These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Ultimate Carebears?

Author
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#21 - 2015-08-18 11:09:45 UTC
Blancandrin wrote:

Did I say that


Literally no, actually yes.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#22 - 2015-08-18 11:13:17 UTC
Ehrmahgad another f'in CODE. thread.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment

Blancandrin
Servants of the Shard
#23 - 2015-08-18 11:14:50 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Blancandrin wrote:
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Does lack of isk risk make goons the mega ultimate care-bears?


lol - still actually managed to have some good fights with the goons.

You can fight James 315. There is a provision in the Code on how you can initiate a duel with him. It is right at the end.


My Dad told me I should always read to the end of a document. Failed again!

Maybe one-day, but to be honest I suck at one-on-one PVP. Also, I'm a carebear and only fight over assets of significant value...
Black Pedro
Mine.
#24 - 2015-08-18 11:20:48 UTC
Blancandrin wrote:
Let's be clear, James315 holds himself out to be special, no need for me to nominate him. James315 and his 'New Order' always win, they never lose - just look at their blog. If they always win and never lose, does not it stand to reason that the risk/reward equation is broken as it applies to them? Unless the blog is lying to us, how can anything else be true?
As I explained above you seem confused about what risk vs. reward means. It applies primarily to resource generation, not necessarily PvP. You don't get more loot drops from your opponent because you risked a more shiny ship. The Code is 100% PvP.

The Code always wins because it defines the winning conditions itself. A particular target maybe too tanked, or paying too much attention to gank, but because the Code has set out to make players tank ships and not go AFK, that is a win. If the target is exploded while anti-tanked and AFK, well that is also a win as New Order players enjoy ganking stuff. Even if the ganker somehow screws up and fails the gank they are still generating content, serving as targets, increasing the perceived risk in highsec and the profile of the New Order, other goals of the New Order.

As long as CCP maintains player-driven risk in highsec, the Code cannot lose. James 315 and the New Order could go away, but the central ideas of the Code are unbeatable. They are in a sense, the distilled essence of Eve.

Quote:
Want to play some more?
I am not sure what you are hoping to accomplish. Somehow decrease the reputation of the New Order? Hope to get CODE. members upset that some anonymous forum alt called James 315 a 'carebear'? Your arguments are nonsensical and purely semantic in any case. If you feel better about yourself, please feel free to call James 315 and the New Order "Ultimate Carebears".


Desert Frog
Doomheim
#25 - 2015-08-18 11:47:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Desert Frog
Black Pedro wrote:
Blancandrin wrote:
Stuff
As I explained above you seem confused about what risk vs. reward means. It applies primarily to resource generation, not necessarily PvP. You don't get more loot drops from your opponent because you risked a more shiny ship. The Code is 100% PvP.

The Code always wins because it defines the winning conditions itself. A particular target maybe too tanked, or paying too much attention to gank, but because the Code has set out to make players tank ships and not go AFK, that is a win. If the target is exploded while anti-tanked and AFK, well that is also a win as New Order players enjoy ganking stuff. Even if the ganker somehow screws up and fails the gank they are still generating content, serving as targets, increasing the perceived risk in highsec and the profile of the New Order, other goals of the New Order.

As long as CCP maintains player-driven risk in highsec, the Code cannot lose. James 315 and the New Order could go away, but the central ideas of the Code are unbeatable. They are in a sense, the distilled essence of Eve.

Quote:
Want to play some more?
I am not sure what you are hoping to accomplish. Somehow decrease the reputation of the New Order? Hope to get CODE. members upset that some anonymous forum alt called James 315 a 'carebear'? Your arguments are nonsensical and purely semantic in any case. If you feel better about yourself, please feel free to call James 315 and the New Order "Ultimate Carebears".




My thunder was stolen... Winning isn't always measurable through traditional metrics, be it killboards or wallets. CODE's metric is completely intangible.

Bedouin of the galactic shipping lanes...

قد البراغيث من ألف الجمال تغزو أولئك الذين فريسة على الضفادع

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#26 - 2015-08-18 11:57:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Blancandrin wrote:
They always win - just look at their blog!
Like many real world organisations that "always win", CODE. sets their own victory conditions and use social media platforms to disseminate their propaganda; welcome to the meta game.

Apparently it's also time for this thread again Ugh

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Blancandrin
Servants of the Shard
#27 - 2015-08-18 11:58:59 UTC
Leto Thule wrote:
Ehrmahgad another f'in CODE. thread.


Yea - I might have made a mistake.

Back after a long break and could not resist the temptation - sorry for those who have lived through all the others.

Still think I'm making my point, something is broken when there is no risk. Don't really know the cause but don't think it is ganking. The only obvious new thing used by James315 is Third Party Funding, so probably a combination of that and changes done by CCP

Any ideas?

Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#28 - 2015-08-18 12:12:25 UTC
Blancandrin wrote:
Leto Thule wrote:
Ehrmahgad another f'in CODE. thread.


Yea - I might have made a mistake.

Back after a long break and could not resist the temptation - sorry for those who have lived through all the others.

Still think I'm making my point, something is broken when there is no risk. Don't really know the cause but don't think it is ganking. The only obvious new thing used by James315 is Third Party Funding, so probably a combination of that and changes done by CCP

Any ideas?



Yeah I have one. Leave highsec.


Also New Order Agents are not risk averse. There is a 100% chance their ships will die in a fire every single time they undock.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#29 - 2015-08-18 12:26:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Blancandrin wrote:
Still think I'm making my point, something is broken when there is no risk. Don't really know the cause but don't think it is ganking. The only obvious new thing used by James315 is Third Party Funding, so probably a combination of that and changes done by CCP

Any ideas?
There's still risk involved in ganking, gankers have just figured out ways to minimise the known risks as much as they can.

There's also risks that they can't minimise because they're an unknown quantity; the risk of failure, the risk of a target paying attention and being prepared, the risk of losing the loot to someone who's on the ball, the risk of the loot fairy being a greedy git, the risk of anti-gankers suddenly getting their act together and actually having a plan beyond "we must stop this criminal plague" and making a lot of noise (yeah I'm pushing the envelope with this one P).

Changes to mechanics have forced gankers to become proficient at what they do and develop doctrines to counter those changes. Third party funding is part of that and nothing more than an SRP, something that is nothing new when it comes to ganking, Goons have had it in place for years for their various hisec holidays.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#30 - 2015-08-18 12:30:26 UTC
Risk vs. reward has something to do with balancing loot tables from NPCs and not what players may gain when attacking other players who do not even take some basic steps to protect their stuff.

To make the space even more secure by whatever means will only increase the feeling for safety and make our targets even more fat.

Hope that helps to fix your wrong idea of the situation.
StonerPhReaK
Herb Men
#31 - 2015-08-18 13:12:05 UTC
Just what i needed before work. Keep doin the saviors work code dudes and dudettes.

Signatures wer cooler when we couldn't remove them completely.

Blancandrin
Servants of the Shard
#32 - 2015-08-18 14:22:11 UTC
Hey - another vote for James315 as the 'Ultimate carebear'.

You've got to admire the 'New Order', they know their stuff: "When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio and discrediting the opposition by association with many easily disproved false claims."

Black Pedro wrote:
I am not sure what you are hoping to accomplish. Somehow decrease the reputation of the New Order? Hope to get CODE. members upset that some anonymous forum alt called James 315 a 'carebear'? Your arguments are nonsensical and purely semantic in any case. If you feel better about yourself, please feel free to call James 315 and the New Order "Ultimate Carebears".


Ok, I'll try to make it clearer:

  • I'm asserting James315's 'New Order' is not at risk of involuntary loss of acquired resources.
  • The carebear thing is simply a rhetorical device to attract attention.
  • Any decrease in reputation or upset is only 'collateral damage' and of no real consequence.
  • I'm not suggesting any specific measures anti-ganking or vice-versa.


If you take the time to look past the disinformation you've got to admire the 'New Order' for basic truth and honesty. Despite a lot of goading, the 'New Order' associates have yet to provide a counter example to my assertion and have accepted the 'Ultimate carebear' label. They have tacitly acknowledged the truth of the assertion I've put.

---

If your interested in the previous SRP reference. A good follow-up article is SRP is killing Eve.



PS: Of course I'm an alt - this is Eve - why would I expose myself to James315 and 'New Order' hate, they do have a reputation...
Azov Rassau
The Hornets Cartel
#33 - 2015-08-18 14:24:24 UTC
I think this is another "I'm bored so I'll start a thread about code in C&P" thread.

However, it's worth answering the OP because at least he elaborates (unlike Dryson's hilarious middle east/high sector theories).


Blancandrin wrote:
there is no risk

Everybody takes a risk whenever they undock. Everybody: gankers, awoxers, wardeccers, miners, Okra pilots, haulers, supreme leaders, pirates, incursion runners... It's always better if those risks are generated by players, of course.

There are already good solutions in-game. Yes, because creating these threads is like writing "I ate lasagna at lunch" on a paper and then throwing that paper into trash. Seraph IX Basarab sums it up in another thread:

Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
I don't understand this point of making threads. When someone does something I don't like I shoot them. Then I ask myself are they still doing it? If yes, keep shooting. What's the problem?

This brings me to my point: If you want to see more risks for gankers, then try to create that risk. In other words, be the change you want to see. A very simple yet effective example: There was this ganker called Currin Trading who used to spam some things in Local while flying his outlaw (-10) Thrasher to find a target to gank. I didn't like that, so I followed him with my insta-lock Skiff, predicted his route, tackled him in Poinen and let the facpo do the rest. Quite simple, isn't it? But effective! That's why I like to give this example. His gank operation was ruined, and I was only 0.2 seconds away from pointing his pod too (next time buddy, next time.. Twisted).

I suggest you, for example, to sit at a gate in the Amarr-Jita route, and wait for the red blinkies, or hop on a Griffin and jam out Catalysts, or gank bumpers/gank scouts or any type of action like that. There are some people who do these already. By doing so, you simply create a risk for the gankers. A risk of failure. A risk of additional loss. This website by Astecus can help too, if you're interested.

I hope I brought a clear answer to your question. Tell me If I didn't. These were my opinions about this "risk for gankers" subject.



Omar Alharazaad wrote:
Here we go again.
And I'm out of popcorn.

I'm out of popcorn since 2012.

Be the change you want to see in Highsec.

Anti-Ganking Fun: www.gankerjamming.com

Blancandrin
Servants of the Shard
#34 - 2015-08-18 14:37:29 UTC
Azov Rassau wrote:
Lots of good stuff.


Thanks mate. I like your advice.

It goes part way, but what I'd really like is a mechanism where they are forced to lose stuff in some sort of involuntary manner. Not stuff they were planning on junking for some reason.

Any ideas?


Was the boredom that obvious? Sorry.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#35 - 2015-08-18 14:40:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
If being:

1. Well coordinated
2. Well supplied
3. Well informed
4. Skilled
5. Led by good FCs
6. Well versed in game mechanics
7. Backed up by friends

makes CODE. carebears, then, really, who* in EvE isn't a carebear?


EDIT: And by "who" I mean successful combat corps, be your target NPC or player.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#36 - 2015-08-18 14:43:44 UTC
Blancandrin wrote:
It goes part way, but what I'd really like is a mechanism where they are forced to lose stuff in some sort of involuntary manner. Not stuff they were planning on junking for some reason.

Any ideas?

Entertaining your notion here for a moment, what additional form of loss would you propose for suicide gankers? They've already lost their ship (without insurance), approximately 50% of their fitted modules (depending on how well they've paid the loot fairy and how quick AG folks are to loot blue wrecks), and are already severely restricted while operating in hisec (at least the -10s are).

What more could your realistically ask of them?

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#37 - 2015-08-18 14:45:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Apparently doing well and having a viable business plan makes you a carebear? Roll

It's like how that one guy insists that because I don't lose ships for several months at a time I am bad at pvp. Must be really bad at wars if that's the case cause I haven't lost a ship to a war target since June 2012.

Seriously though taking risks and being consistently successful in spite of those risks means you're good at what you are doing. It does not mean that those risks are nonexistent.

These kinds of "You have accounted for and taken steps to mitigate all the risks involved, therefore there are no risks involved!" arguments are not logically sound.
Omar Alharazaad
New Eden Tech Support
#38 - 2015-08-18 14:45:59 UTC
Blancandrin wrote:
Azov Rassau wrote:
Lots of good stuff.


Thanks mate. I like your advice.

It goes part way, but what I'd really like is a mechanism where they are forced to lose stuff in some sort of involuntary manner. Not stuff they were planning on junking for some reason.

Any ideas?


Was the boredom that obvious? Sorry.



Those bits are already in place though. You or those who wish to inflict loss on them need to make it happen. In the ordinary course of their operations this is unlikely, due to the reasons already posted. It's going to take a cunning and well executed plan to make it happen, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#39 - 2015-08-18 14:51:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Blancandrin wrote:

  • I'm asserting James315's 'New Order' is not at risk of involuntary loss of acquired resource

As I explained above no one in this game, from the Mittani on down to the lowliest highsec mining corporation is subject to involuntary loss of acquired resources. Stuff in stations and ISK are safe from other players and always have been. Why should the New Order be any different?

Blancandrin wrote:

  • The carebear thing is simply a rhetorical device to attract attention.
It is not. If you have some time read Manifesto I and Manifesto II by the Saviour (or listen to Sasha excellent audio recording of Manifeso II) to see where the New Order is coming from. It is very much based on ideology that carebear-ism, the risk-averse kind anyway, is detrimental to this game. The New Order is a player initiated effort to counter those who wish to see risk drained out of this competitive PvP sandbox game.
Blancandrin wrote:


  • Any decrease in reputation or upset is only 'collateral damage' and of no real consequence.
No one cares what an anonymous forum alt says. After three-years The New Order is used to scorn and attacks. Don't worry about that.

Blancandrin wrote:

If you take the time to look past the disinformation you've got to admire the 'New Order' for basic truth and honesty. Despite a lot of goading, the 'New Order' associates have yet to provide a counter example to my assertion and have accepted the 'Ultimate carebear' label. They have tacitly acknowledged the truth of the assertion I've put.
You can label the New Order whatever you want. I have explained clearly to you why you are incorrect, but you are welcome use whatever terms you need to soothe your ego.

Let me try one last time. The New Order has made it their mission to affect the gameplay of classic highsec carebear, that is players who do not wish their gameplay disturbed. Since CCP has made it a feature of the game that such play is impossible - that everyone-is-at-risk thing we started off discussing - the New Order is actually just enforcing the risk vs. reward design of the game.

So you see, the New Order always wins. Either they blow up these carebears affecting their game, or force these carebears to change how they play they game, taking precautions and actually interacting with other players. Interestingly, this is exactly why CCP has enabled suicide ganking in highsec - to force players to adjust their gameplay to account for the risk from other players, presumably because they think this makes for a better and more interesting game.

Seems like everyone, not just the New Order, wins.

What this has to do with the title of "Ultimate Carebear" you have created is still beyond me.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#40 - 2015-08-18 14:52:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Azov Rassau wrote:
There was this ganker called Currin Trading who used to spam some things in Local while flying his outlaw (-10) Thrasher to find a target to gank. I didn't like that, so I followed him with my insta-lock Skiff, predicted his route, tackled him in Poinen and let the facpo do the rest. Quite simple, isn't it? But effective! That's why I like to give this example. His gank operation was ruined, and I was only 0.2 seconds away from pointing his pod too (next time buddy, next time.. Twisted)
Heh this is amusing on another level if you're familiar with who Currin Trading is.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Previous page123Next page