EVE General Discussion

There is that (fantastic link btw), but the more immediate and simple effect is that if you burn one,
the next time you make the threat it carries considerably more weight.
Point being , you dont have to burn every one of them down, only enought to prove a point.

Loss of reputation doesn't apply quite so well when the scammer can just put on a new name and face, start a new corp, and repeat. The scammer doesn't even have to delete the old alt.

If the scammer gets away with more than the cost of the citadel in collateral, it was worth it. It's obviously worth *more* if the citadel survives long enough to scam someone else, but it was still worth it. The only negative "consequence" the scammer suffers is that the scam corp and its CEO might get nasty notes about them on evewho.

You're taking this discussion incredibly seriously considering we're talking about a video game.

I thought what I wrote was fairly obvious, one interpretation of that game is that people not only care about fairness, but also intentions--i.e. reciprocity. That is, people will incur a cost to get even with somebody they feel has unfairly screwed them over. So when Ralph King-Griffin points out you can go and burn his house down...that is actually a valid point. And if you do it once, it will give you a reputation...mess with me and I'll screw you over more than you ever wished. Of course you have to have an non-carebear attitude.

your multi quote 'i must be heard im right' post juat proved my point. and i quote 'Congratulations' Clearly by the amount posts you do you are one of eves epic trolls.. I dont feed them. tbh ive been playing the game that long i really dont care what you think its beneath me
.

Frankly hauling courier contracts is so low income with quite high risk and personal investment Im baffled so much of it goes on.

Guess many people like to play Space Truckers.

Whoever suggested that you attack a citadel after courier scam for a counter is pathetic. Most peeps in your corp / alliance would just think you're an useful idiot for picking up an pubic courier HS contract with a going rate of 2mil per jump and paying for the "collateral". For the so call counter you would need a war dec to attack the citadel in HS. By this time it's more than likely that it would be unanchored. If it's not unanchored, organize a fleet for a boring drawn out POS bash like attack .

Yes, I noted that several posts back.



I do not think this is broken.



Careful, you might be falling into a trap here. You are assuming that the scamming in this manner was a deliberate result of CCP's devs vs. emergent game play--i.e. something not intended. It may look like it was intended just like how in biology certain traits can look like they were designed.



The same thing is true of the margin trading scam. Once you buy the items to take advantage of the "drunken" buy orders that's it, game over. Your distinction where it was possible just before accepting or even shortly accepting the contract that it was possible to complete the contract is irrelevant because the scammer was going to turn it off anyways. It is exactly the same, in effect, as if you never had access or a chance to complete the order.

How long does it take to unanchor a citadel?

People have an amazing ability to seek out those who have done them wrong and try to exact some sort of retribution even if it comes at a cost.

Suppose we play the following game:

I am given $50, but I can only keep (some) of it if you agree.
Now I present you with an offer--i.e. part of the $50. My offer is $0.01.
Would you accept it?

Economic and game theory says, yes you should because even with just $0.01 you are strictly better off and you'd foolish to turn it down. Yet that is precisely what happens. In experiments where this is tried it is not uncommon for the offers to be close to 50%. Why? Because go much below that and the second player "harms himself" by rejecting the offer. That is the gist of the ultimatum game. Game theory and economics say one thing and experiments say another. How to resolve the conundrum? Researchers conclude that people care about fairness and reciprocal relationships....so much so that people will incur a cost to "punish" those who abuse those relationships and act unfairly.

As an aside when the first player is a computer the second player is far more likely to accept lower offers. It for reasons like this that I think turning things over to the game is not good. It removes lots of potential game play.

And how many times have we heard of players going to great lengths to exact revenge? Hell that whole Guiding Hand Social Club story was exactly that. The guy who paid for that whole incident....all he got was satisfaction.