EVE Search - Sticky:A Message Regarding "Hyperdunking"

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Sticky:A Message Regarding "Hyperdunking"

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 15980	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:03:32 - [1] - Quote CCP Falcon wrote: Since the introduction of the Bowhead freighter, weGÇÖve become aware of a tactic that has been introduced which has become known as GÇ£HyperdunkingGÇ¥. This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target. ThereGÇÖs been much discussion among members of the community regarding this tactic, and whether or not it is considered legitimate gameplay. After meeting with members of the game design and customer support teams and discussing this in depth, we have come to the consensus that due to the fact no rules are being broken and any ship that is involved in a criminal act is being destroyed by CONCORD as intended, that this tactic is simply an unintended but legitimate use of new game mechanics, and is not in breach of the rules. Tactics similar to this have been used with previous hulls before the Bowhead was introduced, and have been considered perfectly legitimate in the past. With this in mind, at this time we do not consider this tactic to be in breach of the game rules, and as such our customer support team will not be offering reimbursements for hulls lost in this manner. Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage. Thank you for transparently communicating this decision, and thank you again for keeping the faith. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 15985	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:14:07 - [2] - Quote Crumplecorn wrote: An announcment of CCP not ******* up, and olympic grade mental gymnastics from carebears, all in one thread. I approve. In my day, we used to call this toasting in an epic bread. In this case, the bread in question would presumably be sourdough? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 15985	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:21:33 - [3] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Tippia wrote: They are. Chucking as many Catalysts at a target as needed to kill it is vastly more effort than is required of the target. This is the worrying trend in ganking: gankers are forced to put more and more and more effort in, and the feebleminded whiners are never satisfied and refuse to put even the slightest bit* of effort in themselves*. That is frankly pathetic, as is any claim that ganking takes no effort. The gankers are working their asses off to think up new strategies and perfecting them. The hapless victims just cry. Why can't the victims put even an ounce of effort GÇö bloody or not GÇö in towards preventing these trivially avoidable events? You have a warped sense of what constitutes effort. You seem to be under the impression that a freighter should need to fly with an armada to defend it while a bumper, and orca and a handful of catalysts is enough to gank almost any ship regardless of how much tank is fit. Honestly I'm done with listening to layer like you crying to no end about how nothing should ever be changed to make your lives harder while everyone else should need to put in more effort, then more effort, then even more effort, just to not die. Gankers are by far the most carebear types of players in the whole game. They don't want effort, they don't want risk, and they demand the game is always changing in favour of their playstyle. What was the last thing that CCP changed to make Freighter piloting harder? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 15991	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:09:23 - [4] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Malcanis wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Tippia wrote: They are. Chucking as many Catalysts at a target as needed to kill it is vastly more effort than is required of the target. This is the worrying trend in ganking: gankers are forced to put more and more and more effort in, and the feebleminded whiners are never satisfied and refuse to put even the slightest bit* of effort in themselves*. That is frankly pathetic, as is any claim that ganking takes no effort. The gankers are working their asses off to think up new strategies and perfecting them. The hapless victims just cry. Why can't the victims put even an ounce of effort GÇö bloody or not GÇö in towards preventing these trivially avoidable events? You have a warped sense of what constitutes effort. You seem to be under the impression that a freighter should need to fly with an armada to defend it while a bumper, and orca and a handful of catalysts is enough to gank almost any ship regardless of how much tank is fit. Honestly I'm done with listening to layer like you crying to no end about how nothing should ever be changed to make your lives harder while everyone else should need to put in more effort, then more effort, then even more effort, just to not die. Gankers are by far the most carebear types of players in the whole game. They don't want effort, they don't want risk, and they demand the game is always changing in favour of their playstyle. What was the last thing that CCP changed to make Freighter piloting harder? I would have thought as an EX-CSM member you'd have an eye for detail. Maybe that's why it's EX-. I didn't claim they made freighter piloting harder, though the warp changes made it as entertaining as playing pong without a paddle to fly a freighter any significant distances. You did say "and they [gankers] demand the game is always changing in favour of their playstyle" What was the last such change? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 15994	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:20:23 - [5] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: I think it's still a thing we'll be monitoring. People are completely correct when they mention this is a game where suicide ganking and non-consentual PvP has been given the thumbs up by developers. That being said, we would still like to see a nice balance between effort and intelligence required on both sides of the coin. Making ganking too easy is not our goal, nor is it the other way around. Where that balance lies, and if hyperdunking has crossed some line, we'll have to see. There are things we can change if needed. "Hyperdunking" is almost trivially easy to disrupt compared to the standard method. The issue here is the same as it has always been: the AFK or near-AFK hauling demographic furiously defending its right to haul AFK/solo unmolested "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 15998	Posted - 2015.01.28 08:50:24 - [6] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: So, another reason for industrial ships to get proper fitting allowances and slots, comparative to other combat ships of their size. So they can actually choose to fit a tank if they desire (Or not as they desire also and plenty will not). But hey, gotta keep weak targets out there for people to kill and feel good about themselves. What are you going on about? Most industrial ships, certainly the T2s, can fit a significant tank - tanked Skiffs are insanely tough, and the bump-resistant DSTs can be made almost ungankable in highsec with freighter level EHPs. Freighters are capital ships that are vulnerable to bumping, like all capital ships aren't meant to be flown solo. Just bring some combat ships to protect them, or use one of the other techniques to skirt around the gankers. This is a game about trade-offs - you can't be tanked to the point of 100% safety and be able to haul 1M cubic meters of cargo all the time AFK. CCP has given you a whole range of ships, modules, tools and information to allow you to trivially avoid most gankers. Spend just a little effort learning and using them, and you won't feel like a "weak target" ever again. Unless you're bumped to death by a BS (say, a Machariel), which is a all reward-no risk scenario for the bumper. What CCP calls "f*k the PvErs balance". I am so bloody tired of this garbage. So. Bloody. Tired. Over and over again CCP insists that PvErs have no place and deserve no chance and no choice in their game. Want to avoid PvP abuse of a stupid mechanic? PvP yourself. Play our way or go away. No choices. No options. Just fukking PvP, you fukking PvE cnt. It's taken a while but I'm glad to see you finally got it "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 15998	Posted - 2015.01.28 08:51:29 - [7] - Quote I won't lie to you, I'd pretty much given up hope "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16005	Posted - 2015.01.29 08:36:44 - [8] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Unsuccessful At Everything wrote: Are we even talking about 'hyperdunking' anymore? It seems the thread has de-evolved into 'Nerf gankers/Catalysts' thread # 2881773374 at this point.... always does because clueless mongs harp on about 2m isk catalysts doing 1k dps are killing the game (you know, killing a game that thrives on destruction), and then the usual people trying to educate people who wallow in their own ignorance and stupidity. if we got rid of the clueless mongs and their misinformation, there would be no need to spew pages and pages of corrections and we could actually have a concise and useful thread on most topics. It's because the real objection is that freighters can be nonconsensually shot in empire at all. The exact method is irrelevent. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16018	Posted - 2015.01.31 06:47:46 - [9] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Hope Alar wrote: I don't see the logic in allowing one guy with 8 catalysts gank a freighter worth far more than his catalysts are worth. How is this avoidable if the pilot were at the keyboard? He has a parner/alt bumping the freighter off, and if the freighter logs off he is dead. You cannot warp off due to the bumping and iirc you cannot safe log because you now have an aggression timer. So if a pilot absolutely wants to kill your freighter for a pittance compared to the ship, there is nothing stopping him? He just has to throw more ships at it. This is a bad decision. Literally every sentence is wrong. Impressive. In all justice, the first part of the first sentence is spot on. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16020	Posted - 2015.01.31 08:41:45 - [10] - Quote Look, let's look at this discussion from first principles. Here we have people saying that "hyperdunking" is bad because the freighter pilot is left with no way to escape. Here we have people who knowingly fly a ship that is literally the biggest, clumsiest and slowest ship it is possible to fly in hi-sec. They are further aware that it has no high slots (ergo no DPS) and no medium slots (ergo no EW). And only 3 low slots, so it can be tackled by any ship that can outmanoeuvre it (ie: everything) and that can apply 4 points or more of warp disruption (ie: everything except that one Amarr ship that only has 1 mid, I forget the name). Can one of these people explain to me what choices they expected to have in any game-legal PvP situation? Because from reading this thread, it is difficult to avoid the unpleasant suspicion that the not very well hidden subtext here is that a freighter pilot in an NPC corp shouldn't be a legal target at all. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"

Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16020	Posted - 2015.01.31 08:43:40 - [11] - Quote Also can anyone point out a hyperdunked freighter killmail where the freighter has any modules that might even slightly help it to escape? WCS? Istab? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16021	Posted - 2015.01.31 09:08:03 - [12] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Malcanis wrote: Also can anyone point out a hyperdunked freighter killmail where the freighter has any modules that might even slightly help it to escape? WCS? Istab? a webbing alt doesn't show up on a kill mail, i'm afraid. Shouldn't the web alt show up on the list of aggressing ships? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16027	Posted - 2015.01.31 11:33:17 - [13] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Malcanis wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Malcanis wrote: Also can anyone point out a hyperdunked freighter killmail where the freighter has any modules that might even slightly help it to escape? WCS? Istab? a webbing alt doesn't show up on a kill mail, i'm afraid. Shouldn't the web alt show up on the list of aggressing ships? If the webbing alt was present, there wouldn't be a killmail! I see what you mean. Well that was kind of my point. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16027	Posted - 2015.01.31 11:35:53 - [14] - Quote Destiny Corrupted wrote: Malcanis wrote: Also can anyone point out a hyperdunked freighter killmail where the freighter has any modules that might even slightly help it to escape? WCS? Istab? Just FYI they can't fit WCs. Not enough CPU There you go then. In any combat situation, there is no reason for a solo freighter pilot to have any expectation of doing anything except dying. Freighters should travel in groups with escorts, or risk being ganked. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16029	Posted - 2015.01.31 15:12:11 - [15] - Quote Hope Alar wrote: The point that I was trying to get across is that this makes it far to easy to gank autopiloting freighters... Why shouldn't autopiloted ships be easy to gank? Come to that why shouldn't a defenceless unescorted large cargo vessel be easy to gank. In the real world, it doesn't even take a Destroyer to do that; 5 Somalian fishermen with hand guns and an RPG-7 or two often manage it pretty handily. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16029	Posted - 2015.01.31 15:13:36 - [16] - Quote Hope Alar wrote: Destiny Corrupted wrote: Hope Alar wrote: You ever fly a freighter through high sec? Its worse than mining. The only reason I can tolerate it is the money it can make if I am dedicated, but with this announcement I will more than likely stop flying my freighter, or stop any hauling altogether. It isn't worth this risk. While there are "spite" ganks (empty freighter), they're pretty rare. I guarantee that you'll be pretty safe, even if AFK, if you simply tank the ship and not carry more than somewhere between a billion and two billion ISK worth of stuff. I've been hauling stuff nearly on a daily basis. And I do keep my hauls small (around 300-500m). I was ganked yesterday though, and the only reason I can see it is because a solid group of gank catalysts are cheap as dirt. If this catches on more (which I do not why it would not) this brings down the "safe" amount to afk pilot in a freighter very low. That is why this is poor game design. Have you considered hauling such small loads in a faster or more defensible ship? You seem to be under the impression that a solo freighter outght to be safe, but I can't for the life of me think why you'd have that idea. The Deep Space Transports got a very considerable tanking boost lately IIRC. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16030	Posted - 2015.01.31 15:31:07 - [17] - Quote Hope Alar wrote: Malcanis wrote: Hope Alar wrote: The point that I was trying to get across is that this makes it far to easy to gank autopiloting freighters... Why shouldn't autopiloted ships be easy to gank? Come to that why shouldn't a defenceless unescorted large cargo vessel be easy to gank. In the real world, it doesn't even take a Destroyer to do that; 5 Somalian fishermen with hand guns and an RPG-7 or two often manage it pretty handily. This isn't real world. It shouldn't be easy because then what is the point in flying a freighter? Why should we drag our friends 26 jumps or so just to do nothing. They wouldn't, and I wouldnt ask them to do that. It is b oring enough for one person. The point of the freighter is to move very large amounts of materiel through space that you are sure is safe. For instance that space might be safe for you, because you're travelling in a well escorted convoy. Nowhere is it written in the Freighter's description that it's suitable for solo AFK hauling. Other haulers are very specifically described as being suitable for moving goods through dangerous space. If I said that the game was "badly designed" because I couldn't chase and tackle a cruiser gang with my Archon, I'd be laughed off the forums. Yet for some reason you expect to be taken seriously when you want an incredibly slow, easily targetted capital class ship with no highs or mids to be suitable for solo AFK hauling. In essence, my thesis is that you have wrong expectations and are angry when they are not being met. But the problem is your expectations, not the conditions that fail to meet them. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16033	Posted - 2015.01.31 19:57:43 - [18] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dangeresque Too wrote: "shoot him" And that would accomplish what exactly? All ganking ships that are t2 fitted are profitable to gank, even cats. Especially if they have a GCC, Ah but we're forgetting that gankers have infinite resources and their time is worth nothing. Also they have special powers like fitting unlimited replacement ships into SMAs "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16045	Posted - 2015.02.01 15:16:43 - [19] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Hmm. I'll remember that the next time I take a trip to the coin show and bring a few gold bars home. Maybe the real problem is that cargo scanners exist. The real problem is that people like you think that you shouldn't have to put any effort into defending yourself in a PvP game. The real problem is that people like you think that you should be able to do the same things over and over and over again without real consequences. Like AFK solo flying fat, slow, vulnerable haulers full of valuable goods along exactly the same route over and over again? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16047	Posted - 2015.02.01 16:10:51 - [20] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: You do realize that the archon kill was in lowsec, right? Meaning no CONCORD and no loss of ships. As opposed to ganking a freighter in highsec, where all the gank ships die. Which points out that there is infact a rather big drawback to killing these things in highsec. And the fact that despite these drawbacks the same folks are killing them over and over again with impunity suggests that the drawbacks are not enough to deter ganking at a massive isk loss. So in essence, you want to raise the cost to aggress a freighter to the point where no one wants to. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"

Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16047	Posted - 2015.02.01 16:18:49 - [21] - Quote The huge majority of journeys by empty freighters do not result in the freighter being attacked. We can easily infer this from the fact that people routinely fly their freighters AFK, which is something that one would only do if the perceived risk was very low. Would you agree with the following proposition "If the risk of an empty freighter is being ganked is so low that it's not worth the effort to actively fly it (never mind take more active precautions), then that risk is already low enough that it does not require rebalancing." If not, why not? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16047	Posted - 2015.02.01 17:56:03 - [22] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Malcanis wrote: The huge majority of journeys by empty freighters do not result in the freighter being attacked. We can easily infer this from the fact that people routinely fly their freighters AFK, which is something that one would only do if the perceived risk was very low. Would you agree with the following proposition "If the risk of an empty freighter is being ganked is so low that it's not worth the effort to actively fly it (never mind take more active precautions), then that risk is already low enough that it does not require rebalancing." If not, why not? People in Eve do things AFK out of laziness...not out of a cost benefit calculation. People routinely AFK carriers in nullsec, and expensive battleships in highsec. Any activity in Eve that can be accomplished while afk, will be accomplished afk. Your logic would essentially mean that nothing in Eve needs rebalancing...whether ganking, awoxxing, etc....since nearly anything in Eve could be avoided through simple active measures. The fact that code folks can sit in uedama and gank freighters every 15 minutes with no tangible consequences is telling. Yes, that's where logic leads me: to the position that if the "problem" isn't severe enough for the victims to make any effort to address it, then it's not remotely serious enough for CCP to need to lift a finger either. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16047	Posted - 2015.02.01 19:33:24 - [23] - Quote I'd honestly be very OK with having a ship with essentially the cargo capacity of a blockade runner and the DPS/Tank slightly inferior to a T1 battlecruiser (it would need to be quite a bit slower than the average BC) so that people who want to haul goods in a ship that can fight back have the option to do so. For example: A ship that's basically a Ferox but with a 3000m^3 base cargo capacity, and a base speed of say 90m/s & 2.50 AU/s and maybe about 25% less cap recharge and a little less fitting space. A ship like that can haul a decent amount of cargo and still laugh off tactics like hyperdunking; it would be much more resistant to Catalyst swarms. Of course it's still vulnerable to alpha, but given enough 1400s, so is any other ship. You can get a lot of EHP out of a Ferox if you really want to. 100k/280 regen is trivial, and that fit has 330 DPS with Ion Blaster IIs. However, do not delude yourself that I believe this would have the tiniest impact on the AFK Freighter community's endless campaign for "just one more" nerf to ganking. What they want is very clearly for freighters not to be subject to ganking at all. Every time ganking has been nerfed, there has been a small pause for celebration, then the whining for the next "just one last" nerf promptly resumes. So it has been since 2006, and so it will be until suicide ganking is outlawed. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16047	Posted - 2015.02.01 20:00:42 - [24] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: David Mandrake wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: David Mandrake wrote: Perhaps if it was such a big loss to them they shouldn't have moved it in to a well-known ganking area, or they should have used a cheaper ship until they could afford to replace it. T1/T2 haulers aren't that expensive compared to a freighter, and a DST can fit a rather serious tank. Most of these kills are in Uedama; and it should be something easy to avoid by now. You should not need to be worry about having an empty ship blow up at a huge loss in highsec. Why? Because that should not be a concern in a law abiding area patrolled by a competent police force. That is what makes highsec different than low/null. You're referring to the empire factions who are at war with each other here? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16062	Posted - 2015.02.02 11:47:39 - [25] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: If Freighters had real capital fitting Hyperdunking wouldn't be a thing to start with since they could actually fit local reps anyway. And ignore a hyperdunker. This still all comes back to all Industrial ships being treated as second class ships when it comes to giving them the ability to actually make creative fits. Freighters should have the same fittings as a Carrier or Dreadnaught. They are all Capital ships, give them fittings to match, not the insane gimped 'fittings' they have now. And introduce stacking penalties on cargo expanders/rigs to avoid cargo space getting too excessive. Sure, base stats may need moving around to do so, but then people actually get some real choices in fitting. Do this and you would make it impossible to gank freighters in highsec. Well yes because they wouldn't be allowed in hisec "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16071	Posted - 2015.02.04 23:21:00 - [26] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: David Mandrake wrote: The idea of a PvP free area is essentially your argument, as far as you've presented it. Lol, no. Its not. Go back and re-read post 956. David Mandrake wrote: They're irrelevant in the amount of actual damage they do to the economy. That doesn't mean, however, that their playstyle should be eliminated from the game simply because they're trolls. Well given that CCP has now set a precedent for removing things that players don't use (see industry teams), then it would seem that further restrictions or outright removal of their play style would not be unreasonable (only in that context). Like for instance removing autopilot? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16084	Posted - 2015.02.09 10:31:33 - [27] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: If you want to dispense justice, do it in LoSec. You'll never get what you're looking for as long as CONCORD and FacPo stand in your way. Why would a miner dispense justice to people that had nothing to do with him? Hiasa Kite wrote: Bounty hunting does not pay. In fact it cannot pay, not without leaving itself open to exploitation. Then there is no way practical way for a victim to dispense justice against his attacker. You mean there is no cheap way. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16163	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:50:09 - [28] - Quote Erasmus Grant wrote: What kind of world would alot a clone with a consistent criminal record to be reactivated, at least without some kind of imprisonment? Hyper dunking can work both ways. The kind of world that allows private individuals to own more fully armed modern warships than the US and Royal navies ever commissioned. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16182	Posted - 2015.03.23 08:20:24 - [29] - Quote Kuga wrote: Frankly this a ridiculous tactic which abuses incomplete game mechanics and this response from the development team disappointingly appears to roughly translate to 'we know about it, but can't really be bothered going about fixing it'. I've ever fallen victim to it (I don't freight), but its inane nature should certainly warrant a little more attention than the dev. team are currently willing to invest. Bad mechanics are bad for game sales. CONCORD is itself a horrible game mechanic. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16726	Posted - 2015.07.18 13:29:16 - [30] - Quote Omega Capsuleer wrote: CCP Falcon wrote: Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage. But what about the disadvantaged? Those without the resources (isk, SP, equipment, etc.) to seek revenge? And it does not consider how people feel loss. A new player losing a ship he has put all his earnings into feels the loss more than a bitter vet losing hundreds of millions of isk to Concord. Sounds like a new generation of punching bags. Here you are referring to people too "disadvantaged" to fit and fly eg: an arty thrasher. Those people should still be running the tutorial missions, not flying freighters and concern-trolling. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"

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.