| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Steno
   |
Posted - 2005.01.15 14:39:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Steno on 15/01/2005 14:52:05
before i ask this question let me just say that i think ore thieving is another form of pirating and should be allowed by game mechanics, IF they have risk.
Ok so the current argument is that ore thieves do have risk to their profession. That risk being the miner having an alt nearby set up to kill the ore thief. That alt is created with frigate lvl4 and can be deleted as soon as it has a bad sec status. Simple enough, the ore thief now has risk in his/her life.
However, this argument is invalid. In a post about the barge killing group a Dev stated that using alts for the specific purpose of killing others just to then recycle the alt (to remove low sec status) is an offense that will get your main account banned. So wouldn't creating an account just to kill ore thieves and recycling that account to remove bad sec status be the same ?
I'd really like to hear comments on this (and maybe just maybe we'll get lucky and get an official comment) because i dont really see a difference in what the barge killing group is doing and what many suggest we do to ore thieves.
|
Shyamalan
|
Posted - 2005.01.15 14:45:00 -
[2]
i have to agree. Ore thieving is an inevitable side-product of jet-can mining. But like all aspects of eve, there needs to be balance. Atm thieves can waltz up, perhaps throwing the odd insult or jeering at their victim, park next to their can, take everything, and then watlz off again merrily, leaving the victim to smash their head into their keyboard. There is no risk whatsoever.
Ore thief killing alts is hardly a solution. Very few people will have alts specifically designed for killing thieves. And by the time you run back to station, grab your alt, and fly back again the thief has probably stolen your ore, flown back to a station, put it on escrow and travelled four jumps away.
This is why there needs to be some risk to ore thieving. That would shut everyone up, and would hopefully stop the constant whining... 
---------------------------------
|
MooKids
|
Posted - 2005.01.15 14:53:00 -
[3]
Edited by: MooKids on 15/01/2005 14:54:02
 Originally by: Shyamalan
i have to agree. Ore thieving is an inevitable side-product of jet-can mining. But like all aspects of eve, there needs to be balance.
There already is balance. The ore thief is the balance to the risk free jet can miner. Their "risks" include the target being smart and using secure cans, mining in .4 and below, mining outside of highway systems, etc.
And to people who want to kill them? You disgust me, murdering someone over a petty theft.
--------------------------------
CCP can patch away bugs, but they can't patch away stupidity. |
Steno
|
Posted - 2005.01.15 15:03:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Steno on 15/01/2005 15:14:13
yes using secure cans... but no one has ever answered my question. if i can mine a full secure can in one pull of the mining lasers and then have to haul, that drastically increases the amount of time a miner must spen hauling. Will builders pay the drastically increased cost for ore without huge complaints ?
but that isnt my question with this post... if throw away alts are illegial to kill miners then miners using them to kill ore thieves seems quite similar to me.
I'd like to have an official answer because what i'm doing is exactly the same as the barge killing guild and I'd like to know if I have the potential to get banned for it
|
Liquid Metal
|
Posted - 2005.01.15 15:44:00 -
[5]
Just have it flag anyone with a rating less than +5 to you
then they are open season :)
"A strong man stands tall against all others, everything else is just a delusion for the weak.."
|
Nomeshta
|
Posted - 2005.01.15 16:04:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Nomeshta on 15/01/2005 16:07:22
An alt created as a disposable suicide kestrel-pilot is considered "exploiting".
An alt created as a disposable ore-thief is not considered "exploiting".
_________________________
It seems that the above statements are true and seem to be quite fair.
Quite fair, that is, until you realise that there's no need to make a disposable ore-theif because his actions incur no security hits and therefore his "griefing" style can continue unabated without any impact upon the rest of his career, especially those who remain forever in NPC corporations.
This means measures taken to resolve an issue caused by ore thieves (I'm sure at least 90% of them are alts) has to be resolved by a main or a permanent "alt" whose usefulness will expire rather quickly after persistent usage (in other words, he'll take security hits until he can no longer enter +0.5 space)
The problem isn't whether or not a character is a disposable alt, a permanent alt, or whether his playstyle is considered griefing.
"Griefing" is to play the game in a way that is solely intended to frustrate and annoy other players.
That can be taken any which way you like and most concepts where two players find themselves in conflict can be considered "griefing" - usually it's the winner who is the griefer 
The main problem is that NPC corporations offer too much permanent protection. The vast majority of ore thieves are in NPC corporations and are, in effect, untouchable unless you wish to suffer the impact of illegal aggression because, as we know, creating an alt specifically designed to tackle another alt is deemed illegal.
My solution has 2 main parts:
1. NPC corporations are temporary corporations and a character can only be part of one for 10 weeks. After this he either has to join a player-controlled corporation or is kicked out of ALL corporations and joins a new caste of player known as The Loners.
Being forced to become a part of The Loner's is caused by 2 things:
a. Initiating aggression against another person/object that results in a negative security amendment against your character.
b. Being in an NPC corp. for over 10 weeks.
Being a Loner opens you up to aggression anywhere without a CONCORD response.
2. Jettisoned cans are temporarily flagged as belonging to the person who has flagged them. This period will need to be adjusted for balance. For example, the can can be flagged for 30 minutes as belonging to the jettisoner or someone currently in his gang. During that 30 minutes, anyone other than the jettisoner or his gang who opens the can will become flagged and can be attacked without response from CONCORD.
After the period of 30 minutes, the can is classed as "abandoned" and is free for anyone to empty.
This means a daring and watchful ore theif could choose to steal ore from a flagged unguarded can and make more isk per hour but he runs the risk of aggression which incurs no penalty.
_________________________
I'm sure there are a hundred things wrong with these ideas but I'm 100% confident the forum community will put me to rights in a polite and respectable manner
- Caution: Ninja Fingers
WTB: Implants
|
Fever103
|
Posted - 2005.01.15 17:30:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Nomeshta
Being a Loner opens you up to aggression anywhere without a CONCORD response. Quote:
I want to smoke whatver it is your smoking -
What you are essentially proposing is that a character even with a positive security status - if he is a loner - equivalent to a character with a negative 5 security status?
You must be joking, or you havent thought it through properly.
I would suggest you reconcider that particular statement.
-----------
Just bring in the bloody criminal flaging and the problem solved - no more whining, no more complaining.
-----------
Support Dead Space Ownership Idea! |
Shyamalan
|
Posted - 2005.01.15 17:33:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Nomeshta
I'm sure there are a hundred things wrong with these ideas but I'm 100% confident the forum community will put me to rights in a polite and respectable manner
imho some nice ideas there, maybe need a little refining, but good ideas nonetheless...
as far as the risk to ore thieves goes Mookids, a miner using sec cans or mining in 0.4 are not risks...
---------------------------------
|
xVx dreadnaught
|
Posted - 2005.01.15 18:13:00 -
[9]
the answer to minning is you can mine safely withought a thief taking ore in a secure can.... and take sooo much time minning you lose 50% profit or you can mine in the jet cans and risk losing it all..... btw having an alt with skill to fly a kessy sit next to you changes alot kos you can kill that hauler fast 
anyway the poor lil jokes need some isk since they cant do anything about it you should just wardec them and wipe them off the face of eve 
|
ManOfHonor
|
Posted - 2005.01.15 18:22:00 -
[10]
xVx did you even read the post?
alts in kessies to kill ore thiefs, then be delted= illegal an CCP will take action
99% ore thiefs in newbcorps= NO war dec
ok that was vs xVx, otherwise, i say- bring in the bloody flagging already
and fix teh guns
balance balance balance!!!
_____________________________
Honor Glory And Strength!
Honor Above Self
Glory For Self
Strength Of Self
(\_/)
(^.^)
(> <) |
Wendat Huron
|
Posted - 2005.01.15 18:27:00 -
[11]
You're killing that many orethieves that you have to recycle the alt?
|
Steno
|
Posted - 2005.01.15 20:07:00 -
[12]
some are rather persistent and keep coming back. like the one we shot down 4 times today and podded once
|
ManOfHonor
|
Posted - 2005.01.15 20:16:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Steno
some are rather persistent and keep coming back. like the one we shot down 4 times today and podded once
roflmao he wasnt very smart
_____________________________
Honor Glory And Strength!
Honor Above Self
Glory For Self
Strength Of Self
(\_/)
(^.^)
(> <) |
Ryctor
|
Posted - 2005.01.15 20:27:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Ryctor on 15/01/2005 20:27:55
the answer to the topic is a big NO, if those alts will be recycled
|
Bhaal
|
Posted - 2005.01.15 20:35:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Bhaal on 15/01/2005 20:38:56
Quote:
the answer to the topic is a big NO, if those alts will be recycled
I see nothing wrong with parking an alt next to the miners to kill ore thieves...
------------------------------------------------
"for piece sakes!" |
Sergeant Spot
|
Posted - 2005.01.15 20:56:00 -
[16]
If an Ore Thief is NOT an expendable alt I will conceed that it is simple piracy IF the thief is NOT in noob corp, OR if the thief commits his crimes in 0.4 and below.
Also, if an Ore Thief is an alt, but the Ore Thief makes sure his victims know who his main character is and his main can be hunted (not all mains can be hunted, such as ones that live in 0.5+ and stay in noob corps...), then I will grudgingly conceed that the thief is a pirate.
The key is that the Thief is taking "actual risk" AND that the "actual risk" involves "serious assets" (expendable alts are NEVER a 'serious asset').
"Pirates take your isk and destroy your stuff by engaging you in actual PvP. Griefers take your isk and destroy your stuff WITHOUT engaging you in actual PvP."
|
Steno
|
Posted - 2005.01.16 00:35:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Ryctor
Edited by: Ryctor on 15/01/2005 20:27:55
the answer to the topic is a big NO, if those alts will be recycled
thats what i'm lead to believe with the precedence against groups like the barge killing guild. I'd like to hear a ruling from CCP on this
And if its illegial then give ore thieves some risk and make it a "legitimate" profession
|
St0neTemple
|
Posted - 2005.01.16 01:43:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Steno
Edited by: Steno on 15/01/2005 14:52:05
before i ask this question let me just say that i think ore thieving is another form of pirating and should be allowed by game mechanics, IF they have risk.
Ok so the current argument is that ore thieves do have risk to their profession. That risk being the miner having an alt nearby set up to kill the ore thief. That alt is created with frigate lvl4 and can be deleted as soon as it has a bad sec status. Simple enough, the ore thief now has risk in his/her life.
However, this argument is invalid. In a post about the barge killing group a Dev stated that using alts for the specific purpose of killing others just to then recycle the alt (to remove low sec status) is an offense that will get your main account banned. So wouldn't creating an account just to kill ore thieves and recycling that account to remove bad sec status be the same ?
I'd really like to hear comments on this (and maybe just maybe we'll get lucky and get an official comment) because i dont really see a difference in what the barge killing group is doing and what many suggest we do to ore thieves.
I would not worry too much about getting banned. CCP has their hands full with petitions.
|
Yeux Gris
|
Posted - 2005.01.16 04:29:00 -
[19]
I am presently training an alt up purely for killing ore thieves.
of yeah and pvp :)
cheers
Who let the cows out?! mOo. mOo. mOo.. mOo mOo...!
WTB 8x 280mm Scout Howies. Will pay 20% more than Naga's current price |
Takashi Kovaks
|
Posted - 2005.01.16 05:12:00 -
[20]
Perhaps we could be allowed to mine our jet cans: booby trap them in a random sort of manner: so ore thieves would have a random chance of being blown up right down to their pod going kablooey. Then everyone would be gambling.
|
MacMillan
|
Posted - 2005.01.17 10:21:00 -
[21]
I got hit twice yesterday, as a result I will now try to only use secure cans. Maybe this is what will happen, people will stop using the jet cans and eventually there will be no living for the ore thieves!
Just my thought is the jet can not a sort of exploit and if you choose to use it there can be consequences?
Im happy to use it but know the possible problem... I really want to use an alt to kill em but is it worth the time?
"Tact - The ability to tell a man to go to hell and make him happy to be on his way" |
MadGaz
|
Posted - 2005.01.17 10:34:00 -
[22]
I dont mind ore thieves much myself, but when they steal from newbs in bantams + ibis its abit below the belt, especially when the lamers are using alts to do it.
------------------------------------------
|
Siddy
|
Posted - 2005.01.17 10:52:00 -
[23]
he hee, miners life is tough - in 0.5< there is orethiefs
in 0.4> there is.. me  and many others 
-------------------------------------------
|
Calsak
|
Posted - 2005.01.17 11:18:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Calsak on 17/01/2005 11:22:30
I had ore (ice to be exact) 'taken' from my 'floating cargo' (lets use the proper name gent's, jet-cans don't exist) over the weekend.
I didn't whine, didn't flood local with insults. I took the chance and I lost out on that occasion. Easy come easy go.
As for using 'Disposable' alt's (for whatever reason) then CCP will investigate and ban all accounts relating to that character IF they deem it to have been a mis-use and a breach of thier rules. They have stated this on a previous 'Mining Barge Killers' thread. You'll have to Petition for this and due to heavy workloads don't expect an instant response.
I always think prevention is better than a cure so I'd suggest that any character created on an account cannot be deleted within 90 days of it's creation date. It may not completely stop the use of disposable alts but the rate that they can be re-cycled and would stem the current flood.
Personally I'd like to see CCP give every non-newbie character a more forceful push out into 0.8< space. ATM it's just too attractive in terms of low-risk vs profit to stay in 0.9-1.0 space to mine and until they are 'pushed' out then it just won't happen. No one will 'volunteer' to move into system containing rats while their competitors op'd to play it safe taking no offensive weapons, just MinerII's and Miner Drones for a quicker yield.
This could have a side effect of giving some players who have only mined and don't have the fighting confidence to see that rats can be pretty easy, turrets can take something other than MinerII's and mining in a team can be more profitable, enjoyable and safe.
UKCorp Website -- Guest Book |
Calsak
|
Posted - 2005.01.17 11:36:00 -
[25]
Original Post
Originally by: GM Arkanon
Hello everyone.
To set the record straight, we can and do ban players for griefplaying. Note that attacking another player is not griefplaying. But, while attacking another player is not forbidden anywhere in EVE, excessive use of disposable alts (as judged by a GM), the use of exploits or the abuse of trial accounts to grief players for your own profit without risk of retribution will not be tolerated.
We have banned players for what we deem to be griefing before and we will continue to do so. Abuse of trial accounts can and will lead to a ban on your main account(s). I hope this clears up some questions about this subject.
GM Arkanon
Senior Game Master
UKCorp Website -- Guest Book |
Pradishar Creel
|
Posted - 2005.01.17 12:40:00 -
[26]
I don't mean to split any hairs here, but I find that this issue of ore stealing is not very much of an issue in the first place. Take a step back and look at things from an unbiased perspective (if you can).
Jet cans were never meant to be secure storage. As long as you put aything into a jetcan, you risk loosing it. Mining into a jet can is a "shortcut". Not saying that its wrong mind you, just stating the facts. If you take this "shortcut", you stand to benefit in terms of fast mining and large quantities harvested at great convenience. However, the downside is that anything in a jet can is not secure, and anyone can pass by and grab it all.
When mining in safe systems, secure cans cannot be used, so it is more inconvenient. Benefit is that the miner works in relative peace and quiet. The downside is that you need to run to and from the nearest station much more frequently. Relatively safe but Inconvenient.
Mining in less safe systems means you can use secure cans. Benefit is that you can mine longer before grabbing the indy to haul. Downside is that you risk getting attacked while minng. Element of danger but more convenience.
I understand that secure cans hold only a fraction of a jetcan's capacity, but seriously you can't have it all can you? The people who use alts to kill barges are risking their accounts. Theoretically they'll get banned and you should be able to claim reimbursement.
It is really not my intention to step on anyone's toes here, but I feel that in this case, the miners are asking to have it all their way. CCP has given us the tools we need to go about our chosed professions in the game, and the banning of grief players is a fair decision on CCP's part. However, miners who insist on using jetcans just have to be prepared to face the risk of ore thieves.
Peace.
|
Roshan longshot
|
Posted - 2005.01.17 12:45:00 -
[27]
There is no such thing as a "Ore Thief". When will you people get it into your heads? You tossed out that ore. Threw it away with last weeks load of Pampers. You lost all claim to such ore. This person that comes up and takes your garbage is not breaking any rules. Not a griefer, nor an exploit user. Just a smart person that is a dumpster diver Now useing an alt to attack that dumpster diver is illeagal, recycling said alt is griefing...
You do know you can use a giant secure can inside high security zones....just cant anchor them.
Free-form Professions, ensure no limetations on professions. Be a trader, fighter, industialist, researcher, hunter,pirate[/i] or mixture of them all.
[i]As read from the original box and from this site.
|
David Goodwill
|
Posted - 2005.01.17 12:53:00 -
[28]
Edited by: David Goodwill on 17/01/2005 12:55:24
Originally by: Roshan longshot
There is no such thing as a "Ore Thief". When will you people get it into your heads? You tossed out that ore. Threw it away with last weeks load of Pampers. You lost all claim to such ore. This person that comes up and takes your garbage is not breaking any rules. Not a griefer, nor an exploit user. Just a smart person that is a dumpster diver Now useing an alt to attack that dumpster diver is illeagal, recycling said alt is griefing...
I'm sorry, but you're kidding yourself, unless you were joking, in which case you should have put and end sarcasm emote at the end.
Originally by: Roshan longshot
You do know you can use a giant secure can inside high security zones....just cant anchor them.
Doesn't this mean the said ore thief can just come up and scoop the whole secure can into his cargo hold? Forgive me if I'm mistaken... 
-----------------------------
Mating call of a pirate...
"rarrggghhh, omg r0x0r, ph34r meeeee"
Average age: 12.. |
Calsak
|
Posted - 2005.01.17 13:18:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Calsak on 17/01/2005 13:18:58
Originally by: Roshan longshot
There is no such thing as a "Ore Thief". When will you people get it into your heads? You tossed out that ore. Threw it away with last weeks load of Pampers. You lost all claim to such ore.
You create a container (Floating Cargo) and you are adding items into said container for whatever means you seem fit. There is nothing stating that you are losing any claim to the contents of the container or any subsequent items you transfer into it.
The container isn't secure so the contents of that container are open to any unskilled person to take without permission.
The fact the container was orginally designed as a way of emptying your cargo hold of any unwanted item is irrelivent. I can take a sweet tin and store money in it, it doesn't mean someone can take me to court if they choke on a ú1 coin thinking it was a Caramel Penny.
Putting my money in a Bank though it the preferred method and more secure but if someone takes my sweet tin full of ú10 notes it is equally stealing as if they run into a Bank with a sawn off shot gun. It's just one way is easier and I'd get little sympathy from the police when I report it.
The fact that this way of using these containers is widely reported and discussed as a way of mining removes any doubt that anyone taking the contents is fully aware that they are not taking unwanted items. This then defines that person as a thief.
UKCorp Website -- Guest Book |
Sudesh Potdar
|
Posted - 2005.01.17 13:34:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Sudesh Potdar on 17/01/2005 13:42:39
But that's exactly the point isn't it? Sweet tins were never meant to be secure storage for money and you know it. Banks are the proper place to keep your money safely. If you keep you entire life savings in a sweet tin and someone walks off with it, well then you were asking for it. But if you put your money in a bank and someone finds a way to walk off with it, then that's totally different. The authorities are going to act decisively to rectify the situation.
Its like saying that I use a meat carving fork to comb my hair. I claim that it's more convenient. If I ever give my scalp a nasty cut, I can't complain... I was using the wrong tool for the wrong purpose. But if I use a comb to comb my hair and I get cut, I can complain with righteousness.
Edit: I read my post and it sounded a little bit off tangent so I'm adding the following paragraph.
The intent of the act is still stealing wether you walk off with a sweet tin or if you hit a bank. That's true. Both intents: stealing. But the way I see it, here's the catch: In the case of the sweet tin, you are partly at fault because you know that it was not secure. In a way, you enabled the crime to happen. Same with using a freely accessable jetcan to mine.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |