I don’t believe you, that’s what it tells me. At the very least your supposed experience does not match my experience, either in this event, or in previous events. Nor does it match the experience people I’ve spoken to report having. What you’re saying is certainly possible, but I don’t buy it.
Because player choice matters. The instinct is to say safe, but your desire to impact the player who comes in to interfere with you is the cost of that safety. You want no one to be able to mess with you, but then you want to mess with them. It is that conflict of desires that are being explored in this interaction.
Games are a series of interesting decisions, if there were no conflicting desires then the outcome would ultimately be boring. The frustration you are feeling and the desire to solve the problem is the driving force of EVE gameplay throughout.
3 Likes
That is not what I’ve said at all. I’ve consistently argued that the thief has the right to exist and to steal. They shouldn’t be immune to decisions I might make in response. I should be able to make the decision to try and stop them. That is not the same as saying I don’t want to be messed with. I’m honestly stunned you just tried to say that I did.
Believe what you want, I haven’t run the combat side of this event yet, but in previous installments there were sufficient options to secure top damage on the boss.
You haven’t even run this iteration of the event and you’re sitting here trying to argue about how it works? FFS, give me a break. Go try the event for a few hours and get back to us.
If its stealing, he’ll go suspect.
I have no reason to believe it is different this time. No, I won’t run the combat side, it’s not worth it.
They are not a thief until they take from a yellow can, then you CAN attack them freely.
1 Like
Then beat them to the DPS race, bring a higher-DPS ship. If they did more DPS to the boss, they should have the rights to the loot. If you wanna steal it back from them and go suspect you can do that too.
Enough with the circular reasoning. You call it a decision point for the thief and deny the site runner their own decision point. You reason for why is ‘because high sec.’ High sec doesn’t even offer the kind of ironclad security you cite in this argument. I no longer wonder about the bias, I’m certain of it. Everything you’ve said lends itself to the same conclusion: pirates, thieves, and criminals should always have an easy time of it and shouldn’t face any consequences. OKAY. That’s a game with decision points. Sure.
Now you’re just not being honest with yourself.
You can steal the wreck. That is a meaningful choice. You can fit your ship for more firepower. Thats a meaningful choice. You can ask friends to help. That’s a meaningful choice.
The only reason you don’t feel like you have a meaningful choice is because of restrictions you put on yourself.
Players fedback to CCP they preferred it this way. Because players enjoy the extra content that can come from theft.
The only bias is your own. You still think you are entitled to the loot because you did most of the work. You are not.
The other player hasn’t stolen from you. He has beaten you fair and square.
But if you don’t like that he has won, steal the loot from him. And if he tries to stop you, kill him.
People should go suspect for taking loot that doesn’t belong to them. Or if this guy wants a fair chance to fight for the site, everyone that enters it should go suspect.
The judgement of going into the public site and completing it and successfully getting the loot by the rules of the game as a thief seems to be the crux of the issue. You both are following the same rules, and they win it fair and square. It is not “your” site. The actual instruction and design on the site is to get people to have these kinds of interactions, both cooperation and competition.
1 Like
So far the hacking sites in low give ~25 per site for 3min work. Not bad. Ran 10 sites so far.
Perhaps think if it this way:
The Rat in the chinese zodiac won the race, not because it did all the work, but because he crossed the finish line first.
It’s the same here. You don’t win the site by doing most the work. You do it by getting that final kill.
Just be glad you still have a chance to steal the loot even if you lose.
2 Likes
stealing loot is part of the event
and you can bet some guys die doing it
and lose some fat lokis
its great
edit:
pro tip
put a scram in your ship and , uhhhh, shoot them , like you do with the rats
i saw one day with my pretty eyes 2 carebears getting mad and making a thief pay
You are being very choosy about what is and is not a decision point, and I find it funny and sort of sad that the answer is always 'if the thief did it, it’s a decision point, and any resistance a site runner might want to offer is not only not a decision point, but punished by the mechanics.
You want the thief to have the decision point to steal, and you don’t what the site runner to have the decision point to try and stop them. You keep avoiding acknowledging this. Being in the site is not a decision point, not really, because if nobody is running the sites then there’s nobody to steal from. That’s a classic straw man. Being in high sec is not a decision point either, because a third to a half of known space is high sec and the sites spawn universally. Now, I will allow the decision point of solo verse fleet, and I’ll allow the decision point in fitting but these are the only points brought up so far that I think are backed up by actual facts and reasoning.
The only decision point for the site runner in the moment is abandon the site, attempt to win the DPS race on the can with a built in and almost insurmountable handicap, or to try and bait the thief. In all three of these choices the outcome is the same: the thief wins. There is nothing about this that promotes competition. There is nothing about that which is interesting or dynamic.
You are arguing for a shield from consequences for criminals in high sec, and the basis for your argument is amazingly skewed. You should own that. Not two replies ago you incorrectly characterized what I’ve been arguing for as ‘not being bothered’ when nothing could be further from the truth. The thief does not ‘earn’ the loot by successfully stealing it, because the site runner has no ability to try and steal it back. This is extremely bad design and I have yet to see a solid argument for why it isn’t. Like if we’re not going to read the whole thread they why bother replying?
It would be infinity more interesting if those who wanted to play the criminal life style had to deal with consequences. If would make choosing that lifestyle a meaningful choice. A real decision point would be the site runner having the option to retaliate and choosing or not to do so. It would force both the thief and the site runner to fit their ship to fight not only the site but each other, it would force people to work together to steal or defend the can, and it would force the site runner to make a real calculation about whether or not they should act, rather then game mechanics making the decision for them.
you’re kidding right???
obvious troll is obvious
2 Likes
At what point in this example should the “thief” (sic) be tagged as such?
How is CONCORD supposed to know that they are stealing the loot and not running the site?
1 Like
FTFY
And that’s how it should be, then everybody can freely PvP inside the site while Cov Ops Cloakers creep in and steal the loot.