These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

War on Gankers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#261 - 2015-01-06 19:49:07 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Quote:
Wrong, it's a fact. Every non-bot miner killed benefits botters by increasing the value of their mined materials. Code kills primarily non-botters, thus code benefit botters.
Wrong, that's your opinion.

You're getting as bad as Veers when it comes to presenting opinion as fact.

Fact : a thing that is known or proved to be true.
Opinion : a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Know the difference.
Lol, I do know the difference. It's a fact. It's how the economy works. If you have less competition for your produced product, you make more money. If code ganks miners who are not bots, it *will* increase the value of minerals that botters sell. That's a fact, even if you are too dimwitted to understand it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#262 - 2015-01-06 19:53:03 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Griefing is actually pretty simple to define, and I think my definition is the same as CCPs.

Griefing is when you perform actions with the intent of screwing with the person behind the keyboard.
Valid gameplay mechanics are actions that screw with your character in-game.

CCP tends to lean quite heavily towards the "valid gameplay mechanics" side of the line. As an adult, they expect you to comprehend that the vast majority of in-game activities and behaviors are just that, in-game. CCP also takes a pretty broad view of what "in-game" actually entails, and considers stuff like TMC, Minerbumping, and such in-game.

Camping you in a station because I want to is a totally valid gameplay mechanic.
Camping you in a station because you're black and I'm a huge racist (BTW I'm not a racist), that's griefing.
Indeed. Ganking a character because you want their stuff: totally valid gameplay mechanic.
Ganking a character so the person behind the screen gets incredibly upset and rages for you to take the **** and humiliate them: griefing.

The problem with CCPs view is that players come up with ideas like the code so they can excuse their griefing as valid gameplay. And the fact that CCP allows it doesn't suddenly mean it's not griefing. It's still a player attacking another player with the intention of upsetting them.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Ramcath
Boulder Shoulders Industries
#263 - 2015-01-06 19:53:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramcath
modified response
Solonius Rex
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#264 - 2015-01-06 19:54:54 UTC
Steppa Musana wrote:
Uhhhhh I think you need to look up the definition of intend. Intention does not mean commiting an action while under recognitiion of its repercussion. It means engaging in the action for the purpose of creating that repercussion. Miners do not intend to irritate the other players who come to mine.... most of us fleet miners would happily hit a respawn button when we are done. If you dont believe me go search for fleet miners in a barge and ask if you can join for boosts.
Gankers do intend to grief, and Im not talking about blowing up ships here. The only motivation for the rude convos and the insults in local is to **** the player off for an amusing reaction. It's griefing plain and simple


If youre engaging in the action with which you know the repercussion will occur, and you still choose to act, then you are engaging in the action for the purpose of creating that repercussion. Otherwise, it would be as stupid as saying "Yeah, i know that shooting someone in the head, will almost necessarily lead to their death, but i didnt intend for that person to die".
Steppa Musana wrote:

I wont fault you on the logic but youre wrong. They fly like this because they are ignorant and/or stupid. Risk aversion isnt usually a factor in the equation


Then im clearly right, not wrong. Lucas Kell clearly stated that Code target the risk-averse. If Risk aversion isnt a factor, as I pointed out, then i am still right.

Steppa Musana wrote:

Why dont you go and mess with a botter and see for yourself. They dont "cry", they dont say anything at all. They have a different mentality than a player who is farming without botting, thats what you are missing. I dont like botters but they are usually players that "get" EVE, they arent going to rant at someone for costing them what will amount to 0.5% of profit on the year. If you want to get a reaction out of them, tell them you reported them for botting. Thats the only thing they might care about.


Of course they dont say anything at all, when you first kill them. If they were at their keyboard, they wouldnt be botting. But id like to ask, how do you know that a botter has, and never will cry or say anything, ever, after being ganked? How did you come by this knowledge?

I mean, thats kinda like saying that a veteran 3-4 year old player wont cry about being ganked, because theyve been here for years and "Get" eve, and arent gonna rant at someone for costing them what will amount to .5% of profit on the year. And yet, we know of plenty of people who rant, even people who claim that Code only cost them some small percentage of profit. Dream Five is a clear example of this. Shes been on eve for 3-4 years, and has claimed that the Code gank on ther freighter only cost her, what, .1% of her profit? And yet she made a ranty tear filled forum post and complained for days.

Steppa Musana wrote:

CODE helps the botters because the botters dont stop mining when someone ganks them. The new players in their Retrievers or the bittervet who lost his Mack do, and many quit the game entirely after some sociopath gets them enraged in an hour in a private convo. You arent getting the mentality of the botter. They set themselves up so they are harder to mess with, that is the whole point of the botter. The players they compere with are a lot of times dumb or new and are more susceptible to not only being shot, but being griefed out of mining and/or the game. That is why it helps the botters, and that is why non-botters are the more ripe targets for CODE. No tears and more game knowledge makes the botters worse targets.


Are you kidding me? Everything about this paragraph is wrong.

1. I know of many, many people who were not bots, and kept mining, and more importantly, kept losing their ships to code. There was a guy who lost 3 orcas in a row to code, in the span of a week. These people havent stopped mining because they were ganked.

2. How does any of this, make it less likely for botters to be targetted? How do you know someone is harder to mess with, until you gank them first, and see if they reply back with tears? How do you know if youve ganked someone before, unless you keep meticulous records of every person youve ever ganked, which no one ever does, least of all, code, who ganks hundreds of people? Arent veteran players who mine on the side, have just as much game knowledge, and understand the mechanics and code well enough not to give tears, and yet are still targetted and ganked?

The answer to all of these questions, of course, is "Youre right, Botters arent being targetted less".

3. Yes, the new players are certainly more likely to quit eve or stop mining, but this applies to new botters as well, who may consider being ganked, as "i just came back after leaving my bot program on for 12 hours, and i found out i was ganked in the first 2. Not only did i lose money, my bot program may have outed me, so im gonna stop botting because i dont want to be banned".

And yes, the new player who goes "Wow, a guy is buying 2 plex for 2 billion isk, this is a great deal, im gonna sell him my 2 plex i bought!" and get scammed, may quit eve as well. But people who quite eve after a ship loss, or a scam, arent the types of people who should be playing Eve online. You need a thick skin, a smart brain, and a determined attitude to make it in eve.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#265 - 2015-01-06 20:04:20 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Griefing is actually pretty simple to define, and I think my definition is the same as CCPs.

Griefing is when you perform actions with the intent of screwing with the person behind the keyboard.
Valid gameplay mechanics are actions that screw with your character in-game.

CCP tends to lean quite heavily towards the "valid gameplay mechanics" side of the line. As an adult, they expect you to comprehend that the vast majority of in-game activities and behaviors are just that, in-game. CCP also takes a pretty broad view of what "in-game" actually entails, and considers stuff like TMC, Minerbumping, and such in-game.

Camping you in a station because I want to is a totally valid gameplay mechanic.
Camping you in a station because you're black and I'm a huge racist (BTW I'm not a racist), that's griefing.
Indeed. Ganking a character because you want their stuff: totally valid gameplay mechanic.
Ganking a character so the person behind the screen gets incredibly upset and rages for you to take the **** and humiliate them: griefing.

The problem with CCPs view is that players come up with ideas like the code so they can excuse their griefing as valid gameplay. And the fact that CCP allows it doesn't suddenly mean it's not griefing. It's still a player attacking another player with the intention of upsetting them.


You just described 90% of PvP in the game. That's the whole point.

I agree that there need to be lines drawn somewhere but considering CCP has given us ungankable mining ships with the same native drone bonus as a lvl V Algos or Dragoon...fly a procurer or a skiff and afk mine to your heart's content. Fit thermal and kinetic resists on a procurer, afk mine in 0.5, and start collecting catalyst wrecks. Forcing you to put 1-2 defensive mods on your mining barge in a PvP game is not griefing.
Steppa Musana
Doomheim
#266 - 2015-01-06 20:08:51 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Griefing is actually pretty simple to define, and I think my definition is the same as CCPs.

Griefing is when you perform actions with the intent of screwing with the person behind the keyboard.
Valid gameplay mechanics are actions that screw with your character in-game.


CCP tends to lean quite heavily towards the "valid gameplay mechanics" side of the line. As an adult, they expect you to comprehend that the vast majority of in-game activities and behaviors are just that, in-game. CCP also takes a pretty broad view of what "in-game" actually entails, and considers stuff like TMC, Minerbumping, and such in-game.

Camping you in a station because I want to is a totally valid gameplay mechanic.
Camping you in a station because you're black and I'm a huge racist (BTW I'm not a racist), that's griefing.

If your intention is to illicit a negative reaction out of the player, you are griefing. If you pop the mom to swim through the tears of incursion runners, you are griefiing. If you multibox mine all the ice in a system to annoy the locals, you are griefing. If you blow up someones barge to laugh as they rage in local, you are grieing. Gameplay mechanics are never griefing when viewed on it's own and that includes ganking, but the intention of the player defines it. You can gank without the intention of angering someone and you aren't griefing. You can gank with the intention of having fun, racking up kills and illiciting tears and you are partially griefing. You can gank purely for the intention of angering the victim and you are simply griefing.

Ganking is griefing is a petty argument, but the post-gank rituals not so much. The post-gank convos, the berating comments in local, these are done for the sake of illiciting an angry reaction from the player. That is griefing. The rare roleplayer who prefers the miner that plays along and has fun doesnt change this. If you think guys like loyalmoron or John E Normus are roleplaying you are kidding yourself. They are griefing, you know it, I know it, anyone who isnt delusional knows it.
Solonius Rex
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#267 - 2015-01-06 20:12:15 UTC
Ramcath wrote:
I found this thread after getting 'ganked' yesterday. I've been reading this thread and others as well as to ganking, what's good, what's bad, what's greifing, what isn't, etc. There are countless pros and cons to go back and forth but let's honestly look at what the problem with ganking in high sec truly is.

It's exploitation.

No rules in null sec, okay, that's part of the game. Only a few rules for pvp in low sec, okay, that's part of the game. Supposedly strict rules for high sec, but this is where the game is exploited.

Obviously we can discuss the severity of ganking in high sec, or the repercussions of doing so as to negative sec status, losing ships to Concord, etc., but we all realize that what the gankers are losing is not as financially hard-hitting as the one who loses the freighter (or other expensive ship) and cargo/collateral.

I'm not saying that ganking shouldn't be allowed in high sec, it truly is part of the game, but the risk should be on equal value. If a Machariel is bumping a freighter to prevent warp, and a bunch of destroyers are the cause of the destruction of a freighter, then there are simple things CCP could do to stop the ease of which ganking is done.

1st - Log Off Safely - why is this the same time limit as in null sec? This could be changed to a different number depending on what security system you are in. From 1.0 to .9 make it immediate, .8-.7 5 seconds, .6-.5 10 seconds, .4-.1 - 20 seconds, and .0 or lower make it 30 seconds.

2nd - If this were implemented then it would be exploited by gankers who would simply then send in a rookie ship to 'aggro' the freighter or whatever ship the 'gankee' is in. Okay, so to fix this, simply remove any aggression on the part of the 'gankee' while in any system .5 or higher. This allows the 'gankee' to log off safely without having an aggression timer of 15 minutes.

These very simple additions would not prevent ganking, but would give the Eve pilots who are not able to take the financial hit the ability keep playing Eve. It also would allow ganking to continue against bots who cannot log off, plus against pilots who set their auto-pilot, because if you set your auto-pilot then you have to assume certain risks when you aren't at the helm of your ship.

Like I said at the beginning, I was ganked yesterday, and can take the financial loss of 5 billion. The only thing I'm truly out is time that I've put into the game, but in all honesty, if I have to assume that playing Eve means I have to live in fear every time I bring out my freighter to earn isk then why would I continue to play? My job prevents me from being in null sec at this time, because I don't have the time to go on fleet raids or do the fun things I love in null and low sec, so I'm having to be a care-bear for awhile until I can once again get to null sec. Ganking simply doesn't affect me financially the way it does others, and so I won't 'rage-quit' but there are plenty who will.

Yes... ganking is part of the game, but ganking in high sec, and the way it is done currently with almost no repercussions, is not the intention of CCP, at least I don't believe it to be so. It's exploiting the rules, which is always going to happen, whether it's in Eve or in RL, it's just part of human nature. However, my two simple suggestions would allow those players in high sec to continue to play a game they love, or are newer to the game who have no idea how much fun Eve can truly be.

Thanks for reading, looking forward to the responses.

Ram



Its all up to the freighter pilot if he wants to risk more, or less, though.

The freighter pilot can hire a scout to move forward for him. He can create an alt account and scout himself. he can ask for his friends to come along with Logistics to repair and prevent him from dying. He can carry less loot and make more trips so that he doesnt haul a billion isk cargo and become a target.

Everything is there for a freighter pilot to reduce his risks.

The fact that a ganker is willing to spend 30 accounts to gank a freighter, whereas a freighter pilot isnt willing to spend 3 accounts to protect his assets, is the reason why its so easy to gank freighters.

Why should this be surprising that someone who puts more effort into an endeavor comes out on top of the person who wanted to put the utter minimal amount of effort into the opposite endeavor? Why should it be surprising that someone who brings 30 pilots, 30 accounts into a fight, will have an easier time, and win a fight against someone who only brings 1 account, 1 pilot?

I am so sick and tired of hearing about freighter pilots and miners who believe they are completely powerless to fight against gankers, while at the same time, doing only the bare minimum amount of effort and expect the video game, CCP devs, and others, to solve their problems for them. Youre acting lazy and entitled. You need to stop thinking that its the games fault that ganking is so easy, and start thinking about ways that you can mitigate and prevent this from happening yourself.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#268 - 2015-01-06 20:12:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Ramcath wrote:

It's exploitation.

No rules in null sec, okay, that's part of the game. Only a few rules for pvp in low sec, okay, that's part of the game. Supposedly strict rules for high sec, but this is where the game is exploited.

You are mistaken. Suicide ganking is an intended mechanic. This was clearly spelled out in CCP Falcon's recent posts (as told in entertaining fashion by the Saviour himself) and has been made in the CSM minutes (like CSM 2010, page 15, or CSM 2012, page 59).

Suicide ganking has been in the game since the beginning. You have just learned a costly lesson as to the reality of the sandbox.

Ramcath wrote:

Obviously we can discuss the severity of ganking in high sec, or the repercussions of doing so as to negative sec status, losing ships to Concord, etc., but we all realize that what the gankers are losing is not as financially hard-hitting as the one who loses the freighter (or other expensive ship) and cargo/collateral.

I'm not saying that ganking shouldn't be allowed in high sec, it truly is part of the game, but the risk should be on equal value. If a Machariel is bumping a freighter to prevent warp, and a bunch of destroyers are the cause of the destruction of a freighter, then there are simple things CCP could do to stop the ease of which ganking is done.

Ganking is not balanced on ISK or risk, but is an emergent property of the sandbox. You were the one that was going to get the all the reward of moving those goods, thus the risk is all on you. You had complete control of the situation - where you were flying, what you were flying and what you were carrying so you have to accept the consequences of your actions. You decided that you would save time by overloading your freighter instead of making multiple trips, so you have to live with the results of your decision.

Ramcath wrote:
Like I said at the beginning, I was ganked yesterday, and can take the financial loss of 5 billion. The only thing I'm truly out is time that I've put into the game, but in all honesty, if I have to assume that playing Eve means I have to live in fear every time I bring out my freighter to earn isk then why would I continue to play?

This is exactly the point. You are not suppose to feel safe anywhere in Eve, including highsec. Re-read the thread from CCP Falcon I linked above. If you don't like that, this isn't the game for you.

You can take some simple precautions to make yourself nearly 100% safe in highsec, but they do require some effort. These risks are not an exploit, but are intended by CCP to be in the game.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Solonius Rex
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#269 - 2015-01-06 20:14:49 UTC
Steppa Musana wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Griefing is actually pretty simple to define, and I think my definition is the same as CCPs.

Griefing is when you perform actions with the intent of screwing with the person behind the keyboard.
Valid gameplay mechanics are actions that screw with your character in-game.


CCP tends to lean quite heavily towards the "valid gameplay mechanics" side of the line. As an adult, they expect you to comprehend that the vast majority of in-game activities and behaviors are just that, in-game. CCP also takes a pretty broad view of what "in-game" actually entails, and considers stuff like TMC, Minerbumping, and such in-game.

Camping you in a station because I want to is a totally valid gameplay mechanic.
Camping you in a station because you're black and I'm a huge racist (BTW I'm not a racist), that's griefing.

If your intention is to illicit a negative reaction out of the player, you are griefing. If you pop the mom to swim through the tears of incursion runners, you are griefiing. If you multibox mine all the ice in a system to annoy the locals, you are griefing. If you blow up someones barge to laugh as they rage in local, you are grieing. Gameplay mechanics are never griefing when viewed on it's own and that includes ganking, but the intention of the player defines it. You can gank without the intention of angering someone and you aren't griefing. You can gank with the intention of having fun, racking up kills and illiciting tears and you are partially griefing. You can gank purely for the intention of angering the victim and you are simply griefing.

Ganking is griefing is a petty argument, but the post-gank rituals not so much. The post-gank convos, the berating comments in local, these are done for the sake of illiciting an angry reaction from the player. That is griefing. The rare roleplayer who prefers the miner that plays along and has fun doesnt change this. If you think guys like loyalmoron or John E Normus are roleplaying you are kidding yourself. They are griefing, you know it, I know it, anyone who isnt delusional knows it.

Thats only if you know they wont get angry, though.

If you know theyll get angry, and you do it anyways, whats the difference between that, and doing it for the purpose of getting them angry?

Thats no different from shooting someone in the head, knowing they will die, and shooting someone in the head because you want to kill them.
Lady Areola Fappington
#270 - 2015-01-06 20:26:09 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Indeed. Ganking a character because you want their stuff: totally valid gameplay mechanic.
Ganking a character so the person behind the screen gets incredibly upset and rages for you to take the **** and humiliate them: griefing.

The problem with CCPs view is that players come up with ideas like the code so they can excuse their griefing as valid gameplay. And the fact that CCP allows it doesn't suddenly mean it's not griefing. It's still a player attacking another player with the intention of upsetting them.



I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, in a way. I'd consider taking over highsec to be a valid, if grandiose, gameplay idea. I mean, Eve players do have a penchant for thinking big, when it comes to the sandbox. Hell, killing people just to get funny stories to post online is perfectly valid, as long as you don't cross the line into Real Life.


The prime reason I think people dislike Code is because they break unspoken rules. You aren't SUPPOSED to suicide gank people in highsec. You CAN, but you aren't SUPPOSED to, via those unspoken conduct rules. You aren't SUPPOSED to claim ownership of highsec....Code does. Nobody would care if Code just flew around and quietly blew up miners. They don't. They flout the "customs" of EVE highsec, and it makes people mad. It's almost a "letter" vs. "spirit" argument. The letter of the law says "unlawful aggression in highsec means a Concord response". People have misinterpreted the spirit of that to be "Highsec is safe, CCP doesn't want ganking".

It only gets worse when those same people run to CCP, expecting CCP to enforce those unspoken rules and customs. CCP won't do it. As long as Code stays within EULA/ToS, it's perfectly fine. I'd honestly much rather have CCP strictly adhering to the letter of the law, then trying to go with the "spirit" of things. The former is pretty easy to understand, the latter is open to personal interpretation.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#271 - 2015-01-06 20:28:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Lucas Kell wrote:
Lol, I do know the difference.
Evidently not.

Quote:
It's a fact.
No, it's your opinion

Quote:
It's how the economy works. If you have less competition for your produced product, you make more money.
As a miner I can safely tell you that the effective value of my labours doesn't change regardless of the cost of minerals, which leads me to my next point.

Quote:
If code ganks miners who are not bots, it *will* increase the value of minerals that botters sell.
Minerals at their base level decide the price of ships and modules. If minerals go up in price, ships and modules do too, any increase in value is relative when it comes to me buying new toys to play with.

Quote:
That's a fact, even if you are too dimwitted to understand it.
Firstly it's your opinion, not a fact. If and when you can bring evidence to the table that proves your opinion to be correct then you can present your statement as fact.

Secondly resorting to calling those who disagree with your opinion dimwitted shows exactly how weak your position is.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#272 - 2015-01-06 20:34:01 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
You just described 90% of PvP in the game. That's the whole point.
Clearly you misread. Most PvP in the game is not done specifically to make another player upset.

Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I agree that there need to be lines drawn somewhere but considering CCP has given us ungankable mining ships with the same native drone bonus as a lvl V Algos or Dragoon...fly a procurer or a skiff and afk mine to your heart's content. Fit thermal and kinetic resists on a procurer, afk mine in 0.5, and start collecting catalyst wrecks. Forcing you to put 1-2 defensive mods on your mining barge in a PvP game is not griefing.
No ship is ungankgable. And sure, go with the victim blaming as usual. The same could be said for shooting newbies in a newbie zone, which CCP do act on. The newbies could just move out of the newbie zones or learn to not fall for traps.

And sure, if miners fit more tank, they'd be less likely to be ganked, but then the ganker would just move on to the next target that they know is going to get upset. When they run out of targets they'd start (or continue) whining that their targets have it too easy and campaign for them to be nerfed so they can go back to griefing them.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Market McSelling Alt
Doomheim
#273 - 2015-01-06 20:35:32 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Stuffz



No, it isn't opinion it is fact. Kell is correct. If Code. ganks non-botters it raises the value of the minerals bots fund their accounts with and the reason they mine in the first place.

You can't dismiss economics 101 as opinion just because it doesn't fit with your "eve is badass" mindset.

CCP Quant: Of all those who logon in Eve, 1.5% do Incursions, 13.8% PVP and 19.2% run Missions while 22.4% mine.

40.7% Join a fleet. The idea that Eve is a PVP game is false, the social fabric is in Missions and Mining.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#274 - 2015-01-06 20:43:17 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Secondly resorting to calling those who disagree with your opinion dimwitted shows exactly how weak your position is.
I'm not resorting to anything, I'm simply pointing out for you to not understand how competition affects profit margins that you must not be very bright. I tell you what, I'll explain it simply:

People want bananas, they want 20 per day in fact and will pay to get their bananas over someone else getting them. If farmer A and farmer B are both selling bananas, and they both sell 10 bananas per day, they fulfil the demand. If someone comes and shoots farmer A, meaning he can only make 5 bananas a day, then the supply no longer fulfils the demand, and people will pay more for the bananas that are available. This means that all bananas are worth more, thus farmer B (the botter) gets more money for his bananas.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#275 - 2015-01-06 20:43:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Stuffz

No, it isn't opinion it is fact. Kell is correct. If Code. ganks non-botters it raises the value of the minerals bots fund their accounts with and the reason they mine in the first place.

You can't dismiss economics 101 as opinion just because it doesn't fit with your "eve is badass" mindset.
I disagree somewhat.

While it is true that botters mine to fund their accounts, it is also true that ships and module prices are directly related to the price of minerals. If an industrialist buys minerals at X and sells their manufactured products at X+production cost+profit margin, then any increase in mineral prices results in the industrialist passing that cost increase onto their customer.

As a miner, the effective value of my labour doesn't change; I sell my minerals at the increased price and my purchasing power remains the same due to the increased cost of what I'm purchasing.

Lucas Kell wrote:
I'm not resorting to anything, I'm simply pointing out for you to not understand how competition affects profit margins that you must not be very bright. I tell you what, I'll explain it simply:

People want bananas, they want 20 per day in fact and will pay to get their bananas over someone else getting them. If farmer A and farmer B are both selling bananas, and they both sell 10 bananas per day, they fulfil the demand. If someone comes and shoots farmer A, meaning he can only make 5 bananas a day, then the supply no longer fulfils the demand, and people will pay more for the bananas that are available. This means that all bananas are worth more, thus farmer B (the botter) gets more money for his bananas.
Incomplete analogy my friend, anything produced from those bananas also goes up in price in line with the increased cost of said bananas.

Botters don't tend to purchase much from the market beyond PLEX, so in a way you are right for a specific scenario; but for non botting miners the effective value of the minerals doesn't change, their purchasing power remains fairly stable regardless of the actual ISK value of the minerals they mine.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#276 - 2015-01-06 20:50:55 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
The prime reason I think people dislike Code is because they break unspoken rules. You aren't SUPPOSED to suicide gank people in highsec. You CAN, but you aren't SUPPOSED to, via those unspoken conduct rules. You aren't SUPPOSED to claim ownership of highsec....Code does. Nobody would care if Code just flew around and quietly blew up miners. They don't. They flout the "customs" of EVE highsec, and it makes people mad. It's almost a "letter" vs. "spirit" argument. The letter of the law says "unlawful aggression in highsec means a Concord response". People have misinterpreted the spirit of that to be "Highsec is safe, CCP doesn't want ganking".

It only gets worse when those same people run to CCP, expecting CCP to enforce those unspoken rules and customs. CCP won't do it. As long as Code stays within EULA/ToS, it's perfectly fine. I'd honestly much rather have CCP strictly adhering to the letter of the law, then trying to go with the "spirit" of things. The former is pretty easy to understand, the latter is open to personal interpretation.
The thing is, I don;t mind people ganking. I think ganking is a little too easy and predictable (which is beside the point), but it's a part of the game. What I don't like about code is that for most of them, the whole basis of the code is simply a way to cover up what they really want, which is to upset people. If people want to gank because they want to take out a competitor or get back at someone for an in-game transgression, or even just for isk, that's fine. But that's not what they want. They roll into a system insulting people and trolling, they gank people hoping for a reaction, for tears, then when they get that they start trolling even more then copy paste the tears to their friends. It's the type of behaviour that does no favours for the community.

I certainly agree that CCP should adhere to the letter rather than the 'spirit'. Too much goes by the wayside because of that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#277 - 2015-01-06 20:54:52 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Bad analogy my friend, anything produced from those bananas also goes up in price in line with the increased cost of said bananas.

Botters don't tend to purchase much from the market beyond PLEX, so in a way you are kind of right, but for non botting miners the effective value of the minerals doesn't change, their purchasing power remains fairly stable regardless of the actual ISK value of the minerals they mine.
Whis is why I wasn't talking about any markets beyond he mineral one. To a botter, that is irrelevant.

The more minerals in the market, the lower the price. While it may only be fractional, at scale it matters a lot. Whatever way you spin it, when a miner is killed, less minerals are put into the market and the price for the remaining miners goes up. If the miners killed are primarily non-botters, then the botters benefit more.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#278 - 2015-01-06 20:59:20 UTC
Steppa Musana wrote:
If your intention is to illicit a negative reaction out of the player, you are griefing. If you pop the mom to swim through the tears of incursion runners, you are griefiing. If you multibox mine all the ice in a system to annoy the locals, you are griefing. If you blow up someones barge to laugh as they rage in local, you are grieing.


Do you ever think that you might be a bit too fragile for this game?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#279 - 2015-01-06 20:59:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Lucas Kell wrote:
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Bad analogy my friend, anything produced from those bananas also goes up in price in line with the increased cost of said bananas.

Botters don't tend to purchase much from the market beyond PLEX, so in a way you are kind of right, but for non botting miners the effective value of the minerals doesn't change, their purchasing power remains fairly stable regardless of the actual ISK value of the minerals they mine.
Whis is why I wasn't talking about any markets beyond he mineral one. To a botter, that is irrelevant.

The more minerals in the market, the lower the price. While it may only be fractional, at scale it matters a lot. Whatever way you spin it, when a miner is killed, less minerals are put into the market and the price for the remaining miners goes up. If the miners killed are primarily non-botters, then the botters benefit more.
Therein lies the problem, you can't disassociate the mineral market from the rest of the economy, it's far too intertwined to do so. Minerals are the baseline for the value of pretty much everything that can be manufactured, thus the price of them affects the price of a very large percentage of the stuff available on the market.

As I said earlier, the ISK value of minerals is relative when you take into consideration the purchasing power of that ISK. I appreciate the point you're trying to make but it's too simplistic for the actual situation.

For the record I hate bots, I've reported many people that I suspect are using them, I've provided a few warpins for gankers on the same people.

Cheating in a multiplayer game is wrong, people who use mining and mission bots are scum, just as those that use aimbots and the like in other games are scum, cheaters need to FOAD.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Dradis Aulmais
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#280 - 2015-01-06 21:14:24 UTC
Every post I've read in this thread is people saying, "Hey, We dont like your kind in here."

Dradis Aulmais, Federal Attorney Number 54896

Free The Scope Three