These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#501 - 2013-04-08 19:16:59 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


I need proof that Concord has protected versus avenged, yes.




See all of those people camping the jita station not shooting everything that undocks but only the ones daft enough to swipe a can?

Concord are protecting you from them. Without concord that would blow you out of the sky the moment you undocked.
Dave Stark
#502 - 2013-04-08 19:17:01 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Where did Concord do any of that.

Now explain how Concord would do this-


pun·ish
[puhn-ish] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal.
2.
to inflict a penalty for (an offense, fault, etc.): to punish theft.
3.
to handle severely or roughly, as in a fight.
4.
to put to painful exertion, as a horse in racing.
5.
Informal. to make a heavy inroad on; deplete: to punish a quart of whiskey. (cocord doesn't drink in game that I know, so I'll concede this one).


why are you defining a word we're not discussing?

oh right, true to form when proved wrong you simply change the subject.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#503 - 2013-04-08 19:18:19 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



See Concord never does anything for me.



It stops me from killing you and everyone else around you.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#504 - 2013-04-08 19:18:25 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


I need proof that Concord has protected versus avenged, yes.




See all of those people camping the jita station not shooting everything that undocks but only the ones daft enough to swipe a can?

Concord are protecting you from them. Without concord that would blow you out of the sky the moment you undocked.



Oh you mean the people waiting for suspect timers?

Yea those are the people who couldn't hack it anywhere else.

IE-carebears.

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.
Dave Stark
#505 - 2013-04-08 19:18:44 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
They will kill me if I gank someone, but nothing for me to protect me.


is that because you're like, -10 and have no understanding of how concord works?
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#506 - 2013-04-08 19:19:16 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
See Concord never does anything for me. They will kill me if I gank someone, but nothing for me to protect me.

Are concord also not stopping you from shooting everything you see in hisec?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Akiyo Mayaki
Perkone
Caldari State
#507 - 2013-04-08 19:19:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Akiyo Mayaki
Of course risk vs. reward matters.

If people would be rewarded for mining in nullsec, nullsec alliances wouldn't have to mine in high sec. Who cares if some carebears stay and mine in high sec, that's besides the point.

No
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#508 - 2013-04-08 19:20:07 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Oh you mean the people waiting for suspect timers?

Yes, because that means that concord are no longer protecting them.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#509 - 2013-04-08 19:21:03 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Where did Concord do any of that.

Now explain how Concord would do this-


pun·ish
[puhn-ish] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal.
2.
to inflict a penalty for (an offense, fault, etc.): to punish theft.
3.
to handle severely or roughly, as in a fight.
4.
to put to painful exertion, as a horse in racing.
5.
Informal. to make a heavy inroad on; deplete: to punish a quart of whiskey. (cocord doesn't drink in game that I know, so I'll concede this one).


why are you defining a word we're not discussing?

oh right, true to form when proved wrong you simply change the subject.


Who's "we"?

Are you just exercising mob mentality here? You aren't really saying anything or being a part of the discussion.

And WE ARE TALKING about definitions. Defining what Concord is. Because this thread is about risk vs reward.

Concord is a hammer. Not a screwdriver.

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
#510 - 2013-04-08 19:22:05 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
And WE ARE TALKING about definitions. Defining what Concord is.

Concord is a hammer. Not a screwdriver.

No, dear, concord is a protector.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#511 - 2013-04-08 19:24:03 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
They will kill me if I gank someone, but nothing for me to protect me.


is that because you're like, -10 and have no understanding of how concord works?



Currently my sec standing is 2.6, I'm just being obtuse to counter your vagueness.

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
#512 - 2013-04-08 19:24:25 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



See Concord never does anything for me.



It stops me from killing you and everyone else around you.



So you're scared of concord? tsk tsk.

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
#513 - 2013-04-08 19:26:28 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
See Concord never does anything for me. They will kill me if I gank someone, but nothing for me to protect me.

Are concord also not stopping you from shooting everything you see in hisec?



No Concord does not stop me from shooting everyone I see. Or anyone. I just go to highsec for its market. I go to hotspots to shoot people. People who want to be shot.

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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#514 - 2013-04-08 19:27:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
You losing your ship to concord is not a contradiction.
Good thing that no-one has claimed that it is, then. In fact, why do you even drag out such a nonsensical claim?

Quote:
There is no chance you'll lose your ship.
Yes there is — a 100% chance.

Quote:
Not much contradiction there doll.
I'll write it again, and we'll see if you manage to read it this time. It's a very short paragraph — I promise — so you don't have to work very hard. Ready? Here we go…

If you reject the notion that ship loss is a risk, then you tacitly agree that the best way to increase the risk for gankers is to make sure they lose less and earn more when they gank people. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction: that lower losses, and higher profits mean more risk?
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#515 - 2013-04-08 19:28:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Murk Paradox wrote:
No Concord does not stop me from shooting everyone I see. Or anyone.

Then what's stopping you from shooting everyone you see, or anyone?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Dave Stark
#516 - 2013-04-08 19:28:47 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Where did Concord do any of that.

Now explain how Concord would do this-


pun·ish
[puhn-ish] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal.
2.
to inflict a penalty for (an offense, fault, etc.): to punish theft.
3.
to handle severely or roughly, as in a fight.
4.
to put to painful exertion, as a horse in racing.
5.
Informal. to make a heavy inroad on; deplete: to punish a quart of whiskey. (cocord doesn't drink in game that I know, so I'll concede this one).


why are you defining a word we're not discussing?

oh right, true to form when proved wrong you simply change the subject.


Who's "we"?

Are you just exercising mob mentality here? You aren't really saying anything or being a part of the discussion.

And WE ARE TALKING about definitions. Defining what Concord is. Because this thread is about risk vs reward.

Concord is a hammer. Not a screwdriver.


we being me and you, it takes two people for a dialogue. or, are you not a person but a poorly coded troll bot of some kind?

we were discussing whether or not concord protects people; they do. wasn't really much of a discussion, but still.
Dave Stark
#517 - 2013-04-08 19:29:35 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
They will kill me if I gank someone, but nothing for me to protect me.


is that because you're like, -10 and have no understanding of how concord works?



Currently my sec standing is 2.6, I'm just being obtuse to counter your vagueness.


in that case you're just wrong; concord does protect you.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#518 - 2013-04-08 19:32:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
You losing your ship to concord is not a contradiction.
Good thing that no-one has claimed that it is, then. In fact, why do you even drag out such a nonsensical claim?


Because you said so. Otherwise I wouldn't have.

Quote:
There is no chance you'll lose your ship.
Yes there is — a 100% chance.

Not much contradiction there doll.[/quote]
Quote:
I'll write it again, and we'll see if you manage to read it this time. It's a very short paragraph — I promise — so you don't have to work very hard. Ready? Here we go…

If you reject the notion that ship loss is a risk, then you tacitly agree that the best way to increase the risk for gankers is to make sure they lose less and earn more when they gank people. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction: that lower losses, and higher profits mean more risk?


I tacitly reiterate the fact that once you shoot something you aren't supposed to in highsec, you get blown up. Regtardless of whatever intended outcome was in your head to begin with.

Beyond that it's all in the eye of the beholder. You are asking me about the thought process of someone else. I am saying I cannot answer that question.

You shoot, you die. Guaranteed.

You have a CHANCE to get loot/bouty/win. But you still get blown up regardless.

Are you disagreeing?

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
#519 - 2013-04-08 19:33:22 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
No Concord does not stop me from shooting everyone I see. Or anyone.

Then what's stopping you from shooting everyone you see, or anyone?



Nothing. My choice.

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
#520 - 2013-04-08 19:34:18 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
No Concord does not stop me from shooting everyone I see. Or anyone.

Then what's stopping you from shooting everyone you see, or anyone?

Nothing. My choice.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

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

RIP Vile Rat