Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami No Value
299
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 17:28:00 -
[151] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:No, that deterrence is the protection they get. Sucks for them if that's not enough. Wear a helmet.
Can it be a Judge(Judge Dredd) helmet? Is that what you are trying to say what Concord is? I don't understand the reference. I think concord and highsec et al sucks to begin with. It's horrible.
So maybe instead of "getting a helmet", maybe you should take the blinders off? Suicide ganks happen, concord doesn't protect. It punishes. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3112
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 18:04:00 -
[152] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:I don't get it. You mean policeman will stay and wait until you attacked/dead and then take weapon of "bad guy" and let him out independent of attack result? And your "protection of MrPresident" doesn't include analyzing of possible attacks, defensive measurements up to direct cover of his body and all this stuff? You mean i can get right next to him, put my gun to his head and no one will even pay attention up to my shot? I can't say about your USA laws but here in Russia we have different rules for different crimes. At least you won't get out just thrown your weapon after attack. And known outlaws always tracked. And police will try to recover my stolen stuff (at least this is written in laws). The CONCORD only reacts to happened aggression. It won't try to rescue your stolen stuff. It won't track known criminals (it will but only 15 minutes, LoL). Even on this terms i don't see reasons to pay anything for this service on top of my taxes.
Policemen do not, as a rule, have the responsibility (or ability) to prevent any specific crime. All they can do is investigate and punish (simplifying) the criminal after the the crime has occurred. They punish that criminal according to certain laws.
CONCORD does not have the responsibility (or ability) to prevent any specific crime. All they can do is investigate (which they're perfect at) and punish the criminal after the crime has occurred. They punish that criminal according to certain laws.
What punishments are being enforced are irrelevant to the question of what role the Police/CONCORD fill.
If you don't see them as worth paying anything for, where's your thread demanding that CONCORD cease protecting HS?
Quote:i think you overestimate your "bulletproof vest" effect.
RL: - How many suicide attacks happened last 100 years? Lots - How many presidents were killed? I know about 1 (Cennedy). Maybe it was someone another too tho.
You really sure by only killing attacker they could get this result? I'm sure - it's not.
Eve online: - How many hulks were killed last year? Lots. - How many suicide gankers stopped their business because of CONCORD (read: in the fear of loosing this precious and f... expensive catalyst)? I'm pretty sure - not one.
Result: i still have to see any reasons to additional payments.
Once again, I made no claim as to what level of protection CONCORD provides. Just that protection is what they provide.
Proof: People are using catalysts to gank Hulks instead of Proteus's. Ergo, CONCORD is affecting their behavior (i.e. providing protection). Proof: An AFK Mackinaw in HS gets ganked a lot less often than the same AFK Mackinaw in any well traveled LS system. Ergo, CONCORD must be affecting the ganker's behavior (i.e. providing protection).
Quote:i guess you have never finished 1 lvl4 mission. Or maybe have it forgottten completely. I will refresh your memory: - different NPC (damage/tank profiles) - mission location few jumps away - different EWAR from NPC (jamming, tracking disruption, sensor dampening, ...) - ...?
Compare it to: - 1 NPC type - predefined and well-known damage/tank profile - predefined and well-known EWAR - no jumps outside of your system - faction spawns - escalation (at least there was escalations from Drone Horde in 2011-2012) which leads to great bonus
Add here effort about salvaging/looting: jumps from station to mission system, gates and all this stuff.
And stop using incursions please. Only small part of players do it. The main ISK source is lvl4s.
And the best ISK source is Incursions. If you want to compare high end ratting (Carriers and such), you compare it to high end HS PvE (Incursions). If people don't want to do that, that's their business.
By the way, you forgot one important thing to include in your ratting/missioning comparison: the very best system can accommodate maybe 6-7 people making ~100m/hr at a time. How many people are running missions in Umokka right now?
Quote:don't like PvP? Welcome to high-sec then. Don't ask CCP to reward you to having PvP in areas MADE for PvP. Reward of PvP: your killboard and killed enemies. If this is not what would you like - don't do it.
If SOV is a cost then welcome back to high-sec. Leave 0.0 space to those who will love to mark that space by their name.
For me personally: SOV is a reward. This is mark: I OWN THE SPACE. THIS IS MY EMPIRE.
Outpost is like SOV but better: nothing can change the fact that you have BUILT it. I have one outpost i've built in 0.0. It's under some barbarians control but i don't care: i built it! And some time of its story it has had my name on it. This is REWARD.
You compare it to NPC station? Why? 0.0 is not empire. There was no outposts in 0.0 before players started to build. This is your station. You rule it. You don't care about ruling the space? What the hell you do in space MADE for it?
Never said I didn't like PvP. Just that it is an economic cost, like any hobby.
What income do you receive directly from owning SOV? None. And it costs ISK in Sov fees. So it's an economic cost.
Outposts are also worse than conquerable stations and 0.0 NPC stations.
Quote:there is 2 options: - you have never did any PI - everything has changed since September 2012 Because as far as i remember in high-sec you pay taxes (crazily big) and in 0.0 you have your own PoCo where you can tax other players. When i was building my outpost i used 0% of tax. It made me pay for 1 launch 0ISK, while with 2.5% i paid 5 million. In high-sec it was even more expensive (according to prices). Add here better planets in 0.0 and .... Yes, "marginally better"
The taxes aren't particularly significant in a Factory planet, and LS offers the same Tax savings. And the quality of the planet has no effect on a Factory set up. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami No Value
299
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 18:30:00 -
[153] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Once again, I made no claim as to what level of protection CONCORD provides. Just that protection is what they provide.
Proof: People are using catalysts to gank Hulks instead of Proteus's. Ergo, CONCORD is affecting their behavior (i.e. providing protection). Proof: An AFK Mackinaw in HS gets ganked a lot less often than the same AFK Mackinaw in any well traveled LS system. Ergo, CONCORD must be affecting the ganker's behavior (i.e. providing protection).
This one seems weird...
You can gank in a catalyst within a week, yet need to skill for over what, 2 months? to get into a Proteus. Let alone afford the hull/fit.
That would also seem like Concord, in a bassackwards way, is protecting the ganker not the miner in helping "guide" the new ganker in how to effectively gank while minimizing costs.
As an economic lesson to ganking that is =P.
You wouldn't see that as compounding the problem? I'd rather see the Proteus NOT get Concorded, be allowed to gank, gain that flag, and try to get to station to reship into a hauler to get him some loot and/or salvage without getting blown up and in time to not lose those spoils.
That woould actually encourage a non bot aspirant behavior with mining, or would atleast encourage people to be more social in regards to hiring our mercs or enlisting people to help with their mining ops.
Alot more emergent gameplay... all because of Concord "protecting" the ganker in his catalyst... heh. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3117
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 19:30:00 -
[154] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Once again, I made no claim as to what level of protection CONCORD provides. Just that protection is what they provide.
Proof: People are using catalysts to gank Hulks instead of Proteus's. Ergo, CONCORD is affecting their behavior (i.e. providing protection). Proof: An AFK Mackinaw in HS gets ganked a lot less often than the same AFK Mackinaw in any well traveled LS system. Ergo, CONCORD must be affecting the ganker's behavior (i.e. providing protection). This one seems weird... You can gank in a catalyst within a week, yet need to skill for over what, 2 months? to get into a Proteus. Let alone afford the hull/fit. That would also seem like Concord, in a bassackwards way, is protecting the ganker not the miner in helping "guide" the new ganker in how to effectively gank while minimizing costs.
If CONCORD did not exist, the ganker would not have any costs to minimize (well, ammo, but ).
"Destroying a Ship is helping the ship's owner"-Murk Paradox.
This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami No Value
299
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 20:14:00 -
[155] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Once again, I made no claim as to what level of protection CONCORD provides. Just that protection is what they provide.
Proof: People are using catalysts to gank Hulks instead of Proteus's. Ergo, CONCORD is affecting their behavior (i.e. providing protection). Proof: An AFK Mackinaw in HS gets ganked a lot less often than the same AFK Mackinaw in any well traveled LS system. Ergo, CONCORD must be affecting the ganker's behavior (i.e. providing protection). This one seems weird... You can gank in a catalyst within a week, yet need to skill for over what, 2 months? to get into a Proteus. Let alone afford the hull/fit. That would also seem like Concord, in a bassackwards way, is protecting the ganker not the miner in helping "guide" the new ganker in how to effectively gank while minimizing costs. If CONCORD did not exist, the ganker would not have any costs to minimize (well, ammo, but ). "Destroying a Ship is helping the ship's owner"-Murk Paradox.
If you are going to quote me, use the quote function and please don't misrepresent something I said when you were the one who said it. I'll show you how to quote it properly...
Quote:Proof: People are using catalysts to gank Hulks instead of Proteus's. Ergo, CONCORD is affecting their behavior (i.e. providing protection).
Concord forcing people to be economically smart in their ganking is not a deterrent sir. Or maybe NO's Knights are doing it wrong? Is that what you imply?
Because if Concord did not exist, and we only had crimewatch as "protection" we would see FLEETS of people warping around and checking areas for suspect/criminal flags and lots of podkills.
Don't believe me? Visit your local trade hub in highsec.
Now talk about any costs to minimize.
Gah do you even READ what you type?
"I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
Ginger Barbarella
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1238
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 20:17:00 -
[156] - Quote
Nexus Day wrote: Risk versus reward is bozo. Lo sec is about freedom, hi sec is about sacrificing those freedoms for protection.
You were actually kinda making sense until this statement. The only "protection" that exists in high is the 24-hour cooling off period for war decs, and that really only applies to people with small or medium towers that can't be arsed to fit them for defense (or man those guns). CONCORD is not protection, and merc corps are not protection. "Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3117
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 20:26:00 -
[157] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Concord, in a bassackwards way, is protecting the ganker. If CONCORD did not exist, the ganker would not have any costs to minimize (well, ammo, but ). "Destroying a Ship is helping the ship's owner"-Murk Paradox. If you are going to quote me, use the quote function and please don't misrepresent something I said when you were the one who said it. I'll show you how to quote it properly...
I didn't misrepresent anything.
"Concord... is protecting the ganker" ... by blowing up his ship. That's what you said.
Quote:Concord forcing people to be economically smart in their ganking is not a deterrent sir. Or maybe NO's Knights are doing it wrong? Is that what you imply?
Sure it is. The guarantee of ship loss deters people from using the most effective ship for the job (Talos, Proteus, whatever), and deters people from ganking literally everything they see, because they'd lose significant amounts of money from losing their ship all the time.
Quote:Because if Concord did not exist, and we only had crimewatch as "protection" we would see FLEETS of people warping around and checking areas for suspect/criminal flags and lots of podkills.
Don't believe me? Visit your local trade hub in highsec.
Now talk about any costs to minimize.
Gah do you even READ what you type?
I live in LS which is functionally equivalent to HS without CONCORD. The fleets you claim would pop into being to hunt pirates simply do not exist. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
635
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 21:02:00 -
[158] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: Once again, I made no claim as to what level of protection CONCORD provides. Just that protection is what they provide.
Proof: People are using catalysts to gank Hulks instead of Proteus's. Ergo, CONCORD is affecting their behavior (i.e. providing protection). Proof: An AFK Mackinaw in HS gets ganked a lot less often than the same AFK Mackinaw in any well traveled LS system. Ergo, CONCORD must be affecting the ganker's behavior (i.e. providing protection).
Concord providing protection seems rather subjective. I'll agree that they provide consequence which may deter some attackers or narrow the list of commonly use tools, but they don't prevent any attacks, forbid the use of any ship or module, or seek to actively prevent harm or provide aid to those attacked. The attackers change in behavior is not mandated by concord, it's simply a response to the function of concord which people willingly take. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
2547
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 21:10:00 -
[159] - Quote
Andski wrote:imagine a space-themed amusement park and you have several rides
that's what eve is basically going towards
Then stand with me in making all resources limited, even in nullsec, so that as surely as highsec belts can be mined out entirely, nullsec moons can be sucked dry.
|
Lord Zim
2319
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 21:54:00 -
[160] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:So maybe instead of "getting a helmet", maybe you should take the blinders off? Suicide ganks happen, concord doesn't protect. It punishes. Suicide ganks does happen, yes, and they would happen a lot more if concord hadn't been there. Thus, concord protects.
Please, take away concord from hisec, and I'll show you just how much concord does protect. You won't like the answer. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
|
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
505
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 00:49:00 -
[161] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:Nexus Day wrote: Risk versus reward is bozo. Lo sec is about freedom, hi sec is about sacrificing those freedoms for protection.
You were actually kinda making sense until this statement. The only "protection" that exists in high is the 24-hour cooling off period for war decs, and that really only applies to people with small or medium towers that can't be arsed to fit them for defense (or man those guns). CONCORD is not protection, and merc corps are not protection. I think you are missing out on all the protection hi sec offers beyond Concord.
Don't believe me? Try and shoot a bomb off in Empire? Just one small example. This thread has so much content it may be 'Thread of the Year' and it is only January.
|
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
505
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 00:53:00 -
[162] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
Policemen do not, as a rule, have the responsibility (or ability) to prevent any specific crime. All they can do is investigate and punish (simplifying) the criminal after the the crime has occurred. They punish that criminal according to certain laws.
I don't know where you live but here we have patrol cars. The operative word being patrol.
Police do not punish criminals, they apprehend them for trial. Only in certain cases do the laws allow them to deal out punishment, usually in retaliation to violence. This thread has so much content it may be 'Thread of the Year' and it is only January.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
635
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 01:07:00 -
[163] - Quote
Nexus Day wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Policemen do not, as a rule, have the responsibility (or ability) to prevent any specific crime. All they can do is investigate and punish (simplifying) the criminal after the the crime has occurred. They punish that criminal according to certain laws.
I don't know where you live but here we have patrol cars. The operative word being patrol. Police do not punish criminals, they apprehend them for trial. Only in certain cases do the laws allow them to deal out punishment, usually in retaliation to violence. Another related point, in many places if law enforcement entities have sufficient reason to believe an individual or group has intent to commit a crime they are allowed and required to intervene beforehand to prevent that crime from occurring. |
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
47
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 01:33:00 -
[164] - Quote
Nexus Day wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Policemen do not, as a rule, have the responsibility (or ability) to prevent any specific crime. All they can do is investigate and punish (simplifying) the criminal after the the crime has occurred. They punish that criminal according to certain laws.
I don't know where you live but here we have patrol cars. The operative word being patrol. Police do not punish criminals, they apprehend them for trial. Only in certain cases do the laws allow them to deal out punishment, usually in retaliation to violence.
And there's many ways to patrol and punish. Much more than this CONCORD concept.
I would love to have public stocks so the pirates and scammers who are caught can be pelted with trash. A gaol for the really awful of the lot. And some Nuremberg trials for alliance leaders to face executions.
And I'll even pay for it.
But, hey, I'm the "carebear". "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3122
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 04:59:00 -
[165] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nexus Day wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Policemen do not, as a rule, have the responsibility (or ability) to prevent any specific crime. All they can do is investigate and punish (simplifying) the criminal after the the crime has occurred. They punish that criminal according to certain laws.
I don't know where you live but here we have patrol cars. The operative word being patrol. Police do not punish criminals, they apprehend them for trial. Only in certain cases do the laws allow them to deal out punishment, usually in retaliation to violence. Another related point, in many places if law enforcement entities have sufficient reason to believe an individual or group has intent to commit a crime they are allowed and required to intervene beforehand to prevent that crime from occurring.
Missed something important in my post:
RubyPorto wrote:(simplifying) "The Police and associated apparatus of the Judicial system" Better?
Anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales The Supreme Court says that the Police have no duty to prevent any specific crime, and thus cannot be held liable if they fail to do so.
And, until they open fire, there is no probable cause to think the Suicide ganker is going to do anything illegal. It is legal to be an outlaw in space. It is legal to be anywhere in space with an armed ship, so being so cannot be PC to believe intent. It is legal to lock up another ship, so that also cannot be PC. In fact, the moment CONCORD has PC to believe that a crime will be committed coincides with the moment when CONCORD scrams the offender (i.e. the moment they open fire).
See, the reason why more detailed comparisons between RL Police and CONCORD fall apart is that the EVE universe has fundamentally different laws than any RL country that I'm familiar with.
Putting a gun to someone's head is illegal in RL. The equivalent action (targeting someone with your ship) in EVE is perfectly legal. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
March rabbit
No Name No Pain
611
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 06:35:00 -
[166] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: See, the reason why more detailed comparisons between RL Police and CONCORD fall apart is that the EVE universe has fundamentally different laws than any RL country that I'm familiar with.
completely agree that's why RL-like "pay for protection to CONCORD" doesn't work in Eve
|
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2324
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 06:37:00 -
[167] - Quote
Andski wrote:imagine a space-themed amusement park and you have several rides
that's what eve is basically going towards I wanna ride my vindicator bumper car... but if you bump me too hard i'm gonna complain to mommy.. |
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts Hegemonous Pandorum
126
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 07:04:00 -
[168] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:Nexus Day wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Policemen do not, as a rule, have the responsibility (or ability) to prevent any specific crime. All they can do is investigate and punish (simplifying) the criminal after the the crime has occurred. They punish that criminal according to certain laws.
I don't know where you live but here we have patrol cars. The operative word being patrol. Police do not punish criminals, they apprehend them for trial. Only in certain cases do the laws allow them to deal out punishment, usually in retaliation to violence. And there's many ways to patrol and punish. Much more than this CONCORD concept. I would love to have public stocks so the pirates and scammers who are caught can be pelted with trash. A gaol for the really awful of the lot. And some Nuremberg trials for alliance leaders to face executions. And I'll even pay for it.But, hey, I'm the "carebear".
There are many things in this game that I want included because they exist in real life too! |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3124
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 08:48:00 -
[169] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:RubyPorto wrote: See, the reason why more detailed comparisons between RL Police and CONCORD fall apart is that the EVE universe has fundamentally different laws than any RL country that I'm familiar with.
completely agree that's why RL-like "pay for protection to CONCORD" doesn't work in Eve
That's not actually one of the things that runs into that problem*. There's nothing fundamentally flawed about suggesting that CONCORD collect taxes to fund their police force. Taxes are already levied on many HS activities. Why shouldn't CONCORD get into the game?
*It may run into other problems. I'm ambivalent about it. But HS does provide far too high a level of income for its game-mechanically enforced safety. And as I've see no good argument for the removal of CONCORD** (though rolling back some of the buffs might not be a bad idea), the rewards are where the tweaking has room to happen.
**Empire without CONCORD is a gameplay experience already provided by another area. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Lord Zim
2327
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 08:54:00 -
[170] - Quote
It would, however, be hilarious to see how hisec would look after a week of no concord, just to get a proper test of how much protection concord actually provided. It would just be done to test the theory of some people, where they continually try to tell us concord doesn't provide any protection at all. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
|
March rabbit
No Name No Pain
611
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 09:09:00 -
[171] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: That's not actually one of the things that runs into that problem*. There's nothing fundamentally flawed about suggesting that CONCORD collect taxes to fund their police force. Taxes are already levied on many HS activities. Why shouldn't CONCORD get into the game?
CONCORD doesn't onto it yet. So the question: why should it?
RubyPorto wrote:*It may run into other problems. I'm ambivalent about it. But HS does provide far too high a level of income for its game-mechanically enforced safety.
it's very questionable. Income = ISK. Can you provide any values for "safety" measured in ISK?
If you can't then how do you know that bold part is true?
RubyPorto wrote:And as I've see no good argument for the removal of CONCORD** (though rolling back some of the buffs might not be a bad idea), the rewards are where the tweaking has room to happen. What would you tweak without real numbers?
|
March rabbit
No Name No Pain
611
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 09:13:00 -
[172] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:It would, however, be hilarious to see how hisec would look after a week of no concord, just to get a proper test of how much protection concord actually provided. It would just be done to test the theory of some people, where they continually try to tell us concord doesn't provide any protection at all. yea, it would be interesting. However 1 week is not enough: most of players will just wait until it finished. Maybe longer period of time would be more interesting....
Other experiment: add CONCORD and no-cyno/capitals into 0.0 space. And check what will happen. My guess: 0.0 will be alive and more populated than ever. |
Dave Stark
2360
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 09:16:00 -
[173] - Quote
if there wasn't any concord in high sec then i'd be fitting a talos with some blasters and i'd be ganking all the miners that didn't get the memo about concord being turned off.
i've always known that training battlecruisers to V was a good idea, even if i am a miner myself... you waste time reading this? |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3124
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 09:21:00 -
[174] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:CONCORD doesn't onto it yet. So the question: why should it? Because it's one way to address the problem that HS income is too high for its level of mechanically enforced safety.
Quote:it's very questionable. Income = ISK. Can you provide any values for "safety" measured in ISK?
If you can't then how do you know that bold part is true?
Empirically. Why else do most people with ready access to all of Nullsec's (and, obviously also LS's) individual income sources and all of HS's individual income sources end up making their ISK in HS?
That empirical test gives us a lower bound for the value of safety at [Nullsec Max Income]-[HS Max Income]=[Min Value of HS Safety], for any similar activity (Incursions/Missions vs Ratting, Mining, etc) because people flock to income sources that maximize the total profit (as in Revenue-Cost. Risk is always a Cost).
This, by the way, is about the same method economists and actuaries use to place a monetary value on a Human life.
Quote:What would you tweak without real numbers?
See above. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Lord Zim
2328
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 09:25:00 -
[175] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:yea, it would be interesting. However 1 week is not enough: most of players will just wait until it finished. Maybe longer period of time would be more interesting.... I'm pretty sure 1 week would suffice to show people like you just how much protection concord actually adds to hisec. Hell, even just a full day would suffice, no need to kill the game just to prove a point.
March rabbit wrote:Other experiment: add CONCORD and no-cyno/capitals into 0.0 space. And check what will happen. My guess: 0.0 will be alive and more populated than ever. I'm curious as to what you think this would actually do, except remove a huge drain of minerals and ships from the game. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
549
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 16:48:00 -
[176] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: Another related point, in many places if law enforcement entities have sufficient reason to believe an individual or group has intent to commit a crime they are allowed and required to intervene beforehand to prevent that crime from occurring.
I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the United States, there have been a large number of cases where people have sued to police for not preventing crime.
In every case, it has been dismissed.
It is the job of the police to investigate and facilitate punishment of individuals AFTER a crime has been committed, but it is not the job of the police to preemptively intervene to prevent crime. |
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188
State War Academy Caldari State
182
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 20:47:00 -
[177] - Quote
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:Arduemont wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Mining permits are already a thing, and have been for a while now, how did you miss the threadnaughts and whinefests about the New Order? lol. The New Order guys have literally zero impact on game-play. Outside of the forums I have never (despite asking frequently) encountered anyone who has bumped into anyone actually doing that mining permit crap. If I ever find one, I will war dec their corp, just for the lols. I know someone who did have an 'encounter' and 'discussion' with them. Did not pay either.
Hard to bump into a one or two man alt corp. James has mor eforum alts then he has corp members. |
Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd
318
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 21:44:00 -
[178] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote: ... Beekeeper Bob wrote: ... Alara IonStorm wrote: [quote=Beekeeper Bob] ...
Players work to make Null stable. They build that Empire and make it safe. They are the Concord. That is why they deserve much better rewards.
Deserves got nothing to do with it, son.
Nothing clever at this time. |
LoJ4X
The Shizzel
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 00:47:00 -
[179] - Quote
Wait so the OP want **** like mining permits because it exists in real life??
I dont mine but how would that make the game "moar betturz" ?
Miner I: hey lets go mine
Miner II: yeah good idea , but...we need to get a permit first.
Miner I: .......
Miner I: this is a ******* game am i right ?
Miner II: yeah it is but it is really kewl , you can apply for a mining permit just like in real life, wait for days or weeks for it to come though and then when you get denied the permit you can try and fight your way through all the bureaucracy. It is really annoying, passive and time consuming JUST LIKE IN REAL LIFE :D :D ....ITS GUUREAT i love this game :D
Miner I: .....
Miner: II: im logging off.
Miner I: Why?
Miner I: i gotta go to work.
Miner II: That sucks.
Miner I: A lot less then this game, cya |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami No Value
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 19:05:00 -
[180] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nexus Day wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Policemen do not, as a rule, have the responsibility (or ability) to prevent any specific crime. All they can do is investigate and punish (simplifying) the criminal after the the crime has occurred. They punish that criminal according to certain laws.
I don't know where you live but here we have patrol cars. The operative word being patrol. Police do not punish criminals, they apprehend them for trial. Only in certain cases do the laws allow them to deal out punishment, usually in retaliation to violence. Another related point, in many places if law enforcement entities have sufficient reason to believe an individual or group has intent to commit a crime they are allowed and required to intervene beforehand to prevent that crime from occurring. Missed something important in my post: RubyPorto wrote:(simplifying) "The Police and associated apparatus of the Judicial system" Better? Anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_Countyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._GonzalesThe Supreme Court says that the Police have no duty to prevent any specific crime, and thus cannot be held liable if they fail to do so. And, until they open fire, there is no probable cause to think the Suicide ganker is going to do anything illegal. It is legal to be an outlaw in space. It is legal to be anywhere in space with an armed ship, so being so cannot be PC to believe intent. It is legal to lock up another ship, so that also cannot be PC. In fact, the moment CONCORD has PC to believe that a crime will be committed coincides with the moment when CONCORD scrams the offender (i.e. the moment they open fire). See, the reason why more detailed comparisons between RL Police and CONCORD fall apart is that the EVE universe has fundamentally different laws than any RL country that I'm familiar with. Putting a gun to someone's head is illegal in RL. The equivalent action (targeting someone with your ship) in EVE is perfectly legal.
Weren't you the one who brought up the Police to solidify your stance on Concord "protecting"? "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |