These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#301 - 2013-04-06 19:37:35 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Again consult your dictionary.

My dictionary tells me that 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 (by blowing up whomever isn't deterred).

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

RIP Vile Rat
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#302 - 2013-04-06 19:38:58 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Then the gankers wouldn't be punished for breaking Empire's laws.

Correct, Concord wouldn't be protecting hisec through deterrence by punishing gankers.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#303 - 2013-04-06 19:39:21 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Again consult your dictionary.

My dictionary tells me that 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 (by blowing up whomever isn't deterred).



In short.

So only in a combination of facts can you be proven to be right?

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
#304 - 2013-04-06 19:39:57 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Then the gankers wouldn't be punished for breaking Empire's laws.

Correct, Concord wouldn't be protecting hisec through deterrence by punishing gankers.



There's more than just gankers that Concord punishes for sir.

Maybe you SHOULD go re read up on 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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#305 - 2013-04-06 19:43:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Look, it's obvious you're only going to be stubborn about something you wish wasn't true. The FACT remains you are wrong. You don't want to be, I get it.

You want to create a formula in order to be right.

It should be an absolute. You are wrong with your absolute. You refuse to listen. You won't or can't say anything new.

I however, can. And have.

Sorry.

You're wrong in your definitive deductions. Simple is better.

Go shoot a rock.

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.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#306 - 2013-04-06 19:44:28 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:




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.


His barge ganking has what to do with spawning concord for protection?
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#307 - 2013-04-06 19:45:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Murk Paradox wrote:
In short.

So only in a combination of facts can you be proven to be right?

You could've just said "In short, you're right.", since I am. You've even admitted that they are protecting hisec through deterrence by threat of punishment.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#308 - 2013-04-06 19:50:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:




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.


His barge ganking has what to do with spawning concord for protection?



Go read his blog and find out. He touches on Concord spawning quite specifically, not to throw him under the bus. But if it is indeed bannable, I'd like to know.

It's not FOR protection, by definition, it's to lead Concord far enough away to ensure proper enough time to get a gank before Concord arrives and disrupts the party.

The reverse could be used, since the mechanic is the same. Shoot someone, suffer the consequences, keep Concord near.

You know the mechanic.

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
#309 - 2013-04-06 19:51:39 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
In short.

So only in a combination of facts can you be proven to be right?

You could've just said "In short, you're right.", since I am. You've even admitted that they are protecting hisec through deterrence by threat of punishment.



Concord is not defined by being a protector. Read your dictionary. use the simple terms. When you have to use "if" or "when" you are wrong. Simple.

In short, you're wrong.

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
#310 - 2013-04-06 19:52:33 UTC
Are they, or are they not keeping hisec (mostly) safe?

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

RIP Vile Rat
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#311 - 2013-04-06 19:54:37 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Murk Paradox wrote:



Go read his blog and find out. He touches on Concord spawning quite specifically, not to throw him under the bus. But if it is indeed bannable, I'd like to know.


Why would he spawn concord?

It would make ganking barges damn near impossible. Its the very LAST thing you want in a belt when ganking barges. Link me this blog.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#312 - 2013-04-06 19:57:46 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Are they, or are they not keeping hisec (mostly) safe?



They are not. They are punishing the law breakers which is a factor for risk vs reward. Anyone can still gank anyone regardless of Concord being present or not.

Concord will still punish the lawbreaker regardless if the gank was successful or not.

It's the law that gets enforced. Not the victim. Not even just the pilot.

Go shoot a rock. I'm serious. Try it in a noobship. See 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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#313 - 2013-04-06 19:58:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Go read his blog and find out. He touches on Concord spawning quite specifically, not to throw him under the bus. But if it is indeed bannable, I'd like to know.


Why would he spawn concord?

It would make ganking barges damn near impossible. Its the very LAST thing you want in a belt when ganking barges. Link me this blog.



Unless you spawn a concord far enough away where they are off grid but not out of system. Go read his blog. His formula and timers are there. It's all explained.

http://www.minerbumping.com/p/blog-page.html

Keep in mind, if you were not aware of this before, please don't assume I'm arguing you about mechanics if I was able to teach you something to use in the future. I'd appreciate it.

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
#314 - 2013-04-06 19:59:03 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Are they, or are they not keeping hisec (mostly) safe?

They are not.

Interesting. So we can remove concord, and hisec'll continue to work unchanged?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#315 - 2013-04-06 20:01:03 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Are they, or are they not keeping hisec (mostly) safe?

They are not.

Interesting. So we can remove concord, and hisec'll continue to work unchanged?


No, the gankers would not get killed.

Doesn't save the victims from those ganks. It would however allow less skilled individuals who cannot work under certain timetables more time to accomplish their goals however.

A by product, if you would =P.

But the gankers would not be punished. That would be the only DIRECT change. What people do with that intel is up to them.

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.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#316 - 2013-04-06 20:01:26 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



Unless you spawn a concord far enough away where they are off grid but not out of system. Go read his blog. His formula and timers are there. It's all explained.

http://www.minerbumping.com/p/blog-page.html


Thats not spawning concord for protection then.

Thats called dragging concord and is not a bannable offence.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#317 - 2013-04-06 20:02:42 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Are they, or are they not keeping hisec (mostly) safe?

They are not.

Interesting. So we can remove concord, and hisec'll continue to work unchanged?

No, the gankers would not get killed.

So concord are keeping hisec (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
#318 - 2013-04-06 20:03:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Unless you spawn a concord far enough away where they are off grid but not out of system. Go read his blog. His formula and timers are there. It's all explained.

http://www.minerbumping.com/p/blog-page.html


Thats not spawning concord for protection then.

Thats called dragging concord and is not a bannable offence.



Well, I'd reread it, since it specifically says spawning concord.

http://www.minerbumping.com/2012/12/ganking-101-concord-manipulation.html

Explicitly mentions spawning Concord per ship used to gank with.

That same mechanic (if it's not bannable right?) would, or could be used for the same method of protection.

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
#319 - 2013-04-06 20:06:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Are they, or are they not keeping hisec (mostly) safe?

They are not.

Interesting. So we can remove concord, and hisec'll continue to work unchanged?

No, the gankers would not get killed.

So concord are keeping hisec (mostly) safe.



The pilot decides via risk vs reward what he wants to do. Concord is merely a cost in that equation.

I shouldn't have to keep reminding you to keep on target. This is about Concord and risk vs reward, not their primary function.

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
#320 - 2013-04-06 20:09:48 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.



After rereading this, the culmination of the post leads me to believe that using Concord as Protection is a bannable offense? Is this true?

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.