These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
EVE Roy Mustang
Doomheim
#301 - 2012-05-28 19:33:32 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucy Ferrr wrote:

Man I wish uninformed people would just keep their mouths shut. “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” This is not an exploit as long as you don't biomass your character to get around sec-status drop. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1267319#post1267319


According to CCP and the GMs that we as a corp and alliance have been told when we did our ice interdictions, spawning CONCORD in a belt to be bodyguards is a missuse of the mechanic and seen as an exploit. Anyone caught doing this will get a warning and further missuse will result in a temp ban. Anyone doing this should be reported to a GM.

What you are thinking about is not biomassing a ganking alt to avoid having to grind up sec status.



which is only a exploit if the reporting person can prove it which is nigh impossible to do. Why the hell this is even a exploit when random person getting ganked can never porove it happened is unknown to me
EVE Roy Mustang
Doomheim
#302 - 2012-05-28 19:35:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:



Its also suggested by Mittens in the Goonswarm Shrugged thread
Google it. Its a good read


Wrong again. That was undocking in an ibis after a gank to drag concord away from a belt which is a legit tactic.


Interesting how its legal for the gankers to kite them but not the defenders
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#303 - 2012-05-28 19:41:52 UTC
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:



Its also suggested by Mittens in the Goonswarm Shrugged thread
Google it. Its a good read


Wrong again. That was undocking in an ibis after a gank to drag concord away from a belt which is a legit tactic.


Interesting how its legal for the gankers to kite them but not the defenders


The difference is we were not using CONCORD for protection just moving them about system. Thats the difference.

It is also very easy to prove someone is spawing concord for protection because the logs show the same ibis getting killed over and over by concord in the same system.
Rhah Kaundur
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#304 - 2012-05-28 19:42:24 UTC
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:



Its also suggested by Mittens in the Goonswarm Shrugged thread
Google it. Its a good read


Wrong again. That was undocking in an ibis after a gank to drag concord away from a belt which is a legit tactic.


Interesting how its legal for the gankers to kite them but not the defenders


You touched the matter with a needle.
Neftaran
Dread Guard
#305 - 2012-05-28 19:55:22 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
World of Warcraft --------------------------->


People pointing to WoW is getting so tiresome. There were plenty of games before Warcraft and have been many after.

I think I would rather

Guild Wars 2 ------------------------>
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#306 - 2012-05-28 20:00:43 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Good luck making any kind of profit on that kill.

Dude, I don't know you, or where your coming from, but really, you sound as bad as any hi-sec carebear with your "profit"/"loss" statements...

If i were to start ganking again, isk would be a secondary concern.


Good for you. Just about everyone else who ganks however do it for the isk.

I don't believe that.

However, I will believe that isk motivates the weekend warriors/carebears...

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Aruken Marr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#307 - 2012-05-28 21:16:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Aruken Marr
Talon SilverHawk wrote:


Your argument fell flat the moment you claimed to know what any other player in the game has experience of.


So you're telling me that there aren't quite a lot of players who play like that; who play simply to collect shiny and when said shiny undergoes decompression in our lovely little vacuum they get mad and fail to understand that one of the core features of this game is that you're never truly safe. If there were a truly safe zone then the sandbox would be dead because there'd be areas where certain aspects of the sandbox are reduced to 0.

What exactly do you play for? It's not like any more anecdotal evidence wouldn't hurt.

Talon SilverHawk wrote:
I'm not knocking what any large large entity including Goons have achieved even if I dislike their methods.

Still does not get away from the fact that its too easy and cheap to grief in hi sec. I like that hi sec can still be a dodgy place, but at the moment Its not balanced.


Like what baltec said, it's made easy by stupid players. You'd be surprised how many people shy away from chancing a tanked hulk. Then again there are plenty of people who'll go out of there way to kill that tanked hulk even if it costs them more than it's worth, simply because they can.

Quote:
Lots of Goons in here as any change would affect Mittanis plans adversely.

Again why would anybody but a griefer complain about losing the chance to shoot defenceless targets in hi sec ?

Tal


So basically you don't like the way some people play this game. So you'd like to get ccp to marginalise a specific demographic. To a certain extent you're the pot calling the kettle black here.
Jules Hawk
Perkone
Caldari State
#308 - 2012-05-28 21:22:31 UTC
ShipToaster wrote:
Sandbox.


/sigh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvBPCOrZ32A
Corelin
The Fancy Hats Corporation
#309 - 2012-05-28 21:23:12 UTC
Oddball Six wrote:


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 I choose to ignore the metagame and go afk during day 29 of an event that lasts over a month where my ship will be specifically targeted



Fixed a typo for you.
Salisar Salubrious
Ambivalence Inc.
#310 - 2012-05-28 23:37:01 UTC
Oddball, it seems to me that you want to squish the laws and customs of a regular Western Democracy into an internet spaceships game. Why?

I play Eve because it is so far removed from my life as an active community member of a Western Democracy. Why do you play Eve?

Why are so many exhumers so poorly tanked? What is happening in the head of a miner that allows them to either simply fit their ships for maximum cargo space and yield, or have vitually no tank at all? Has greed got anything to do with it?

Seriously, send me an in-game email and we can discuss how to increase the survival of your exhumers. Now that you have learnt how to properly tank your internet space mining vessel from we wonderful group of people who happen to be partial to the odd suicide gank.
Vicky Somers
Rusty Anchor
#311 - 2012-05-28 23:41:12 UTC
Any Hulk that doesn't have DCII should have its self destruct timer engaged randomly by the server.
Ituhata Saken
Killboard Padding Services
#312 - 2012-05-29 00:21:46 UTC
Vicky Somers wrote:
Any Hulk that doesn't have DCII should have its self destruct timer engaged randomly by the server.


Pretty much what happens, only replace the words 'the server' with 'other players'.

So close...
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#313 - 2012-05-29 00:33:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Ris Dnalor
Oddball Six wrote:
I do not live in my mother's basement. ...

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.


The problem here is that Eve is setup so that everything is player driven. That includes your own security. Just as in real life, the police can never guarantee you will never be robbed or shot at, CONCORD does the same. They provide a consequence. Sometimes the consequence is a deterrent, sometimes not.

Players CAN enhance the deterrent level by:

1. providing a decent tank.
* you sacrifice optimal efficiency, but then there's your risk vs. reward.

2. providing security.
* the more risky mining becomes, the more lucrative it becomes, and the more easily security becomes affordable.
* yea, part of your profits go to pay your player guardians, but again, risk vs. reward.

Again, it's just all about solving the problem presented to you, and you may not want to do that. It can be done with effort, or with isk. But if you don't want to do either, then you don't want to play in the sandbox. I'm just sorry for you that there aren't may spaceship mmos for you to choose from, but please don't try to take away our sandbox.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
Tycho Enderas
Caldari Black Hand
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#314 - 2012-05-29 00:41:55 UTC
It's pretty clear that RubyPorto has refuted your points OP, even if you chose not to respond. The fact that you left out those following paragraphs in the TOS/EULA (and tried to lump KB in with them) is just the kind of thing that makes this post more sensationalist news BS and less eloquent plea for reason. Hell, even the knucle-draggers with their one-liners do a damn good job against the weak foundations of your argument.

You want to talk about the economics of losing all these miner subs? How has that affected EVE in the last 10+ years? This is no monoclegate. How can you even bring up the subject of economics when you did not consider the risk/reward locus of your choices or educate yourself? I almost want to compare this to the sub-prime mortgage crisis, with maybe a bit more stupidity/laziness and less greed. Good thing there are no moral hazard issues in EVE (no bailouts from CCP for you).

Another interesting fallacy in your argument is the assumption that you understand CCP's mechanics and that players are clearly violating them. Precedent alone makes it abundantly clear that you are wrong. Further, as someone mentioned, "Hi-sec" does not imply complete safety, nor does CONCORD action imply that players are willfully collaborating to violate game design. They enforce consequences. They don't prohibit crime. Design goals are quite clear. In fact it is remarkably similar to real life, the only difference being the effectiveness of the deterrent.

Which brings me to the only part of the anti-ganking argument that I've found somewhat reasonable. Someone mentioned that the consequences of security status hits, outlaw status, etc., are not an effective deterrent and that and outlaw could still get around hi-sec relatively easily. I believe there is a point here in that consequences are probably not working as intended if this is the case.


RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#315 - 2012-05-29 01:44:20 UTC
Kaaeliaa wrote:

1) If they don't have a vision, then nothing we or anyone else can do will stop this game from failing. Pray that isn't the case.

2) The elections have been absolutely plagued with allegations of corruption, vote-buying, intimidation, and favoritism.

3) I never pretended to know exactly what CCPs vision is, either then or now, and made no statements implying that I did. There is plenty of universe in New Eden for rampant violence, and I, personally, have never said that I want to end it. War and conflict is hardwired into human beings. However, the amount of rampant crime going on in Empire space is ridiculous. Not because I have objections to it due to personal reasons. I have never lost a ship in a scenario in which I didn't deserve to lose it. But, from a lore standpoint, the Empires should have much more of an interest in policing their space and keeping it safe for their own. Allowing thousands of murders and billions of ISK of property destruction, along with the consequent loss of industrial capability, sure is a ****-poor way to protect their interests.

4) If I had solid evidence of collusion, you're damned right I would report it. The problem is that the large alliances have no transparency, and no reason to have transparency. I'm not in one of them. I can see, from an outsider's point of view, that their interests may be being unduly protected. But, being an outsider means that I would have a great deal of problems trying to pinpoint specific problems or individuals. Naturally, the people that have gotten close enough to the corrupted individuals to be able to rat them out, wouldn't.


1) They've done pretty well so far bumbling from one massive change to another. Seriously, they have some idea what they want each sector of space, but clearly no idea how to make it happen. The Sanctum nerf was supposed to drive conflict and it... didn't, just like everyone told CCP it would

2) I said Free; I didn't claim they're "Fair." CCP explicitly stated that the CSM elections are the same as any other activity in the game, where people can influence other people through whatever means they like/think will be effective. Besides, since there's no way to tell who someone voted for, vote buying is simply a way to get scammed. As for favoritism, isn't that what elections are all about? You pick your favorite?

3) The Lore actually says that the factions don't strongly police Capsuleers because Capsuleers are gods compared to normal people. As for HiSec, CCP has explicitly stated that CONCORD is designed to provide Consequences to illegal actions (blowing up your ship when you shoot someone), not protection. Second, there is no reason why the safety of your assets would ever be of any concern to CONCORD.

4) Saying that collecting evidence is hard does not let you throw wild accusations around. By your logic, I could accuse you of murdering JFK, but since I don't know you well, I'd have a great deal of problems trying to pinpoint specific evidence that points to your role in the assassination.

"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
Oddball Six
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#316 - 2012-05-29 02:45:17 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:



Its also suggested by Mittens in the Goonswarm Shrugged thread
Google it. Its a good read


Wrong again. That was undocking in an ibis after a gank to drag concord away from a belt which is a legit tactic.


Interesting how its legal for the gankers to kite them but not the defenders


The difference is we were not using CONCORD for protection just moving them about system. Thats the difference.

It is also very easy to prove someone is spawing concord for protection because the logs show the same ibis getting killed over and over by concord in the same system.


I would think the fact that the mechanic is implemented at all is telling.

E.g. If it is a sandbox world, how does this mesh with a mechanic implemented in the sandbox to punish someone for an attack in high sec?

Doesn't the fact that the punishment is there and supposedly lethal imply that the style of gameplay is perhaps not intended to be sustained in that area by the developers who built it?
EVE Roy Mustang
Doomheim
#317 - 2012-05-29 03:21:02 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:



Its also suggested by Mittens in the Goonswarm Shrugged thread
Google it. Its a good read


Wrong again. That was undocking in an ibis after a gank to drag concord away from a belt which is a legit tactic.


Interesting how its legal for the gankers to kite them but not the defenders


The difference is we were not using CONCORD for protection just moving them about system. Thats the difference.

It is also very easy to prove someone is spawing concord for protection because the logs show the same ibis getting killed over and over by concord in the same system.


yes the difference is theyre moving them out of the system so they have to re-warp to get there, taking time to get there again. AGAIN. Its funny its ok for the aggressors to kite concord but not the defenders
EVE Roy Mustang
Doomheim
#318 - 2012-05-29 03:22:45 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Good luck making any kind of profit on that kill.

Dude, I don't know you, or where your coming from, but really, you sound as bad as any hi-sec carebear with your "profit"/"loss" statements...

If i were to start ganking again, isk would be a secondary concern.


Good for you. Just about everyone else who ganks however do it for the isk.

I don't believe that.

However, I will believe that isk motivates the weekend warriors/carebears...


they have to pretend they do it for the isk. Ive seen where CCP defines griefing ny doing it for a non monetary reason.

If they actually said they do it for the lulz they might be the first ever ppl to get banned for griefing.
Ispia Jaydrath
Reib Autonomous Industries
#319 - 2012-05-29 03:23:51 UTC
OP is bad at space and worse at posting. He deserves to die (ingame).

Apparently he's tanking his hulk now, so I'm going to go ahead and put a hundred million isk bounty on it. Send me the killmail to claim it.

(Ingame link or api verified on eve-kill, dated after the time of this post, only valid for one kill. Final blow receives the isk.)
Ispia Jaydrath
Reib Autonomous Industries
#320 - 2012-05-29 03:24:18 UTC
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:
If they actually said they do it for the lulz they might be the first ever ppl to get banned for griefing.


I do it for the luls. Go ahead and report me, see what happens.