EVE General Discussion

There are certain combat conditions in high security that DO NOT SUMMON CONCORD. If CCP did not want suicide ganking to exist as an option, why would they not simply ALLOW any high sec combat that would NOT summon CONCORD under the current rules, and DISALLOW any high sec combat that would summon CONCORD?

This would allow, e.g., in-corp fights, and completely disallow suicide ganking.

The delineation between these two activities ALREADY EXISTS in the current mechanics. The only difference is the response.

Gosh... could it be that suicide ganking is intended to be an option?

Why is Concord response time slower in .5 than in 1.0?

Daunting programming task... know how I know you're not a programmer? That's about as daunting as lacing up one's gym shoes.

All of the conditional code ALREADY exists in the existing CONCORD system. Anything that triggers a GCC in high security space summons CONCORD. They are two separate functions, however - a set of conditionals that determines if an action flags someone with a GCC, and a separate function that summons Concord if it is done in high security.

It would be utterly trivial to simply keep the GCC code in place and, instead of calling summonConcord(TargetPlayer), call cancelActionShowYouCan'tDoThatPopUp(BoredPlayer)

Thus, a corp mate shooting another corp mate would be allowed (does not trigger GCC/concord).
Shooting a can flipper would be allowed (does not trigger GCC/concord).
Shooting a war target would be allowed (does not trigger GCC/concord).
Suiciding a miner would be disallowed (DOES trigger GCC/concord).

So, again: Why did CCP not choose to do that instead?

It would also be entirely antithetical to the core design principle of EVE. The simple fact remains: contrary to what you claim, suicide ganking is not an exploit; it does not bypass the game mechanics.

So what? It's not meant to be fair. Cost is not a balancing factor.

…and why on earth should that happen? There is already a sever consequence to suicide-ganking people: you pay a far higher price for the kill than if you wardec the guy, and that's all wardecs and suicide ganks are — different ways of paying for aggression.

Because it's not the job of NPCs to have those hard effects on players, just like it's not their job to provide security.

Wardec Goon? with the new prices on wardecs? Lol that's a laugh. Give me 20 Billion ISK and I'll happily dec them of which after 2 months that 20 billion will be gone because of the price of the Dec on an Alliance that large. Your talking about 1 billion to 5 billion a week to dec Goon's 10k+ Man Alliance and Ever other Alliance in their Coalition.

With the changes in Inferno to the Dec system Goon is Technically and Game mechanically "Invulnerable and can do whatever the hell they want in highsec with absolute Impunity.

Do you pride yourself on your complete ignorance of every aspect of the game or something?



I could fund an indefinite war against Goons by myself, as an individual, and I'm not even internet space wealthy. 20 billion could keep the war going for 9 months.

Any corporation with the manpower to feasibly wage war against the Goons should be able to afford half a billion a week.

that 500+ mil is that One Alliance, Goonswarm is a Multi Alliance Coalition. So Multiply that 500+ mil by a factor of 5 for their 5 other "main" alliances in their coalition and you Get===== 2.5 Billion per week. And thats just to dec Goons "MAIN" Coalition Bulk.

Alright well 70% then whatever, I was pointing out that you were wrong when you said 70% did not live in highsec when you clearly just proved yourself wrong by stating they do.

1. So what? I could personally, as an individual, bankroll two such wars. Again: Any organization with the manpower to feasibly wardec goons can also come up with the cash to do it, no problem.

2. The other alliances are not as large, so, no you can't just "multiply by 5".

It would only cost 205m to wardec Pandemic legion, for instance. TEST is the only alliance with a comparable wardec price. Everyone else is substantially lower - closer to 200-300m.

You're kinda thick, huh?

Except that you're still missing what the statistics are measuring.

They're not measuring players. The stats say that 70% of the characters live in highsec. This tells us absolutely nothing about how many players live there, except that it cannot be more than 70%.

Rather, it suggests that the percentage of player base that lives in highsec could be somewhere in the region of 40%, since everyone living outside of highsec will have a highsec alt. 70% highsec characters → 30% low/null characters → another 30% alts to low/null players → only 40% of the characters belong to actual highsec players. So no, 70% of the player base doesn't live in highsec, no matter how much people would like to misquote the stats as saying they do.

Lets add http://www.machine9.net/?m=201006.

I found it back in 2010, when I was doing my research whether EVE might be the game for me.

While I'm still an empire dweller and carebear after 18 months in EVE (mostly due to an ongoing lack of time to play the game), the notion of loss played the most important part in the decision to change over to EVE.

This constant threat of loss, no matter where you are, is one of the most enticing things in EVE. If you do not like this, you really should look out for another game.

As already pointed out, those figures aren't as cut and dried as you believe. For starters you'll find a good proportion of those characters, not players, in high sec are alts of low sec, null sec and wormhole denizens, placed there to trade, transport and earn isk. How many of those left in high sec are in pvp or mercenary corps do you think?