The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to courteous when disagreeing with others.
In order to maintain an environment where everyone is welcome and discussion flows freely, certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:
This may sound like semantics but it’s an impotent distinction. The idea that it’s intent is to punish is a misunderstand at the root of a lot of frustration with hs pilots.
A punishment is intended to correct or prevent a behavior. A deterrent exists to add friction to a behavior.
First of all punishment is not necessarily there to correct or prevent a behavior, it can be there as a consequence to punish certain actions.
Of course first and foremost so people think twice before committing an act, but if they did then to give them negative consequences for their actions.
Just like in older times when physical punishment was common for even lesser infractions (flogging, etc.) both to deter the same person but also to show example to deter others, but also to exert vengeance, to punish the perpetrator.
EVE is a dystopian future so it makes sense they resort to such methods which might seem uncivilized to most people nowadays and are more in line with methods in our historical past.
But that is not too important as CCP uses a different terminology (not “punishment”), here is the official wording below.
CONCORD should therefore be regarded as a force of retribution, not one of protection.
Now whether you consider retribution as deterrent or punishment is another question but to me it clearly sounds like punishment.
And just like in my earlier example it serves both as a deterrent, but also as vengeance, a consequence for certain actions.
It’s the same argument. The system isn’t imposing a penalty. It’s a simple and agreed upon transaction.
You can use whatever you like in order to attempt to destroy or impede another players ship. However that tool will be lost after a predefined amount of time.
in order for something to be a punishment you need to break a rule
A punishment is the implementation of a penalty a penalty is "
a punishment imposed for breaking a law, rule, or contract."
Attacking someone in hs is in no way against the rules, the rules very deliberately allow for it.
However
Any attempt to avoid your end of this however will result in actual punishment. You will be penalized for breaking the rules should you evade CONCORD.
That’s just semantics, you talk about two different things, one is the game rule the other is the (lore appropriate) rules of CONCORD and their response to breaking those.
CONCORD doesn’t punish you for breaking the EULA, it punishes you for breaking the lore appropriate rule of CONCORD itself, which is a mechanic put in place by the devs to provide a specific ruleset for hisec and even low in the form of gate guns and such.
So blown up by CONCORD is not a punishment for breaking the EULA, it is an in-game (lore appropriate) punishment for breaking the rules of CONCORD (which is just a lore based explanation for maintaining a specific set of game mechanics and related rules in certain security spaces).
So it is kinda silly to argue punishment would only mean breaking the EULA as you imply.
My opinionn is that a punishment makes sense if it is certain and commensurate with the crime committed. Concord guarantees neither certain punishment nor commensurate with the crime.
So I agree that Concord is just a deterrent.
And I also understand that it cannot be otherwise, otherwise the game would not work.
Even in lore it’s not a punishment. In lore it exists precisely because it’s essentially impossible to punish what are effectively immortal Gods.
CONCORD doesn’t care about penalizing you. They care about unapproved capsuleer conflict that could spill over and cause regular people to get caught up in the crossfire.
And my original comment explained it was just going to sound like semantics. But it is important.
Not understanding that it’s intended (from a game design aspect) as a deterrent rather than a punishment is why you have so many posts with people complaining that the punishment isn’t Sevier enough to stop people from doing it.
Every time someone attacks another player their ship is destroyed as a result and avoiding that consequence is a breach of EULA but not even sure if it can be avoided anymore but even if they can and if they do they risk a ban or other GM action.
That’s a separate subject, it doesn’t make it more or less a punishment even if someone personally find the punishment lacking in relation to the offense, although even that is based on perception.
CONCORD doesn’t state the punishment will be based on the value of the attacked ship and its cargo or something, instead it is an action resulting in a consequence: if a player ship attacks another player ship where they shouldn’t (according to CONCORD) then their ship will be destroyed. Nothing more nothing less.
It is a separate subject if people are satisfied with the severity of the punishment or not.
Though as I’ve cited the related support article they use the word retribution which seem to imply both punishment and deterrent, as I’ve explained in my post.
The ship loss is acting both as a deterrent and punishment (regardless if the victim finds that lacking due to the value of their ship involved compared to that of the gankers’, speaking of which people would still complain no matter what as they often say that hisec should be completely safe which is the basis of their false expectation, so the victims would likely never be satisfied, and if there was zero pvp in hisec they would complain others interfere with their playstyle in other ways and demand that to be removed as well).
See above. The punishment is the loss of ship, though that is part of retribution and it also serves as a deterrent. It can be both at the same time. At least that’s what the article states, I assume it is lore accurate but can’t be 100% sure.
See above. People always complain no matter what, no matter how many times something is nerfed, it is never enough. So if that is your concern I have bad news for you, the flow of such posts will never end, no matter how much CCP caters to them, if anything they will find other reasons to constantly complain.
So while I agree with what you say and that people’s expectations should be in alignment with what the devs’ intentions are, I am not talking about that aspect, especially because people are not complaining in good faith anyway, they just want their playstyle to be reinforced and opposing ones nerfed and nothing will satisfy them anyway.
So even if CCP worded things differently they will still complain, and would just use a different pretense or even just without one, they always complain. So it is not that they don’t understand really, it is they don’t care and just use any excuse as often to try justify their position. They messed up, they don’t have the decency to admit it, they don’t want to learn from their mistakes, they just want being catered to and that’s it.
So I’m just approaching this from purely the perspective of what the wording means, especially as you see my explanation that no wording will satisfactorily deter these people from complaining, because they already don’t care about the mechanics, rules and whatnot, all they care about their personal bubble of gameplay and that it is not interrupted in any way. No wording and explaining changes that because they don’t care and never cared to begin with.
you can commit different types of crimes against other people’s property, not just the attack on a ship.
Whether in HS they are all always punished by the destruction of the criminal ship I don’t know, I haven’t experienced it yet, surely you are right.
I was referring generically to Concord’s role in the empires space, where crimes can go unpunished (to be a punitive organisation a criminal would have to be prosecuted, as in real life, and this would completely ruin the game) and for this reason I perceive it as a deterrent.
I don’t buy your logic. The fact that you ‘can’ do something is not the same as being ‘allowed’ to do it. I ‘can’ drive though the local village at 100mph, but that does not mean I am ‘allowed’ to or that I wont face retribution if caught.
It’s a good comparison, because real life also cannot be coded to prevent every conceivable misdeed a person might do. That doesn’t mean a person is ‘allowed’ to do whatever they can get away with. Eve would have to be absurdly micro-managed ( as if it isn’t enough already ) to cope with that.
A bit too much focus on semantics, lore reasons, and ‘original intent’, etc. All of which are effectively irrelevant to gameplay. It’s arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Pay more attention to what the actual results are. With different security levels, we get high sec, that seems like it should be ‘safe’. So we get players who relax their guard, expose higher value to risk, skip precautions for convenience. And then we get gankers who do the math and say “Yes if my group expends 12 Catalysts worth 40 million ISK total, we can kill this target worth 280 million ISK and probably get around 80-150 million ISK in drops.”
So in effect that’s neither punishment nor deterrent, that’s just the ‘ship tax’, the cost of doing business.
In ‘actual game results’ view though, we have one upset player, some entertained players (the gankers and some observers), we get resources and items removed from the game, we get increased market activity as industry and trade replaces those resources. And we get some “emotional reaction”, which is a stated design goal for EVE. CCP has said they feel strong negative emotions are just as valid and necessary to the EVE experience as positive ones.
It’s a debate as to how accurate that is, but it’s their game and that’s their position on it. Worrying about the ‘intent’ of Concord or the lore interpretation is a side issue. Ganking/Concording isn’t a moral issue, it’s game mechanics which achieve game results.
It’s pretty obvious Catalysts exist in the first place as ganking ships. There’s no other reason for an 850 DPS destroyer to exist…I mean that’s more turret DPS than many assault cruisers, and even some battleships, can do. There’s really no other reason for a cheap and expendable, short range, high DPS, low tank, ship to exist.
Be interesting if there were fines along with the ship loss for breaking concords laws. Unlawful damage to property usually means you pay for it too.
In game that would probably lead to a goal of how much of a negative balance you can get on your gank alt. You would just contract ships from your main to them for nothing.
If they blow up a P.R.I.C.E. ship, even in LS, I send the “final blow” user a form letter informing them of their debt owed to my corporation. I also give them payment options, but all fines must be paid in 30 days. Should they fail to pay, I send notice to a subsidiary of P.R.I.C.E. for personal collections, which they normally have additional expenses attached to their debt.
