These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Something need to be done to stop the massacre of missioning ships and minning barges in hisec
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#121 - 2014-01-14 17:04:56 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Leto Thule wrote:
"Starship troopers" had the right idea.

"Service guarantees citizenship!"



The problem is.. that is agaisnt democracy and universal suffrage. That means ifyou are a pacifist you are not entitled to your opinion?

If the service woudl be expanded to service to the country, including civil service than ok. But On my eyes, I woudl restrict as in WORK, if you have worked and payed taxes for 4 years, you have a word on how the government should use those taxes.

Heinlein had an answer for that in the book: Pacifists were given duties that were equally dangerous and arduous, but were socially useful - Even if it ment that you spent your 'enlistment' testing survival gear in some nasty god-forsaken hell-hole. Even if you were a quadraplgeic, *some* ugly, demanding, lengthy duty would be found for you, even if they had to invent it. Heinlein's point was that suffereage only went to those persons whom were willing to suffer and persist in the service of society, and that those whom only wnated the benefits without paying the costs should only be granted limited say in governance.

Of course, his Starship Trooper society was at least proto-fascist as well; There are LOTS of potential downsides to limiting sufferage.
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#122 - 2014-01-14 17:15:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Leto Thule
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Leto Thule wrote:
"Starship troopers" had the right idea.

"Service guarantees citizenship!"



The problem is.. that is agaisnt democracy and universal suffrage. That means ifyou are a pacifist you are not entitled to your opinion?

If the service woudl be expanded to service to the country, including civil service than ok. But On my eyes, I woudl restrict as in WORK, if you have worked and payed taxes for 4 years, you have a word on how the government should use those taxes.



Absolutely, and I can get behind either version. (I actually think the movie/book had other definitions of "service" as well, but i digress..)

What I AM against is the current belief in the USA that people are OWED something for nothing. Military service is only one route that someone can be an asset to their country... and not to be cliche`... .but JFK did say it best "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" ect....

And while im not a "pacifist", that doesnt mean im looking for the weapons-hot answer to all problems either. Everyone is always entitled to their own methods and beliefs.

Edit:

Psycho, you should run for goddamn office. Seriously.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#123 - 2014-01-14 17:31:03 UTC
Leto Thule wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Leto Thule wrote:
"Starship troopers" had the right idea.

"Service guarantees citizenship!"



The problem is.. that is agaisnt democracy and universal suffrage. That means ifyou are a pacifist you are not entitled to your opinion?

If the service woudl be expanded to service to the country, including civil service than ok. But On my eyes, I woudl restrict as in WORK, if you have worked and payed taxes for 4 years, you have a word on how the government should use those taxes.



Absolutely, and I can get behind either version. (I actually think the movie/book had other definitions of "service" as well, but i digress..)

What I AM against is the current belief in the USA that people are OWED something for nothing. Military service is only one route that someone can be an asset to their country... and not to be cliche`... .but JFK did say it best "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" ect....

And while im not a "pacifist", that doesnt mean im looking for the weapons-hot answer to all problems either. Everyone is always entitled to their own methods and beliefs.

Edit:

Psycho, you should run for goddamn office. Seriously.


Careful... carefull.. or we might start borderlinign 30' s Germany...

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#124 - 2014-01-14 17:33:27 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Leto Thule wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Leto Thule wrote:
"Starship troopers" had the right idea.

"Service guarantees citizenship!"



The problem is.. that is agaisnt democracy and universal suffrage. That means ifyou are a pacifist you are not entitled to your opinion?

If the service woudl be expanded to service to the country, including civil service than ok. But On my eyes, I woudl restrict as in WORK, if you have worked and payed taxes for 4 years, you have a word on how the government should use those taxes.



Absolutely, and I can get behind either version. (I actually think the movie/book had other definitions of "service" as well, but i digress..)

What I AM against is the current belief in the USA that people are OWED something for nothing. Military service is only one route that someone can be an asset to their country... and not to be cliche`... .but JFK did say it best "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" ect....

And while im not a "pacifist", that doesnt mean im looking for the weapons-hot answer to all problems either. Everyone is always entitled to their own methods and beliefs.

Edit:

Psycho, you should run for goddamn office. Seriously.


Careful... carefull.. or we might start borderlinign 30' s Germany...


Oh, no sir. I dont advocate fascism. HIS society was, like Psycho pointed out, a mode of fascism, but ideally it wouldnt have to be. Id like to see the distribution of responsibility without the jackboot, so to speak.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#125 - 2014-01-14 17:38:14 UTC
Leto Thule wrote:

Edit:

Psycho, you should run for goddamn office. Seriously.

Oops
Smile
Cool
Twisted

Thank you. I think? Lol

I have an abiding sin, when it comes to politics as they currently exist locally: I'm willing to listen to others, and change my mind when presented with a convincing argument.
I'd last about a month.
P
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
New Eden Tech Support
#126 - 2014-01-14 18:05:51 UTC
Plastic Psycho wrote:
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:

Agreed. Expectation Management V is crucial...

I haven't looked at a heatmap of ships and pods lost recently, but IIRC, last time I did, it was fairly uniform across central New Eden, with a few hotspots in the Faction Warfare hubs.


I haven't looked recently either but the last time I did take a look ... I noticed trade hubs and null-wars... FW makes good sense.

Thank me later :D
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
New Eden Tech Support
#127 - 2014-01-14 18:19:21 UTC
Plastic Psycho wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:

Yeah, but the thing is that if somebody joins voluntarily, he's going to be motivated to do well in his chosen field. If somebody gets forcefully conscripted, he might not feel the same way.

Back when I got drafted our military was a Soviet-era relic. Since we never actually got deployed to combat anywhere, it had turned into an institution that mostly revolved around griefing its newest members. Be in it long enough and you get to grief people newer than you too! Frankly, I'm amazed that we only had 1 death during 9 months. I know I've thought about gunning down commanding officers on live ammo excersises.

Oh yeah, it doesn't help that if you complain about anything, or if you haven't been in the military "you're not a real man". You gotta suck it up. Be a man. Blah blah. You get the idea.

Sadly, I know exactly of what you speak. Indeed, that's one of my main reasons for opposing conscription. Imposing and *maintaining* discipline and leadership in a conscription force is HARD. Doing so with a force that's largely in peace-time conditions is even harder.

The Soviet system works well with illiterate peasants and campesinos who can be bullied about and aren't expected to know or do much. If you need a technologically-advanced force, it becomes VERY HARD to manage. And bloody expensive, too - Send the conscripts to school, then just about the time they become useful, their time is done, and they leave. To be replaced by another uneducated kid which needs to be sent through the schools pipeline.

Too many folks see military service as a means of correcting everything that parents and primary education screwed-up. Can't work - *doesn't* work. At best, you might take a few rough edges off, but in place you build up resentment against society, and produce a force that really *is* composed of largely of misfits and rejects. Not a recipe for success in the modern age.


nailed it.

Thank me later :D
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#128 - 2014-01-14 19:04:39 UTC
Plastic Psycho wrote:
Sadly, I know exactly of what you speak. Indeed, that's one of my main reasons for opposing conscription. Imposing and *maintaining* discipline and leadership in a conscription force is HARD. Doing so with a force that's largely in peace-time conditions is even harder.

The Soviet system works well with illiterate peasants and campesinos who can be bullied about and aren't expected to know or do much. If you need a technologically-advanced force, it becomes VERY HARD to manage. And bloody expensive, too - Send the conscripts to school, then just about the time they become useful, their time is done, and they leave. To be replaced by another uneducated kid which needs to be sent through the schools pipeline.

Too many folks see military service as a means of correcting everything that parents and primary education screwed-up. Can't work - *doesn't* work. At best, you might take a few rough edges off, but in place you build up resentment against society, and produce a force that really *is* composed of largely of misfits and rejects. Not a recipe for success in the modern age.


Yeah, people in the airforce, snipers, navy had to go through officer school beforehand. Interestingly enough, tank operators were directly conscripted with no requirements. Radio operators too. It was a huge mess Lol

Nowadays, it's pretty much by the time you have to send the grunts in, you've already won.
oohthey ioh
Doomheim
#129 - 2014-01-14 20:27:25 UTC
Mortlake wrote:
This thread is going places.

best post ever
Theodoric Darkwind
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#130 - 2014-01-15 07:56:19 UTC
The solution is simple, stop flying ships with stupidly expensive fits that make you worth ganking.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#131 - 2014-01-15 08:10:43 UTC
Mojo Joo wrote:
They don't need to manage any criminal flags because they never go under -5 security status, thanks to security tags, and after ganking, all they need to do is to dock their flashy pods for 15 minutes, then just repeat repeat the process...

Is not very easy indeed, but people learn fast, and if you rely just on players incompetence as main fix for game mechanics then something is very wrong...


did you know that going from -5 to 0 security status costs a ton of ISK and that security tags are in limited supply?

the problem is that you seem to believe that you should be able to fly some shiny faction battleship in hisec with zero risk: those destroyer pilots are clearly showing you the error of your ways

mission running is safe enough if you keep an eye out for probes, but abloobloobloo my playstyle

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Omar Alharazaad
New Eden Tech Support
#132 - 2014-01-15 08:33:55 UTC
Also, while it may not be as isk efficient, it can be quite a bit more fun to work with others. I've found the running missions with a friend or two is much more entertaining than grinding them solo. A small gang running missions together can allow for the people involved to diversify their ships and fits and enjoy aspects of the game that aren't really available for solo play. It also presents a target that is less attractive than the lone pinata dutifully slugging away at red plus signs.

Take what I say with a grain of salt, however, as I'm a deviant in that I don't equate ISK with fun. And for some odd reason I'm almost always poor.. hmm.

Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#133 - 2014-01-15 09:28:52 UTC
Andski wrote:
Mojo Joo wrote:
They don't need to manage any criminal flags because they never go under -5 security status, thanks to security tags, and after ganking, all they need to do is to dock their flashy pods for 15 minutes, then just repeat repeat the process...

Is not very easy indeed, but people learn fast, and if you rely just on players incompetence as main fix for game mechanics then something is very wrong...


did you know that going from -5 to 0 security status costs a ton of ISK and that security tags are in limited supply?

the problem is that you seem to believe that you should be able to fly some shiny faction battleship in hisec with zero risk: those destroyer pilots are clearly showing you the error of your ways

mission running is safe enough if you keep an eye out for probes, but abloobloobloo my playstyle



IT is not that expensive. And that is my only complain. I think yes ganking must exist. But using destroyers the cost of doign it is TOO low, even summing the tags eventually used to repay the sec status.

Personally i think there is a fundamental flaw on the crime watch system, you can stop beign a criminal and within second be redeemed tough tags ( money is never a major issue in this game on this scale). I think there shoudl be a grace period, 1 week that you must not do ANY criminal or suspect activity before you can use tags to recover your sec status.

The intent of the system, of allowign someopen to redeem and go back to high sec is mantained, but reducing the recycling of gank characters at will.

I do not promote safety, hell.. my corp is one of the most hated by carebears in high sec, but I think some activities have tooooo small cost considering their huge effect.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Si1viu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#134 - 2014-01-15 09:36:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Si1viu
Andski wrote:
did you know that going from -5 to 0 security status costs a ton of ISK and that security tags are in limited supply?

the problem is that you seem to believe that you should be able to fly some shiny faction battleship in hisec with zero risk: those destroyer pilots are clearly showing you the error of your ways

mission running is safe enough if you keep an eye out for probes, but abloobloobloo my playstyle



Security tags about you talk like an ignorant are in numbers of hundreds on Jita market and other trade hubs, and you can buy anytime transporter and negotiator tags at ~30 mil a piece. That price is nothing, you can make enough money to go from -5 to 0 in one day even as missioner, and if you are a suicide ganker who get billions in loot, security tags price is really a joke... Ugh

Nobody want zero risk in high sec for people who do PVE, but also flying an expensive ship must not be a sentence to death once gankers know about you. Because if they want to kill a ship, with actual game mechanics they will manage to do that no matter what you will do.

If you put more tank they will bring more destroyers because is easy to find people for this kind of job when is so easy to repair security status, if you push in a compulsive manner d-scan button every 20 seconds to be safe enough, then they will wait you at undock or at gates, if you use an insta-warp at undock they can scan your spot and wait you there...
Game mechanic is flawed at this point and if you want to wait till hundreds of people will be pushed out of this game, i am very curious if CCP shareholders are same happy to lose customers.
Omar Alharazaad
New Eden Tech Support
#135 - 2014-01-15 09:49:34 UTC
and if you make it a big enough pain in the arse to gank you they'll also probably move on to an easier target. There's no shortage of targets out there... that is, unless you insist on flying something so valuable it really makes the extra time, effort and coordinating WORTH it.
I'm still not certain this is a mechanics issue so much as a human nature issue.

Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
Froggy Storm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#136 - 2014-01-15 09:58:27 UTC
Si1viu wrote:
Andski wrote:
did you know that going from -5 to 0 security status costs a ton of ISK and that security tags are in limited supply?

the problem is that you seem to believe that you should be able to fly some shiny faction battleship in hisec with zero risk: those destroyer pilots are clearly showing you the error of your ways

mission running is safe enough if you keep an eye out for probes, but abloobloobloo my playstyle



Security tags about you talk like an ignorant are in numbers of hundreds on Jita market and other trade hubs, and you can buy anytime transporter and negotiator tags at ~30 mil a piece. That price is nothing, you can make enough money to go from -5 to 0 in one day even as missioner, and if you are a suicide ganker who get billions in loot, security tags price is really a joke... Ugh

Nobody want zero risk in high sec for people who do PVE, but also flying an expensive ship must not be a sentence to death once gankers know about you. Because if they want to kill a ship, with actual game mechanics they will manage to do that no matter what you will do.

If you put more tank they will bring more destroyers because is easy to find people for this kind of job when is so easy to repair security status, if you push in a compulsive manner d-scan button every 20 seconds to be safe enough, then they will wait you at undock or at gates, if you use an insta-warp at undock they can scan your spot and wait you there...
Game mechanic is flawed at this point and if you want to wait till hundreds of people will be pushed out of this game, i am very curious if CCP shareholders are same happy to lose customers.


You just disproved your own argument however. Your conclusive evidence of a flaw is that "they can always find more destroyers". So wouldn't those shareholders (by definition) want to male the larger group happy in that situation?

So seeing as the ongoing nerf hisec (aka make it safer) has had no positive effects on subscriptions or retention, it might stand to reason that fewer changes or even ratcheting back the needs would improve the situation.

Picture if you will, a universe of pilots who all had to put in effort to accomplish their individual goals. Let's upgrade missions to be more like PvP. Let's make L4s require smart play and fitting. Make it so running "real" pve requires fleets with logi and ewar. Now make it so that fitting those fleets for pve requires the same ideas as PvP fitting. So now to "gank" a person you face a fleet with a fleet. And as the cost balance reaches (as near as possible) a sum 0 equation. With rewards paid out with that goal in mind.

Finally when folks are flying fleets, working together, and fitting correctly the need for concord goes further and further down. Until, in my grand utopian vision, they and all of hisec can become just like the pirate factions. So police response is just one more factor in the scheme of fleet size and fitting. Then maybe let there be faction war-esk sov struggles over empire where CCP can. write the stories and lore based on player work and player involvements with the world at large. And if they are afraid of a player entity pushing too far one way or the other CCP can. make a more dynamic and specific NPC response.

Wow where did that come from. I need to stop what ever it is that started that particular hallucinogenic ramble. I forget eve isnt about fleets and group interaction. Its an ongoing fight between hermits and trolls to see who can yell the loudest.

Omar Alharazaad
New Eden Tech Support
#137 - 2014-01-15 10:22:33 UTC
I'll have what she's having.
That being said, I really do need to break out of my hermit mold a bit more... while I do try to follow my own advice more often than not, I too am guilty of flying alone most of the time. Perhaps having the PVE aspects of the game tweaked so as to make solo play increasingly impractical as the difficulty increases wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. The way things currently stand it's just a matter of bringing a bigger and badder ship to use on the next tier of missions. It's not rocket science, and it's definitely not a matter of employing sophisticated tactics to bear.
Food for thought I guess.

Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
Si1viu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#138 - 2014-01-15 10:40:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Si1viu
The main niche for almost all new players in EVE are the PVE and mining activities. EVE is a very hard game with a very abrupt learning curve, so as new player he cannot go to do PVP before he learn some part from very complex game mechanics, or he will be crushed and killed till he will give up and move to another game.
If you want to make them life a hell and cut to chance for a lot of players to get used with this game just for the sake of few hundreds of gankers, then go on.
Omar Alharazaad
New Eden Tech Support
#139 - 2014-01-15 11:10:36 UTC
Thing is, new players generally don't fly bling fit faction ships when they do missions. Frankly they're generally too poor to afford them unless they cash in PLEX for isk. If they do that, then usually they are breaking the first rule of EVE... that being to never fly what you cannot afford to lose. I don't really think the new players are the victims of the debate at hand here unless they fall into the above group.

Aside from that, there's no shortage of incentives for group play in the PVP realm of EVE. Some of the epic fleet battles that have occurred are events that have made the news, and do help to draw new players to the game. On the other hand the PVE aspects of the game are sadly lacking in this department... aside from mining boosts from orcas there aren't too many PVE activities that actually reward cooperation with other players. The result of this is the 'single player mode' mentality that crops up far too easily among the PVE crowd. This tends to result in tunnel vision for those affected, and when they discover the hard way that there is no true 'single player mode' it's very upsetting to say the least.

Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#140 - 2014-01-15 13:25:52 UTC
Si1viu wrote:
The main niche for almost all new players in EVE are the PVE and mining activities. EVE is a very hard game with a very abrupt learning curve, so as new player he cannot go to do PVP before he learn some part from very complex game mechanics, or he will be crushed and killed till he will give up and move to another game.
If you want to make them life a hell and cut to chance for a lot of players to get used with this game just for the sake of few hundreds of gankers, then go on.



LIES.. the absolute majority of the successful PVPers and long term players staerted in pvp within a few days of joining the game.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"