EVE General Discussion

The classic current problems with risk vs reward vs cost (adding caso as correctly pointed out by OP)
1) Planetary interaction in HiSec. This should cost a LOT paid to the planetary authorities. PI should be a big reason for pilots to re-populate LowSec.
2) The Jita overpopulation problem. Taxes should rise where there are problems with capicity. This variable principle was built into office prices from the start - why not into taxes on transactions?
3) Lack of supply chains - this promotes too much stability. Basically too many places are almost self-sufficient and don't have to trade much. Little trade = little piracy. Making supply chains more diverse would help here.
4) Too much of throwing the best of everything into NullSec. This creates vast monopolies and discourages innovation. There should be vital resources in LowSec. Suppose the next tech rolled out contained a diverse list of ingredients - a previously cheap gas from low sec, a bit of PI product, a cosmos component, prevously cheap wormhole salvage, an ingredient from a High Sec corp, etc.. A logistics corp and pirate corp dream...
5) Make more dangerous missions, and make them interact with other players. Nobody in their right mind does LowSec missions in a non-secure system because they are too static - sitting ducks have a very limited lifetime. So make them non-static! Combine them with contracts so that players can take out contracts to blockade systems, or to run blocades (in conjunction with DUST maybe?) - you choose the tactics and keep on the move, but you may also have PC opponents. The person placing the contract has to give the going rate, or nobody takes it.
6) Incursions - too predictable. When will the Sansha learn? Wouldn't they set up a few roving gangs to reinforce some systems? Have a small chance of more and better enemies in a wave - enough for serious risk of losses. Of course, salvaging those improved Sansha may be very worth while...

Except they do protect, through deterrence.

I don't need to, because I know exactly how much protection concord gives hisec.

Then you need to worry about that and not what other people need or want. You will go far remembering that. Because "apparently" you seem to confuse what you know with what other people need.

Otherwise stop using it as a threat.

Or what exactly? I don't understand your train of thought. Are you just trying to be an ass intentionally?

Concord does not protect. It doesn't deter, it avenges. That's it's job. It doesn't care what is right or wrong. If you do something you aren't supposed to, it kills you. End of story. It doesn't tell you "you better not, you!" while waggling a finger. It doesn't CARE.

It doesn't choose, it will avenge who needs to be avenged. in highsec.

Concord is more alike a mercenary for the Empire than it is a police. We have faction police who say "you are not welcome here, get out or else". Concord does not do that. They deliver justice in painful ways.

Stop comparing the 2! Concord is nothing like RL police! Even the dude who brought it up reneged his own statement!

Eh? What the hell are you smoking.

Of course there would be a change in kills. Not necessarily a change in AMOUNT of ganks though. You seem to think there would be. I think trade hubs and highly populated areas would not be so. I think the kill count would balance out, because for every suicide gank there is a loss of that ganker's ship. I think the count would be balanced by the fact those gankers wouldn't lose as many ships.

You'd see more battleships, and T3s, T2s, cruisers etc doing more kills.

People would run for their lives and stay docked up. Economy from mining would go to a slow crawl and have major protection ops without concord.

Faction police would be all over the place under some sort of martial law.

But ganking would happen less, not more, without Concord.

That I do bet.

Beyond that you need to define the word "fine" because some thigns I'm ok with that others might not be.

No, it avenges. For every miner killed by 10 gank ships, that count is 11.

Without Concord you would see more FW type activity. You wouldn't see sacrificial alts flying a ton of gank ships. You would see maybe 5 people flying some powerful ships (like a small gang roam) and try to gank someone, then an escalation would happen with the other side bringing 5 more people. That amount is now at 12 people, with maybe 1-3 ships lost.

Yes, that is a lower number. WITHOUT CONCORD.

Concord, as an exploitable mechanic, allows for MORE ganks, not less. You know this. Stop pretending and trying to word the conversation otherwise.

"Kills" is too relative of a word when you are talking about ganks and risk vs reward. You need to define it a bit better by ship loss or by "gank" and "pirate" maybe.

Too much generalization on your part.

Define "every".

Define "every".[/quote]
eve·ry (vr)
adj.
1.
a. Constituting each and all members of a group without exception.
b. Being all possible: had every chance of winning, but lost.
2. Being each of a specified succession of objects or intervals: every third seat; every two hours.
3. Being the highest degree or expression of: showed us every attention; had every hope of succeeding.
Idioms:
every bit Informal
In all ways; equally: He is every bit as mean as she is.
every now and then/again
From time to time; occasionally.
every once in a while
From time to time; occasionally.
every other
Each alternate: She went to visit her aunt every other week.
every so often
At intervals; occasionally.
every which way Informal
1. In every direction.
2. In complete disorder.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/every[/quote]


And which of that would apply to ships? You think if a gang of battleships were flying around without risk of losing their ship to Concord, that people would still be just hanging out in station hubs playing station games like asshats?

Yes, there is some deterrent involved with Concord. Yes that could be seen as a level of protection. I'm not disagreeing with that. But that small level of deterrence is not definitive as to who Concord protects. Only from how it protects against some people, namely those who don't know what they are doing and think they do from knowing how to can flip back in the day.

Which is why this thread is about risk vs reward, not the efficiency of Concord as a mechanic. Because without Concord, you would have a whole different level of logistics in regards to highsec activity, because of the fact people will not be able to lean on their ignorance.

If you want to address the functionality of Concord, by all means, start an entire different thread.

But what you are straying towards does not have to do with the risk vs reward factor of Concord, you are speaking of the need and ability of that ingame mechanic.

Then they wouldn't be flying, now would they?


Except that's all you've done the past few pages.


It protects everyone, either up until they exceed the cost/reward ratio, they meet someone who hates them, or someone just wants to make a pubbie cry.


Because concord does protect and deter, yes.


I'm not trying to "address the functionality of concord", I'm not "speaking of the need and ability of that ingame mechanic", I'm just getting you to admit that when you said earlier that concord doesn't protect, you were incorrect.

And yes, contrary to your claim concord has everything to do with "the risk vs reward factor of concord", since the only rewards available to someone for ganking someone if concord wasn't present would have to be "a killmail".