EVE General Discussion

Also not going to happen. The gank ship would become very worthy of ganking iteself

Thought of it; considered it too much effort for not enough performance increase.

Using that logic you might as well remove Concord and state that it's the player's responsibility to kill people who are flashy, that not being the case and this being a game of consequences I see no reason why NPC in general, and Concord in particular, shouldn't also pod. Other than "that's not how it has been so far" I see no compelling reasons to not change it and I see quite a few (apart from the obvious "HTFU") reasons FOR that change.

No, that does not follow. CONORD serves a purpose that has nothing to do with players' responsibilities. Making CONCORD do something some players are too incompetent or lazy to do is not on par with — or even on the same consequence chain as — redefining half of New Eden.

Using the actual logic, CONCORD is there to enforce the single defining characteristic of highsec: that aggression costs. This is not something that should or even can be transferred to players because players cannot be relied upon to effect the required outcome — they are not an automatic and unavoidable game mechanic. As a bonus, CONCORD does this in a way that also ensures that hostile activities end, giving the victim an avenue of escape. Poddings are wholly unnecessary for either one, and as such, the podding of enemies has been left the sole domain of players — an additional punishment for the clumsy.

Simple: because there is no need to increase the costs involved and because it leaves something for players to do above and beyond what NPCs do. It makes players the threat you should worry about, not the environment, which is a cornerstone for how the entire game is designed.

Removed some more off topic posts.

Okay, the argument is not that CONCORD should pod players because of consequences, its that CONCORD podding players could be a solution to the exploit that is Hyperdunking. And yes, it is an exploit, CCP always say "not an exploit" until they find a way to actually fix it. And no, just because you can counter an exploit doesnt mean its not still an exploit.

In other words, there is no argument for CONCORD podding players, since there is no exploit and nothing to solve.

CCP says no. That's the end of it. So you're just flat out wrong on that one.

No. They say it is an exploit when they determine it is an exploit. Then they start looking for ways to program the exploit out of the game. So you're flat out wrong on that one too.

Beyond that, it's trivially easy to see why they determined that hyperdunking is not an exploit: because at no point are any of the key indicators for a CONCORD or aggression-game exploit present. At no point are any game mechanics bypassed. At no point is the obligatory loss avoided. At no point is any punishment deferred, nullified, or otherwise adjusted. At no point is CONCORD made to do something it is not supposed to do. If you think it is an exploit, not only are you objectively wrong, you immediately disqualify yourself from discussing the matter since you have no idea what the word even means.

That would also keep more people from quitting EVE after their first time being ganked.

Given the amount of ganking that goes on and taking into account the cost for the ganker vs gankee I'm sure you'll agree it's in no way a dying profession or nerfed to a point where it's balanced. It isn't balanced, at all.

…enforce the defining characteristic of highsec: that non-consentual aggression comes at a cost. That is all. It is not meant to provide defence or security or protection or anything other than cost.

Sure there is: it is not necessary for the purpose of CONCORD and there is no reason to increase the cost. One of the very prohibiting reasons (SP loss) has been removed, sure, but that still doesn't mean that the cost needs to increase any more than it already has through the myriad of security buffs that the system has seen over the years. More than that, if cost actually needed to be increased for some strange reason, there are far better ways of doing it than to remove player activity.

It obviously is since it's such a rare event that people get upset every time it happens and since it has now been relegated to a select few groups rather than being so wide-spread that it generated a secondary looters' market. Gank scavenging used to be a workable, if slightly low-paying, profession back in the day. These days, where you'd be lucky to see a single profitable gank in a day, it's right out because of how lucky you have to be to even get the chance.

It's a hilariously silly argument to think that the target's costs is in any way even remotely relevant to how much it should cost the attacker. ISK-tanking is such a fundamentally erroneous and illogical concept that it beggars belief. It would completely ruin any sense of balancing; it makes no sense from a mechanical standpoint; it makes no sense from a logical standpoint; it makes no sense from a lore standpoint. Every time it has been attempted, it has failed. Every time it has been suggested, its inherent flaws and the massive exploitation potential it forcibly creates have all been blown wide open and made readily apparent. In short: it makes no sense. Ever.