Player pirates - aren't they supposed to demand loot?

[jacozilla]

They're supposed to be. Both risk losing their ship but the cargo hauler has increased their value by having cargo, and if they aren't increasing their insurance they're taking a risk. There is no inherent imbalance here, just players not commiting as much protection as their risk value costs. They're making a high stake choice by carrying tons of cargo and not being able to defend it. That's their choice. The game is not imbalanced just because the players don't protect their investments.

Again you miss my point. I did not say the game was imbalanced or even suggest it - please quote me if you think I have.

The context is key - the context is the first responded said he sees no point in CQC because there is no stakes and risk there as there is in current Open meta when someone dies.

My reply was that in that context, I didn't see how he would view there being any stakes or risks in Open for him (the fighter combatant) vs. traders who have - and this is where maybe you're confusing my reference to balance - an enormous imbalance to dying in a trader vs in a fighter. Again, if you base your logic of CQC = bad because no risks to dying, but Open meta = good because there are these presumed risk and stakes the OP responded referred to - then it is a fallacy because for fighters the 'effective' risk and stakes are nil compared to traders.

I would absolutely agree with your presumption that traders have increased their value by having cargo but not increasing their insurance - if not for the fact the current meta has not implemented cargo insurance.

If cargo insurance was there, then yes- only an irresponsible trader would not take it. Or at very least - I would agree with you that if you passed it up in order to get better trade profits, then it's your own fault if you die. That is what insurance is for - to cover you just in case, but you are free to risk going without it.

The problem is we are all afforded ship insurance, but there is no cargo insurance. So how is it that in your view traders are ducking out of getting the benefit of cargo without paying cargo insurance, when there is no implemented cargo insurance?

To quote you - how are "players don't protect their investments" when there is no option of cargo insurance? Perhaps you are confused re: the status screen - it shows in game on the insurance screen, but it has not been implemented yet.

If it were, then that would solve a lot of issues re: unwilling pvp on traders, loss of cargo imbalance vs fighter rebut, etc.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

It doesn't matter whether it is or isn't a problem for you. It also doesn't matter what your views on capitalism is. The context of the post replied to was balance of risk and stakes should either side lose their ship.

Whether escorted or not, whether a greedy trader or not, the loss of ship + cargo is far higher rebuy than a fighter insurance only rebut. Period. And since the topic raised in the reply was a suggestion by Mr. Blastman that "CQC won't be the same as PvP in regular Elite because there are no stakes. There are no risks. There are no penalties for failure. Players fight and behave differently when money is on the line. That's what makes PvP in Elite so interesting.

I replied to his statement that PvP in regular Elite vs CQC somehow has stakes and risks that CQC won't that in essence there are no risks and stakes in PvP in Elite right now for fighter rebuy the enormous cost differential for ship + cargo loss on freighters. That was the only context in which I was replying. Whether we agree or disagree on the overall PvP issue is immaterial - it is simply a factual basis that if you say you want risks and stakes and that's why you are against CQC vs. just normal current Open, then you have t admit the risk/stakes loss is considerably imbalanced right now for traders vs. fighter ships

You're really rich, you know that?

The only thing that matters to me as a pirate is if I get cargo or fireworks. Either way, I win! I'd much rather have cARRRgo but the fireworks are nice too, I suppose.

See, in your little tirade about how traders have more risk than pirates, etc., you're forgetting one really simple yet important point. Credits per hour. See, traders earn way more credits per hour. Within a short matter of time, their wealth will exponentially exceed a profession pirate by so much they can afford to buy big ships like Anacondas and Pythons, ships that most pirates are unable to do much about. There are some with big boats, but plenty of us don't have anything close to big enough to take those down by ourselves. So before you get on your high horse yelping about brazen beasts yanking your fortunes from your claws, don't forget that.

We pirates sacrifice material wealth for fun, and in the process, realize that eventually we'll be outgunned by bigger ships and have to move on to other fish.

It is plenty balanced as is. Look up opportunity cost, sometime. 'Twill be enlightening to ye, mehopes.

 

[Quineloe]

It's not my problem traders are so greedy they won't pay other players to escort them for a cut of their profits.

This is rich, considering you can't transfer money, and therefore no players are around to actually do this.

 

[Lanz]

Again you miss my point. I did not say the game was imbalanced or even suggest it - please quote me if you think I have.

The context is key - the context is the first responded said he sees no point in CQC because there is no stakes and risk there as there is in current Open meta when someone dies.

My reply was that in that context, I didn't see how he would view there being any stakes or risks in Open for him (the fighter combatant) vs. traders who have - and this is where maybe you're confusing my reference to balance - an enormous imbalance to dying in a trader vs in a fighter. Again, if you base your logic of CQC = bad because no risks to dying, but Open meta = good because there are these presumed risk and stakes the OP responded referred to - then it is a fallacy because for fighters the 'effective' risk and stakes are nil compared to traders.

I would absolutely agree with your presumption that traders have increased their value by having cargo but not increasing their insurance - if not for the fact the current meta has not implemented cargo insurance.

If cargo insurance was there, then yes- only an irresponsible trader would not take it. Or at very least - I would agree with you that if you passed it up in order to get better trade profits, then it's your own fault if you die. That is what insurance is for - to cover you just in case, but you are free to risk going without it.

The problem is we are all afforded ship insurance, but there is no cargo insurance. So how is it that in your view traders are ducking out of getting the benefit of cargo without paying cargo insurance, when there is no implemented cargo insurance?

To quote you - how are "players don't protect their investments" when there is no option of cargo insurance? Perhaps you are confused re: the status screen - it shows in game on the insurance screen, but it has not been implemented yet.

If it were, then that would solve a lot of issues re: unwilling pvp on traders, loss of cargo imbalance vs fighter rebut, etc.

I don't mean literally taking out insurance coverage. I mean taking the necessary expense to protect your cargo. Either having wingmen protecting you, or taking a heavily-armed vessel.

I understand what you're saying. The problem is that you're acting like the added cost connected to the trader is an unavoidable consequence, which it isn't. There are various precautions a player can take, all of which will probably cut into their time or profits, but that's just the cost of doing business. You can either invest in making the trips less risky, or you can take the risk of losing out on a big haul when you get caught by someone.

There is no imbalance, just the incorrect expectation that trading in space should be totally risk-free.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

This is rich, considering you can't transfer money, and therefore no players are around to actually do this.

You can easily transfer cargo with drones.

 

[CMDR Hagglebeard]

Why is thread still here? Threads this long are only good for negativity and flame wars.

 

[Quineloe]

You can easily transfer cargo with drones.

If I'm gonna dock and sell cargo, I might as well trade myself.

Fact remains that there are no combat pilots offering this service anyways. Plus it's not like they're gonna be a big help against a wing of 4 clippers and pythons

 

[Comrade Napoleon]

Uhmm let me just sum this up before my head implodes:

The new CQC is worthless because "there is no risk , its the risk that makes it interesting and CQC is with out risk"

Hmmm I do not think this statement is really accurate, what he REALLY meant was:

" The new CQC is worthless because the human opponent can shoot back, I can not gank defenceless prey on unequal terms, and enjoy the tears when hours of work is obliterated in split seconds, and the opponents risk is gone he will not feel pain"

Now its right. The majority of pro PVP comments in this thread have shown it so clearly; its not about PVP, its not about Pirates, its not about loot, its not about the open dangers of Open play....

It is about pure simple power, having the power to destroy your opponent here and now and hence cause pain and tears for others, having the feeling you have just wrecked somebody elses day...

Ha ! we will not see all the pityfull Alexe's (Clockwork Orange) in CQC because they inherently are weak, brainless cowards.

This is my final post in this thread, the pro PVP' s have shown their true colors...

Cheers Cmdr's

 

[Lanz]

Uhmm let me just sum this up before my head implodes:

The new CQC is worthless because "there is no risk , its the risk that makes it interesting and CQC is with out risk"

Hmmm I do not think this statement is really accurate, what he REALLY meant was:

" The new CQC is worthless because the human opponent can shoot back, I can not gank defenceless prey on unequal terms, and enjoy the tears when hours of work is obliterated in split seconds, and the opponents risk is gone he will not feel pain"

Now its right. The majority of pro PVP comments in this thread have shown it so clearly; its not about PVP, its not about Pirates, its not about loot, its not about the open dangers of Open play....

It is about pure simple power, having the power to destroy your opponent here and now and hence cause pain and tears for others, having the feeling you have just wrecked somebody elses day...

Ha ! we will not see all the pityfull Alexe's (Clockwork Orange) in CQC because they inherently are weak, brainless cowards.

This is my final post in this thread, the pro PVP' s have shown their true colors...

Cheers Cmdr's

You were bullied as a child, weren't you?

 

[GluttonyFang]

This is my final post in this thread, the pro PVP's have shown their true colors...

Hah... you just had to use a board term there, Cmdr...

While I agree that there are people out there that just enjoy "wrecking" other people's days, I do not believe that is associated with all PvP players.

In simple words:

There is winning and losing to a competition to a relative degree, and most people want to win. The result of the losing side perhaps feeling their days getting wrecked sometimes do not even get considered by the winning side.

PvP is competitive, and there will be those that emerge victorious and those that emerge defeated. Instruments and methods to reach victory is standard and provided for all, so I do not see why there is the need to bash PvP players on an "ethical" front.