These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Anti-pirate market blacklisting?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2014-06-19 22:23:04 UTC
Shederov Blood wrote:
Why do you people say, "It can easily be circumvented with alts," like that's a bad thing? More people needing more alts is good for CCP, and what's good for CCP is good for EVE.

I think any and all of us could circumvent it with our existing complement of alts.. so lots of coding work for CCP with no new driver for more accounts.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#42 - 2014-06-19 22:23:30 UTC
Shederov Blood wrote:
Why do you people say, "It can easily be circumvented with alts," like that's a bad thing? More people needing more alts is good for CCP, and what's good for CCP is good for EVE.



Who needs "more" alts? You think there's a lot of people running around with all 3 character slots at -10 lol?
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#43 - 2014-06-19 22:25:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Cazador 64 wrote:
I like the idea. Or maybe set tax brackets for bad standings. Basically you can charge more based on standings or sec status.



Ah, so for the best prices I should only shop on my no-pvp 5.0 sec status alt.

And this solves what exactly?

Is 5.0 sec so easy to achieve that literally every ganker has such an alt? A system like the one proposed here increases the value of "lawful" characters, be they alts or mains. Why is that a problem?


Because it punishes people for not being carebears. It punishes players who go into low sec to kill pirates (say that pirate has repaired his sec status, the 'good guy' shooting him will take a sec hit in low for killing a bad guy and as a result would have to pay more in high sec to replace lost ships).

The idea is so dumb it would be ignored by the people you are trying to hurt while hurting the people you are trying to help.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2014-06-19 22:26:27 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:


If you were an automobile manufacturer IRL would you sell your cars to a guy who has a record of using those cars to nudge lorries off the road, or cause horrific traffic accidents on purpose? NO! Why can we not do the same thing?




EVE IS REAL!!! /sarcasm

Also, lol severance.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#45 - 2014-06-19 22:27:08 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
Shederov Blood wrote:
Why do you people say, "It can easily be circumvented with alts," like that's a bad thing? More people needing more alts is good for CCP, and what's good for CCP is good for EVE.

I think any and all of us could circumvent it with our existing complement of alts.. so lots of coding work for CCP with no new driver for more accounts.

And any and all of us circumvent distance restrictions on purchases with trade alts, too. Should distance restrictions (like buying something in Jita while you are in Rens) be removed because they are countered by alts?

It's called the cost of convenience.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#46 - 2014-06-19 22:28:29 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
It punishes players who go into low sec to kill pirates (say that pirate has repaired his sec status, the 'good guy' shooting him will take a sec hit in low for killing a bad guy and as a result would have to pay more in high sec to replace lost ships).

Unfair sec status loss is a different problem entirely, which I do not have a solution to.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#47 - 2014-06-19 22:29:02 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:

Is 5.0 sec so easy to achieve that literally every ganker has such an alt?


Yep. I can't speak for "literally every ganker", but myself and every ganker (and most of the wardecers) I hang out with has them, yeah. Gotta run locators somehow.

Quote:

A system like the one proposed here increases the value of "lawful" characters, be they alts or mains. Why is that a problem?


It's not a problem. It's merely pointing out a gaping flaw in your proposal.

That being, that it would have no functional effect besides making things more of a pain in the ass for new players. It has often puzzled me why every "proposal" people come up with to combat the theoretical problem of ganking would almost always have the effect of sharply discouraging new players in some aspect of the game.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#48 - 2014-06-19 22:30:35 UTC
Shederov Blood wrote:
Why do you people say, "It can easily be circumvented with alts," like that's a bad thing? More people needing more alts is good for CCP, and what's good for CCP is good for EVE.

It's not more people though. The alts already exist. However, the only thing needed is 1 alt.

Take the Marmite Collective for example. They have 244 members at the moment, but only need 1 out of Corp alt to do all of their buying and selling.

They already have lots of out of Corp alts supporting their wardec activities.

This idea wouldn't affect them beyond reorganising their logistics.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#49 - 2014-06-19 22:33:07 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:

Is 5.0 sec so easy to achieve that literally every ganker has such an alt?


Yep. I can't speak for "literally every ganker", but myself and every ganker (and most of the wardecers) I hang out with has them, yeah. Gotta run locators somehow.

Quote:

A system like the one proposed here increases the value of "lawful" characters, be they alts or mains. Why is that a problem?


It's not a problem. It's merely pointing out a gaping flaw in your proposal.

That being, that it would have no functional effect besides making things more of a pain in the ass for new players. It has often puzzled me why every "proposal" people come up with to combat the theoretical problem of ganking would almost always have the effect of sharply discouraging new players in some aspect of the game.

New players come in at -10 sec status now? No sane marketeer looking for profit would limit by sec status over 0.0 security, since that eliminates a huge chunk of buyers.

If a new player chooses to wreck his sec status I don't see why he should be exempt from the same consequences older players face.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Melete Durruti
Doomheim
#50 - 2014-06-19 22:33:33 UTC
Good idea. Industry interaction based on standings is already implemented for POCOs, so why not expand it to market orders?
Solecist Project
#51 - 2014-06-19 22:33:57 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:

Is 5.0 sec so easy to achieve that literally every ganker has such an alt?


Yep. I can't speak for "literally every ganker", but myself and every ganker (and most of the wardecers) I hang out with has them, yeah. Gotta run locators somehow.
I'd like to add that,
although it probably doesn't seem that way,
I don't actually have a carebearing or mining alt. -.-

I could never see me doing that! :O

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#52 - 2014-06-19 22:35:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

It's not a problem. It's merely pointing out a gaping flaw in your proposal.

That being, that it would have no functional effect besides making things more of a pain in the ass for new players. It has often puzzled me why every "proposal" people come up with to combat the theoretical problem of ganking would almost always have the effect of sharply discouraging new players in some aspect of the game.



lol, If Malcanis were dead he'd come back to life just long enough to turn ove rin his grave :) . Malc's law is THAT MUCH of a ***** lol.

The problem with a lot of these idea people is that they think emotionally. They "hate" something so any idea (no matter how easily every one else can punch holes through it) that pops into their heads sounds good to them. Hate is the worst foundation for thinking.

It also takes a huge amount of arrogance for people to think that they could come up with an idea that would work as intended in an entertainment product used by thousands upon thousands of very creative and dastardly gamers.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#53 - 2014-06-19 22:36:40 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:

New players come in at -10 sec status now? No sane marketeer looking for profit would limit by sec status over 0.0 security, since that eliminates a huge chunk of buyers.


Your entire premise is to allow butthurt indy players to not sell to gankers.

Sec status tags exist. The previously mentioned butthurt indy players are almost certainly aware of that.

The real world result of your proposal would be to restrict it to a sec status that guarantees they sell it to a carebear.


Quote:

If a new player chooses to wreck his sec status I don't see why he should be exempt from the same consequences older players face.


Unlike me, a new player doesn't have four accounts worth of alts to do his buying and selling. Get it yet?

I already am exempt from the consequences. The new player isn't.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#54 - 2014-06-19 22:37:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Solecist Project wrote:
I don't actually have a carebearing or mining alt. -.-

But not all of your sisters are at negative sec status either? Surely at least 1 of them is at 0.0

Plus, being the friendly type that you are, even if you were all at -10.0, you'd easliy be able to make an arrangement with someone for your market needs.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#55 - 2014-06-19 22:39:46 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
It also takes a huge amount of arrogance for people to think that they could come up with an idea that would work as intended in an enetertainment product used by thousands upon thousands of very creative and dastardly gamers.

So far nobody has proposed anything that invalidates the idea's usefulness. There have been counters and uses for both sides in the "gankers vs carebears" conflict posted. Is an idea bad just beacuse it doesn't benefit a specific group of people?

Here's an idea: send me 100 million ISK and I will spend it on stuff. It will work as intended, won't backfire, and the cash flow will boost Eve's economy.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Solecist Project
#56 - 2014-06-19 22:41:15 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
I don't actually have a carebearing or mining alt. -.-

But not all of your sisters are at negative sec status either? Surely at least 1 of them is at 0.0

Plus, being the friendly type that you are, even if you were all at -10.0, you'd easliy be able to make an arrangement with someone for your market needs.
Some just model,
some love to be out there and just talk to people ...
... and some just wait for their moment. (:


Yeah, I always find somebody for something I desire. *snickers* ;)

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Serene Repose
#57 - 2014-06-19 22:49:34 UTC
Stop manufacturing. Stop marketing.

Let them run out of their little dessies. See what they do then. If we're lucky, they'll all migrate to Elder Scrolls Online,
and we can go back to what we do best here.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#58 - 2014-06-19 22:50:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
So far nobody has proposed anything that invalidates the idea's usefulness.

What?

There have been several examples posted of why the idea isn't useful.

They all come back to - it will have no practical affect on anything. Nothing will change and it won't achieve one iota of difference.

It's no better than a Carebear throwing ISK away by placing a bounty on someone and thinking that makes a difference.

This is an idea doomed to the same level of usefulness. It will only annoy new players who don't have the knowledge or experience to understand that's it's a compliment, not a road block.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#59 - 2014-06-19 22:51:29 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
Stop manufacturing. Stop marketing.

Let them run out of their little dessies. See what they do then. If we're lucky, they'll all migrate to Elder Scrolls Online,
and we can go back to what we do best here.

"Stop playing" is exactly what griefers want. Why not take a page out of their book and make me play my way instead?

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#60 - 2014-06-19 22:58:16 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
Stop manufacturing. Stop marketing.

Let them run out of their little dessies. See what they do then. If we're lucky, they'll all migrate to Elder Scrolls Online,
and we can go back to what we do best here.

This would only hurt the people who do make the components and ships used by pirates/gankers/wardeccers.

As to the pirates/gankers/wardeccers - they'll just use their industry alts to manufacture the stuff themselves.

That's the big difference between pirates/gankers/wardeccers and carebears (even if you have the view that they are all carebears).

The first group get organised and act, while the second group just talk about how they need CCP to help them.

If things change, the pirates/gankers/wardeccers will just change right along with it and keep going. The Carebears will come and complain that they need yet even more tools.