| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tekutep
   |
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:02:00 -
[1]
I've read many times that if you do something to invoke CONCORD's wrath and them attempt to get away from them that it's a bannable offense. The most recent mention in this thread got me wondering about it.
Why is it a bannable offense? What I mean is, CCP, if it's so important that the person who commits an act that brings on CONCORD dies and that trying to get out of dying is so horribly bad, whynot just instantly destroy their ship without having to bring in enemy ships? Whynot just have the criminal's ship spontaneously explode?
You give the illusion that it IS acceptable to try and escape because on the surface it appears escape is possible (albeit unlikely). By giving a few seconds and having ships warp in and scramble, etc. it makes it seem as if you want them to have a chance.
My point is that it's very misleading to new players. Either just outright destroy their ship or don't ban them for trying to save their own life.
Thoughts?
|
Major Stormer
Caldari
MEK Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:06:00 -
[2]
a actual newbie actually avoiding CONCORD is as unlikey as a newbie actually having something interesting to say on game balance.
---
http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com |
FOl2TY8
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:07:00 -
[3]
If your ship automatically exploded you would not have the option to suicide gank. With concord you are able to attack someone but sacrifice your ship. This ensures that no one is 100% safe anywhere once they undock.
----------
This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |
Cat o'Ninetails
Rancer Defence League
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:07:00 -
[4]
Hi cat here
CONCORD exist because of immersion. Also, they respond differently in different security systems.
It is bannable because CCP said evasion is an exploit, published exploits are not allowed.
visit my blog for my adventures
|
Renarla
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:08:00 -
[5]
As a previous poster said, they exist because of immersion, it wouldn't be as fun if your ship just spontaneously blew up.
However, on another note, I now have one of those annoying sigs. |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:09:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Tippia on 20/05/2009 17:12:01
 Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails
It is bannable because CCP said evasion is an exploit, published exploits are not allowed.
While very much a begging the question kind of answer, this is essentially it: it's an exploit because CCP says it is. They tried not having it that way and didn't like what they saw, so now it is.
As for why it's not just an instant self-destruct, more or less what FOl2TY8 said. What you need to understand is that unsactioned attacks aren't prohibited — you just have to pay the price for them. If you avoid paying that price (losing your ship), it's much the same as if you were to buy stuff off the market and not have ISK deducted from your wallet.
———
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡…
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”
— Karath Piki |
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:10:00 -
[7]
CONCORD is there to exact punishment, not prevent PVP or provide protection. Thus, any circumvention of the punishment is going against game design even if it doesn't go against game mechanics.
The clause that any evasion is classified as an exploit is there to protect CCP against players finding new ways of doing it. CCP can't explicitly list in their TOS/EULA what you can and can't do, so consider this a 'catch all' filter.
|
Some Advisor
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:10:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Renarla
As a previous poster said, they exist because of immersion, it wouldn't be as fun if your ship just spontaneously blew up.
However, on another note, I now have one of those annoying sigs.
indeed...
to the second sentence :P
|
Kuno Hida
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:18:00 -
[9]
Since the only way to avoid concord is via exploit, enjoy your ban.
If you think its unfair that you have to comply to some rules set by the company you pay for a game...well you can always give me your stuff on the way out.
|
Vindictive Misanthrope
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:20:00 -
[10]
I don't think it's worth a ban. Should be kind of like faction navies.
They jump on you throughout highsec until they kill you. Wanted posters are instantly faxed to every corporation. Placing heavy fines on any corporation that allows you to dock. That whole aiding and abedding a criminal thing cops like to use to force you into talking.
(I'm not a highsec ganker. Usually have a smile on my face when I do get ganked. But then good beer has that effect on you.)
|
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:25:00 -
[11]
CONCORD is merely an instrument to rid you of your ship, it could just as easily be a sentry gun that exists in the middle of the system with infinite range and infinite damage.
CONCORD exist as ships simply for immersion purposes as others have said, also as different security statuses mean different delays, and whether CONCORD are already orbiting whatever you want to attack, etc is intended to (and does) make a difference to whether your action can succeed or not.
That they are ships doesn't change the fact that unlike normal ships they lock instantly (including drones), have ECM jamming strength that means they could never fail to jam, frigates packing heavy neuts, etc. It helps not to think of them as something you can fight or escape.
|
Jodphyre
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:27:00 -
[12]
As a relative newb (about 3 months old), I've never heard that CONCORD evasion is a bannable until now. It certainly seems possible that I could gank a small frigate in 0.5 sec space and get out before CONCORD destroys me (they respond slowly in 0.5, right?). Why would I know that I'm not permitted to try evasion? Would I have any warning before such a ban? From a game-play point-of-view, it seems like less of an exploit than can-flipping, which has been endorsed repeatedly by CCP, so why would I know before the ban-hammer hits?
|
Breaker77
Reclamation Industries
New Eden Research
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:32:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Jodphyre
From a game-play point-of-view, it seems like less of an exploit than can-flipping, which has been endorsed repeatedly by CCP,
Can flipping =/= Ganking
99.9% of can flippers want the person who owns the can to shoot them so they can blow up their ship.
However going around and blowing up hundreds of day old players repeatedly is not good for the pocketbook so there have to be some rules in effect in high-sec systems. One such rule is that is you attack anyone you are not a war with / in the same corp, your ship will be destroyed, no exceptions.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:39:00 -
[14]
So if I blew someone up then simply went through a gate I would be exploiting?
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Princess Jodi
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:39:00 -
[15]
A long time ago you could fight Concord. Then someone managed to tank Concord and sat at a station killing noobs all day long. Needless to say, the enjoyment of one idiot versus losing accounts of a hundred noob players was an easy decision for CCP.
So now its bannable. Good thing too. Think back to your first days in Eve and ask yourself if you'd still be playing now if you got ganked repeatedly every time you undocked.
|
Tallaran Kouros
Caldari
Arcane Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:39:00 -
[16]
CONCORD provide consequences, not protection.
It's a valid game mechanic to gank a freighter in highsec and earn enough from the loot drops to cover your losses and more.
Instapopping offending ships would break the mechanic and break the immersion.
So you can break the rules, but you have to accept the consequences.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:45:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Ghoest
So if I blew someone up then simply went through a gate I would be exploiting?
Yes, for several reasons. One being that you can't "simply go through the gate" at that point.
———
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡…
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”
— Karath Piki |
Darkerz Reloaded
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:47:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Ghoest
So if I blew someone up then simply went through a gate I would be exploiting?
aggro timer.
|
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:47:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Ghoest
So if I blew someone up then simply went through a gate I would be exploiting?
You wouldn't be able to jump for 60 seconds after you attacked someone so that wouldn't work, not to mention that gate sentry guns would attack you. 60 seconds is more than enough time for CONCORD to appear in any system and deal with you.
|
5pinDizzy
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:47:00 -
[20]
I've been playing for years and feel the same about it as you OP.
No matter all the same old excuses the regulars come up with, it's stupid that you have to literally sit on your hands and wait for concord to show up, because although although any likihood of evading them for very long is highly unlikely, the fact that you are threatened with a ban should you meet with any degree of success utterly bursts the bubble of the roleplaying criminal escaping from the cops.
It's CCP's facile way of dealing with their inferior coding abilities.
The illusion that you might've be able to escape but in actual fact you will always be killed instead would've been acceptable compromise. Just to give you something to do.
It's a linear thought train solely catering to the suicide gank crowd that would use all of their seconds blowing something up anyway.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:49:00 -
[21]
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
It's a linear thought train solely catering to the suicide gank crowd that would use all of their seconds blowing something up anyway.
If that's not what you intend to spend that time doing, why (and how) did you get CONCORD's attention?
———
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡…
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”
— Karath Piki |
Nooma K'Larr
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:54:00 -
[22]
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
I've been playing for years and feel the same about it as you OP.
No matter all the same old excuses the regulars come up with, it's stupid that you have to literally sit on your hands and wait for concord to show up, because although although any likihood of evading them for very long is highly unlikely, the fact that you are threatened with a ban should you meet with any degree of success utterly bursts the bubble of the roleplaying criminal escaping from the cops.
It's CCP's facile way of dealing with their inferior coding abilities.
The illusion that you might've be able to escape but in actual fact you will always be killed instead would've been acceptable compromise. Just to give you something to do.
It's a linear thought train solely catering to the suicide gank crowd that would use all of their seconds blowing something up anyway.
What he said.
|
5pinDizzy
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:56:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
It's a linear thought train solely catering to the suicide gank crowd that would use all of their seconds blowing something up anyway.
If that's not what you intend to spend that time doing, why (and how) did you get CONCORD's attention?
Let's pretend you accidently broke the law by hitting a neutral entity in a mission and grazed it's shields with a smartbomb or something and you realise before the cops come.
Your reward for cooperating and sitting patiently for their arrival is a blob of police enforcers to come and shoot you in the face.
If they at least confiscated your ship and you had to pay a hefty fine to get it back? meh.
People will probably perceive this like I made a mistake in a mission and I'm crying about it.
I just want to be able to immerse myself in a world and be able to do everything in my power with realistic consequences without worrying about whether some CCP up above decides to strike me with a lightning bolt.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:59:00 -
[24]
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
Let's pretend you accidently broke the law by hitting a neutral entity in a mission and grazed it's shields with a smartbomb or something and you realise before the cops come.
So don't. Turn the warning back on and heed it. You have ample opportunity not to trigger CONCORD and go through all that wait ( ) unless you really want to. Either way, there's nothing to complain about unless you want to do it just for the sake of complaining.
———
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡…
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”
— Karath Piki |
Armoured C
Gallente
Federation of Freedom Fighters
Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 18:01:00 -
[25]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
CONCORD is there to exact punishment, not prevent PVP or provide protection. Thus, any circumvention of the punishment is going against game design even if it doesn't go against game mechanics.
The clause that any evasion is classified as an exploit is there to protect CCP against players finding new ways of doing it. CCP can't explicitly list in their TOS/EULA what you can and can't do, so consider this a 'catch all' filter.
hit is on the head give this man a cookie
if you buy eve in a box from my game store i will give you isk (GAME , parkgate rotherham)
|
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 18:04:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Durzel on 20/05/2009 18:04:53
You're not "sitting on your hands" waiting for them to turn up though are you. Presumably if you've got murder in your heart you're spending that precious time ganking someone, therefore that time (and how much of it) all counts towards whether you can achieve your goal or not. That time delay in different security systems is what makes system security relevant in high-sec for pirates.
Making it possible to evade CONCORD, or have them turn up and make you pay a fine instead of omgwtfbbq'ing your ship is a buff to ganking that CCP clearly don't want to do.
Think of it this way too: CONCORD destroying your ship and imposing a 15-min GCC means that the rest of the people in whichever system you are preying on (assuming you're just ganking newbs undocking for the lulz) have a brief respite before they can expect to see you again. That, and rapidly diminishing security status, is the intended mechanic to stop people with deep wallets just being an ass for the sake of it and ganking everything they see.
I don't see how it's lazy programming to be honest, CONCORD as it exists currently and the associated penalities from invoking them (GCC, sec status loss, needing to repurchase and refit ship, etc) is pretty elegant when you think about it.
|
Benzaiten Reverse
Caldari
Shokei
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 18:30:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Benzaiten Reverse on 20/05/2009 18:34:21
Originally by: Durzel
Edited by: Durzel on 20/05/2009 18:04:53
You're not "sitting on your hands" waiting for them to turn up though are you. Presumably if you've got murder in your heart you're spending that precious time ganking someone, therefore that time (and how much of it) all counts towards whether you can achieve your goal or not. That time delay in different security systems is what makes system security relevant in high-sec for pirates.
Making it possible to evade CONCORD, or have them turn up and make you pay a fine instead of omgwtfbbq'ing your ship is a buff to ganking that CCP clearly don't want to do.
Think of it this way too: CONCORD destroying your ship and imposing a 15-min GCC means that the rest of the people in whichever system you are preying on (assuming you're just ganking newbs undocking for the lulz) have a brief respite before they can expect to see you again. That, and rapidly diminishing security status, is the intended mechanic to stop people with deep wallets just being an ass for the sake of it and ganking everything they see.
I don't see how it's lazy programming to be honest, CONCORD as it exists currently and the associated penalities from invoking them (GCC, sec status loss, needing to repurchase and refit ship, etc) is pretty elegant when you think about it.
Maybe, but its also forcing you to not use any aoe weapons (smartbomb for example would be nice way to loose those npc frigs orbiting you but now its not worth risk because some s**** **s could decloak near you just to get hit to bring concord apocalypse on your ship without any penalty for him or your friend in different corp get too close to get hit when missioning together)
Btw how about trying avoid concord just for feeling if you can do it and IF manage stay alive long enough for timer to disapear then selfdestruct your ship ? Still exploit ?
|
Khandara Seraphim
StarHunt
Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 18:38:00 -
[28]
I've always been of the opinion that the black ops exploit should be allowed
I mean, if you don't cyno at the EXACT proper moment concord scrambles you and you lose a billion isk. Sounds like a pretty decent risk/reward tradeoff to me
___________
Originally by: CCP Whisper
Boo hoo. Cry some more. |
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 18:44:00 -
[29]
Exactly the right moment? You only need to do it before concord arrives, with exactly the right moment you imply you can jump too early, which isnt possible (Well your target might survive).
And you can also just jumpbridge out a gang of stealthbombers.
|
Illectroculus Defined
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 19:02:00 -
[30]
OK so it's a bannable offense to evade concord after attacking someone, what about evading them while you still have a General Criminal flag.
I mean I'm curious as to how many safe spots you'd need to jump through before your timer reset to zero, you could set up a load of spots on a single vector so you don't have to realign and just skip down them in sequence.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |