One must pity the poor programmer who worked so hard to prevent violence in high sec. He toiled day and night, all for naught! Has this game really been around sixteen years? Yet, this ‘exploit’ of CONCORD has still not been addressed?
2 Likes
Do you have support for this claim that Concord was supposed to “prevent” violence in highsec? Or is this just what you wish to believe?
He’s pretty clearly making fun of that silly notion.
1 Like
this has been addressed 100 times, but you guys just only want to answer all problems wth death. The problem is, death does not effect the economy in eve. your to ignorant to get that.
the most effective way of dealing with station spam is high upkeep costs.
Please define “death” here. If you mean “death” in the sense of your pod loss, isolated and by itself, perhaps. But if you mean “death” in the sense of ship loss, the Insurance payout you get actually creates ISK out of nothing, so it does actually contribute towards the economy in form of an ISK Faucet.
1 Like
Destruction of ships or stations DOES NOT effect the economy, in any way shape or form.
In fact, the greatest effect on the economy (station taxing) would decline if you addressed the economy by destroying the spam.
No, with out a doubt, the station spam is good for the economy, hands down, there is no better solution, and to be honest, out side of the fact of circumventing a mechanic, is totally acceptable.
Given that Insurance payouts from destruction of ships has contributed almost 5.7 Trillion ISK, while only taking out 3 Trillion ISK, I would argue that it does effect the economy in a way, shape or form. It is also the 4th largest ISK Faucet in the game, as of March 2019.
2 Likes
Come on guys. I’m talking about original intent not what Concord does.
Don’t act like their programmers were so great either. How many times has CCP used the words “spaghetti code”?
Look how intellectually dishonest you are, its pathetic.
Im done discussing with you. its a waste of time.
And by the way, if you want to get real deep with it, Concord does prevent illegal combat. You know how many people in highsec I haven’t destroyed due to Concord? Their presence prevents crime.
Except for our loophole of course.
Just on this note to knock you out of the water further.
If i pay 100m, and insure it for 10m, and get refunded 80m. That means the economy lost isk.
we can hold your hand through this since its hard for you.
death, does not effect the economy, period.
#mic drop
Please show me an instance in the game where you pay 100m ISK insurance deposit and only receive 10m ISK insurance payout.
I agree that in your hypothetical example, that may be the case, But to my knowledge, that cannot happen in the game.
thats a bit complex. Concord does psychologically prevent it, but does not actually do it. Concord is designed to react to it, not prevent it. If it prevented it, we’d not see suicide deaths.
its “they come kill you after your bad” vs “they come rep the attacked”.
The word you are looking for “deters” not “prevents”. They mean different things.
1 Like
Do you speak the english language?
If i pay 100m, and insure it for 10m, and get refunded 80m.
Sure, deters.
Who are you paying the 100m initially to? Is it paying to SCC? Or is it another player?
I believe you don’t understand what an ISK Faucet it.
Death, and specifically death due to other players, is practically the only thing that drives demand in this game. Well that, and people quitting the game and taking their assets with them. Look at the MER. It’s all there.
How does high upkeep costs allow you to take a moon for yourself? Or a POCO for controlling PI? Or remove a competitor who is increasing you industrial indices or competing with your market hub?
It doesn’t. If you want some useless space yurt that doesn’t do anything then sure, just use upkeep costs and some auto-destruct mechanism to remove the abandoned ones. But for player owned structures that actually affect or control limited resources or objectives in the shared universe, the only way is through PvP, and PvP of the non-consensual variety at that. Want a moon? Shoot them. Want a POCO? Shoot it. Want to control the Perimeter market? Shoot all the things.
CCP could have made highsec less competitive and kept player-owned structures out of there. but they didn’t. They decided long ago to allow the core, competitive PvP to go on there too, just like it does everywhere else in this PvP sandbox game. They can walk back that design and delete/nerf-to-the-ground player-owned structures and then make them 100% immune to attack, but it would take a massive amount of effort and resources, something CCP is sorely lacking it seems.
It isn’t going to happen.
1 Like
False.
False.
Also, People take structures down, if they cost isk and dont make money, ergo, no death is needed.
You guys are short sighted, and have no ability to think beyond your personal involvement, which is why us designers in the industry (that know what we are doing) know better then listen to the likes of you.
Why are you here whining on the forums instead of actually working for CCP then? You know they’ve got positions and are hiring.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
Until then, Ganking is fine, and it’s a good reminder for closed minded carebears in highsec systems that EVE Online is a dangerous game and that nowhere is safe.
1 Like