EVE Search - Why Is Evading CONCORD Bannable?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why Is Evading CONCORD Bannable?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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.

Tippia Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.05.20 19:05:00 - [31] Originally by: Illectroculus Defined 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. It's very simple: anything that causes you not to lose your ship as a result of an unsanctioned attack counts as an exploit. ——— “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
Audri Fisher Caldari VentureCorp Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.05.20 19:09:00 - [32] 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. Concord doesn't provide any real punishment though. I looked up the insurance company about a year and a half ago. They area division of concord. Next time I rob a liquere store, I should be be paid to go to jail.
Faife Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.	Posted - 2009.05.20 19:19:00 - [33] "why is evading CONCORD bannable?" because CONCORD is a game mechanic and not an in-game entity hth. --
alle OfEVE	Posted - 2009.05.20 19:37:00 - [34] Yeah... this exploit definition made the blackops even crappier, and i still want to gank someone and jump out with a highsec wormhole... just to see if "Using a wormhole to escape CONCORD" is an exploit too.
Tippia Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.05.20 19:42:00 - [35] Originally by: alle OfEVE Yeah... this exploit definition made the blackops even crappier, and i still want to gank someone and jump out with a highsec wormhole... just to see if "Using a wormhole to escape CONCORD" is an exploit too. Of course it is. Again: anything that causes you not to lose your ship as a result of an unsanctioned attack counts as an exploit. ——— “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
Jobby Minmatar UNITED STAR SYNDICATE	Posted - 2009.05.20 21:01:00 - [36] I saw a Concord over the weekend in New York.
Jodphyre	Posted - 2009.05.20 21:28:00 - [37] I don't think anyone has yet addressed my question: how is a player supposed to know that evading CONCORD is bannable?
Cat o'Ninetails Rancer Defence League	Posted - 2009.05.20 21:40:00 - [38] Originally by: Jodphyre I don't think anyone has yet addressed my question: how is a player supposed to know that evading CONCORD is bannable? From this page that says so. visit my blog for my adventures
Jodphyre	Posted - 2009.05.20 21:56:00 - [39] Edited by: Jodphyre on 20/05/2009 21:56:39 Thanks for the link. But as a newb, why would I have read that page? I'm sure the fact that evasion is bannable is probably all over the web, if you are looking for that inforamtion. But if performing a reasonable-seeming action like avoiding ship destruction is bannable, shouldn't there be something more substantial than a random web-page to warn new players?
Tippia Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.05.20 21:59:00 - [40] Originally by: Jodphyre Thanks for the link. But as a newb, why would I have read that page? […] shouldn't there be something more substantial than a random web-page to warn new players? It's the official documentation, not some "random web page", that's why. In addition, the question is academic — by the time you'd have any chance of knowing enough mechanics to attempt an escape, and enough skills to do so, you'd know that tidbit anyway. ——— “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

Cat o'Ninetails Rancer Defence League	Posted - 2009.05.20 21:59:00 - [41] Originally by: Jodphyre Edited by: Jodphyre on 20/05/2009 21:56:39 Thanks for the link. But as a newb, why would I have read that page? CCP can't read you the manual as a bed time story lol visit my blog for my adventures
Tvaishk Suzuki Long Night Industries	Posted - 2009.05.20 22:19:00 - [42] Originally by: Jodphyre I don't think anyone has yet addressed my question: how is a player supposed to know that evading CONCORD is bannable? Put it this way the effort you need to put into evading CONCORD is so much that you will inevitably run across the fact it is an exploit in your bid to find a way. --- Lieutenant, Mixed Metaphor Appliance Man
Illectroculus Defined	Posted - 2009.05.20 22:27:00 - [43] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Illectroculus Defined 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. It's very simple: anything that causes you not to lose your ship as a result of an unsanctioned attack counts as an exploit. That doesn't answer my question since after losing your ship to concord you're still flagged for 15 minutes 1) trigger concord 2) lose ship, end up in pod 3) dock at station, get noob ship 4) Launch with Global Criminal Flag Can you evade concord in your new noobship, having lost your previous one to the strong arm of the law.
Jodphyre	Posted - 2009.05.20 22:40:00 - [44] As far as I can find it, the info only exists in the Global Criminal Countdown article of the Knowledge Base, and the Aggression Timer article of the Evelopedia. Despite the fact that those are official documentation pages, that's still a pretty random place to hide a bannable action. I try to avoid ticking off CONCORD, so I don't think I have to worry about it anyway, but I have to wonder if there are other hidden offences (I mean offences that seem like reasonable actions) that will call forth the ban hammer. Am I expected to read the entire knowledge base to find out?
Adeline Grey	Posted - 2009.05.20 22:44:00 - [45] 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. This.
nahtoh Caldari Vanguard Frontiers Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2009.05.20 22:52:00 - [46] Originally by: Jodphyre I don't think anyone has yet addressed my question: how is a player supposed to know that evading CONCORD is bannable? You would need to evade them first that would be harder then finding out its a expliot... ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self
nahtoh Caldari Vanguard Frontiers Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2009.05.20 22:55:00 - [47] Originally by: Illectroculus Defined Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Illectroculus Defined 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. It's very simple: anything that causes you not to lose your ship as a result of an unsanctioned attack counts as an exploit. That doesn't answer my question since after losing your ship to concord you're still flagged for 15 minutes 1) trigger concord 2) lose ship, end up in pod 3) dock at station, get noob ship 4) Launch with Global Criminal Flag Can you evade concord in your new noobship, having lost your previous one to the strong arm of the law. But you already lost the ship...so i doubt that would be a exploit, but good luck getting away in a noob ship... Intresting question though... ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self
WTFAMILOOKINGAT	Posted - 2009.05.20 23:24:00 - [48] Weren't you able to get away from Concord when EvE was first released? What happned to that, what made it change?
Washell Olivaw	Posted - 2009.05.20 23:28:00 - [49] Originally by: Jodphyre I try to avoid ticking off CONCORD, so I don't think I have to worry about it anyway, but I have to wonder if there are other hidden offences (I mean offences that seem like reasonable actions) that will call forth the ban hammer. Am I expected to read the entire knowledge base to find out? In spite of the lack of direct interest in avoiding Concord, you still managed to learn that avoiding them is an exploit. It's also often asked/mentioned in the help channel so it does get around. Second, while it may seem a reasonable action, all the obvious options of evading Concord have long been boarded up by CCP. In order to evade them these days you will need to do an indepth study of concord, timers and other game mechanics. Making it impossible to not learn of the exploit status. Third, people like to call it a bannable offense but technically it's an exploit. If you evade concord, or do another exploit which seems a reasonable action to you, odds are you'll be reported. Barring heavy use of said exploit you're more likely to receive a warning or a temp ban rather than being permanently banned on a first offence. Originally by: Signature Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey	Posted - 2009.05.20 23:31:00 - [50] What you suggest is very practical, and I assume doable from a technical point of view .. but .. Giving CONCORD such in-explicable technology would through off a number of things. Such technology would beg an explanation, given CONCORD is made up of empire factions - how does CONCORD get such technology when the empire factions don't? Worse, how does empire get such technology when the Sleepers and the Jove don't? Some who play this game enjoy the almost believable reality, a consistent back story and etc. So making CONCORD go through the motions of doing damage to an aggressor not only contributes to a belief in the reality of EVE as a virtual place, but it is also in-line with the backstory.

Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.05.20 23:46:00 - [51] Edited by: Blane Xero on 20/05/2009 23:48:07 Edited by: Blane Xero on 20/05/2009 23:47:46 Watch This. Also sorry about the choice of host site, but the one on youtube has been blocked to the UK [WHAT THE ****] For a bit of backround; Zombies were a group who smartbombed one of the "Old" trading hubs (Yulai) which is also CONCORDS HQ System. They used RR gangs to keep the smartbomb ship alive. ___________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008 ^Third Times a Charm^
Drakoulia Caldari The Night Corporation	Posted - 2009.05.20 23:52:00 - [52] Wormholes are an easy way to evade concord, without studing mechanics. Might even try undocking with gcc(after exploding) and going to one to see if I can make it. --- Originally by: The Mittani Don't touch that! Don't open the refrigerator! The spy is in the refrigerator!
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.05.20 23:54:00 - [53] Originally by: Drakoulia Wormholes are an easy way to evade concord. Please. Do your research and realise wormholes give you a big ass NO when you try jumping through with concord on your ass ___________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008 ^Third Times a Charm^
Banana Torres The Green Banana Corporation	Posted - 2009.05.21 00:47:00 - [54] Originally by: WTFAMILOOKINGAT Weren't you able to get away from Concord when EvE was first released? What happned to that, what made it change? MOo and Zombies. Some players need the boundaries of what they can and cannot do set by the game mechanics. Most people would not gank newbies in newbie systems. But there are some people who get their kicks from doing just that. So as time has gone on the rules about what is allowed in high sec has become more restrictive.
Tippia Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.05.21 07:16:00 - [55] Originally by: Illectroculus Defined 1) trigger concord 2) lose ship, end up in pod 3) dock at station, get noob ship 4) Launch with Global Criminal Flag 5) Instapop from sentry guns. 6) Dock back up. 7) Wait for GCC to end. 8) Undock in noobship. 9) Instapop from sentry guns… ——— “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
Reven Cordelle Caldari Yamainu-Mirai Heavy Industries	Posted - 2009.05.21 08:15:00 - [56] To keep the fear, and let people know when something bad has gone down due to a cloud of CONCORD ships. For Cat, who said it was for immersion. Immersion? Haha - EVE is the most unimmersive space game I've ever played. Mainly because the user input is substantially minimal 90% of the time. I personally think it should be hard, but not impossible to escape CONCORD - at least then you could have true pirates messing with the police... instead, you do something wrong - you're jammed and instapopped. Usually before your client can even register what happens. Cheap, tacky and incredibly boring.
Ptarmigent Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.21 09:59:00 - [57] I think it'd add a new and exciting dynamic if the Concord reponse was dynamically proportional, with an microscopic chance of not being applied at all. For example, If I was to attack a -4.9 security player in a 0.5 system, It'd be awesome if Concord either didn't bother to show, or just arrived after a long delay and just disable your ship without destroying it, just to keep the peace, so to speak! I honestly believe it would closer the the Sandbox idea, after-all; not every crime in real-life is punished or indeed caught, and anyone who believes that police response isn't biased on the type of person the crime is committed against, is a touch deluded I understand and applaud the idea of keeping rookies safe, but EVEs biggest strength is its mature system of risk vs. reward! When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Suey Syder Alpha Lima Tango INC.	Posted - 2009.05.21 10:15:00 - [58] Edited by: Suey Syder on 21/05/2009 10:15:40 Originally by: Blane Xero Please. Do your research and realise wormholes give you a big ass NO when you try jumping through with concord on your ass So wormholes are sentient enough to decline someone with a gcc in hisec? Kinda like pulsars having moral objections to eating animals or supernovae frowning on spouse abuse.
CommmanderInChief Comply Or Die	Posted - 2009.05.21 11:53:00 - [59] Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails 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. CCP fix the damn mechanics then!! Jeezz banable offence wtf...
Some Advisor	Posted - 2009.05.21 12:53:00 - [60] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Illectroculus Defined 1) trigger concord 2) lose ship, end up in pod 3) dock at station, get noob ship 4) Launch with Global Criminal Flag 5) Instapop from sentry guns. 6) Dock back up. 7) Wait for GCC to end. 8) Undock in noobship. 9) Instapop from sentry gunsà ehehehehehehehe :P

Reangorette Bianie	Posted - 2009.05.21 14:11:00 - [61] The story goes that back in the early days even before gate guns a bunch of players decided to decend on Yulai (which was then what Jita is today -- another interesting story) and blow up the station. The devs hearing of this got into their ships to teach them a lesson. End result, players 1 devs 0. The created such havoc that the server was down quite a while to fix the damage. So every time I hear about one of these "why is it bannable" things I think of this story and what it might be like if there wasn't a definite way to stop the inventiveness of players from evading game mechanics.
Hariya	Posted - 2009.05.21 18:53:00 - [62] Seriously, they should give Concord the same ai that the sleepers have, and tune their ships majorly down. Let anyone actually try to fight them. With some luck, you might get away with a crime. Or then again, lose your properly fitted (as opposed to what people use for suicide ganking) ship when you got bad luck. Risk vs reward, and more realistic. Forbid the nasty people from docking and have them run for their lives for the next 15 minutes could be excellent
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.05.21 18:54:00 - [63] Originally by: Suey Syder Edited by: Suey Syder on 21/05/2009 10:15:40 Originally by: Blane Xero Please. Do your research and realise wormholes give you a big ass NO when you try jumping through with concord on your ass So wormholes are sentient enough to decline someone with a gcc in hisec? Kinda like pulsars having moral objections to eating animals or supernovae frowning on spouse abuse. I dunno the specifics but if concord is hunting you, you cannot activate a wormhole. Try it on SiSi, much less expensive there. ___________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Another Forum'Alt Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.05.21 19:01:00 - [64] CONCORD exist to give differences in sec status. Also for RPers but nobody cares about them. BECAUSE OF FALCON. Guide to forum posting
Killer Gandry Caldari Red Horizon Inc	Posted - 2009.05.21 20:31:00 - [65] Cause the owner of the game says it is.
irion felpamy Minmatar HellJumpers Corp	Posted - 2009.05.22 10:40:00 - [66] Originally by: Eventy One What you suggest is very practical, and I assume doable from a technical point of view .. but .. Giving CONCORD such in-explicable technology would through off a number of things. Such technology would beg an explanation, given CONCORD is made up of empire factions - how does CONCORD get such technology when the empire factions don't? Worse, how does empire get such technology when the Sleepers and the Jove don't? Some who play this game enjoy the almost believable reality, a consistent back story and etc. So making CONCORD go through the motions of doing damage to an aggressor not only contributes to a belief in the reality of EVE as a virtual place, but it is also in-line with the backstory. Is this a troll or did you really not read the background for concord then make a post on how it is nonsense?
Tekutep	Posted - 2009.05.22 15:06:00 - [67] Personally, I don't have a problem with CONCORD being inescapable. I don't mind knowing that it's an absolute certainty I will lose my ship if I perform a criminal action in highsec. Banning me from the game because I actually tried, though, is an ill-conceived notion. "Special note: Evading Concord's wrath is an exploit." is the stated policy in a helpfile outside the game. Not the most easily found, but ok. "Scenario: You accidentally fire on a player and CONCORD takes out your ship. You dock in your pod, change ships and head out to collect your items in the cargo container. As soon as you undock, a CONCORD ship kills you again...." Based on the way it's written, then wouldn't docking up to avoid losing another ship also be technically avoiding their wrath, and thus be a bannable offense? It almost sounds like the very example they're recommending would technically get you banned.
Tippia Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.05.22 15:35:00 - [68] Originally by: Tekutep Banning me from the game because I actually tried, though, is an ill-conceived notion. Trying won't get you banned. Succeeding will… ——— “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
Malloway PAIN AND PLEASURE LLC	Posted - 2009.05.22 19:28:00 - [69] I have to agree with the OP. Having the CONCORD delay increase in time with lower security systems (0.6, 0.5) gives players the illusion and temptation to try to escape them. I know everyone says its all about immersion, and I respect that, but in real life if someone walks into the Administrative Maximum Facility and shoots a prisoner, they still have a very very VERY small chance to escape right? Also from what I've heard, the only thing that can "out run" CONCORD is either a speed fitted 'cpter or a shuttle. Considering neither ships do that much damage, if any at all, that makes it impossible to actually do harm to another and get away with it. I'm placing my 2 cents on the side of the OP. If you actually do get away from CONCORD you shouldn't get baned ... and huge props to anyone who successfully does.
Tippia Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.05.22 19:32:00 - [70] Originally by: Malloway Having the CONCORD delay increase in time with lower security systems (0.6, 0.5) gives players the illusion and temptation to try to escape them. Not really, no, unless you are completely unfamiliar with the GCC mechanics (in which case you'll learn after the first attempt). The delay is there for a reason: to allow for suicide ganks. Immersion isn't really a consideration. ——— “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

Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.05.22 19:33:00 - [71] Edited by: Blane Xero on 22/05/2009 19:33:08 ^^ no, it just says "You can try and run, but you wont, and if you somehow do through some small miracle, you will be banned" There is no way to escape death from concord. You cannot tank them. You cannot outrun them. You cannot jump out using a blackops. You cannot jump out using wormholes/gates. CONCORD will punish you for wrongdoing, but they wont stop you from doing wrong. Thats the point. Suicide ganking needs to stay feasable, and delays make this possible. Instant "Break the law you go boom" not only makes no sense RP wise, but stops suicide ganking completely. ___________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.