If a Bowhead has tank and an MWD and died to less than about 30 bombers it was war-dec’d, in which case the pilot did a stupid of the first order.
1 Like
As far as I’m aware that’s a ban able offense as messing around with concord like that is considered an exploit. So if anyone catches code doing that get them reported to CCP.
1 Like
c0d3 sucks but they’re just using game mechanics to make easy:
.
What’s really funny is that your “Glorious Leader” hasn’t undocked since late 2012.
Guess he skipped the “Lead by Example” class 
.
James 315 is a dull tool 
.
2 Likes
Yeah, cuz cod=gons. Everybody knows that!!1
1 Like
That’s not what i said 
1 Like
It is, of course, not. Spawning and moving CONCORD is perfectly fine and a normal mechanic. That includes both defensive spawning them on a gate or in a belt, and moving them somewhere else. I have done it almost every time I log in for years now and never had a problem.
I’d link you the post where a GM states this but the old forum is down now for some reason. I am sure a quick Google search (or a petition to CCP) will confirm this though.
3 Likes
Seriously, who the hell flies a Bowhead solo?
Explain this to me.
Solo, Han Solo.
7 Likes
I’m going to have to put in a support ticket then and ask for information on this. Because as far as i’m aware any messing around with concord trying to game the system is banable.
1 Like
You are allowed to interact with CONCORD and their position - it is a normal game mechanic after all. The only thing you are not allowed to do is evade or delay the response.
I found the post from senior GM Lelouch on Eve Search:
I’ll take the liberty of posting here so perhaps it might show up in the search of others with similar concerns:
Hello all,
In order to clear up our current stance concerning this mechanic, I’m going to attach the ticket response I sent to Benny Ohu:
We do not consider intentionally spawning CONCORD using disposable ships an exploit at this time. This is, like all policies, subject to change in the future if deemed necessary for some reason, but we have no current plans to make any changes to this stance.
To put our stance quite clearly, we currently make no distinction between these two scenarios:
a. Suicide gank. CONCORD is spawned because Player A attacks Player B without the rights to do so.
b. Defensive spawning. CONCORD is spawned because Player A’s alt character attacks Player A without the rights to do so.My best guess would be that the confusion stems from different rules having been broken. There are two exploits of sorts which I can think of which could have led to warnings being placed in a scenario similar to “b” above.
- Alt character recycling. It is considered a violation to recycle alt characters and/or trial accounts to bypass negative consequences. In this case, the consequences being escaped would be the standing hit for performing an unlawful attack in CONCORD protected space.
- Escaping CONCORD retribution. If a player somehow manages to prevent destruction at the hand of CONCORD after performing an unlawful attack, then it is an exploit. We are currently not aware of any such exploits, but there have been ways to do this in the past which have since been fixed.
Best regards,
Lead GM Lelouch
CCP Customer Support | EVE Online | DUST 514
But please, let us know the response of the GMs if you feel the need to petition still. Just don’t post the actual text of the message as that is against the EULA.
4 Likes
2014 post, though…hope all is the same now…
At least we can still use good ol’ Eve Search…if Chribba somehow led a coup against hilmar I’d support him…
1 Like
Indeed. That man is a legend.
If you have 3 ships to carry, and require 2 alts to protect the bowhead, the bowhead is potentially pointless.
2 Likes
CCP believes their future lies in bowing to the ‘elite pvpers’ and feeding them ‘content’ (aka paying customers). They also believed their future lied with a FPS and VR…
See where I’m going with this??
1 Like
Baiting a “pvpers are paying customers too” response?
If you want half of your financial base to eradicate the other half, I guess that’s your call… Smart people who want money support BOTH sides… see: Viktor Bout.
1 Like
The game requires bulk spaceship and structure death to get rid of stuff to make market space for new stuff to be farmed up. One of the resources that requires consumption to retain its value is LP farmed by incursion runners, and undoubtedly people in Nicks fleets also fund pvp via incursion running - ie he straight up relies on pvp for income.
An incursion runner can’t really complain about risks of shipdeaths when realistically they require shipdeath to keep the moneytrain running anyway, the whole thread is premised on a risk that the OP has even identified before it hurt him personally, and now he is just complaining about a time/efficiency problem to mitigate it.
More or less this.
I use them but find them lacking in several areas that are not directly aligned with OP thread here so il skip discussing it .
What i would like to see to enhance their usability would be that bowhead stop being plain transport ship but rather advanced one instead, among many changes i would like to see below are ones relevant to this thread…
Bowhead get some high slots and boosting bonuses like orca.
(per skill lvl)
1% shield command boost effect strenght and duration*
3% skirmish command boost effect strenght and duration*
so if you’re present and active you got your self some tank and mobility boosts if not well you know…you do not.
*duration is double edged sword here it might prevent you from gate usage if not careful or with certain setups/clones.
1 Like
Seems OP was making a public service announcement. o7