Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Akeru Matu
Sietch Jacurutu
2
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 05:46:37 -
[1] - Quote
As assumption is the mother of all fuckups Id like to assume that concord is advers of you ganking someone else.
Having that out of the way, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with you ganking me. Its possible and a risk of leaving the station (I cant wait for walking in stations and hired ninjas) but I do think there is something wrong with how concord handles ganks. Yes they blow you out of the sky and put a penalty on your security status. But clearly that isnt working. In our justice system we try to go after criminals in a way that works best, penalize the reason why they're destroying your ship. This excludes the occasional maniac who just destroys for fun but mostly it is done for an economic point of view so imho a fine for each transgression would be logical. Not high enouh to stop ganking as a mechanic but high enough to be a proper incentive to consider what you're ganking, cause you gotta admit, sacrificing a catalyst isnt't hurting anyone. Besides that I would only find it logical that the insurance company somehow goes after you trying to get their money back, further promoting to insure your ship.
Now this is probably a lame mechanic if it was just kill x pay y. So i would suggest to make it work like the bounty system, sort off. You make a transgression and concord or whoever detains your ship sends a fine which you have to pay whenever you try to dock. Perhaps limiting it to certain security systems or stations from the faction who held sov in the system where you transgressed.
So what do you think? Especially interested in what code thinks what would enhance rp on this matter and how to get people to 'play' the game. And now im done with this i wonder if i should have put this in the new ideas topic, if so pls move :) |
Varukka Sault
Tactical Munitions Ded End Conglomerates
6
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 07:42:50 -
[2] - Quote
"Clearly that is not working." Is purely subjective. It's working just fine for lots of people. |
Anal Canal
The Conference Elite CODE.
45
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 08:02:00 -
[3] - Quote
Akeru Matu wrote:As assumption is the mother of all fuckups Id like to assume that concord is advers of you ganking someone else.
Having that out of the way, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with you ganking me. Its possible and a risk of leaving the station (I cant wait for walking in stations and hired ninjas) but I do think there is something wrong with how concord handles ganks. Yes they blow you out of the sky and put a penalty on your security status. But clearly that isnt working. In our justice system we try to go after criminals in a way that works best, penalize the reason why they're destroying your ship. This excludes the occasional maniac who just destroys for fun but mostly it is done for an economic point of view so imho a fine for each transgression would be logical. Not high enouh to stop ganking as a mechanic but high enough to be a proper incentive to consider what you're ganking, cause you gotta admit, sacrificing a catalyst isnt't hurting anyone. Besides that I would only find it logical that the insurance company somehow goes after you trying to get their money back, further promoting to insure your ship.
Now this is probably a lame mechanic if it was just kill x pay y. So i would suggest to make it work like the bounty system, sort off. You make a transgression and concord or whoever detains your ship sends a fine which you have to pay whenever you try to dock. Perhaps limiting it to certain security systems or stations from the faction who held sov in the system where you transgressed.
So what do you think? Especially interested in what code thinks what would enhance rp on this matter and how to get people to 'play' the game. And now im done with this i wonder if i should have put this in the new ideas topic, if so pls move :)
So you want Eve to be Ferguson? (Sorry to soon, but OP said a naughty word and keep local clean)
Plus CONCORD does everything you say already aside from the dock-up aspect. I mean, during the server issues today a scout went offline and I wanted to make sure that the belt rats wouldn't pop the ship while they were DC'ed. Having you tried killing belt rats with Fac-Pol? It gets dicey. Now regarding the insurance aspect, you realize that the player receives no ISK (not even default payout) for ganking. I mean that's like United Amalgamated Corporation paying out policies for suicide. Hell, the only insurance policy I know that pays for deaths due to war are issued exclusively by the military. (I am sure that there are more, but something tells me not cheap.) So from this, the gank ends up being more a cost effective statement, rather than just a ISK-Risk-Reward issue. If I want to pop something because I can, then I will. I don't really sit back and try to figure out the salvage and drop chance trying to alleviate the cost of said actions. Sometimes you get lucky, most times you don't. It's the reason CONCORD is there as retribution rather than protection. The-áterminal end of the digestive system.-á |
CALDARI CITIZEN 14330909
The Conference Elite CODE.
373
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 08:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
Akeru Matu wrote:As assumption is the mother of all fuckups Id like to assume that concord is advers of you ganking someone else.
Having that out of the way, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with you ganking me. Its possible and a risk of leaving the station (I cant wait for walking in stations and hired ninjas) but I do think there is something wrong with how concord handles ganks. Yes they blow you out of the sky and put a penalty on your security status. But clearly that isnt working. In our justice system we try to go after criminals in a way that works best, penalize the reason why they're destroying your ship. This excludes the occasional maniac who just destroys for fun but mostly it is done for an economic point of view so imho a fine for each transgression would be logical. Not high enouh to stop ganking as a mechanic but high enough to be a proper incentive to consider what you're ganking, cause you gotta admit, sacrificing a catalyst isnt't hurting anyone. Besides that I would only find it logical that the insurance company somehow goes after you trying to get their money back, further promoting to insure your ship.
Now this is probably a lame mechanic if it was just kill x pay y. So i would suggest to make it work like the bounty system, sort off. You make a transgression and concord or whoever detains your ship sends a fine which you have to pay whenever you try to dock. Perhaps limiting it to certain security systems or stations from the faction who held sov in the system where you transgressed.
So what do you think? Especially interested in what code thinks what would enhance rp on this matter and how to get people to 'play' the game. And now im done with this i wonder if i should have put this in the new ideas topic, if so pls move :)
So you want Eve to be Ferguson? (Sorry to soon, but OP said a naughty word and keep local clean)
Plus CONCORD does everything you say already aside from the dock-up aspect. I mean, during the server issues today a scout went offline and I wanted to make sure that the belt rats wouldn't pop the ship while they were DC'ed. Having you tried killing belt rats with Fac-Pol? It gets dicey. Now regarding the insurance aspect, you realize that the player receives no ISK (not even default payout) for ganking. I mean that's like United Amalgamated Corporation paying out policies for suicide. Hell, the only insurance policy I know that pays for deaths due to war are issued exclusively by the military. (I am sure that there are more, but something tells me not cheap.) So from this, the gank ends up being more a cost effective statement, rather than just a ISK-Risk-Reward issue. If I want to pop something because I can, then I will. I don't really sit back and try to figure out the salvage and drop chance trying to alleviate the cost of said actions. Sometimes you get lucky, most times you don't. It's the reason CONCORD is there as retribution rather than protection. The Artist Formerly Known As AC.-á The-áterminal end of the digestive system.-á |
Formerly Known As AC
The Conference Elite CODE.
563
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 08:02:15 -
[5] - Quote
Akeru Matu wrote:As assumption is the mother of all fuckups Id like to assume that concord is advers of you ganking someone else.
Having that out of the way, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with you ganking me. Its possible and a risk of leaving the station (I cant wait for walking in stations and hired ninjas) but I do think there is something wrong with how concord handles ganks. Yes they blow you out of the sky and put a penalty on your security status. But clearly that isnt working. In our justice system we try to go after criminals in a way that works best, penalize the reason why they're destroying your ship. This excludes the occasional maniac who just destroys for fun but mostly it is done for an economic point of view so imho a fine for each transgression would be logical. Not high enouh to stop ganking as a mechanic but high enough to be a proper incentive to consider what you're ganking, cause you gotta admit, sacrificing a catalyst isnt't hurting anyone. Besides that I would only find it logical that the insurance company somehow goes after you trying to get their money back, further promoting to insure your ship.
Now this is probably a lame mechanic if it was just kill x pay y. So i would suggest to make it work like the bounty system, sort off. You make a transgression and concord or whoever detains your ship sends a fine which you have to pay whenever you try to dock. Perhaps limiting it to certain security systems or stations from the faction who held sov in the system where you transgressed.
So what do you think? Especially interested in what code thinks what would enhance rp on this matter and how to get people to 'play' the game. And now im done with this i wonder if i should have put this in the new ideas topic, if so pls move :)
So you want Eve to be Ferguson? (Sorry to soon, but OP said a naughty word and keep local clean)
Plus CONCORD does everything you say already aside from the dock-up aspect. I mean, during the server issues today a scout went offline and I wanted to make sure that the belt rats wouldn't pop the ship while they were DC'ed. Having you tried killing belt rats with Fac-Pol? It gets dicey. Now regarding the insurance aspect, you realize that the player receives no ISK (not even default payout) for ganking. I mean that's like United Amalgamated Corporation paying out policies for suicide. Hell, the only insurance policy I know that pays for deaths due to war are issued exclusively by the military. (I am sure that there are more, but something tells me not cheap.) So from this, the gank ends up being more a cost effective statement, rather than just a ISK-Risk-Reward issue. If I want to pop something because I can, then I will. I don't really sit back and try to figure out the salvage and drop chance trying to alleviate the cost of said actions. Sometimes you get lucky, most times you don't. It's the reason CONCORD is there as retribution rather than protection.
The Artist Formerly Known As AC.-á
The-áterminal end of the digestive system.-á
|
Anal Canal
The Conference Elite CODE.
669
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 08:02:15 -
[6] - Quote
Akeru Matu wrote:As assumption is the mother of all fuckups Id like to assume that concord is advers of you ganking someone else.
Having that out of the way, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with you ganking me. Its possible and a risk of leaving the station (I cant wait for walking in stations and hired ninjas) but I do think there is something wrong with how concord handles ganks. Yes they blow you out of the sky and put a penalty on your security status. But clearly that isnt working. In our justice system we try to go after criminals in a way that works best, penalize the reason why they're destroying your ship. This excludes the occasional maniac who just destroys for fun but mostly it is done for an economic point of view so imho a fine for each transgression would be logical. Not high enouh to stop ganking as a mechanic but high enough to be a proper incentive to consider what you're ganking, cause you gotta admit, sacrificing a catalyst isnt't hurting anyone. Besides that I would only find it logical that the insurance company somehow goes after you trying to get their money back, further promoting to insure your ship.
Now this is probably a lame mechanic if it was just kill x pay y. So i would suggest to make it work like the bounty system, sort off. You make a transgression and concord or whoever detains your ship sends a fine which you have to pay whenever you try to dock. Perhaps limiting it to certain security systems or stations from the faction who held sov in the system where you transgressed.
So what do you think? Especially interested in what code thinks what would enhance rp on this matter and how to get people to 'play' the game. And now im done with this i wonder if i should have put this in the new ideas topic, if so pls move :)
So you want Eve to be Ferguson? (Sorry to soon, but OP said a naughty word and keep local clean)
Plus CONCORD does everything you say already aside from the dock-up aspect. I mean, during the server issues today a scout went offline and I wanted to make sure that the belt rats wouldn't pop the ship while they were DC'ed. Having you tried killing belt rats with Fac-Pol? It gets dicey. Now regarding the insurance aspect, you realize that the player receives no ISK (not even default payout) for ganking. I mean that's like United Amalgamated Corporation paying out policies for suicide. Hell, the only insurance policy I know that pays for deaths due to war are issued exclusively by the military. (I am sure that there are more, but something tells me not cheap.) So from this, the gank ends up being more a cost effective statement, rather than just a ISK-Risk-Reward issue. If I want to pop something because I can, then I will. I don't really sit back and try to figure out the salvage and drop chance trying to alleviate the cost of said actions. Sometimes you get lucky, most times you don't. It's the reason CONCORD is there as retribution rather than protection.
The Artist Formerly Known As AC.-á
The-áterminal end of the digestive system.-á
|
Akeru Matu
Sietch Jacurutu
2
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 10:16:30 -
[7] - Quote
With not working is meant from a police side of view. If you can't stop criminal behaviour with solution A you need to find a better punishment to keep crime low. All I'm saying is that Concord isn't using the right tools to keep crime low and I'm proposing a alternate way of dealing with ganking. Don't get me wrong I don't want to make ganking not viable, just trying to change how the mechanic works for the law enforcers.
On earth we can't stop crime altogether either but you can change the rules and laws hoping that the punishment is high enough to deter from criminal action.
Ferguson might be a good example albeit a bit too soon ;) Imho Concord does exactly what went wrong there, run in guns blazing. Instead of more subtle ways of enforcing law. |
JAF Anders
Quantum Cats Syndicate
322
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 13:43:04 -
[8] - Quote
Stop right there, criminal scum!
The pursuit of excellence and stabbed plexing alts.
|
Tengu Grib
Happy Fun times Spaceships in Space
473
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 22:39:57 -
[9] - Quote
You are forgetting that this is a game and Concorde is purely a game mechanic designed to punish those who attack their fellow capsuleers in high sec. There has never been, nor will there ever be, an effort on concord 's part to reduce criminal behaviour. They are simply there for the mechanical reason of retribution.
Faction police are in the game for realism / story related reasons, Concord are not. Your proposal is based on the assumption that Concord and it's behaviour should make sense and seem realistic. That assumption is false.
Tengu Grib> I read that as "Suddenly Noobships" and it made me want to hot drop someone with noobships.
Buhhdust Princess> You have set us a challenge..We will try and do it!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEeBnYi5bG0&feature=youtu.be
|
Anal Canal
The Conference Elite CODE.
51
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 00:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Akeru Matu wrote:With not working is meant from a police side of view. If you can't stop criminal behaviour with solution A you need to find a better punishment to keep crime low. All I'm saying is that Concord isn't using the right tools to keep crime low and I'm proposing a alternate way of dealing with ganking. Don't get me wrong I don't want to make ganking not viable, just trying to change how the mechanic works for the law enforcers.
On earth we can't stop crime altogether either but you can change the rules and laws hoping that the punishment is high enough to deter from criminal action.
Ferguson might be a good example albeit a bit too soon ;) Imho Concord does exactly what went wrong there, run in guns blazing. Instead of more subtle ways of enforcing law.
So you want Minority Report? Policy action prior to the possible engagement... The-áterminal end of the digestive system.-á |
|
CALDARI CITIZEN 14330909
The Conference Elite CODE.
373
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 00:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
Akeru Matu wrote:With not working is meant from a police side of view. If you can't stop criminal behaviour with solution A you need to find a better punishment to keep crime low. All I'm saying is that Concord isn't using the right tools to keep crime low and I'm proposing a alternate way of dealing with ganking. Don't get me wrong I don't want to make ganking not viable, just trying to change how the mechanic works for the law enforcers.
On earth we can't stop crime altogether either but you can change the rules and laws hoping that the punishment is high enough to deter from criminal action.
Ferguson might be a good example albeit a bit too soon ;) Imho Concord does exactly what went wrong there, run in guns blazing. Instead of more subtle ways of enforcing law.
So you want Minority Report? Policy action prior to the possible engagement... The Artist Formerly Known As AC.-á The-áterminal end of the digestive system.-á |
Formerly Known As AC
The Conference Elite CODE.
563
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 00:41:19 -
[12] - Quote
Akeru Matu wrote:With not working is meant from a police side of view. If you can't stop criminal behaviour with solution A you need to find a better punishment to keep crime low. All I'm saying is that Concord isn't using the right tools to keep crime low and I'm proposing a alternate way of dealing with ganking. Don't get me wrong I don't want to make ganking not viable, just trying to change how the mechanic works for the law enforcers.
On earth we can't stop crime altogether either but you can change the rules and laws hoping that the punishment is high enough to deter from criminal action.
Ferguson might be a good example albeit a bit too soon ;) Imho Concord does exactly what went wrong there, run in guns blazing. Instead of more subtle ways of enforcing law.
So you want Minority Report? Policy action prior to the possible engagement...
The Artist Formerly Known As AC.-á
The-áterminal end of the digestive system.-á
|
Anal Canal
The Conference Elite CODE.
669
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 00:41:19 -
[13] - Quote
Akeru Matu wrote:With not working is meant from a police side of view. If you can't stop criminal behaviour with solution A you need to find a better punishment to keep crime low. All I'm saying is that Concord isn't using the right tools to keep crime low and I'm proposing a alternate way of dealing with ganking. Don't get me wrong I don't want to make ganking not viable, just trying to change how the mechanic works for the law enforcers.
On earth we can't stop crime altogether either but you can change the rules and laws hoping that the punishment is high enough to deter from criminal action.
Ferguson might be a good example albeit a bit too soon ;) Imho Concord does exactly what went wrong there, run in guns blazing. Instead of more subtle ways of enforcing law.
So you want Minority Report? Policy action prior to the possible engagement...
The Artist Formerly Known As AC.-á
The-áterminal end of the digestive system.-á
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
5964
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 01:32:00 -
[14] - Quote
I think the OP missed the part where EVE is basically a libertarian dystopia populated by virtually immortal people (who fancy themselves as demi-gods) all armed with weaponry that slings around the equivalent of nuclear warheads (or greater).
Suicide ganking isn't "murder." It is, at best, "property damage."
And gankers pay for this with more "property damage"... and a hit to their record... which can mitigated by causing more "property damage" against people the police hate even more (see: NPC pirates).
And all that can be bypassed by paying off the police to wage a "controlled" war (in high-sec).
And the reason wars and ganking might be considered ethically sound in the dystopia of EVE is because all those people mining and manufacturing are making the very same products used in ganking and war and selling them to whoever pays the most. So to keep us "demi-gods" from waging war against the empires or police, they let us nuke each other.
It is literally the perfect setup. "Let the rabble stay distracted by killing each other while we administrate unmolested." Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
"How did you veterans start?" |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
6365
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 01:32:10 -
[15] - Quote
I think the OP missed the part where EVE is basically a libertarian dystopia populated by virtually immortal people (who fancy themselves as demi-gods) all armed with weaponry that slings around the equivalent of nuclear warheads (or greater).
I mean... seriously... suicide ganking isn't anything more than "property damage."
And gankers pay for this with more "property damage"... and a hit to their record... which can mitigated by causing more "property damage" against people the police hate even more (see: NPC pirates).
And all that can be bypassed by paying off the police to wage a "controlled" war (in high-sec).
And the reason wars and ganking might be considered ethically sound in the dystopia of EVE is because all those people mining and manufacturing are making the very same products used in ganking and war and selling them to whoever pays the most. So to keep us "demi-gods" from waging war against the empires or police, they let us nuke each other.
It is literally the perfect setup. "Let the rabble stay distracted by killing each other while we administrate unmolested."
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
"How did you veterans start?"
|
Ssabat Thraxx
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
959
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 01:51:54 -
[16] - Quote
There are already "fines" for ganking, and even for "legit PVP" in lowsec. You either lose the convenience of shopping in and taking shortcuts thru highsec, or you pay a few hundred million isk for clone soldier tags AND FINES to raise your status, or you subject yourself to unknown hours of painfully tedious ratting to raise your status.
\m/ O.o \m/
"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
|
Kohiko Sun
Stormcrows
52
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 01:56:00 -
[17] - Quote
Why would CONCORD want to prevent it? Every gank makes them richer.
Every ganker buys a ship, fit, and ammunition, and the SCC gets tax ISKies from all of it. The gankee buys a ship, fit, and ammunition or cargo or whatever, and the SCC gets tax ISKies from that.
Then, they meet somewhere is space, and ships asplode. The gankers don't get any insurance payment, so the insurance company doesn't lose money on them. The gankee might be insured, but that's still cheaper for Pend Insurance than paying for two or more ships.
Now, both sides have to buy more things to replace what they lost, that's twice as much taxes paid to the SCC than if the gank never happened. And, on top of that, there's the taxes paid when the loot is resold on the market. Oh, and if the ganker decides they want to fix their sec status with tags or ratting, that all helps CONCORD, too, with fees and taxes paid or asploded ebil little NPC piwates. |
Kohiko Sun
Stormcrows
67
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 01:56:27 -
[18] - Quote
Why would CONCORD want to prevent it? Every gank makes them richer.
Every ganker buys a ship, fit, and ammunition, and the SCC gets tax ISKies from all of it. The gankee buys a ship, fit, and ammunition or cargo or whatever, and the SCC gets tax ISKies from that.
Then, they meet somewhere in space, and ships asplode. The gankers don't get any insurance payment, so the insurance company doesn't lose money on them. The gankee might be insured, but that's still cheaper for Pend Insurance than paying for two or more ships.
Now, both sides have to buy more things to replace what they lost. That's twice as much taxes paid to the SCC than if the gank never happened. And, on top of that, there are the taxes when the loot is resold on the market. Oh, and if the gankers decide they want to fix their sec status with tags or ratting, that helps CONCORD, too, with more fees and taxes or asploded ebil little NPC piwates. |
Ares Desideratus
Star Children Of Cain
172
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 02:52:15 -
[19] - Quote
Varukka Sault wrote:"Clearly that is not working." Is purely subjective. It's working just fine for lots of people. Its a video game. Everything is subjective.
Is there any way to unswallow my pride? Can I fuck myself down?
|
Tengu Grib
Happy Fun times Spaceships in Space
473
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 04:57:10 -
[20] - Quote
Ares Desideratus wrote:Varukka Sault wrote:"Clearly that is not working." Is purely subjective. It's working just fine for lots of people. Its a video game. Everything is subjective. On the surface I do not disagree with you, in the context of the OP's post I do. Concord is functioning exactly as intended and that is not subjective. The OP is claiming that Concord is not functioning as it should, and that simply is not true. The OP is disagreeing with the model of Concord as set in place by CCP, and his disagreement on that point is certainly his right, and is subjective.
Tengu Grib> I read that as "Suddenly Noobships" and it made me want to hot drop someone with noobships.
Buhhdust Princess> You have set us a challenge..We will try and do it!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEeBnYi5bG0&feature=youtu.be
|
|
Marah Matu
Sietch Jacurutu
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 10:24:31 -
[21] - Quote
Wel my main went inactive due to vacation and i forgot the forums are inaccessable then ><.
Well i see your reason on certain points, although I might not agree on them, they do make sense in a way. |
Ares Desideratus
Star Children Of Cain
172
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 13:35:18 -
[22] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Ares Desideratus wrote:Varukka Sault wrote:"Clearly that is not working." Is purely subjective. It's working just fine for lots of people. Its a video game. Everything is subjective. On the surface I do not disagree with you, in the context of the OP's post I do. Concord is functioning exactly as intended and that is not subjective. The OP is claiming that Concord is not functioning as it should, and that simply is not true. The OP is disagreeing with the model of Concord as set in place by CCP, and his disagreement on that point is certainly his right, and is subjective. Everything is functioning exactly as intended. Or maybe everything isnt. Theres this thing called *making the game better*. The OPs post might not be in favour of this concept, but I think his heart is in the right place at least.
And the OPs claim that Concord is not functioning as it should is actually true, if you look at it from the RP or realism perspective. In this context, Concord makes no sense at all.
But yes, as a game mechanic, Concord is working fine and hardly seems to need any work.
Is there any way to unswallow my pride? Can I fuck myself down?
|
Lugia3
Intentionally Dense Easily Excited
1330
|
Posted - 2014.08.24 12:45:44 -
[23] - Quote
Concord does not provide protection. Concord provides retribution.
Anyway, with your plan to "fine" gankers, nothing will happen. Gankers already use alts. They don't buy the catalysts on the same character. Their main/hauler alt just trades them over. If their wallet hit 0 or went negative, nothing will happen because those characters don't buy things.
"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
Remove Sov!
|
Ares Desideratus
Star Children Of Cain
172
|
Posted - 2014.08.24 14:01:31 -
[24] - Quote
Lugia3 wrote:Concord does not provide protection. Concord provides retribution.
Anyway, with your plan to "fine" gankers, nothing will happen. Gankers already use alts. They don't buy the catalysts on the same character. Their main/hauler alt just trades them over. If their wallet hit 0 or went negative, nothing will happen because those characters don't buy things. What difference does it make which character they use to buy things with? Theyre still buying things, and if you charge them for ganking its still going to affect their ISK amount. In the OPs proposed situation, if you run out of money and cant pay the fine, then you cant dock. Simple.
Not sure I agree with it at all, but I definitely dont agree with your reasoning.
Is there any way to unswallow my pride? Can I fuck myself down?
|
Lugia3
Intentionally Dense Easily Excited
1330
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 15:08:01 -
[25] - Quote
Ares Desideratus wrote:Lugia3 wrote:Concord does not provide protection. Concord provides retribution.
Anyway, with your plan to "fine" gankers, nothing will happen. Gankers already use alts. They don't buy the catalysts on the same character. Their main/hauler alt just trades them over. If their wallet hit 0 or went negative, nothing will happen because those characters don't buy things. What difference does it make which character they use to buy things with? Theyre still buying things, and if you charge them for ganking its still going to affect their ISK amount. In the OPs proposed situation, if you run out of money and cant pay the fine, then you cant dock. Simple. Not sure I agree with it at all, but I definitely dont agree with your reasoning.
Then they will just pick ships up from an orca instead of docking.
"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
Remove Sov!
|
Ares Desideratus
Star Children Of Cain
172
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 14:15:25 -
[26] - Quote
Lugia3 wrote:Ares Desideratus wrote:Lugia3 wrote:Concord does not provide protection. Concord provides retribution.
Anyway, with your plan to "fine" gankers, nothing will happen. Gankers already use alts. They don't buy the catalysts on the same character. Their main/hauler alt just trades them over. If their wallet hit 0 or went negative, nothing will happen because those characters don't buy things. What difference does it make which character they use to buy things with? Theyre still buying things, and if you charge them for ganking its still going to affect their ISK amount. In the OPs proposed situation, if you run out of money and cant pay the fine, then you cant dock. Simple. Not sure I agree with it at all, but I definitely dont agree with your reasoning. Then they will just pick ships up from an orca instead of docking. Oh crap. Didn't think of that. You're right.
Is there any way to unswallow my pride? Can I fuck myself down?
|
Helena Tiberius Mabata
New Order Logistics CODE.
26
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 18:29:06 -
[27] - Quote
Even if this were to be implemented there are countless ways around the system just using the current applied mechanics. Like the ones above me said you can just reship from an orca and use a noobship from said orca to pull CONCORD from the gank site. Gank alts rarely have any ISK as well so the fines do no good there either. You could deathclone back to your station free of cost as well which avoids the entire pay here to dock idea. Then theres POS's, Low Sec Stations, Null Sec, and Wormholes to use as well which only further remove the entire point of this idea. |
Steppa Musana
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
72
|
Posted - 2014.09.14 23:33:00 -
[28] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Ares Desideratus wrote:Varukka Sault wrote:"Clearly that is not working." Is purely subjective. It's working just fine for lots of people. Its a video game. Everything is subjective. On the surface I do not disagree with you, in the context of the OP's post I do. Concord is functioning exactly as intended and that is not subjective. The OP is claiming that Concord is not functioning as it should, and that simply is not true. The OP is disagreeing with the model of Concord as set in place by CCP, and his disagreement on that point is certainly his right, and is subjective. This, with a very important "NO" to the OP's suggestion. |
Report
Doomheim
243
|
Posted - 2014.09.14 23:33:23 -
[29] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Ares Desideratus wrote:Varukka Sault wrote:"Clearly that is not working." Is purely subjective. It's working just fine for lots of people. Its a video game. Everything is subjective. On the surface I do not disagree with you, in the context of the OP's post I do. Concord is functioning exactly as intended and that is not subjective. The OP is claiming that Concord is not functioning as it should, and that simply is not true. The OP is disagreeing with the model of Concord as set in place by CCP, and his disagreement on that point is certainly his right, and is subjective. This, with a very important "NO" to the OP's suggestion.
Hey guys.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |