EVE Search - Confessions of an ore thief

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Confessions of an ore thief

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Mon Palae	Posted - 2004.07.29 04:08:00 - [91] Edited by: Mon Palae on 29/07/2004 04:12:28 Originally by: Surefoot Psst. Your whole post was about a signature that changes often and was not used to support my stance. If I get around to it, I might change the URL to the one you posted. That is if I don't change it completly to something else when I get bored with it. Anyway, thanks! Psst. Signatures are not included in the autoquote function at all so I recreated your sig in my quote. You can change your sig all you like and mine will remain the same. It is not uncommon for threads to be edited or deleted either so occasinonally you will see a quote and be unable to reference it back to the person. I think people are used to it and take little note and assume the quote was/is a fair quote of what the person said somewhere (unless they later see the person kicking up a storm about how they never siad that which is not the case here). Quote: If I wanted to argue about semetics I would argue that the game adheres to the "abanodned" definition more than any others. It wouldn't be because of pesronal preference. It would be because of my observation of these mechanics. I personally think someone sitting next to their can while mining is a pretty clear indication that the person does not view the can as garbage for any to take but as theirs. While game mechanics allow for anyone to come and take what is there that by no means equates to taking the "abandoned" definition. If you truly believe in the abandoned definition then drive to 0.0 and find some miners mining to a jet can. If the abandoned definition is the one that holds I am sure they will leave you alone as you empty their can.
Mon Palae	Posted - 2004.07.29 04:08:00 - [92] Edited by: Mon Palae on 29/07/2004 04:12:28 Originally by: Surefoot Psst. Your whole post was about a signature that changes often and was not used to support my stance. If I get around to it, I might change the URL to the one you posted. That is if I don't change it completly to something else when I get bored with it. Anyway, thanks! Psst. Signatures are not included in the autoquote function at all so I recreated your sig in my quote. You can change your sig all you like and mine will remain the same. It is not uncommon for threads to be edited or deleted either so occasinonally you will see a quote and be unable to reference it back to the person. I think people are used to it and take little note and assume the quote was/is a fair quote of what the person said somewhere (unless they later see the person kicking up a storm about how they never siad that which is not the case here). Quote: If I wanted to argue about semetics I would argue that the game adheres to the "abanodned" definition more than any others. It wouldn't be because of pesronal preference. It would be because of my observation of these mechanics. I personally think someone sitting next to their can while mining is a pretty clear indication that the person does not view the can as garbage for any to take but as theirs. While game mechanics allow for anyone to come and take what is there that by no means equates to taking the "abandoned" definition. If you truly believe in the abandoned definition then drive to 0.0 and find some miners mining to a jet can. If the abandoned definition is the one that holds I am sure they will leave you alone as you empty their can.
Helplessandlost	Posted - 2004.07.29 11:50:00 - [93] Originally by: Mon Palae Edited by: Mon Palae on 29/07/2004 04:12:28 Originally by: Surefoot Psst. Your whole post was about a signature that changes often and was not used to support my stance. If I get around to it, I might change the URL to the one you posted. That is if I don't change it completly to something else when I get bored with it. Anyway, thanks! Psst. Signatures are not included in the autoquote function at all so I recreated your sig in my quote. You can change your sig all you like and mine will remain the same. It is not uncommon for threads to be edited or deleted either so occasinonally you will see a quote and be unable to reference it back to the person. I think people are used to it and take little note and assume the quote was/is a fair quote of what the person said somewhere (unless they later see the person kicking up a storm about how they never siad that which is not the case here). Quote: If I wanted to argue about semetics I would argue that the game adheres to the "abanodned" definition more than any others. It wouldn't be because of pesronal preference. It would be because of my observation of these mechanics. I personally think someone sitting next to their can while mining is a pretty clear indication that the person does not view the can as garbage for any to take but as theirs. While game mechanics allow for anyone to come and take what is there that by no means equates to taking the "abandoned" definition. If you truly believe in the abandoned definition then drive to 0.0 and find some miners mining to a jet can. If the abandoned definition is the one that holds I am sure they will leave you alone as you empty their can. All good points - my issue with the "ore theives" is that they do it just beacause they can and they know you can't do anything about it. If someone were to come up to me in a frigate and ask for help I'd be happy to fill them up. The taking is more to irritate people rather then to perform any service or whatever euphemism they want to use for it. Check us out
Helplessandlost	Posted - 2004.07.29 11:50:00 - [94] Originally by: Mon Palae Edited by: Mon Palae on 29/07/2004 04:12:28 Originally by: Surefoot Psst. Your whole post was about a signature that changes often and was not used to support my stance. If I get around to it, I might change the URL to the one you posted. That is if I don't change it completly to something else when I get bored with it. Anyway, thanks! Psst. Signatures are not included in the autoquote function at all so I recreated your sig in my quote. You can change your sig all you like and mine will remain the same. It is not uncommon for threads to be edited or deleted either so occasinonally you will see a quote and be unable to reference it back to the person. I think people are used to it and take little note and assume the quote was/is a fair quote of what the person said somewhere (unless they later see the person kicking up a storm about how they never siad that which is not the case here). Quote: If I wanted to argue about semetics I would argue that the game adheres to the "abanodned" definition more than any others. It wouldn't be because of pesronal preference. It would be because of my observation of these mechanics. I personally think someone sitting next to their can while mining is a pretty clear indication that the person does not view the can as garbage for any to take but as theirs. While game mechanics allow for anyone to come and take what is there that by no means equates to taking the "abandoned" definition. If you truly believe in the abandoned definition then drive to 0.0 and find some miners mining to a jet can. If the abandoned definition is the one that holds I am sure they will leave you alone as you empty their can. All good points - my issue with the "ore theives" is that they do it just beacause they can and they know you can't do anything about it. If someone were to come up to me in a frigate and ask for help I'd be happy to fill them up. The taking is more to irritate people rather then to perform any service or whatever euphemism they want to use for it. Check us out
Rot Animal	Posted - 2004.07.29 12:45:00 - [95] Nice story!! A good read. A shame this post is turning into yet another "We hate ore thieves" thread. To settle that argument let's see what CCP has to say about Ore Theft Quote: Question Why is it so easy to steal ore ? Answer The regular containers were designed to jettison unwanted items into space or to hold loot from blown up ships. They were designed so that any player could take from them because that was essential for them to function as they were intended. Players later invented the "container mining" method after noticing that the containers could hold way more than any cargo hold. This use for the containers was never intended and it has the obvious flaw that any player with a reduced sense of right and wrong can come by and take everything from the container and no one can do anything about it. This risk should be known to all players and there will be no reimbursement for ore lost this way. Also, ore "theft" is not considered harassment so no punishment will be dealt out to those who choose to "steal". Players who are thinking of taking up a career as ore thiefs should note that they will face a lifetime of unpopularity and unhappiness as a result. CCP has decided to meet players halfway by implementing secure containers that can be bought on the market and have the advantage of being equipped with a password lock. These containers cost money and do not hold the vast amount of ore that the regular containers do. However, with good organization and frequent ore pickups using Industrial ships, they can be very useful for large scale mining operations. The bottom line is: If you use regular containers to store your ore you assume all the risk. Having your valuables floating in space in an unsecured container is equivalent to throwing money on the street. Should you lurk nearby and wait for someone to take the money and then attack him, the police would deal with you, not him. The same goes in Eve. If you attack a player who just took "your" ore from a regular container in a system with a security level of 0.5 or higher. You will be destroyed by Concord.
Rot Animal	Posted - 2004.07.29 12:45:00 - [96] Nice story!! A good read. A shame this post is turning into yet another "We hate ore thieves" thread. To settle that argument let's see what CCP has to say about Ore Theft Quote: Question Why is it so easy to steal ore ? Answer The regular containers were designed to jettison unwanted items into space or to hold loot from blown up ships. They were designed so that any player could take from them because that was essential for them to function as they were intended. Players later invented the "container mining" method after noticing that the containers could hold way more than any cargo hold. This use for the containers was never intended and it has the obvious flaw that any player with a reduced sense of right and wrong can come by and take everything from the container and no one can do anything about it. This risk should be known to all players and there will be no reimbursement for ore lost this way. Also, ore "theft" is not considered harassment so no punishment will be dealt out to those who choose to "steal". Players who are thinking of taking up a career as ore thiefs should note that they will face a lifetime of unpopularity and unhappiness as a result. CCP has decided to meet players halfway by implementing secure containers that can be bought on the market and have the advantage of being equipped with a password lock. These containers cost money and do not hold the vast amount of ore that the regular containers do. However, with good organization and frequent ore pickups using Industrial ships, they can be very useful for large scale mining operations. The bottom line is: If you use regular containers to store your ore you assume all the risk. Having your valuables floating in space in an unsecured container is equivalent to throwing money on the street. Should you lurk nearby and wait for someone to take the money and then attack him, the police would deal with you, not him. The same goes in Eve. If you attack a player who just took "your" ore from a regular container in a system with a security level of 0.5 or higher. You will be destroyed by Concord.
Surefoot	Posted - 2004.07.29 13:27:00 - [97] Originally by: Mon Palae Quote: If I wanted to argue about semetics I would argue that the game adheres to the "abanodned" definition more than any others. It wouldn't be because of pesronal preference. It would be because of my observation of these mechanics. I personally think someone sitting next to their can while mining is a pretty clear indication that the person does not view the can as garbage for any to take but as theirs. While game mechanics allow for anyone to come and take what is there that by no means equates to taking the "abandoned" definition. Here we go, arguing about that definition again. I thought you said that was useless. Quote: If you truly believe in the abandoned definition then drive to 0.0 and find some miners mining to a jet can. If the abandoned definition is the one that holds I am sure they will leave you alone as you empty their can. Everyone knows what would happen. Why suggest I'd be so stupid? In 1.0 amd 9.0 there is no NPC risk to mining at all. The "ore thief" risk is the organic component I was talking about earlier in this thread. It has to be there in order to have risk or they would have to put other things in place and that's beyond the scope of this thread. In 8.0 and below you the risks and rewards become greater and as they do you have more ways of dealing with it, from secure cans to pure player justice. This all makes sense to me. I'm talking about the mechanics of the jet cans themselves and how to deal with them. In 0.0 you deal with that mechanic differently than you would do in 1.0. But the free can mechanic remains where ever you go and I doubt it'll ever change. Most people know this and deal with it.
Surefoot	Posted - 2004.07.29 13:27:00 - [98] Originally by: Mon Palae Quote: If I wanted to argue about semetics I would argue that the game adheres to the "abanodned" definition more than any others. It wouldn't be because of pesronal preference. It would be because of my observation of these mechanics. I personally think someone sitting next to their can while mining is a pretty clear indication that the person does not view the can as garbage for any to take but as theirs. While game mechanics allow for anyone to come and take what is there that by no means equates to taking the "abandoned" definition. Here we go, arguing about that definition again. I thought you said that was useless. Quote: If you truly believe in the abandoned definition then drive to 0.0 and find some miners mining to a jet can. If the abandoned definition is the one that holds I am sure they will leave you alone as you empty their can. Everyone knows what would happen. Why suggest I'd be so stupid? In 1.0 amd 9.0 there is no NPC risk to mining at all. The "ore thief" risk is the organic component I was talking about earlier in this thread. It has to be there in order to have risk or they would have to put other things in place and that's beyond the scope of this thread. In 8.0 and below you the risks and rewards become greater and as they do you have more ways of dealing with it, from secure cans to pure player justice. This all makes sense to me. I'm talking about the mechanics of the jet cans themselves and how to deal with them. In 0.0 you deal with that mechanic differently than you would do in 1.0. But the free can mechanic remains where ever you go and I doubt it'll ever change. Most people know this and deal with it.
Surefoot	Posted - 2004.07.29 13:29:00 - [99] Originally by: Rot Animal Nice story!! A good read. A shame this post is turning into yet another "We hate ore thieves" thread. To settle that argument let's see what CCP has to say about Ore Theft You posted while I was posting. Thanks for that link! I'll use it often.
Surefoot	Posted - 2004.07.29 13:29:00 - [100] Originally by: Rot Animal Nice story!! A good read. A shame this post is turning into yet another "We hate ore thieves" thread. To settle that argument let's see what CCP has to say about Ore Theft You posted while I was posting. Thanks for that link! I'll use it often.
Mon Palae	Posted - 2004.07.29 14:40:00 - [101] Originally by: Surefoot Here we go, arguing about that definition again. I thought you said that was useless. I was replying to what you had written and that I do not think game mechanics implies anything about how I view ownership of a can sitting next to me that I am mining into. Quote: If you truly believe in the abandoned definition then drive to 0.0 and find some miners mining to a jet can. If the abandoned definition is the one that holds I am sure they will leave you alone as you empty their can. Quote: Everyone knows what would happen. Why suggest I'd be so stupid? Not suggesting you'd be so stupid but I think it makes it pretty clear that almost no one on EVE views those cans as garbage they have abandoned.
Mon Palae	Posted - 2004.07.29 14:40:00 - [102] Originally by: Surefoot Here we go, arguing about that definition again. I thought you said that was useless. I was replying to what you had written and that I do not think game mechanics implies anything about how I view ownership of a can sitting next to me that I am mining into. Quote: If you truly believe in the abandoned definition then drive to 0.0 and find some miners mining to a jet can. If the abandoned definition is the one that holds I am sure they will leave you alone as you empty their can. Quote: Everyone knows what would happen. Why suggest I'd be so stupid? Not suggesting you'd be so stupid but I think it makes it pretty clear that almost no one on EVE views those cans as garbage they have abandoned.
Mon Palae	Posted - 2004.07.29 14:42:00 - [103] Originally by: Surefoot Originally by: Rot Animal Nice story!! A good read. A shame this post is turning into yet another "We hate ore thieves" thread. To settle that argument let's see what CCP has to say about Ore Theft You posted while I was posting. Thanks for that link! I'll use it often. I debunked that particular piece of CCP claptrap in this thread.
Mon Palae	Posted - 2004.07.29 14:42:00 - [104] Originally by: Surefoot Originally by: Rot Animal Nice story!! A good read. A shame this post is turning into yet another "We hate ore thieves" thread. To settle that argument let's see what CCP has to say about Ore Theft You posted while I was posting. Thanks for that link! I'll use it often. I debunked that particular piece of CCP claptrap in this thread.
Rot Animal	Posted - 2004.07.29 15:18:00 - [105] Originally by: Mon Palae I debunked that particular piece of CCP claptrap in this thread. Yeah good debunking buddy but the claptrap stands. Those are the rules given to you by the designers of this game. Simple as that really. No matter how much you debunk them they stand until removed or changed.
Rot Animal	Posted - 2004.07.29 15:18:00 - [106] Originally by: Mon Palae I debunked that particular piece of CCP claptrap in this thread. Yeah good debunking buddy but the claptrap stands. Those are the rules given to you by the designers of this game. Simple as that really. No matter how much you debunk them they stand until removed or changed.
Surefoot	Posted - 2004.07.29 15:39:00 - [107] Not much of a debunking to me really. I agree with you on the alt thing though. But even that can't be stoped when people can just buy another account to escape social repercussions. It's bad for business. Anyway, you have your views and I have mine. Have fun in game.
Surefoot	Posted - 2004.07.29 15:39:00 - [108] Not much of a debunking to me really. I agree with you on the alt thing though. But even that can't be stoped when people can just buy another account to escape social repercussions. It's bad for business. Anyway, you have your views and I have mine. Have fun in game.
Mon Palae	Posted - 2004.07.29 16:10:00 - [109] Originally by: Rot Animal Those are the rules given to you by the designers of this game. Simple as that really. No matter how much you debunk them they stand until removed or changed. Not arguing that but I can still point out the rules are stupid and ridiculous. If people weren't allowed to do this then every complaint directed at CCP could be answered with "Those are the rules as CCP set them so live with it." I'll keep grinding my axe along with a few thousand others.
Mon Palae	Posted - 2004.07.29 16:10:00 - [110] Originally by: Rot Animal Those are the rules given to you by the designers of this game. Simple as that really. No matter how much you debunk them they stand until removed or changed. Not arguing that but I can still point out the rules are stupid and ridiculous. If people weren't allowed to do this then every complaint directed at CCP could be answered with "Those are the rules as CCP set them so live with it." I'll keep grinding my axe along with a few thousand others.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.