Crime & Punishment

Sorry, this seems to be longer than I thought it was


I agree that it would be a setback of some sort but, if you’ll excuse me rambling for a while, I think the frequency that an individual could be targeted is so low that as a percentage the impact on an individual miner would be in low single figures if not trapped behind a decimal point. My ball park calculations would make the ganking effect on me about <0.4% of my wealth but that is only so high because I haven’t been playing for ever, going for maximum isk per hour and because I’m awful at following my own rules (a problem a bot would not have).
I guess only CCP can run the proper numbers on it but my (very) rough scribbling suggest that given a moderately sensible bot master and bot vs a reasonable suicide ganking operation then the impact on the bot would probably average around 100k a day (but the bot could mine more than 100m a day without having to operate for excessive periods on time). That figure is of course being very generous since it would not be complex for a bot to dock up if a gank capable ship entered a belt. That simple behaviour would give a bot almost total immunity from the operation and it would seem to be an obvious requirement if you were designing a bot - although that is not the same as saying that all bots have that behaviour.

So in my opinion entering a belt in a gank capable ship is only going to allow you to be effective against poorly designed bots. A half decent bot should spot the threat quicker than a human could, it would simply avoid any scrutiny, where as ships that are not a threat would be able to get much closer.

That is not to say that ganking is wrong or shouldn’t happen, if people enjoy doing it then that should really be the reason that they do it and good luck to them. I guess the inescapable reality is that Eve wouldn’t last very long if a player losing a ship had any long term impact on them.



Whilst, as you say, perfectly possible it is however potentially a lesson that anthropology already learnt from and gave a clever name that must for now remain hidden inside the dictionary because I can’t remember what it is. Essentially it is prudent to consider the value of the observation if the fact of observing is having an effect on the observed.

Engineering a situation may reveal a bot however it seems a lot easier to simply watch them. Playing out a predictable pattern endlessly is not something a human is good at.
I think it worth considering that if all behaviour is a single set then bot and human exist as subsets and have an area of intersection, it must be more useful to be certain that an approach doesn’t reveal behaviour that is shared – stubbornness is a good example as a bot and a human will be quite adept at implementing it but that can easily be confused with (strict) repetition which only the bot will manage.

Initiating multiple behaviours at once would seem to add unnecessary noise, perhaps it would snag something simple but it may vindicate something more complex. Keeping things as simple as possible and noticing the detail will reveal most ai’s for what they are, humans are great at recognising patterns but are generally terrible at sifting through complexity. Interaction may still be necessary as part of a process but deploying it early may simply alert the suspect to what you are up to.


I agree that it is an inevitable arms race but the song and dance made about where exactly bumpers are likely to be seems to provide an unnecessary tool. The service is exactly the sort of thing an ai developer would be thrilled to have on tap, they should consider being slightly less predictable. But as ever it is up to people to chose what they want to do, there is no way of forcing an organisation to act in a certain way and there is no need for that to change.



I would agree that the organisation started off with a defined set of goals but that was some time ago. Its operatives (that I have come across so far) do openly claim to be targeting bots and doing the world a favour by doing so (part of the ‘service’ that they are providing), similar things can also be read in bio’s, such as the one quoted earlier in the thread. So while the website and marketing may say one thing the operatives are doing and saying something else and it is these people on the ground that is defining the organisations goals in the here and now. My guess would be that that is due to rapid expansion with too little control leading to inevitable tail wagging dog syndrome. At some point in the future that will inevitably have to be addressed but they seem quite distracted for the moment.

This about sums up the whole discussion really...

The idea is that the 'victim' has to show some kind of awareness and an effort to avoid the 'griefing', or otherwise CCP doesn't feel that they deserve to be protected by the EULA.

The Code is an excuse for trying to justify the extortion of hi-sec mining where no excuse is needed. If you are being ganked and your ship is being ransomed, that is extortion. If you dont want to play by his rules (The Code) you will be bumped and or ganked. All this is within the EULA that CCP has put forth.



James 315 himself states in the URL linked above, that this is a business whos primary goal is to make him ISK. He has successfully gathered supporters who send him ISK and Agents that do his bidding. James 315 is laughing all the way to the bank.


Its a great strategy and its working. I doubt he will ever make any significant impact on the economy of EVE though there are just too many solo players doing their thing.

The extortion of hi-sec miners can continue as along as people continue to pay him. If it didn't work he would not have any profit and that is the entire goal of hte New Order.

James 315 has found a way to monitize hi-sec piracy with a face of "I'm doing this for your own good". Its a genious ploy. It makes me wonder if James 315 is an Alt account of The Mittanni.



Personally I won't cower to extortion. I dont need to, EVE IS NOT A SAFE PLACE!
When I started playing EVE there were 2 rules.

1. Dont fly what you cannot afford to lose.
2. See rule number 1.

Those rules are more true now than ever.


When I do mine, I dont mine AFK, I never have. I tank my ships and I watch local. AND the New Order is not in the region where I mine anyway.



Yes, this is an alt. Im not stupid or crazy.

1) When miners come calling for a removal of NPC corps and corp-hopping to evade wardecs, that will be a valid complaint.


2) I'd be surprised if that got you in trouble. I'm sure that CCP gets enough petitions that they can generally plot your movements to distinguish between "following someone" and "bad luck."

The real question is:
Why doesn't crashing one ship into another at high speed cause damage to both?

Really?
A speed optimised nano fit (lower armour lower structure and above all light) catalyst crashes into a tanked Mackinaw with 30K m^3 ore in hold... come on the catalys should be a thin layer on the macks hull with the mack drifting an aditional 0.5m/s due to the difference in mass.

So say 10K damage to each, umm thats the catalyst is dust and the mack has lost all shield and some armour - seems a sensible outcome.

And when it's a Machariel at 5km/s, massing 150 million kgs, with ~100k EHP bumping into your Mackinaw (mass 20 million kg, EHP <30k, speed <100m/s)? You're literally asking for CCP to allow people like me to be able to gank you without getting CONCORDed.

Not to mention the fact that you're suggesting a mechanic that would immediately lead to CONCORD-free freighter ganking.

Ah, the lost art of reading, if only they would bring it back.

Did I say anything about GCC?
No?
Didn't think so.

That's one option - or maybe the one with the higher velocity just before impact?
I suppose you could engineer a way to getting yourself bumped to get a free gank.

Or perhaps the one who actually hit approach deliberately?