and some custom tools to build an industrial marketer and manufacturer.

Eve is a fun low pressure environment where I make the conscious choice to forgo combat and low sec rewards to maintain the low stress nature of this pursuit.

Recently, I was killed mining and even podded in high sec. Losses in my ship of 300mil plus, implant losses of something on the order of a billion and change. Why? Because CCP has chosen by its inaction to allow a loose coalition of players to reward collective behavior against the engineered system of penalties and policies that are intended to make high security zones a low risk, low reward environment.

I petition CCP to consider the policy and natural violations that the inaction to date represent, and also suggest a system of natural Consequences which may be of use in curbing such competitions like 'hulkageddon' - or at least limit them to the low- and null-sec systems where they belong.

Recognizing the Violations of CCP Policy

An external competition like hulkageddon depends upon players allying and indeed competing to determine which player is most willing to ignore the disincentives engineered into the game which protect players who participate in high security systems. Indeed the competition organizers have created systematic logs denoting and ridiculing the expressions of distress or outrage by affected players:

Quote:
" The same cannot be said for the 5000 poor fools that have been deshipped in the first half of this year’s Hulkageddon, with over a trillion isk in damages done so far. This hulkageddon has exceeded our wildest expectations. I am so very proud of all our great competitors, and remember the race for the gold is not yet over!"

- http://hulkageddon5.machine9.net/?p=96

Yet CCP has denoted conduct such as this which determines to interfere with the operation of the system and the enjoyment of other players as verboten through at least two provisions.

Quote:
"Role-playing is encouraged, but not at the expense of other player. You may not create or participate in a corporation or group that habitually violates this policy. "

-http://community.eveonline.com/pnp/terms.asp

The terms of service at http://community.eveonline.com/pnp/terms.asp specifically forbids role playing that interferes with others enjoyment of the game as well as forbidding conduct which disallows others to enjoy the game.

By organizing large scale operations to eliminate players engaging in high sec mining operations, and entire sector of game play is disrupted. By CCP's own statistics, thousands of players have already been affected in this way to date.

Quote:
"A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making others’ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way. Grief tactics are the mechanics a griefer will utilize to antagonize other players. At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account."

-http://support.eveonline.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=336

In the Knowledge Base published by CCP, as well, we find a definition of griefing and its specific prohibition of players deriving a significant portion of their time to game tactics that derive their enjoyment through the harassment of other players ourside of genuine pvp conflict such as corporation wars.

Recognizing Inaction as Counter to Real Life Analogs

One of the other clear guides CCP has applied to player conduct is the consideration of the real life treatment of the analog of the player conduct in a real society.

Were a real life band to conspire to affect markets by systematically attacking mining operations, there is ample precedent to recognize that governments and international organizations would act.

The grounds to do so are numerous.

  • Systematic attacks on the unarmed
  • Collusion to manipulate market dynamics
  • Collusion to destroy an entire class of entity


We would see concerted action on multiple fronts from the US, the EU, and the UN. Antitrust hearings. Courts and tribunals. Resolutions and committees.

CCPs response in the role of the international arbitration? Absent.

A Simple Response

I would suggest the response is simple and two pronged.


  1. Concord notices the drop in the markets and in order to ensure the supposed stability of the universe, have placed a couple of concord ships resident in high sec asteroid belts only in addition to their current locations.

  2. CCP begins warning and taking action against blatant high sec offenders.


Anecdotal evidence has already started to surface of player discontent with allowing these actions to remain unpunished and indeed unrestrained. I question how long CCP will wait to allow bands of players to flagrantly collude to ignore intended game mechanics and deny greater segments of the player base the enjoyment of the chosen virtual profession that keeps the real-life game revenue coming in.


OP fails to relise that this is a PvP game that revolves around people losing their ships regardless of whether they consent or not, then attempts to make real life comparisions.

Welcome to EVE.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#222 - 2012-05-28 10:12:33 UTC  |  Edited by: xxxTRUSTxxx
Oddball Six wrote:


Well known if you keep track of such things, perhaps.
I am a casual gamer with disposable income. Believe it or not, the largest segment of MMO revenue is from just such gamers.

I don't read EVE news. I don't follow the EVE forum.

The first I head of hulkageddon was AFTER I was killed today. And then my reaction went from "oh well" to "why the heck doesn't CCP realize the impact of their inaction". Hence the post.

CCP knows this. Anyone with MMO development / engineering experience knows the segmentation of revenue. Realizing that there are subscribers whose revenue impact can be lost by ignoring such dynamics as Hulkageddon creates is a quick path to declining revenue.



I'm betting you ran right to your wallet, grabbed that credit card and replaced all items from your disposable income with one swift transaction. Roll

so your loss didn't matter right ?? Roll so why the huge threadnought about a single ship loss ?
Aruken Marr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#223 - 2012-05-28 10:16:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Aruken Marr
Jessie-A Tassik wrote:


Why don't we take your CYNO blankie and your Local blankie away?


Bahahahahahahaha...

I'm more likely to get hot dropped than hot drop anyone. I dont think you understand how cyno's are used either. You think people make sure to undock with a cyno and a couple hundred people on stand-by just in case they get attacked? Please think about what you just said...

edit:

Oh I forgot you're that crazy conspiracy guy. Why would I even bother cyno'ing in a couple hundred people when I can get ccp to simply reverse my losses over skype?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#224 - 2012-05-28 10:17:20 UTC
Maraner wrote:
Yup it's a sandbox, I've shot up more than a few hulks in high sec but I do think for a 200 million + ship they could use a raw HP buff. Seems a bit lightweight that a single destoyer can pop a hulk with ease (granted dependant upon **** fit), three of them can kill anything.

Still there is a way to spawn your own concord at a belt folks, just think about it......


Spawning CONCORD for personal protection in a belt is an exploit and a bannable offence.

The hulk is more than able to tank 3 destroyers.
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#225 - 2012-05-28 10:18:58 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:


OP fails to relise that this is a PvP game that revolves around people losing their ships regardless of whether they consent or not, then attempts to make real life comparisions.

Welcome to EVE.


Honest, OP?

This. Solution? Find another game. You along with 60% of the people paying for this game don't belong here.

No need to do anything extreme. Just cancel and play something else. When 60% of the people wake up and figure out they really don't belong in 'this EVE' then CCP will wake up and figure out 'This EVE' is an absolute failure as a business model. Maybe then they will add more to EVE the 'sandbox' than blow stuff up.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#226 - 2012-05-28 10:19:12 UTC
Hroya wrote:
Oddball Six wrote:
Reposting baltec1's fits from another post because of thier utility, in case someone else discovers this thread later looking at a similar issue to my own.

Quote:
[Hulk, New Setup 1]
Damage Control II
Micro Auxiliary Power Core II

Invulnerability Field II
Invulnerability Field II
Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I

Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I

32k tank +4 implant needed

[Hulk, New Setup 2]
Damage Control II
Mining Laser Upgrade II

Small Shield Extender II
Invulnerability Field II
Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II
Survey Scanner II

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I

Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I

22.4k tank no implants needed.


Good post pointing out that a Hulk definatly isnt a miningvessel.
If you would show up in a pvp roam with a crossover setup like this you can pack your suitcase and go home.

The yield on this multi million isk mining setup makes it more viable to mine in a tormentor.


By all means show us that tormentor fit.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#227 - 2012-05-28 10:26:47 UTC
Mistah Ewedynao wrote:
Quote:
i'm quite new to eve


Yep and what continues to amaze me are the guys who think this is profitable??????

Heck running high sec plexs is more profitable than this, and I quit going that YEARS ago.

Gank a goon, they may have borrowed an implamt from Mittens!


At the start of the year my corp went on a caldari ice interdiction with just a handfull of gankers and killed 600+ miners in just two weeks. We made billions in profits just from the salvage and loot.
BoSau Hotim
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
#228 - 2012-05-28 10:28:37 UTC
Nice smirk.. steady gaze... 8/10... Oh wait.. this isn't the rate the avatar above you??? dang....

I'm not a carebear... I'm a SPACE BARBIE!  Now... where's Ken?

Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
#229 - 2012-05-28 10:32:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Pak Narhoo
baltec1 wrote:
Maraner wrote:
Yup it's a sandbox, I've shot up more than a few hulks in high sec but I do think for a 200 million + ship they could use a raw HP buff. Seems a bit lightweight that a single destoyer can pop a hulk with ease (granted dependant upon **** fit), three of them can kill anything.

Still there is a way to spawn your own concord at a belt folks, just think about it......


Spawning CONCORD for personal protection in a belt is an exploit and a bannable offence.



Sigh...
No it's not. It's banable to biomass the character that specifically is used to spawn Concord. As to not have to deal with the security hit(s).

An even then, the concord response time remains the same. So why even bother?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#230 - 2012-05-28 10:38:17 UTC
Pak Narhoo wrote:


Sigh...
No it's not. It's banable to biomass the character that specifically is used to spawn Concord. As to not have to deal with the security hit(s).

An even then, the concord response time remains the same. So why even bother?


Wrong, spawning CONCORD for protection is a violation of the CONCORD mechanics. If CONCORD are in the belt then they will jam the offending ganker instantly.

It is also a violation to recycle ganking alts to avoid the sec status drop.
RAP ACTION HERO
#231 - 2012-05-28 10:40:42 UTC
Ocih wrote:
Ganking miners exposes the very broken nature of all PvP in EVE.

A killmail for a T3 cruiser?
A Killmail for a Carrier?
A Killmail for a Command Ship?

No, we brag about Hulk killmails. That's our e-peen.

Broke? Just a bit.

I didn't fight a mighty dragon but I killed a baby cow when it wasn't looking.


Naw gankers don't discriminate from pos mods to caps to hulks, collect em all kids.

vitoc erryday

Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
#232 - 2012-05-28 10:44:55 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Pak Narhoo wrote:


Sigh...
No it's not. It's banable to biomass the character that specifically is used to spawn Concord. As to not have to deal with the security hit(s).

An even then, the concord response time remains the same. So why even bother?


Wrong, spawning CONCORD for protection is a violation of the CONCORD mechanics. If CONCORD are in the belt then they will jam the offending ganker instantly.

It is also a violation to recycle ganking alts to avoid the sec status drop.



Can you show me a quote on the Concord part? Because a few years ago I used an alt multiple times to spawn Concord. And back then (we had it thoroughly researched) it wasn't a violation.

Massive on purpose Concord spawning, yes that was/ is.

And what if you by mistake shoot someone in your fleet or try as a noob, like I once did, try to rep a rat? Shocked
AutumnRage Achasse
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#233 - 2012-05-28 10:52:29 UTC
I agree with Oddball. All you vets who think EVE is growing maybe need to look at who the new players are. The only thing growing are your alts. Keep up your good work CCP.
Lexmana
#234 - 2012-05-28 11:02:05 UTC
AutumnRage Achasse wrote:
The only thing growing are your alts. Keep up your good work CCP.

Wouldn't it be better if you started grow your balls instead ... oh right you don't have any.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#235 - 2012-05-28 11:07:38 UTC
AutumnRage Achasse wrote:
I agree with Oddball. All you vets who think EVE is growing maybe need to look at who the new players are. The only thing growing are your alts. Keep up your good work CCP.


If the alternative is getting rid of the reason people choose EvE, then I'd be fine if it didn't get any new Subs.

But EvE's growing both in subscriptions and average server population, so looks like we're all good there.

"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

Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#236 - 2012-05-28 11:18:01 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Maraner wrote:
Yup it's a sandbox, I've shot up more than a few hulks in high sec but I do think for a 200 million + ship they could use a raw HP buff. Seems a bit lightweight that a single destoyer can pop a hulk with ease (granted dependant upon **** fit), three of them can kill anything.

Still there is a way to spawn your own concord at a belt folks, just think about it......


Spawning CONCORD for personal protection in a belt is an exploit and a bannable offence.

The hulk is more than able to tank 3 destroyers.



Shoot a rookie alt in his free ibis with your other alt in his velator 100AU from the belt you are about to gank someone with your another/other alt, is also an exploit and a bannable offense.

brb

Ravan Hekki
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#237 - 2012-05-28 11:18:45 UTC
@OP

If Hulkageddon was about greifing i would agree, however it isnt. It's a very cynical bit of market mainpulation. Look at what it takes to make you hulk, look at what the people running Hulkageddon own...now look back. That fuzzy warm felling is you realising that Hulkageddon has nothing to do with griefing and is, and has always been, about ISK.

What they are doing is manipulating people into creating a need in the market (for hulks etc) which equaites to profit for those who own tech moons.

Now Hulkageddon drwas to a close i have to ask, did all you miners lock yourself down and sell ore when prices are high? Did you tank your ships and laugh at exploding thrashers? If not you missed the opertunity that is the EvE sandbox.

Lexmana
#238 - 2012-05-28 11:18:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
Lexmana wrote:
Mistah Ewedynao wrote:
CCP hasn't figured out a good PvP mechanism so they are just going with the Gooons "Content". Wonderful!

CCP designed the game before the goons were even playing it. Go figure.


Mistah Ewedynao thinks he is funny wrote:
I am so ugly I must be a Goon alt.


Mistah Ewedynao wrote:

:)

and all those likes must be Goonies, GO AWAY!

If this was a true sandbox you would probably hit me in the head with your showel instead of ad hominem attacks and shouting GO AWAY! while running to your mommy.
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#239 - 2012-05-28 11:50:11 UTC
>more to come, only up to page 6...<
Shian Yang wrote:

Greetings capsuleer,

You are very eloquent and make a strong case for your point. Unfortunately, as data released by CCP has shown your allegations has no basis in fact.

The population in New Eden has been rising year after year after year. This is a fact as released by CCP, with the latest update coming with the recent meeting in Reijkavik.

baltec1 wrote:
Peter Raptor wrote:
Really? In 2010, I really can't remember less than 50k players on weekends,
sometimes around 58k.

Because players online at any one time is the same as active subs.

Because Tippia already showed the correlation between subscriptions and concurrent online users is a fairly
accurate barometer when the same thing was said last summer during "The Summer of Rage"? Because the peak before the summer drop off is @ 2009 levels? Because Eve has started to show a downward trend in concurrent online numbers?
http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility
Inferno *was* the summer expansion, and it's not all that... But please, keep parroting the party line, this time next year will tell for sure.
baltec1 wrote:
Arcticblue2 wrote:

Actually there are many good ideas... paying fines for suicideganking ... also does make the timer for concord last only in gametime so there is no point for the player to log off to wait out the timer with their main instead ... so that would make them having to wait a while before next target and such.


The ganker loses their ship
They get a sec status hit and will be attacked by the empire navies when it gets low enough
They turn flashy red in local and on the overveiw
Anyone can attack a -10 pirates ship
Concord will destroy any ship the pirate gets into within 15 minutes of aggression
The "victim" can kill the pirate

Seems we already have penalties in place.

Completely ineffective and of no consequence (from my own experience in The Bastards) and so therefore of no actual deterrent value... but do go on...Roll

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.

Hroya
#240 - 2012-05-28 11:54:49 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Hroya wrote:

Good post pointing out that a Hulk definatly isnt a miningvessel.
If you would show up in a pvp roam with a crossover setup like this you can pack your suitcase and go home.

The yield on this multi million isk mining setup makes it more viable to mine in a tormentor.


Then don't tank your Hulk and accept that you are sacrificing your defense (increasing the risk to your ship) in order to maximize your yield (increasing your reward).

Everybody else makes compromises when fitting their ships, why should miners be any different?

Anyway, if you want to be PERFECTLY SAFE, mine in a Rokh. Now before you whine "But Battleships aren't mining ships, I want SP" and shit your pants, the Rokh is not required to mine. It is a STRATEGY that will allow you to mine with much less risk than mining in a Hulk represents.
With the new rigs and one Aoede, you can fit all the lows with mining upgrades and get 42k EHP. (Not recommended)
Dropping the Aoede for a Co-Pro, you get 92k EHP (109 if you OH as you see the gank incoming). (Recommended)
100k EHP, most of the Yield of a Hulk, and the insurable hull is 2/3 of its fitted value.
Both need a CPU implant, but v0v


Big smile You Sir are my hero. Why didnt i think of that, a Rohk for mining .. wait .. oh poops.
So if you are correct in your math here, doesnt it actually mean that a Hulk is really the piece of shite it truelly is ?
Maths aside, a Rohk is way cooler ( if such is applicable to mining anyways) then a boring ass Hulk.

And look at what isk goes into someone elses pocket when you build that Rohk compared to a Hulk and as you pointed out the insurance vallue.

You go your corridor but.