These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

Stubborn Alliances / Corporations

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
#41 - 2013-08-07 20:12:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Beekeeper Bob
Infinity Ziona wrote:
I have been war deccing corporations and alliances for quite a few years now. My terms are usually pretty reasonable, fealty, isk and recently docking rights in a null station.

I have done a lot of damage to peoples playtime, apart from blowing up their ships, preventing them from undocking, missioning, ratting, caused quite a lot to disband from corporation and had a few quit the game in frustration.

But it seems no matter what I do its virtually impossible to convince even the most frightened and frustrated player to part with isk or negotiate a fair resolution to the conflict.

I think this stubborn mentality can be seen in similiar ransom situations (example carrier gets tackled and prefers to self destruct rather than pay a ransom even though the ransom might be worth 10% of ship and fittings).

Why do think EvE players are so stubborn they would rather lose totally than negotiate and lose a little bit?


It's a game, perhaps you're the only one that over values space pixels that you don't even own? Shocked

Signature removed - CCP Eterne
Khergit Deserters
Crom's Angels
#42 - 2013-08-07 20:18:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Khergit Deserters
Chribba wrote:
I agree with the last posts here, that's more how I see it, might be beneficial for some to escape unharmed but it will provide more incentive for others to continue doing it. Plus I think some might still enjoy the fact to deny someone that ransom/kill, sorta like a small win rather than the loss of paying.

Basically you can see similar behavior in the market area too, especially loans and donations. If someone asks for a donation and get it, later they are pretty sure to ask again, except then double the sum. I know that one from experience.

/c

Like in this behavior study?
Test Subject A is given $10. Test Subject B is allowed to cheat him out of $5 (so A has $5 left). A can keep the $5, or spend $4 to punish B. B's punishment is that he loses all of the $5 he got from A.

Most people will spend the $4 to punish B. Even though logically they'd be better off keeping the $5, instead of being left with just $1. Amazingly, the financial/market prediction theorists didn't discover this "irrational behavior' until a few years ago. Now they're having to revise all of the game theory prediction models, which were based in the assumption that people will always make the decision that will maximize their material benefits. Pretty incredibly naïve of them, eh?
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2013-08-07 20:29:02 UTC
Khergit Deserters wrote:
Chribba wrote:
I agree with the last posts here, that's more how I see it, might be beneficial for some to escape unharmed but it will provide more incentive for others to continue doing it. Plus I think some might still enjoy the fact to deny someone that ransom/kill, sorta like a small win rather than the loss of paying.

Basically you can see similar behavior in the market area too, especially loans and donations. If someone asks for a donation and get it, later they are pretty sure to ask again, except then double the sum. I know that one from experience.

/c

Like in this behavior study?
Test Subject A is given $10. Test Subject B is allowed to cheat him out of $5 (so A has $5 left). A can keep the $5, or spend $4 to punish B. B's punishment is that he loses all of the $5 he got from A.

Most people will spend the $4 to punish B. Even though logically they'd be better off keeping the $5, instead of being left with just $1. Amazingly, the financial/market prediction theorists didn't discover this "irrational behavior' until a few years ago. Now they're having to revise all of the game theory prediction models, which were based in the assumption that people will always make the decision that will maximize their material benefits. Pretty incredibly naïve of them, eh?

Small amounts though.

Give A 1 million dollars. Allow B to cheat A of 500,000. A can keep the 500,000 or spend 400,000 to punish B. B loses his entire 500,000.

I bet A won't part with 400,000 to cost B 500,000.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Jason13 Anzomi
#44 - 2013-08-08 00:06:09 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Small amounts though.

Give A 1 million dollars. Allow B to cheat A of 500,000. A can keep the 500,000 or spend 400,000 to punish B. B loses his entire 500,000.

I bet A won't part with 400,000 to cost B 500,000.



Unless they're a backwoods hillbilly like me with a misplaced sense of honor. Hell, I'd not only give the $400k, but add in from my own bankroll just to teach that thief a lesson!
Xen Solarus
Furious Destruction and Salvage
#45 - 2013-08-08 00:09:31 UTC
Paying them would be counter-productive, and only encourage further war-decs.

Post with your main, like a BOSS!

And no, i don't live in highsec.  As if that would make your opinion any less wrong.  
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#46 - 2013-08-08 00:10:13 UTC
This thread has been moved to Crime & Punishment.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Mike Adoulin
Happys Happy Hamster Hunting Club
#47 - 2013-08-08 00:34:36 UTC
...............

What?

Straight

Ugh

Thanks, Ezwal.

Thanks a lot.

Roll

Everything in EVE is a trap.

And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)

You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.

Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
Harland White
Adventurer's Guild
#48 - 2013-08-08 02:14:45 UTC
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
I have been war deccing corporations and alliances for quite a few years now. My terms are usually pretty reasonable, fealty, isk and recently docking rights in a null station.

I have done a lot of damage to peoples playtime, apart from blowing up their ships, preventing them from undocking, missioning, ratting, caused quite a lot to disband from corporation and had a few quit the game in frustration.

But it seems no matter what I do its virtually impossible to convince even the most frightened and frustrated player to part with isk or negotiate a fair resolution to the conflict.

I think this stubborn mentality can be seen in similiar ransom situations (example carrier gets tackled and prefers to self destruct rather than pay a ransom even though the ransom might be worth 10% of ship and fittings).

Why do think EvE players are so stubborn they would rather lose totally than negotiate and lose a little bit?


Your doing it wrong... I am up 2 bil since the start of this month alone.

I might not make as much as other professions... but I make enough to support my type of gameplay.


Hi Kane, remember me?

By their fruit you will recognize them.
Khergit Deserters
Crom's Angels
#49 - 2013-08-08 02:36:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Khergit Deserters
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Khergit Deserters wrote:
Chribba wrote:
I agree with the last posts here, that's more how I see it, might be beneficial for some to escape unharmed but it will provide more incentive for others to continue doing it. Plus I think some might still enjoy the fact to deny someone that ransom/kill, sorta like a small win rather than the loss of paying.

Basically you can see similar behavior in the market area too, especially loans and donations. If someone asks for a donation and get it, later they are pretty sure to ask again, except then double the sum. I know that one from experience.

/c

Like in this behavior study?
Test Subject A is given $10. Test Subject B is allowed to cheat him out of $5 (so A has $5 left). A can keep the $5, or spend $4 to punish B. B's punishment is that he loses all of the $5 he got from A.

Most people will spend the $4 to punish B. Even though logically they'd be better off keeping the $5, instead of being left with just $1. Amazingly, the financial/market prediction theorists didn't discover this "irrational behavior' until a few years ago. Now they're having to revise all of the game theory prediction models, which were based in the assumption that people will always make the decision that will maximize their material benefits. Pretty incredibly naïve of them, eh?

Small amounts though.

Give A 1 million dollars. Allow B to cheat A of 500,000. A can keep the 500,000 or spend 400,000 to punish B. B loses his entire 500,000.

I bet A won't part with 400,000 to cost B 500,000.

Yeah, I bet you're right. Economists (money scientists) designed this study. To them, 10 bucks was a hell of a lot to pay the volunteers. And 4 bucks was way too much to pay for just a little revenge satisfaction. Smile
Jorden Ishonen
Doomheim
#50 - 2013-08-08 13:51:05 UTC
Jason13 Anzomi wrote:


Regardless of this being "just a game" or the fact that the game allows you to do it. The fact is that you're a thief and blackmailer. And I for one would never reward you for being a thief.


And you don't think they feel rewarded blowing up your ship?
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#51 - 2013-08-08 15:15:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Eram Fidard
I find, a lot of the time, it's a hard decision for me.

If I kindly offer a ransom, chances are I will be rudely rebuffed and/or set upon by the victim's backup.

If I blow up the ship on the other hand, I might receive juicy tears, and will definitely get a killmail.


So, if I expect that most people won't pay ransoms, what about the poor players who don't want to lose their ship when caught? My policy has adapted from having a 'friendly discussion' to a brusque 'yer isk or yer life, 30 seconds'. Now, players who might want to pay to escape unscathed are unfairly punished through the rude actions of their embittered 'no ransom ever' brethren.


I strongly feel that all players should have an equal opportunity to pay me for the honour of keeping their space pixels intact.

Stop ruining that for everyone, non-ransom-paying scum!

By not paying ransoms, you are ensuring the ongoing suffering of countless carebears

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2013-08-08 15:58:09 UTC
Eram Fidard wrote:
I find, a lot of the time, it's a hard decision for me.

If I kindly offer a ransom, chances are I will be rudely rebuffed and/or set upon by the victim's backup.

If I blow up the ship on the other hand, I might receive juicy tears, and will definitely get a killmail.


So, if I expect that most people won't pay ransoms, what about the poor players who don't want to lose their ship when caught? My policy has adapted from having a 'friendly discussion' to a brusque 'yer isk or yer life, 30 seconds'. Now, players who might want to pay to escape unscathed are unfairly punished through the rude actions of their embittered 'no ransom ever' brethren.


I strongly feel that all players should have an equal opportunity to pay me for the honour of keeping their space pixels intact.

Stop ruining that for everyone, non-ransom-paying scum!

By not paying ransoms, you are ensuring the ongoing suffering of countless carebears

Intelligent and well thought out response. +1.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Previous page123