Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Amun Khonsu
3-Prong Operational Resources The Fendahlian Collective
38
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 14:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
Why do we need CONCORD?
It is clear that CCP wants grossly inflated and ongoing rising prices on the market by permitting suicide gankers to come to high security to suicide gank players who make us ships at good prices.
EVE is not for the faint of heart to begin with, yet I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw an ad on my client talking about a newbie friendly EVE. Surely newbs wise up on just how newbie friendly EVE is when they get their covetor or transport ganked before they have a chance to figure out how to make isk in the game to replace it or have a chance to find the right corp or alliance to teach them the ropes. Even taught the ropes they will die jin the same spectacular fashion.
Hulkageddon is everyday now!
EVE did not always have CONCORD. CONCORD was put in place with the intention of created a secure zone for fledgling pilots to thrive until they got the nerve and know-how to spread their wings for greater reward elsewhere.
CCP has validated, if not acquiesced, the practice of subverting CONCORD to kill carebears and newbs.
Why have CONCORD? Why not just roll back to pre-CONCORD days and make everything CONCORD free?
That is my proposal.
Inflate prices to record highs (as they are now), kill everyone without interference, show the newcomers that they dont stand a chance and buy tons of plexes from, errm CCP, to replace your ships and modules.
Ban CONCORD from the game plz. Seriously.
Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
635
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 14:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ban Amun Khonsu from the game plz. Seriously.
Well if you don't like my post...then don't make ridiculous ideas.
EVE Online is newb friendly if your friendly to newbs.
Problem is...EVE Online is not WOW...or Hello Kitty Online.
Most people treat it like that.
Those people do not deserve to play this game. ================ STOP THE EVEMAIL-áSPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
|
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
152
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 14:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
No. |
Amun Khonsu
3-Prong Operational Resources The Fendahlian Collective
40
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 14:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:Ban Amun Khonsu from the game plz. Seriously.
Well if you don't like my post...then don't make ridiculous ideas.
EVE Online is newb friendly if your friendly to newbs.
Problem is...EVE Online is not WOW...or Hello Kitty Online.
Most people treat it like that.
Those people do not deserve to play this game.
Thanks for your reply.
Im serious. Do you support a removal of CONCORD or not?
I dont play WOW so i dont know about that, but everyone deserves to play the game of EVE Online. We were all newcomers at one time. Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
Koreli Stelios
Mining Manufacture and Muling
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 15:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
Amun Khonsu wrote:kill everyone without interference, show the newcomers that they dont stand a chance
Amun Khonsu wrote:I dont play WOW so i dont know about that, but everyone deserves to play the game of EVE Online. We were all newcomers at one time.
Am i missing something or are you going against your own idea? Haha |
Amun Khonsu
3-Prong Operational Resources The Fendahlian Collective
42
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 16:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
Koreli Stelios wrote:Amun Khonsu wrote:kill everyone without interference, show the newcomers that they dont stand a chance Amun Khonsu wrote:I dont play WOW so i dont know about that, but everyone deserves to play the game of EVE Online. We were all newcomers at one time. Am i missing something or are you going against your own idea? Haha
Well, actually I just want consistency. Why have CONCORD if it doesnt do what CCP originally intended by bringing it into the game? Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
mxzf
Shovel Bros
1709
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 16:10:00 -
[7] - Quote
Amun Khonsu wrote:Well, actually I just want consistency. Why have CONCORD if it doesnt do what CCP originally intended by bringing it into the game?
CONCORD does exactly what it's supposed to do. It's intended to provide consequences to any unprovoked aggression in highsec. It is not intended to make it impossible to attack players in highsec, it simply provides consequences if such an attack does happen.
So, no, I'm not supporting it at all. |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
637
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 16:10:00 -
[8] - Quote
@OP - No I do not support removal of CONCORD...what made you think I did? ================ STOP THE EVEMAIL-áSPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
|
Haulie Berry
148
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 16:34:00 -
[9] - Quote
Amun Khonsu wrote:
EVE did not always have CONCORD. CONCORD was put in place with the intention of created a secure zone for fledgling pilots to thrive until they got the nerve and know-how to spread their wings for greater reward elsewhere.
No, it wasn't.
Quote:
CCP has validated, if not acquiesced, the practice of subverting CONCORD to kill carebears and newbs.
How is Concord being "subverted", exactly? Do you even know what that word means?
Your whining has proceeded from a flawed premise. If CCP had wanted you to be safe from PvP in high security, they would have simply made it impossible to engage in PvP combat in high security. This could be done, trivially. Instead, they:
1. Intentionally opted to leave PvP combat as a permissible action in high security. 2. Intentionally implemented a system that only provides consequences - not prevention - in the form of concord. 3. Intentionally balanced that system so that its response time varies based on system security, which carries the obvious implication that it is not supposed to be wholly effective in PREVENTING PvP actions in high security.
These are all of the INTENTIONAL design decisions that went into Concord in lieu of simply rendering PvP impossible in high security. Ergo, nothing is being "subverted" - the system is working as intended. |
Koreli Stelios
Mining Manufacture and Muling
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 16:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Ah i see, but well no. the solution should not be remove concord if it were an issue rather fix it. However i don't believe it is the issue. It is the rules of engagement and severity of risk posed that needs some re thinking in order to allow Concord to work more effectively.
To surmise i believe what your saying is as like to say the police don't work when in fact it is the laws the govern and bind them that are the problem. |
|
Amun Khonsu
3-Prong Operational Resources The Fendahlian Collective
42
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 17:48:00 -
[11] - Quote
mxzf wrote:Amun Khonsu wrote:Well, actually I just want consistency. Why have CONCORD if it doesnt do what CCP originally intended by bringing it into the game? CONCORD does exactly what it's supposed to do. .
No it doesnt.
Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
Amun Khonsu
3-Prong Operational Resources The Fendahlian Collective
42
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 17:49:00 -
[12] - Quote
Koreli Stelios wrote:Ah i see, but well no. the solution should not be remove concord if it were an issue rather fix it. However i don't believe it is the issue. It is the rules of engagement and severity of risk posed that needs some re thinking in order to allow Concord to work more effectively.
To surmise i believe what your saying is as like to say the police don't work when in fact it is the laws the govern and bind them that are the problem.
Right, so the answer isnt removing the police but make it so they do their jobs the way intended? Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
Amun Khonsu
3-Prong Operational Resources The Fendahlian Collective
42
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 17:52:00 -
[13] - Quote
Haulie Berry wrote:Amun Khonsu wrote:
EVE did not always have CONCORD. CONCORD was put in place with the intention of created a secure zone for fledgling pilots to thrive until they got the nerve and know-how to spread their wings for greater reward elsewhere.
No, it wasn't. Quote:
CCP has validated, if not acquiesced, the practice of subverting CONCORD to kill carebears and newbs.
How is Concord being "subverted", exactly? Do you even know what that word means? Your whining has proceeded from a flawed premise. If CCP had wanted you to be safe from PvP in high security, they would have simply made it impossible to engage in PvP combat in high security. This could be done, trivially. Instead, they: 1. Intentionally opted to leave PvP combat as a permissible action in high security. 2. Intentionally implemented a system that only provides consequences - not prevention - in the form of concord. 3. Intentionally balanced that system so that its response time varies based on system security, which carries the obvious implication that it is not supposed to be wholly effective in PREVENTING PvP actions in high security. These are all of the INTENTIONAL design decisions that went into Concord in lieu of simply rendering PvP impossible in high security. Ergo, nothing is being "subverted" - the system is working as intended.
There is no whining here except by your post about me having the audacity of identifying a problem on the forums. You are so concerned that someone mentioned it that you had to post all of that in response. Stop emo raging and discuss it like an adult... enless ofc you are not an adult then I understand your post and the lack of intellectual discussion behind it.
The system does not work as intended any longer. It is infact broken. So, either fix it or roll it back. Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
153
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 18:00:00 -
[14] - Quote
Amun Khonsu wrote: There is no whining here except by your post about me having the audacity of identifying a problem on the forums. You are so concerned that someone mentioned it that you had to post all of that in response. Stop emo raging and discuss it like an adult... enless ofc you are not an adult then I understand your post and the lack of intellectual discussion behind it.
The system does not work as intended any longer. It is infact broken. So, either fix it or roll it back.
Its only your opinion that its a problem. You are seriously outvoted here. You haven't had one supportive comment, which should show you that your opinion is not appreciated. Please let this topic die so that more productive topics can be on the front page. As it stands your just pushing better topics which actually stand a chance of implementation off the Assembly hall first page.
|
Koreli Stelios
Mining Manufacture and Muling
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 18:06:00 -
[15] - Quote
Amun Khonsu wrote:Koreli Stelios wrote:Ah i see, but well no. the solution should not be remove concord if it were an issue rather fix it. However i don't believe it is the issue. It is the rules of engagement and severity of risk posed that needs some re thinking in order to allow Concord to work more effectively.
To surmise i believe what your saying is as like to say the police don't work when in fact it is the laws the govern and bind them that are the problem. Right, so the answer isnt removing the police but make it so they do their jobs the way intended?
Precisely :) |
Haulie Berry
151
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 18:06:00 -
[16] - Quote
Amun Khonsu wrote:
There is no whining here except by your post about me having the audacity of identifying a problem on the forums. You are so concerned that someone mentioned it that you had to post all of that in response. Stop emo raging and discuss it like an adult... enless ofc you are not an adult then I understand your post and the lack of intellectual discussion behind it.
The system does not work as intended any longer. It is infact broken. So, either fix it or roll it back.
Yes, actually, it does work as intended.
You seem to have conflated "It doesn't work the way I want it to" with "It doesn't work as intended".
It definitely doesn't work the way you want it to, and that is definitely the intention. |
Amun Khonsu
3-Prong Operational Resources The Fendahlian Collective
42
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 18:19:00 -
[17] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:Amun Khonsu wrote: There is no whining here except by your post about me having the audacity of identifying a problem on the forums. You are so concerned that someone mentioned it that you had to post all of that in response. Stop emo raging and discuss it like an adult... enless ofc you are not an adult then I understand your post and the lack of intellectual discussion behind it.
The system does not work as intended any longer. It is infact broken. So, either fix it or roll it back.
Its only your opinion that its a problem. You are seriously outvoted here. You haven't had one supportive comment, which should show you that your opinion is not appreciated. Please let this topic die so that more productive topics can be on the front page. As it stands your just pushing better topics which actually stand a chance of implementation off the Assembly hall first page.
There is no vote here. If you don't like the topic or can't add anything intelligent to it, go troll elsewhere Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
Amun Khonsu
3-Prong Operational Resources The Fendahlian Collective
42
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 18:22:00 -
[18] - Quote
Haulie Berry wrote:Amun Khonsu wrote:
There is no whining here except by your post about me having the audacity of identifying a problem on the forums.
You didn't identify a problem. You identified something you don't like. They are very different. Quote:
You are so concerned that someone mentioned it that you had to post all of that in response. Stop emo raging and discuss it like an adult... enless ofc you are not an adult then I understand your post and the lack of intellectual discussion behind it.
The system does not work as intended any longer. It is infact broken. So, either fix it or roll it back.
Yes, actually, it does work as intended. You seem to have conflated "It doesn't work the way I want it to" with "It doesn't work as intended", but those are two wholly separate things. It definitely doesn't work the way you want it to, and that is, quite demonstrably, the intention.
Heh, I don't live in high sec. It has nothing to do with how I want it to work. It is just an outdated mechanic.
So your assertions are entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
Haulie Berry
153
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 18:33:00 -
[19] - Quote
Amun Khonsu wrote:Haulie Berry wrote:Amun Khonsu wrote:
There is no whining here except by your post about me having the audacity of identifying a problem on the forums.
You didn't identify a problem. You identified something you don't like. They are very different. Quote:
You are so concerned that someone mentioned it that you had to post all of that in response. Stop emo raging and discuss it like an adult... enless ofc you are not an adult then I understand your post and the lack of intellectual discussion behind it.
The system does not work as intended any longer. It is infact broken. So, either fix it or roll it back.
Yes, actually, it does work as intended. You seem to have conflated "It doesn't work the way I want it to" with "It doesn't work as intended", but those are two wholly separate things. It definitely doesn't work the way you want it to, and that is, quite demonstrably, the intention. Heh, I don't live in high sec. It has nothing to do with how I want it to work. It is just an outdated mechanic. So your assertions are entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
Whether it directly impacts you or not, you clearly want it to work in a certain fashion and that is clearly in conflict with how it is intended to work.
That aside, you seem to really struggle with the fundamentals of logical reasoning.
You haven't, thus far, made any credible argument that it doesn't work as intended. All of your posts have proceeded from the faulty premise that Concord is intended to provide safety in High Security, when it is common knowledge that this is not its intent. |
Amun Khonsu
3-Prong Operational Resources The Fendahlian Collective
42
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 18:35:00 -
[20] - Quote
Haulie Berry wrote:Amun Khonsu wrote:Haulie Berry wrote:Amun Khonsu wrote:
There is no whining here except by your post about me having the audacity of identifying a problem on the forums.
You didn't identify a problem. You identified something you don't like. They are very different. Quote:
You are so concerned that someone mentioned it that you had to post all of that in response. Stop emo raging and discuss it like an adult... enless ofc you are not an adult then I understand your post and the lack of intellectual discussion behind it.
The system does not work as intended any longer. It is infact broken. So, either fix it or roll it back.
Yes, actually, it does work as intended. You seem to have conflated "It doesn't work the way I want it to" with "It doesn't work as intended", but those are two wholly separate things. It definitely doesn't work the way you want it to, and that is, quite demonstrably, the intention. Heh, I don't live in high sec. It has nothing to do with how I want it to work. It is just an outdated mechanic. So your assertions are entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Whether it directly impacts you or not, you clearly want it to work in a certain fashion and that is clearly in conflict with how it is intended to work. That aside, you seem to really struggle with the fundamentals of logical reasoning.
One wonders your iq then if you have problems understanding whatever logic you think is being applied to a suggestion.
If you don't like it, post elsewhere. Nothing making you read this thread Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
|
Haulie Berry
153
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 18:37:00 -
[21] - Quote
Amun Khonsu wrote:
If you don't like it, post elsewhere. Nothing making you read this thread except that you are failing to troll
One of the fundamental problems with posting in public forums: People who don't agree with your infantile whinging get to tell you you're wrong. Learn to cope. |
Amun Khonsu
3-Prong Operational Resources The Fendahlian Collective
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 18:40:00 -
[22] - Quote
Haulie Berry wrote:Amun Khonsu wrote:
If you don't like it, post elsewhere. Nothing making you read this thread except that you are failing to troll
One of the fundamental problems with posting in public forums: People who don't agree with your infantile whinging get to tell you you're wrong. Learn to cope.
You are the only one whinging like a fail troll.. Ty for keeping the topic alive Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
Haulie Berry
153
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 18:43:00 -
[23] - Quote
Amun Khonsu wrote:Haulie Berry wrote:Amun Khonsu wrote:
If you don't like it, post elsewhere. Nothing making you read this thread except that you are failing to troll
One of the fundamental problems with posting in public forums: People who don't agree with your infantile whinging get to tell you you're wrong. Learn to cope. You are the only one whinging like a fail troll.. Ty for keeping the topic alive
I pointed out several intentional game design decisions that were made, demonstration the intent of concord. You refuted none of it.
I'm just going to assume from here on out that you're a very young child and treat you as such. *ahem*
"There, there. It's all going to be okay. Have a sucker." |
Amun Khonsu
3-Prong Operational Resources The Fendahlian Collective
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 18:47:00 -
[24] - Quote
You gave no such evidence. I didn't ask for it anyway. Either you agree with the proposal or not. That's all I asked for.
As for your trolling, get a life and move to another topic Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
Haulie Berry
155
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 18:53:00 -
[25] - Quote
Amun Khonsu wrote:You gave no such evidence. I didn't ask for it anyway. Either you agree with the proposal or not. That's all I asked for.
Nobody really cares what you ask for.
Quote:As for your trolling, get a life and move to another topic if you can add something constructive
Nope.
Again:
If CCP had wanted you to be safe from PvP in high security, they would have simply made it impossible to engage in PvP combat in high security. This could be done, trivially. Instead, they:
1. Intentionally opted to leave PvP combat as a permissible action in high security. 2. Intentionally implemented a system that only provides consequences - not prevention - in the form of concord. 3. Intentionally balanced that system so that its response time varies based on system security, which carries the obvious implication that it is not supposed to be wholly effective in PREVENTING PvP actions in high security.
Oh, and...
4. Intentionally adjusted the system since then, particularly with respect to insurance payouts, to moderate the risk/reward ratio.
Are any of the above untrue? If so, how are they untrue? If not, why do you continue to believe that the "intention" of Concord is to render High Sec safe? |
Nariya Kentaya
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
197
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 18:58:00 -
[26] - Quote
Amun Khonsu wrote:You gave no such evidence. I didn't ask for it anyway. Either you agree with the proposal or not. That's all I asked for.
As for your trolling, get a life and move to another topic if you can add something constructive they HAVE been adding soemthing constructive, they ahve been BUILDING A COUNTER ARGUEMENT to your proposal, while all you've done is whine and complain about people not agreeing with you.
so far ive seen your one sentence of an opinion supporting this topic, and about 8 paragraphs of irrefutable evidence pointing out that your opinion is based on a faulty perspective of intended game mechanics. |
Amun Khonsu
3-Prong Operational Resources The Fendahlian Collective
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 19:03:00 -
[27] - Quote
Nariya Kentaya wrote:Amun Khonsu wrote:You gave no such evidence. I didn't ask for it anyway. Either you agree with the proposal or not. That's all I asked for.
As for your trolling, get a life and move to another topic if you can add something constructive they HAVE been adding soemthing constructive, they ahve been BUILDING A COUNTER ARGUEMENT to your proposal, while all you've done is whine and complain about people not agreeing with you. so far ive seen your one sentence of an opinion supporting this topic, and about 8 paragraphs of irrefutable evidence pointing out that your opinion is based on a faulty perspective of intended game mechanics.
Wrong Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
Kameri Velith
Big Johnson's Ascendance.
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 19:14:00 -
[28] - Quote
Deliberately not taking sides here, perhaps the OP can explain to me HOW concord is not fulfilling its intended function? |
Amun Khonsu
3-Prong Operational Resources The Fendahlian Collective
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 20:23:00 -
[29] - Quote
Simply put, with relatively cheap ships in the highest security system players can be suicide ganked. Though I have no issue with they practice in theory, I foresee that this growing trend and it's ease and widespread existence will ultimately harm the game whe new or intermediate players are concerned.
These players are those who will become tomorrows well established players if they see a game they benefit from and enjoy.
Ofc, if there is no expectation by newcomers that there is secure space there is no harm done. However, since we have high security systems with a force like concord to intervene on behalf of the unwitting victim, there needs to be a level of security beyond getting your new hauler or covetor suicide ganked by a destroyer in high sec with relative ease. I've seen eve over many years now and the trend is rampant and with much greater ease today than it was just a couple years ago.
Something needs to change.
Outlawing suicide tanking kills a valid dynamic. So, what needs to happen is to either fix this or just make all of high sec like low sec.... No concord, so that there is no expectation of security at all.
New players are unforgiving when they subscribe to pay for a game and they immediately are suicide tanked with such ease in high sec systems whe they (naively I'm sure) believe they can learn the game and make a small amount of iskenderun safely. Eventually in the long term fewer ppl will be first time subscribers. Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
Nariya Kentaya
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
197
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 20:45:00 -
[30] - Quote
Amun Khonsu wrote: Outlawing suicide tanking kills a valid dynamic. .
if we outlaw suicide TANKING, more hulks might fit some extenders adn survive a gank or two, wouldnt want to destroy teh ganking dynamic, now would we? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |