Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 20:56:00 -
[361] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:So to bring everything back up to speed... Lord Zim says Concord Protects, Baltec1 says it's bannable to use Concord for protection, Ruby says Concord doesn't prevent, but deters, and Murk says that Concord is a cost assessment for risk vs reward.
And Rancor is HS without Concord.
Weird ******* thread. No, just you don't seem to know squat about concord mechanics and are not listening.
You made sure to remind me by saying it 4 times.
I made sure to be clear.
Trust me, I am indeed listening. You are the expert on Concord Mechanics. If I know "squat" you are a **** poor teacher. Feel free to revisit the godamn 19 pages of regurgitated crap if you don't believe me.
Concord still doesn't protect, after all this time. It only punishes. That punishment CAN be a deterrent to those who wish to gank, but it doesn't prevent it. Got it. It's a risk in the risk vs reward, because Concord will blow you up if you try to gank someone, but it won't stop them from doing it. So it isn't protection, but it CAN be only "if if if if blah blah blah" it's under the right circumstances to say it is.
Anywhoo, enjoy your weekend, my shift is over =)
Fly safe guys. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
Lord Zim
2346
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 21:03:00 -
[362] - Quote
TL/DR: Concord increases safety in hisec by protecting everyone in hisec. It does this by acting as a deterrence, by promising retribution on anyone performing any aggression in hisec. Thus, they're protectors. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
baltec1
Bat Country
5831
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 21:05:00 -
[363] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:
You made sure to remind me by saying it 4 times.
I made sure to be clear.
Trust me, I am indeed listening. You are the expert on Concord Mechanics. If I know "squat" you are a **** poor teacher. Feel free to revisit the godamn 19 pages of regurgitated crap if you don't believe me.
Concord still doesn't protect, after all this time. It only punishes.
Anywhoo, enjoy your weekend, my shift is over =)
Fly safe guys.
I did not say all concord protection is a bannable offence, just that one tactic CCP considers an exploit.
Concord provides protection in the same way that nukes protected both the USA and USSR. Via deterrence |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1585
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 21:16:00 -
[364] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:TL/DR: Concord increases safety in hisec by protecting everyone in hisec. It does this by acting as a deterrence, by promising retribution on anyone performing any aggression in hisec. Thus, they're protectors.
As it is with Concord, it is in real life. People being protected by the existance of police force rarely understand this until the police force is gone.
In every society their are people who can't be deterred by anything other than a bullet to the face (here in Texas, we say "sometimes, a guy just needs killin" lol), but beyond those people there are others who WOULD commit various crimes if there was no organized force to deter them. The net affect is less crime than you would otherwise have.
Protection is not an absolute. The Law Enforcement Agency I work for doesn't (usually) protect by physically standing between bad people and everoyne else, it protects by controlling the total number of bad people free to roam our area. Absolute protection isn't even physically possible. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1585
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 21:17:00 -
[365] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:
You made sure to remind me by saying it 4 times.
I made sure to be clear.
Trust me, I am indeed listening. You are the expert on Concord Mechanics. If I know "squat" you are a **** poor teacher. Feel free to revisit the godamn 19 pages of regurgitated crap if you don't believe me.
Concord still doesn't protect, after all this time. It only punishes.
Anywhoo, enjoy your weekend, my shift is over =)
Fly safe guys.
I did not say all concord protection is a bannable offence, just that one tactic CCP considers an exploit. Concord provides protection in the same way that nukes protected both the USA and USSR. Via deterrence
Exactly, and those nukes dind't keep us out of smaller war, they just prevented the bigger more disasterous wars. |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3132
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 22:46:00 -
[366] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:So to bring everything back up to speed... Lord Zim says Concord Protects, Baltec1 says it's bannable to use Concord for protection, Ruby says Concord doesn't prevent, but deters, and Murk says that Concord is a cost assessment for risk vs reward.
And Rancor is HS without Concord.
Weird ******* thread.
Only if you run the thread through the idiot filter.
Baltec has been saying that a specific instance of abusing CONCORD to provide individual protection not normally provided is against the rules.
Zim has been saying that CONCORD provides protection in general.
I have been saying that CONCORD provides protection in general.
And you have said that CONCORD provides protection.
Murk Paradox wrote:Protection comes as a by product, but does not define what Concord is.
And somehow you're still confused as to what service CONCORD provides. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Frying Doom
2201
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 22:49:00 -
[367] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Protection comes as a by product, but does not define what Concord is. And somehow you're still confused as to what service CONCORD provides. Are you trying to imply that they are not a chocolate vendor? Vote Now My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras |
baltec1
Bat Country
5833
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 22:53:00 -
[368] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: Are you trying to imply that they are not a chocolate vendor?
A few coconuts short of a bounty you say. |
Lord Zim
2346
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 22:54:00 -
[369] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Are you trying to imply that they are not a chocolate vendor?
A few coconuts short of a bounty you say. DELICIOUS WEENIE! Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
512
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 00:09:00 -
[370] - Quote
On topic would be, Concord provides protection but no one has to pay for it. That is the part I don't get.
Bad pun in 3 seconds....
Most of this talk about Concord is just sour grapes. This thread has so much content it may be 'Thread of the Year' and it is only January.
|
|
Frying Doom
2202
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 00:11:00 -
[371] - Quote
Nexus Day wrote:On topic would be, Concord provides protection but no one has to pay for it. That is the part I don't get.
Bad pun in 3 seconds....
Most of this talk about Concord is just sour grapes. And now we lead back to another reason why NPC station industry slots should be more expensive. To pay for the hi-sec police as the NPC corporations are sick of paying for their smelly customers. Vote Now My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras |
Captain Tardbar
NEWB ALERT
263
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 00:23:00 -
[372] - Quote
Hrm.... This has really turned into a threadnaught since I left last night.
Where to begin....
Technically all the wardecs pay for the cost of concord protection. I mean 50 million a week at a mimimun isn't something to sneeze at especially if you are decing corps that cost more than that.
I suppose many of you would think it would be awesome if you could pay the police $5,000 so you could beat up your neighbors for a week. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down. |
Frying Doom
2202
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 00:26:00 -
[373] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Hrm.... This has really turned into a threadnaught since I left last night.
Where to begin....
Technically all the wardecs pay for the cost of concord protection. I mean 50 million a week at a mimimun isn't something to sneeze at especially if you are decing corps that cost more than that.
I suppose many of you would think it would be awesome if you could pay the police $5,000 so you could beat up your neighbors for a week. War Decs are bribes.
I don't know about you but if I worked for CONCORD I would want to be paid, besides why would members of concord want to pay for their ships with bribes. Vote Now My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras |
Captain Tardbar
NEWB ALERT
263
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 00:36:00 -
[374] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Hrm.... This has really turned into a threadnaught since I left last night.
Where to begin....
Technically all the wardecs pay for the cost of concord protection. I mean 50 million a week at a mimimun isn't something to sneeze at especially if you are decing corps that cost more than that.
I suppose many of you would think it would be awesome if you could pay the police $5,000 so you could beat up your neighbors for a week. War Decs are bribes. I don't know about you but if I worked for CONCORD I would want to be paid, besides why would members of concord want to pay for their ships with bribes.
I don't know my history, but I do recall many police officials suplimenting most of their extraordinary income with bribes back in the day.
I mean how to pay for all those hotel nights with the mistress.
Concord apparently sees wardecs as official business as they have no qualms about making the bribes public for all to pay for.
Maybe all those taxes and broker fees go to concord as well. I don't know.
Of course it could be that concord police just get a hard on for blowing people up with god ships and do it for the lulz. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down. |
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
95
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 00:42:00 -
[375] - Quote
Nexus Day wrote:Most of this talk about Concord is just sour grapes.
Ah, no, it's observation and correcting some false beliefs what policing is or not. "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 13:02:00 -
[376] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:
You made sure to remind me by saying it 4 times.
I made sure to be clear.
Trust me, I am indeed listening. You are the expert on Concord Mechanics. If I know "squat" you are a **** poor teacher. Feel free to revisit the godamn 19 pages of regurgitated crap if you don't believe me.
Concord still doesn't protect, after all this time. It only punishes.
Anywhoo, enjoy your weekend, my shift is over =)
Fly safe guys.
I did not say all concord protection is a bannable offence, just that one tactic CCP considers an exploit. Concord provides protection in the same way that nukes protected both the USA and USSR. Via deterrence
That's actually the best way to prove Concord is not a protector. Since nukes aren't known for their protection. Their known for their disastrous effect and everyone knows a nuke is made to destroy, not protect =). "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
Lord Zim
2348
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 13:06:00 -
[377] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:That's actually the best way to prove Concord is not a protector. Since nukes aren't known for their protection. Their known for their disastrous effect and everyone knows a nuke is made to destroy, not protect =). Having sufficient amounts of nukes to be able to destroy the other guy acts as a deterrent, and as such protects you from the other guy sending nukes in the first place. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 13:13:00 -
[378] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:That's actually the best way to prove Concord is not a protector. Since nukes aren't known for their protection. Their known for their disastrous effect and everyone knows a nuke is made to destroy, not protect =). Having sufficient amounts of nukes to be able to destroy the other guy acts as a deterrent, and as such protects you from the other guy sending nukes in the first place.
Think of that statement and how that would apply to say.... development of nuclear arms in the world as of right now (won't name specific countries but you should see where I'm going with this).
Then go ahead and say (enter country name) is trying to be a "protector". "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
Lord Zim
2348
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 13:15:00 -
[379] - Quote
You can twist, turn and squirm as much as you'd like, concord acts as hisec's protection. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 13:25:00 -
[380] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:You can twist, turn and squirm as much as you'd like, concord acts as hisec's protection.
You keep saying that and killboards and tears prove otherwise.
Concord's success rate in retribution is what... 100%?
Their success rate in protecting from ganks is what... maybe 5%?
Their success in preventing ganks(through deterrence) is what..... maybe that same 5%? Maybe lower?
It's not a matter of squirming, it's a matter of definition.
You can use a hammer to screw in a bolt, but it's still a ******* hammer meant to bash things. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
|
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 13:27:00 -
[381] - Quote
Look, we already went over what they do and can do, you're just to stubborn to realize that by definition you are wrong.
Just move on. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
Lord Zim
2348
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 13:35:00 -
[382] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Their success rate in protecting from ganks is what... maybe 5%?
Their success in preventing ganks(through deterrence) is what..... maybe that same 5%? Maybe lower? No, it's a lot higher than that, unless you're going to try to pretend that you have a 95% chance of getting ganked every time you undock.
Every time you undock, travel a few jumps, meet unknown people along the way and redock safely, concord's protection has worked. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3155
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 15:06:00 -
[383] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Think of that statement and how that would apply to say.... development of nuclear arms in the world as of right now (won't name specific countries but you should see where I'm going with this).
Then go ahead and say (enter country name) is trying to be a "protector".
Sure, I see where you're going with this.
Iraq: No Nuclear weapons + Pissed off the US > Got Invaded
North Korea: Nuclear weapons + Constantly Pissing off the US > Protected from Invasion
Hang on... that goes against your wacky claim that deterrence does not provide protection (a claim that, in the specific case of CONCORD, you've already agreed is false). This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1589
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 15:21:00 -
[384] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Think of that statement and how that would apply to say.... development of nuclear arms in the world as of right now (won't name specific countries but you should see where I'm going with this).
Then go ahead and say (enter country name) is trying to be a "protector". Sure, I see where you're going with this. Iraq: No Nuclear weapons + Pissed off the US > Got Invaded North Korea: Nuclear weapons + Constantly Pissing off the US > Protected from Invasion Hang on... that goes against your wacky claim that deterrence does not provide protection (a claim that, in the specific case of CONCORD, you've already agreed is false).
Murk has a problem with very black and white thinking. To him "protection" means 100% safety it seems.
I had a similar argument years ago as a rookie with a citizen while I was trying to eat lunch (That day learned why older officers eat in their cars lol). he said we don't provide protection, i said in a way he's correct, but we do provide a LEVEL of protective service by deterring "casual criminals" and making operating more difficult for more determined hard core ones. His response was "either i'm protected or i'm not".
He couldn't' grasp the idea that or jub was to make crime and disorder less likely, because totally preventing it isn't physically possible.
Pretty much the same in EVE. People fly around high sec, get ganked, then say "EVE has no protection". Yes, high sec EVE does have a LEVEL of protection. Last time someone tried to gank my (tanked) hauler and failed it was because CONCORD showed up before they could shoot at me more, where it not to CONCORD, I'd have lost a s ship and cargo.
|
March rabbit
No Name No Pain
614
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 15:41:00 -
[385] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Last time someone tried to gank my (tanked) hauler and failed it was because CONCORD showed up before they could shoot at me more, where it not to CONCORD, I'd have lost a s ship and cargo. i guess if there is no CONCORD you would not fly (tanked) hauler anyway. You would do hauling other way.
So this comparison is not so easy as you said.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1589
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 15:49:00 -
[386] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Last time someone tried to gank my (tanked) hauler and failed it was because CONCORD showed up before they could shoot at me more, where it not to CONCORD, I'd have lost a s ship and cargo. i guess if there is no CONCORD you would not fly (tanked) hauler anyway. You would do hauling other way. So this comparison is not so easy as you said.
What does that have to do with anything? I knw English isn't your 1st language, but what are you trying to say?
Outside of high sec is use transports or jump freighters because there is no or little automated protection. In high sec ("more" protected space) I can use regualr freighters , orcas and regular tanked haulers. So, because of the existence of CONCORD and it's "protection" I can haul stuff more easily.
|
March rabbit
No Name No Pain
614
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:04:00 -
[387] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:March rabbit wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Last time someone tried to gank my (tanked) hauler and failed it was because CONCORD showed up before they could shoot at me more, where it not to CONCORD, I'd have lost a s ship and cargo. i guess if there is no CONCORD you would not fly (tanked) hauler anyway. You would do hauling other way. So this comparison is not so easy as you said. What does that have to do with anything? I knw English isn't your 1st language, but what are you trying to say? Outside of high sec is use transports or jump freighters because there is no or little automated protection. In high sec ("more" protected space) I can use regualr freighters , orcas and regular tanked haulers. i said the same situations ARE DIFFERENT.
Check is details: 1) high-sec: you haul stuff in hauler -> you ganked -> CONCORD arrives -> you rescued 2) low/0.0/WH: you don't haul stuff in hauler -> ...?
Jenn aSide wrote:So, because of the existence of CONCORD and it's "protection" I can haul stuff more easily. this should be used instead of bold part of previous quote. And it's ok |
Lord Zim
2348
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:06:00 -
[388] - Quote
march rabbit no sense Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
March rabbit
No Name No Pain
614
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:11:00 -
[389] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:march rabbit no sense hello goony o/ |
baltec1
Bat Country
5858
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:19:00 -
[390] - Quote
Quote:
That's actually the best way to prove Concord is not a protector. Since nukes aren't known for their protection. Their known for their disastrous effect and everyone knows a nuke is made to destroy, not protect =).
No.
Both sides were stopped from attacking eachother because both sides would be vaporised. Nukes protected both states by deturing both sides from attacking. Thier destructive power ended up protecting the nations that had them. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |