These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Support from Concord needed.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
#61 - 2012-11-27 00:55:30 UTC
oh, and you know why it take 6 persons to gank a freighters? Because it's an illegal act in eve! of course it takes more people!

now apply that logic to any other fighting ship.. can you take down a tier 3 BS with a single ship in highsec? how many do you need? why aren't they escorted?



Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2012-11-27 01:06:02 UTC
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
now apply that logic to any other fighting ship.. can you take down a tier 3 BS with a single ship in highsec? how many do you need? why aren't they escorted?

Because most people aren't running around with several billions worth of officer mods. Those that do, does risk getting ganked.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
#63 - 2012-11-27 02:03:14 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
now apply that logic to any other fighting ship.. can you take down a tier 3 BS with a single ship in highsec? how many do you need? why aren't they escorted?

Because most people aren't running around with several billions worth of officer mods. Those that do, does risk getting ganked.


and I completely agree with you.

so why would that prevent the idea of security change? you can gank anywhere. even in 1.0, with the right amount of ships.

Mag's
Azn Empire
#64 - 2012-11-27 02:12:39 UTC
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
now apply that logic to any other fighting ship.. can you take down a tier 3 BS with a single ship in highsec? how many do you need? why aren't they escorted?

Because most people aren't running around with several billions worth of officer mods. Those that do, does risk getting ganked.


and I completely agree with you.

so why would that prevent the idea of security change? you can gank anywhere. even in 1.0, with the right amount of ships.

Why would it mean the need for one?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2012-11-27 02:13:10 UTC
* CCP upgrades those systems to 0.6
* Players continue to gank
"concord? they're still being meanies. :("

* CCP upgrades those systems to 0.7
* Players continue to gank
"concord? they're still being meanies. :("

* CCP upgrades those systems to 0.8
* Players continue to gank
"concord? they're still being meanies. :("

* CCP upgrades those systems to 0.9
* Players continue to gank
"concord? they're still being meanies. :("

* CCP upgrades those systems to 1.0
* Players continue to gank
"concord? they're still being meanies. :("

* CCP removes aggression from hisec
"ahh finally."

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#66 - 2012-11-27 03:57:18 UTC
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
now apply that logic to any other fighting ship.. can you take down a tier 3 BS with a single ship in highsec? how many do you need? why aren't they escorted?

Because most people aren't running around with several billions worth of officer mods. Those that do, does risk getting ganked.


and I completely agree with you.

so why would that prevent the idea of security change? you can gank anywhere. even in 1.0, with the right amount of ships.



Arbitrary security changes are not the default... As the person suggesting a change to the game, it's YOUR responsibility to actively make a good argument for why we should shift the balance of the galaxy to include more security than before. Not just say "why not?! lol"
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#67 - 2012-11-27 07:57:40 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Loads of posts opposing it.

Not many with a reason that I could see.

So - why do people not support removal/reduction in bottlenecks?



I know the answer, of course, but you can at least be honest about it people Blink

I know, it's heresy to suggest you might need to do more work for your ganks.



I've lost more to gankers than I've ganked, and I still think it's a terrible idea.


Security change is a poor idea, more gates though......

But as I said, it appears to be heresy to think people might need to work a bit hard to locate the most valuable pinyatas....
Onslaughtor
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#68 - 2012-11-27 10:34:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Onslaughtor
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
To: Concord.
From: Red Frog Freight and fellow freighters pilots.
Subject: Assistance needed.

To who it may concern.

As you may be aware, criminal activities are on the rise, particularly in 2 systems, which are Niarja and Uedama.

We are asking you today to revise your security over in those 2 neuralgic systems. You seem to struggle keeping the pirate at bay.

We know it might only move the problems, but as those 2 systems are inevitable if you want to go from Caldari Space to Minmatar, Amarr and Gallente Space, we would feel safer if there was a revision of the security status of those 2 solar system and the one nearby.

Thank you for your consideration.

Red Frog Freight.





{{Rufen I must say I rather enjoyed your in character letter, and as role player I salute you.}}

It seems to me that your logical and fairly basic assessment of the situation, and your recommended solution to it, has dumfounded our local trolls and intellectually incompetents.

The problem that you so elegantly put it is that Concord is a static police force, never moving, never adapting. While this is both boring and dull when it comes to such a fluid thing like New Eden, it also leads to exploitation by those who are of more sinister intent. Exploitation is the bread and butter of New Eden, but only to a extent. Some feel the the exploit of the CONCORD security system in the 0.5 systems of Niarja and Uedama has led to a ISK farm, if you will.

I would love to see CONCORD security systems be redistributed to better match crime done by the capsuleer community. I feel that it would alter away from the dry situation we have now, and move towards a better dynamic environment full of opportunity.

While I personally enjoy entertaining this idea, I will point out that a move in the right direction has already been passed by the CONCORD assemble. This new law is a revision of the old crime watch system, and will give grater retaliatory rights to those effected by these high sec pirates.

This is a valid argument you make Rufen, while ill timed with the new law taking effect on the 4th of the next month. I wish you the best of luck on your mission to obtain support.
Souisa
Subhypersonics
#69 - 2012-11-27 10:39:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Souisa
Saying there isnt a problem is being ignorant. Billions if not trillions worth of goods pass through those systems every day. It makes no sense they have the sec status they have. When you consider how the cost of ganking has fallen with the new tier BC, thus increasing the amount of ganking, that just adds to the problem. Either fix the security status, or give freighter pilots the ability to boost the tank in their freighters

o/
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2012-11-27 10:43:18 UTC
Souisa wrote:
When you consider how the cost of ganking has fallen with the new tier BC

This is a complete and utter fallacy.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Souisa
Subhypersonics
#71 - 2012-11-27 10:43:58 UTC
No its not.

o/
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2012-11-27 10:45:18 UTC
Souisa wrote:
No its not.

So you've completely forgotten the whole insurance payout is voided when concord is involved, I take it.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Souisa
Subhypersonics
#73 - 2012-11-27 10:51:35 UTC
The tier3 BC's still require considerably less minerals to produce although having very nice alpha strikes

o/
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2012-11-27 10:52:30 UTC
Souisa wrote:
The tier3 BC's still require considerably less minerals to produce although having very nice alpha strikes

Doesn't change the fact the costs have actually increased compared to a year ago.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Souisa
Subhypersonics
#75 - 2012-11-27 10:53:04 UTC
How so?

o/
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2012-11-27 10:55:21 UTC
I'll just wait here until you do your math.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Souisa
Subhypersonics
#77 - 2012-11-27 10:57:13 UTC
Haha, anyway it doesent change the fact that the current situation favors the gankers specifically because every freighter more or less have the excact same stats and concord has the excact same response time

o/
Mag's
Azn Empire
#78 - 2012-11-27 11:03:28 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
I'll just wait here until you do your math.
You'll be waiting quite some time, Sousia isn't a big fan of maths and facts.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Souisa
Subhypersonics
#79 - 2012-11-27 11:06:38 UTC
At least i dont do personal attacks and stick to the subject and ;)

o/
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2012-11-27 11:09:14 UTC
So have you done the math yet?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat