be careful here.
because you just hurt miner gankers and all those 'miners HAVE TO FIT TANKS' crowd.
and all those "reduce high-sec income because it is too safe there"
and all those .....

i don't buy this.

because when people are happy no one will whine in forums. And miner gankers tears fill the forums every patch or even more often. Sometime i even can't find ganked miners tears

while we are here: it was cool to see someone with mark like "TEAR ... extraction service" who whined a lot.... Not sure if their group extracts tears from other people. Or their name is like "potato farm" - they extract tears from their own members

In a civilized nation, you can spend billions buying parks, sponsoring education for less fortunate, etc. Get drunk and hit someone in your car and you'll be crucified for it no matter how many people you've saved and improved the lives for.

As such, if EVE's environment were based upon civilized nations, you couldn't "rat your sec status back" after ganking someone and even in "the bad part of town" (lowsec), the cops would swing by on occasion looking to nail the criminals. Only nullsec - outside of *ALL* jurisdiction, would such "freedom" exist.

Wear a helmet.

That's also proving how Concord ends up as a biproduct helping criminals become better at their job. Weeds out the weaklings.

The victims still die. The criminals get smarter.

Who loses more? The victim.

"Protection".

Ha.

You mean when cops used to walk around with just billy clubs and used horses to go posse up and chase the horse wranglers? Oh wait, different time and place, got it =P.

Tell me baltec1, if Concord "protects" why do you still gank freighters? How is the freighter protected?

So you target the freighters that would have enough cargo to accommodate your losses and bring a profit and seem to be alone or on AP right?

Is that to say all freighter pilots should escort freighters with an alt using noob ships and spawning concord everywhere they go? Would that help your progress, hinder it, or not factor at all? I'm guessing it would put an end to trying for that specific target. Because it would take a player to use a mechanic differently to make Concord protect, as oppose to just punish.

Secret for a secret I suppose =P.

Then you should take that up with James315. He is the one advocating it and has in fact incurred over 100bil in miner wrecks in under a month.

I don't however see it as an abuse of mechanics if you do die however. It's still working as it should.

Go read his blog and find out. He touches on Concord spawning quite specifically, not to throw him under the bus. But if it is indeed bannable, I'd like to know.

Unless you spawn a concord far enough away where they are off grid but not out of system. Go read his blog. His formula and timers are there. It's all explained.

http://www.minerbumping.com/p/blog-page.html

Well, I'd reread it, since it specifically says spawning concord.

http://www.minerbumping.com/2012/12/ganking-101-concord-manipulation.html

Explicitly mentions spawning Concord per ship used to gank with.

That same mechanic (if it's not bannable right?) would, or could be used for the same method of protection.

So using Concord for protection is bannable? Just to be clear.


I find it odd that concord, being used for protection, is cause for a ban if you use it for protection. Yet manipulating their response times is not. Kind of shows that they are not for protection, but retribution.

Thanks.

That's not what I asked =(


I'd rather know from the people who are experts on the matter =)

Wait, calling out?

You said you are the experts on the mechanic. I'm asking those experts a question, to make sure I have it right.

You either are or you aren't. Make up your damned mind.

It's simple... is using Concord for protection a bannable offense, yes or no? It's pretty ******* pertinent to this topic ffs.

So it's not highsec right?

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.

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.

Are you trying to imply that they are not a chocolate vendor?

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 =).

Much like a hammer, used to bash things, can be used to screw something in. But not what it's intended for.

And a hammer is not defined by it's ability to turn a screw. But you CAN use it for that use. Even though a screwdriver would be far more efficient.

Such as Concord and any implication of protection.

So again, Concord is not a Protector. It's a concept in relation to risk versus reward in regards to following highsec's rules.

So when did Concord ever shield or rep or help any one pilot? Never. They blow up the aggressor. They don't care about the victim.

Again, shoot an aseteroid in highsec tell me what happens.

Just ask a direct question. Don't assume.

I'm saying Concord does not protect. It punishes. My choices in cargo provide a better deterrent to would be gankers than Concord does.

Same holds true WITH Concord notso?

Everyone but 1 you mean.

i have to hand it to him, he might be a complete moron but he's also brilliant troll.

Where did Concord do any of that.

I need proof that Concord has protected versus avenged, yes.

See Concord never does anything for me.