These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why risk versus reward doesn't matter
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#281 - 2013-04-06 19:10:06 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



So you target the freighters that would have enough cargo to accommodate your losses and bring a profit and seem to be alone or on AP right?

Is that to say all freighter pilots should escort freighters with an alt using noob ships and spawning concord everywhere they go? Would that help your progress, hinder it, or not factor at all? I'm guessing it would put an end to trying for that specific target. Because it would take a player to use a mechanic differently to make Concord protect, as oppose to just punish.

Secret for a secret I suppose =P.


Thats a bannable offence as its abusing concord.

A fact war on concord mechanics with Bat Country is not a smart thing to do.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#282 - 2013-04-06 19:10:31 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Murk Paradox wrote:
Because chaos is the enemy of order. It is unwanted. therefore discouraged from being present.


Unwanted by whom? Who does Chaos hurt?


If CONCORD has no effect on the victims, why do they keep calling for it to be buffed?

"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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#283 - 2013-04-06 19:11:28 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
What concord does is:
Murk Paradox wrote:
protect
verb keep someone safe

through
Murk Paradox wrote:
deter
verb
1. discourage, inhibit, put off, frighten, intimidate, daunt, hinder, dissuade, talk out of Jail sentences have done nothing to deter the offenders.
2. prevent, stop, check, curb, damp, restrain, prohibit, hinder, debar Capital punishment does not deter crime.

by
Murk Paradox wrote:
Verb 1. punish - impose a penalty on; inflict punishment on;


In short, it protects (i.e. it keeps someone safe) through deterrence (by discouraging ganking), through punishment (blowing up whomever isn't deterred).

Murk Paradox wrote:
So, we know Concord punishes, it's in the dictionary and fits. We know that Concord deters, it's in the dictionary and fits. We know that Concord is not explained by your dictionary's terms for "protect" unless YOU make it fit by wrapping your words.

A helmet is put on your head for protection, it doesn't always protect if you fall too hard or at the wrong angle. Same goes for concord, it's protection, through deterrence, backed up by punishment against violators.



Wait wait wait. HAHAHA you just said, in one small paragraph, that you wear a helmet to deter a rock from hurting you unless you fall too hard?

LOL!

Just read your dictionary man, now you're just trying too hard.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#284 - 2013-04-06 19:13:06 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Wait wait wait. HAHAHA you just said, in one small paragraph, that you wear a helmet to deter a rock from hurting you unless you fall too hard?

While riding a bicycle or a motorcycle.

Man, you're thick.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#285 - 2013-04-06 19:15:11 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Because chaos is the enemy of order. It is unwanted. therefore discouraged from being present.


Unwanted by whom? Who does Chaos hurt?


If CONCORD has no effect on the victims, why do they keep calling for it to be buffed?


Because they want steeper punishments for those that transgress.

Chaos hurts order. It hurts tranquility. Because the Empire wants it so. And so do people who wish to reside in Highsec. They like the idea of Utopia. Those who do not, come to said utopia to disrupt it. Because they are chaotic and is their nature.

Not any one specific person, but the idea shared by many.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#286 - 2013-04-06 19:16:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Wait wait wait. HAHAHA you just said, in one small paragraph, that you wear a helmet to deter a rock from hurting you unless you fall too hard?

While riding a bicycle or a motorcycle.

Man, you're thick.



Reread your dictionary.

Just, do, it. Get smart and learn things.

Rocks don't need to be reasoned with.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#287 - 2013-04-06 19:16:38 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Because chaos is the enemy of order. It is unwanted. therefore discouraged from being present.


Unwanted by whom? Who does Chaos hurt?


If CONCORD has no effect on the victims, why do they keep calling for it to be buffed?


Because they want steeper punishments for those that transgress.

I.e. they want more protection through more deterrence through more punishment.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#288 - 2013-04-06 19:17:49 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Reread your dictionary.

Just, do, it. Get smart and learn things.

It's as follows:
Lord Zim wrote:
What concord does is:
Murk Paradox wrote:
protect
verb keep someone safe

through
Murk Paradox wrote:
deter
verb
1. discourage, inhibit, put off, frighten, intimidate, daunt, hinder, dissuade, talk out of Jail sentences have done nothing to deter the offenders.
2. prevent, stop, check, curb, damp, restrain, prohibit, hinder, debar Capital punishment does not deter crime.

by
Murk Paradox wrote:
Verb 1. punish - impose a penalty on; inflict punishment on;

In short, it protects (i.e. it keeps someone safe) through deterrence (by discouraging ganking), through punishment (blowing up whomever isn't deterred).

This isn't rocket science.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#289 - 2013-04-06 19:19:45 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Because chaos is the enemy of order. It is unwanted. therefore discouraged from being present.


Unwanted by whom? Who does Chaos hurt?


If CONCORD has no effect on the victims, why do they keep calling for it to be buffed?


Because they want steeper punishments for those that transgress.

I.e. they want more protection through more deterrence through more punishment.



Concord does not protect. Use the dictionary to disprove that statement.

Concord punishes. Concord deters.

Concord doesn't care about victim. It cares about Empire. Empire tells it to go smash this person because they did (this action), not whom they did it to.

So they punish the wicked for their transgressions.

Protection comes as a by product, but does not define what Concord is.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#290 - 2013-04-06 19:21:39 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

This isn't rocket science.


You're right. It isn't.

The dictionary is right there in front of you, but you are still ignoring it.

Goods rocket surgery there ya'll.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#291 - 2013-04-06 19:23:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Again, risk vs reward.

Stay on track.

Here's an easier way to put it.

Concord will not protect me from you in game, should I decide to gank you. Concord will punish me for trying to gank you, whether I succeed or not.

Concord doesn't care about you. Concord cares about the rule I broke. That rule IS there for your protection! But Concord is there to punish because I broke the rule.

The difference is there, although slight, but it is also definitive.

That's how Concord insures safety of the realm, through deterrence of the punishment they meet out. The rule protects you, not Concord.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#292 - 2013-04-06 19:23:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Murk Paradox wrote:
Concord does not protect. Use the dictionary to disprove that statement.

Does a helmet protect you when you fall off your bike? Yes. Does a helmet protect you against any fall? No. Is it protection? Yes.

Does concord protect hisec against would-be gankers? Yes. Does concord protect you against all would-be gankers? No. Is it protection? Yes.

It's not perfect protection, but it's protection.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Concord punishes. Concord deters.

And the deterrence (through punishment) is what concord uses to protect hisec.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Protection comes as a by product, but does not define what Concord is.

Exactly. What concord does protects the majority of people in hisec, thus concord is a protector. It's not perfect protection, but it's still protection.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#293 - 2013-04-06 19:24:58 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Because chaos is the enemy of order. It is unwanted. therefore discouraged from being present.


Unwanted by whom? Who does Chaos hurt?


If CONCORD has no effect on the victims, why do they keep calling for it to be buffed?


Because they want steeper punishments for those that transgress.


Why would they want that if those punishments have no effect on them?

"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
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#294 - 2013-04-06 19:25:52 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Protection comes as a by product, but does not define what Concord is.


So Concord does provide protection.

Well hey, I think we're done here.

"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
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#295 - 2013-04-06 19:25:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Murk Paradox wrote:
You're right. It isn't.

The dictionary is right there in front of you, but you are still ignoring it.

Funny you should claim this, since I've quoted the relevant dictionary entries three times now:
Lord Zim wrote:
What concord does is:
Murk Paradox wrote:
protect
verb keep someone safe

through
Murk Paradox wrote:
deter
verb
1. discourage, inhibit, put off, frighten, intimidate, daunt, hinder, dissuade, talk out of Jail sentences have done nothing to deter the offenders.
2. prevent, stop, check, curb, damp, restrain, prohibit, hinder, debar Capital punishment does not deter crime.

by
Murk Paradox wrote:
Verb 1. punish - impose a penalty on; inflict punishment on;

In short, it protects (i.e. it keeps someone safe) through deterrence (by discouraging ganking), through punishment (blowing up whomever isn't deterred).

and you seem to be ignoring it.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#296 - 2013-04-06 19:29:48 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



So you target the freighters that would have enough cargo to accommodate your losses and bring a profit and seem to be alone or on AP right?

Is that to say all freighter pilots should escort freighters with an alt using noob ships and spawning concord everywhere they go? Would that help your progress, hinder it, or not factor at all? I'm guessing it would put an end to trying for that specific target. Because it would take a player to use a mechanic differently to make Concord protect, as oppose to just punish.

Secret for a secret I suppose =P.


Thats a bannable offence as its abusing concord.

A fact war on concord mechanics with Bat Country is not a smart thing to do.


Then you should take that up with James315. He is the one advocating it and has in fact incurred over 100bil in miner wrecks in under a month.

I don't however see it as an abuse of mechanics if you do die however. It's still working as it should.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#297 - 2013-04-06 19:32:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

Protection comes as a by product, but does not define what Concord is.

Exactly.



Yep. Not defined by, but a result of. Concord is a punisher of any and all transgressors. Not a protector of victims since victims still happen. Using the same mechanics.

Risk vs reward.

They don't protect anything. Otherwise, how would such an overpowered npc that can't be tanked be defeated by a handful of catalysts so easily?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#298 - 2013-04-06 19:35:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Lord Zim wrote:

Murk Paradox wrote:
Verb 1. punish - impose a penalty on; inflict punishment on;

In short, it protects (i.e. it keeps someone safe) through deterrence (by discouraging ganking), through punishment (blowing up whomever isn't deterred).
and you seem to be ignoring it.


Because of all the things you said, you word wrap to suit your theory, but not prove it.

The facts are all there. You ignore it and use ways to make it fit, when it doesn't by itself. You have to use combinations to make it fit. You should be able to prove an absolute statement in order to make it true.

Using the dictionary, Concord does not protect. Concord does deter. Concord does punish.

Only in a combination of, does your statement have any sort of ring of truth to it. As an absolute, that you claim is true, is it shown to be false. By your same dictionary.

Sorry, you're wrong. Again consult your dictionary.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#299 - 2013-04-06 19:35:58 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
They don't protect anything. Otherwise, how would such an overpowered npc that can't be tanked be defeated by a handful of catalysts so easily?

If they don't protect anything, then removing them would have absolutely no impact on hisec whatsoever. Removing them would, however, destroy hisec, since the protection they impart on hisec, through deterrence through punishment, would go away.

They're protectors. They keep people (mostly) safe.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#300 - 2013-04-06 19:37:19 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
They don't protect anything. Otherwise, how would such an overpowered npc that can't be tanked be defeated by a handful of catalysts so easily?

If they don't protect anything, then removing them would have absolutely no impact on hisec whatsoever. Removing them would, however, destroy hisec, since the protection they impart on hisec, through deterrence through punishment, would go away.

They're protectors. They keep people (mostly) safe.



Then the gankers wouldn't be punished for breaking Empire's laws.

Here's something for you to try.

Go shoot a ******* asteroid. Tell me what happens.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.