| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Exlegion
New Light
Hydra Alliance
   |
Posted - 2008.03.25 17:13:00 -
[91]
Edited by: Exlegion on 25/03/2008 17:16:10
 Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Darius Brinn
The topic at hand, however, is how ganking in High security has a far too high reward/price ratio
If it was so rewarding high sec space would look very different from what it is now.
Not everyone is interested in playing the 'bad' guy, no matter how rewarding it is. If this game ever becomes 'Pirates Online', inwhere the only viable playstyles are that of a pirate or cannon fodder I quit. I suspect many other players aren't interested in playing this game to pirate as well, just as many pirates aren't interested in playing the 'good' guy. The point being made, and I happen to agree, is that pirating in high sec has 'Mickey Mouse' consequences. And for so many pirates chanting that it's supposed to be a harsh, cold, cruel universe they should be looking at their own side to see how they could 'fix' this situation. Eve should be harsh for ALL players, not just the 'good' guys.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Scout 99
Royal Amarr Institute
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 17:17:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Darius Brinn
The topic at hand, however, is how ganking in High security has a far too high reward/price ratio
If it was so rewarding high sec space would look very different from what it is now.
When an entity like goonswarm target hulks (just for the thrills) they arent buying their ships at market value. They get them at a much lower cost from their corp/alliance. So when they get their insurance, they will at least be breaking even. Laughing because they know they blew up someones hard earned hulk (in most cases anyway) without losing so much as an ISK. Seem fair to you?
Suicide ganks at gates means they get to knock around the pinata hauler for the loot (which they scanned and calculated the profit from killing) and still get their insurance paid out in full. Seem fair to you?
Win-win situations for the "we live in a cold and harsh universe" pirates. They whine about carebears, but live in their own carebear world. Gratz... 
The only people who in any way could think this to be fair, are the ones benefitting (or in my world, exploiting) the game mechanics to live in a carefree world where they get their ISK back when they grief others. Grief you ask? Yes grief, since the receiving end of this treatment can NEVER get back at them - only lose ISK which equals time spent in the game.
Its wrong, its flawed, and im actually surprised that CCP still hasnt moved their asses on this subject - or at least provided a new response after the jihadcrap. 
|
Esmenet
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 17:25:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Scout 99
When an entity like goonswarm target hulks (just for the thrills) they arent buying their ships at market value. They get them at a much lower cost from their corp/alliance. So when they get their insurance, they will at least be breaking even. Laughing because they know they blew up someones hard earned hulk (in most cases anyway) without losing so much as an ISK. Seem fair to you?
Hmm a carebear that dont even understand that stuff you mine is not free.
It dont matter if the goon pilot bought the ship or got it from the corp, the ship has the exact same value determined by the market.
|
Scout 99
Royal Amarr Institute
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 17:36:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Scout 99
When an entity like goonswarm target hulks (just for the thrills) they arent buying their ships at market value. They get them at a much lower cost from their corp/alliance. So when they get their insurance, they will at least be breaking even. Laughing because they know they blew up someones hard earned hulk (in most cases anyway) without losing so much as an ISK. Seem fair to you?
Hmm a carebear that dont even understand that stuff you mine is not free.
It dont matter if the goon pilot bought the ship or got it from the corp, the ship has the exact same value determined by the market.
Let me guess, your the alt of a high sec pirate right? Because you sound just as clueless as one.
First of all, the totally lame argument that "stuff you mine is not free" is the same as saying that i should expect to be mugged regularly when i go to and come home from a normal workday. Without the offender staying on criminal record and allowed to keep my wallet/cash. Are you kidding me?
Explain to me, in detail and with good arguments, why you think that suiciding miners in high sec (for no profit other than to grief with no ISK loss to the person(s) doing it) should be possible without punishment? And dont give me that "its a harsh blabla" crap. The game design does not take into account that there might be a whole alliance that decide it would be fun exploiting that fact.
Fix it CCP.
|
Esmenet
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 17:52:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Scout 99
First of all, the totally lame argument that "stuff you mine is not free" is the same as saying that i should expect to be mugged regularly when i go to and come home from a normal workday.
Pathetic really. You cant even respond to what i said other than silly personal attacks.
Here is the simple math with easy fictional numbers:
Goonproduced raven: 70 mill
"regular raven: 90 mill
Insureance: 10 mill
Payout 100 mill.
Player a buys a goonproduced raven. Now he can suicide gank and collect insurance or sell the raven on the market.
Selling the raven on the market : 90-70 = 20 mill profit.
Suicide gank: 100 - 70 - 10= 20 mill profit.
Where does this profit come from? From the time spent mining/producing.
Player B buys a regular raven to suicide gank with.
100 - 90 - 10 = 0 profit.
However the difference here is that player B did not spend time mining/producing the raven in the first place.
Both spent 100 mill worth of time to do the suicide gank. They just used that time differently.
|
Scout 99
Royal Amarr Institute
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 18:03:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Scout 99 on 25/03/2008 18:03:18
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Scout 99
First of all, the totally lame argument that "stuff you mine is not free" is the same as saying that i should expect to be mugged regularly when i go to and come home from a normal workday.
Pathetic really. You cant even respond to what i said other than silly personal attacks.
Silly would be me describing you, yes...
Im not entirely sure what you are getting at, i said that the goons are breaking even when they suicide gank miners. True/false?
They are breaking even instead of making the 20 million isk profit or what are you trying to explain to me?
And no, you cant put the numbers up like it suits you, the people suicide ganking do NOT use 100 millions worth of ISK in time. They basically pay 70 million ISK to grief someone and then get their ISK back so they can jump into another ship and grief someone until they are "forced" into lower sec and 0.0 to rat for standing. Im sure that the fact they get to kill miners for no risk nor lose ISK sounds fair to you somehow...
I really hope i totally missed your point though, because it made no sense to me... Surprisingly...
|
Esmenet
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 18:11:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Esmenet on 25/03/2008 18:11:52
OK i'll try one last time.
If a goon is selling ravens for 70 million to his corpmates instead of for 90 mill on the open market he is loosing 20 mill of profit and giving it to another member of his corp.
In other words it dont matter one bit for the goons as a corp if he buys the ship on the market or if he gets it from his corp. Its just movement of wealth within the corp.
|
Vulchev
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 18:45:00 -
[98]
Sticky this. Seriously.
|
Darius Brinn
Taggart Transdimensional
Virtue of Selfishness
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 18:57:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Esmenet
Edited by: Esmenet on 25/03/2008 18:11:52
OK i'll try one last time.
If a goon is selling ravens for 70 million to his corpmates instead of for 90 mill on the open market he is loosing 20 mill of profit and giving it to another member of his corp.
In other words it dont matter one bit for the goons as a corp if he buys the ship on the market or if he gets it from his corp. Its just movement of wealth within the corp.
It is. Still, they get most of their stuff back from stupid insurance policies, plus what they loot. Plus what they wreck.
Concord and insurancing entities HAVE to be redesigned. Pirates in High Sec get a slap on the wrist. It's not realistic, it's not balanced, it's not logical.
Forget Goons or whatever they are called. It's a discussion about a gaming issue.
|
Esmenet
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 19:01:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Darius Brinn
Forget Goons or whatever they are called. It's a discussion about a gaming issue.
If you bothered to read the posts you would see it was a direct response to a statement about how much profit goons got from it.
However the fact remains that if suicide ganking was really profitable it would be much more common. Unless you got after high value targets and have luck with drops its pretty crap isk/time if any.
|
Scout 99
Royal Amarr Institute
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 19:02:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Esmenet
Edited by: Esmenet on 25/03/2008 18:11:52
OK i'll try one last time.
If a goon is selling ravens for 70 million to his corpmates instead of for 90 mill on the open market he is loosing 20 mill of profit and giving it to another member of his corp.
In other words it dont matter one bit for the goons as a corp if he buys the ship on the market or if he gets it from his corp. Its just movement of wealth within the corp.
... which was never something i wrote about. I said they would break even (in a 'lets gank ships that cant do **** about it and do it for no cost' sense) and they do. I dont care if they make money or move money around. I do care that they get their ISK back (on an individual basis) so they can keep up their antics without any consequence.
But thanks for clearing up the fact you brought up economics that are totally irrelevant to this topic. :)
|
Esmenet
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 19:04:00 -
[102]
Lol scout do you even read your own posts.
|
Scout 99
Royal Amarr Institute
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 19:05:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Darius Brinn
Forget Goons or whatever they are called. It's a discussion about a gaming issue.
If you bothered to read the posts you would see it was a direct response to a statement about how much profit goons got from it.
No.
Let me refresh your memory:
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Scout 99
When an entity like goonswarm target hulks (just for the thrills) they arent buying their ships at market value. They get them at a much lower cost from their corp/alliance. So when they get their insurance, they will at least be breaking even. Laughing because they know they blew up someones hard earned hulk (in most cases anyway) without losing so much as an ISK. Seem fair to you?
Hmm a carebear that dont even understand that stuff you mine is not free.
It dont matter if the goon pilot bought the ship or got it from the corp, the ship has the exact same value determined by the market.
There, i highlighted the important parts for you.
|
Scout 99
Royal Amarr Institute
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 19:06:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Esmenet
Lol scout do you even read your own posts.
Yes.
Do you?
|
Skebet
Umbra Congregatio
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 19:06:00 -
[105]
Fabulous OP. Really nails it.
Won't get a sticky, but it should.
|
Esmenet
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 19:11:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Esmenet on 25/03/2008 19:11:01
Quote:
When an entity like goonswarm target hulks (just for the thrills) they arent buying their ships at market value. They get them at a much lower cost from their corp/alliance. So when they get their insurance, they will at least be breaking even.
|
Plib
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 19:11:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Plib on 25/03/2008 19:14:26
Originally by: Darius Brinn
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Darius Brinn
That logic is flawed and stupid. Crimes null insurances. Except in EVE. And thieves are not allowed to steal in front of the police. Except in EVE. Want piracy in High security? Then you should be facing REAL consequences.
So if I leave my car unlocked and the keys in it do you think the insurance company is going to pay up when it gets stolen?
Nope, because I did not take reasonable care to mitigate the risk of loss.
A bit like leaving an untanked Hulk afk at a belt really.
LOL of course it pays. At least mine. I am insuring my stuff against crime. Using MY keys to drive MY car without my consent is a crime. And I am insuring against accidents. Losing my keys IS an accident.
Do they insure against your inability to read properly?
The poster you replied to wrote about leaving your keys in the car with the door unlocked. In that scenario it's highly unlikely that the insurance company will pay up.
|
Corduroy Rab
Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 19:49:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Darius Brinn
Edited by: Darius Brinn on 25/03/2008 12:33:54
...
All the real consequences are suffered by one side. Concord provides consequences, you say. But not the way they should.
-Insurance on Concord'ed ships should be removed.
...
Sorry if this has been said before. I keep hearing this suggestion, however, it seems from an implementation standpoint very problematic. For instance, I scan down some mission running Raven in High Sec take a cloaked ship into his mission and park myself in his smart bomb range. He lights off a smartie to clear some rat frigs and hits me and then is Concorded. Under what you just said he is not entitled to an insurance payout.
The question is how would you implement a solution that would affect insurance payouts for suicide gankers without hurting others such as the Raven in the case I mentioned?
|
Exlegion
New Light
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 20:25:00 -
[109]
Edited by: Exlegion on 25/03/2008 20:34:34
Originally by: Corduroy Rab
Originally by: Darius Brinn
Edited by: Darius Brinn on 25/03/2008 12:33:54
...
All the real consequences are suffered by one side. Concord provides consequences, you say. But not the way they should.
-Insurance on Concord'ed ships should be removed.
...
Sorry if this has been said before. I keep hearing this suggestion, however, it seems from an implementation standpoint very problematic. For instance, I scan down some mission running Raven in High Sec take a cloaked ship into his mission and park myself in his smart bomb range. He lights off a smartie to clear some rat frigs and hits me and then is Concorded. Under what you just said he is not entitled to an insurance payout.
The question is how would you implement a solution that would affect insurance payouts for suicide gankers without hurting others such as the Raven in the case I mentioned?
There is no question that some mechanics would need adjusting. And by the following I'm not accusing you of such. But there will be pirate "concerns" (read: hidden agendas) in the form of "Won't you think of the poor bears in 'such' and 'such' scenario! Oh the humanity!" In your specific example, I'd probably make cloaked ships in high sec ineligible for Concord protection, since either you're at war, in which case a war target is open to fire on you anyway, or you're cloaking in high sec without really any specific intention other than perhaps to circumvent game mechanics and get someone blown up for some cheap giggles.
In this case it would be much easier to let the playerbase know (in the form of a dialogue box, perhaps) that by cloaking in high sec they lose Concord protection, instead of creating insurance payouts for intentional PVP suicide ganks in high sec.
Edit: Just thought of a good reason to cloak in high sec; reconnaissance on war targets. But like I said, if it were up to me (and I know it's not :)), anyone cloaking in high sec would get a warning message explaining that Concord will not avenge any 'disasters' brought upon their ships while cloaked. Just one solution I can think of from the top of my head.
I don't expect high sec pirates to like any changes that adds real and significant risk to pirating in high sec. But personally I think it's time that this 'risk vs rewards' rhetoric applies to and includes those spouting it the most.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Corduroy Rab
Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 20:56:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Exlegion
Edited by: Exlegion on 25/03/2008 20:34:34
Originally by: Corduroy Rab
Originally by: Darius Brinn
Edited by: Darius Brinn on 25/03/2008 12:33:54
...
All the real consequences are suffered by one side. Concord provides consequences, you say. But not the way they should.
-Insurance on Concord'ed ships should be removed.
...
Sorry if this has been said before. I keep hearing this suggestion, however, it seems from an implementation standpoint very problematic. For instance, I scan down some mission running Raven in High Sec take a cloaked ship into his mission and park myself in his smart bomb range. He lights off a smartie to clear some rat frigs and hits me and then is Concorded. Under what you just said he is not entitled to an insurance payout.
The question is how would you implement a solution that would affect insurance payouts for suicide gankers without hurting others such as the Raven in the case I mentioned?
There is no question that some mechanics would need adjusting. And by the following I'm not accusing you of such. But there will be pirate "concerns" (read: hidden agendas) in the form of "Won't you think of the poor bears in 'such' and 'such' scenario! Oh the humanity!" In your specific example, I'd probably make cloaked ships in high sec ineligible for Concord protection, since either you're at war, in which case a war target is open to fire on you anyway, or you're cloaking in high sec without really any specific intention other than perhaps to circumvent game mechanics and get someone blown up for some cheap giggles.
In this case it would be much easier to let the playerbase know (in the form of a dialogue box, perhaps) that by cloaking in high sec they lose Concord protection, instead of creating insurance payouts for intentional PVP suicide ganks in high sec.
Edit: Just thought of a good reason to cloak in high sec; reconnaissance on war targets. But like I said, if it were up to me (and I know it's not :)), anyone cloaking in high sec would get a warning message explaining that Concord will not avenge any 'disasters' brought upon their ships while cloaked. Just one solution I can think of from the top of my head.
I don't expect high sec pirates to like any changes that adds real and significant risk to pirating in high sec. But personally I think it's time that this 'risk vs rewards' rhetoric applies to and includes those spouting it the most.
I agree with what you are saying, and I find your cloaking in high sec suggestion interesting. The main thing I was trying to get at with my post is that people tend to suggest "sledge hammer" solutions without thinking much about unintended side effects that could result. As I believe, if I read you right, you aluded to no solution will be able to cover every possible contigency and I agree that any solution should not be shelved just because there is a remote possibility that it can be misused. But at the same time I feel that smaller more suttle solutions are usually better.
On the insurance for suiciders issue, perhapse it is enough if the insurance payout be reduced by some fraction if one is Concorded. That would increase the potentional loss for suiciders while not completely leaveing people who died by Concorded by more accidental means SOL.
Just some thoughts.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 21:29:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Darius Brinn
The topic at hand, however, is how ganking in High security has a far too high reward/price ratio, and how Concord/insurance NPC are extremely lenient towards crime under their noses, while people benefiting from it immensely constantly post "EVE is hard and cold"...
You're still approaching this from the wrong standpoint, ie: that there is something inherently wrong with PvP in hi-sec.
There isn't.
As for saying that the consequences are "too lenient"... well look at this this way. Take 0.0 as the baseline - that's reasonable, considering 75% of the map is 0.0. Look at all the not-blues who fly around in empire without even considering shooting each other. Including large numbers of perfectly competent PvPers, by the way.
The available evidence suggests that Concord is actually more than powerful enough to reduce combat to a minute percentage of what it would be in similarly populated 0.0 (or even lo-sec) space.
Let me reiterate: You're still approaching this from the wrong standpoint, ie: that there is something inherently wrong with PvP in hi-sec.
All the available evidence suggest that PvP in hi-sec is perfectly acceptable, but that if you aggress, you will lose your ship and take a sec hit.
Rather than conclude that these consequences are "too lenient", it is much more reasonable to conclude that your expectations of safety in hi-sec are too high.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Darius Brinn
Taggart Transdimensional
Virtue of Selfishness
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 23:01:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Darius Brinn
The topic at hand, however, is how ganking in High security has a far too high reward/price ratio, and how Concord/insurance NPC are extremely lenient towards crime under their noses, while people benefiting from it immensely constantly post "EVE is hard and cold"...
You're still approaching this from the wrong standpoint, ie: that there is something inherently wrong with PvP in hi-sec.
There isn't.
As for saying that the consequences are "too lenient"... well look at this this way. Take 0.0 as the baseline - that's reasonable, considering 75% of the map is 0.0. Look at all the not-blues who fly around in empire without even considering shooting each other. Including large numbers of perfectly competent PvPers, by the way.
The available evidence suggests that Concord is actually more than powerful enough to reduce combat to a minute percentage of what it would be in similarly populated 0.0 (or even lo-sec) space.
Let me reiterate: You're still approaching this from the wrong standpoint, ie: that there is something inherently wrong with PvP in hi-sec.
All the available evidence suggest that PvP in hi-sec is perfectly acceptable, but that if you aggress, you will lose your ship and take a sec hit.
Rather than conclude that these consequences are "too lenient", it is much more reasonable to conclude that your expectations of safety in hi-sec are too high.
You are approaching it from the wrong standpoint. It's not a matter of safety. It's a matter of consequences, as I have already claimed. Wanna blow me up cause you can? Fine. Do it. I want nothing. But why should you get insurance payouts for your crime? Why should you get your crime written off your file after some ratting? And why are you allowed to steal from the destroyed ship in front of Concord?
Consequences. Not prevention, or safety. Just consequences and logical reactions from the police.
|
Darius Brinn
Taggart Transdimensional
Virtue of Selfishness
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 23:07:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Plib
Edited by: Plib on 25/03/2008 19:21:55
Originally by: Darius Brinn
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Darius Brinn
That logic is flawed and stupid. Crimes null insurances. Except in EVE. And thieves are not allowed to steal in front of the police. Except in EVE. Want piracy in High security? Then you should be facing REAL consequences.
So if I leave my car unlocked and the keys in it do you think the insurance company is going to pay up when it gets stolen?
Nope, because I did not take reasonable care to mitigate the risk of loss.
A bit like leaving an untanked Hulk afk at a belt really.
LOL of course it pays. At least mine. I am insuring my stuff against crime. Using MY keys to drive MY car without my consent is a crime. And I am insuring against accidents. Losing my keys IS an accident.
Do they insure against your inability to read properly?
The poster you replied to wrote about leaving your keys in the car with the door unlocked. In that scenario it's highly unlikely that the insurance company will pay up.
Actually I'm not sure the insurance company would pay up if you lost your keys either. They could still argue that it's your responsibility to look after your keys. I can well imagine them kicking up a fuss over it.
Are you able to read properly yourself? Leaving my keys in my car and having it unlocked and stolen IS specifically covered by my policy. Do you even own a car and an insurance over it? Your imagination is quite vivid, unlike your knowledge of pretty common commercial transactions.
"Highly unlikely?" My ass. I insure against thievery of any kind. Should I forget my keys in, is it less of a crime to take my car? No, it isn't.
By the way, my insurancing company is Genesis Auto, from the Metropolitan group. Do check their services out.
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 00:11:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Darius Brinn
Are you able to read properly yourself? Leaving my keys in my car and having it unlocked and stolen IS specifically covered by my policy. Do you even own a car and an insurance over it? Your imagination is quite vivid, unlike your knowledge of pretty common commercial transactions.
Car insurance in the UK will certainly not pay in the senario presented.
Maybe that is part of the issue - some people understand personal responsibilty, whilst others expect someone else to constantly hold their hand?
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Minigin
Ganja Labs
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 00:15:00 -
[115]
Edited by: Minigin on 26/03/2008 00:15:33
well see here is goonswarm are playing both sides of the coin. Their jihadswarmists are in empire ******* everyone up. then you look at their 0.0 carebear folk and they are all crying about stealthbomers and nanohacs.
i say we just nerf goonswarm and everyone is happy.
.
MINIGIN! Now bringing colour back to these forums =)
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 00:59:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Darius Brinn
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Darius Brinn
The topic at hand, however, is how ganking in High security has a far too high reward/price ratio, and how Concord/insurance NPC are extremely lenient towards crime under their noses, while people benefiting from it immensely constantly post "EVE is hard and cold"...
You're still approaching this from the wrong standpoint, ie: that there is something inherently wrong with PvP in hi-sec.
There isn't.
As for saying that the consequences are "too lenient"... well look at this this way. Take 0.0 as the baseline - that's reasonable, considering 75% of the map is 0.0. Look at all the not-blues who fly around in empire without even considering shooting each other. Including large numbers of perfectly competent PvPers, by the way.
The available evidence suggests that Concord is actually more than powerful enough to reduce combat to a minute percentage of what it would be in similarly populated 0.0 (or even lo-sec) space.
Let me reiterate: You're still approaching this from the wrong standpoint, ie: that there is something inherently wrong with PvP in hi-sec.
All the available evidence suggest that PvP in hi-sec is perfectly acceptable, but that if you aggress, you will lose your ship and take a sec hit.
Rather than conclude that these consequences are "too lenient", it is much more reasonable to conclude that your expectations of safety in hi-sec are too high.
You are approaching it from the wrong standpoint. It's not a matter of safety. It's a matter of consequences, as I have already claimed. Wanna blow me up cause you can? Fine. Do it. I want nothing. But why should you get insurance payouts for your crime? Why should you get your crime written off your file after some ratting? And why are you allowed to steal from the destroyed ship in front of Concord?
Consequences. Not prevention, or safety. Just consequences and logical reactions from the police.
I don't know how to make this any more explicit: if you present an easy and profitable (or just amusing) target, you will be attacked.
There is every evidence that this is how the game designers intended the game to be. I'm not sure where you're deriving your assumptions from, but in hi-sec, you WILL lose your ship and you WILL take a sec hit. It is simply untrue to say that there are no consequences when there manifestly are. Again you refuse to admit that the consequences are there, but simply aren't enough to make hi-sec as safe as you assume it ought to be.
What you seemingly utterly fail to understand is that attacking someone is or at least should be a consequence in and of itself. The game is simply not designed to accommodate people who refuse to defend, protect or avenge themselves. I don't know how this can be, since CCP have made every effort to make this as plain as possible, and also have carefully included multiple mechanisms to allow us all to do so. (I freely concede that more could be done here, including tradeable kill rights)
If mining can be profitably conducted in 0.0 space, with no sec hits, no gate guns, no criminal countdowns, and above all no CONCORD, then how in the name of all things logical can it not be profitable in hi-sec, which gives the miners all those advantages?
Of course the answer is obvious: people mistakenly assume that those advantages can replace successfully playing the game, rather than assisting it.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Rawr Cristina
Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:39:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Darius Brinn
You are approaching it from the wrong standpoint. It's not a matter of safety. It's a matter of consequences, as I have already claimed.
For someone who's only been playing the game for such a short period of time, you sure are open about how you think it could be improved.
EVE takes a long time to 'get' for a lot of people. I had strong feelings that certain things were overpowered/underpowered when I started too but as I experienced EVE more I opened my mind up a bit and actually managed to get by.
I would suggest you learn the game a bit more before you come to the forums spouting your thoughts on how you think it should be.
...
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:54:00 -
[118]
I thought this was going to be another of those irony oozing whines about whines, but the OP's post was actually very good.
People need to learn the difference between a whiner, and someone whose opinion differs from theirs. The former probably won't be here long after their "I'm quitting EVE" post though some do hang around, the latter are what make the game and the forums interesting.
I've come back from three major losses in my time, though I never felt the need to create a thread about it. I got rid of my original character when I quit EVE due to real life difficulties, I lost a 1.2b fit CNR to a ganksquad, and I lost more ISK in a certain market investment than I even now feel comfortable talking about (/me mumbles something about stuff not being on the patch notes or SiSi before hitting TQ).
|
Ki An
Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 02:51:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Darius Brinn
Are you able to read properly yourself? Leaving my keys in my car and having it unlocked and stolen IS specifically covered by my policy. Do you even own a car and an insurance over it? Your imagination is quite vivid, unlike your knowledge of pretty common commercial transactions.
Car insurance in the UK will certainly not pay in the senario presented.
Maybe that is part of the issue - some people understand personal responsibilty, whilst others expect someone else to constantly hold their hand?
That is what is commonly referred to as "idiot-insurance", and as far as I knew it's a myth. If we are to believe Darius here, it seems some countries have this kind of insurance. Any insurance company in Sweden would laugh at me if I filed such a claim.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Malbolge
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 03:21:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Malcanis
It is simply untrue to say that there are no consequences when there manifestly are. Again you refuse to admit that the consequences are there, but simply aren't enough to make hi-sec as safe as you assume it ought to be.
Of course there are consequences. Just enough to protect the gankers but not enough to protect the miners because of the nature of the ships each flies.
In case you are inclined to read this as a complaint that miners are unsafe, that is not the point at all.
Originally by: Malcanis
What you seemingly utterly fail to understand is that attacking someone is or at least should be a consequence in and of itself. The game is simply not designed to accommodate people who refuse to defend, protect or avenge themselves.
What do you think CONCORD is for? If everybody could defend, protect, and avenge themself sufficiently to provide consequences for attacking them, CONCORD would be unnecessary.
Originally by: Malcanis
I don't know how this can be, since CCP have made every effort to make this as plain as possible, and also have carefully included multiple mechanisms to allow us all to do so. (I freely concede that more could be done here, including tradeable kill rights)
Kill rights: Yes, goons are terribly afraid of the damage miners with 40k skillpoints in gunnery and missiles could do to their expensive, poorly insurable T2 ships.
Mercs: Ha.
You want miners to feed the monster, not deter it.
Originally by: Malcanis
If mining can be profitably conducted in 0.0 space, with no sec hits, no gate guns, no criminal countdowns, and above all no CONCORD, then how in the name of all things logical can it not be profitable in hi-sec, which gives the miners all those advantages?
How in the name of all things logical can you ignore the fact that 0.0 and high sec have different asteroid distributions?
Anyway, you are missing the entire point, which is that people don't want to play whack-a-mole when they always have to be the mole and the people with the hammer get a slap on the wrist for doing it.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |