Didn’t you say you want to stay out of this discussion? What kind of guy are you, not even keeping your word?
From an immersion standpoint, CONCORD is pretty game breaking. An unlimited number of invincible ships that appear in less than a minute with insta blap weapons that, unless one capsuleer aggresses another illegally, just twiddle their thumbs and let all the other pirate factions/triglavians run rampant. That makes no sense to me.
Sec status goes down only for aggressing Capsuleers, the empires have no reason to care about sec status like other Capsuleers might. Capsuleers can’t even be killed, and the more they die the more taxes they collect in their stations from new equipment purchases.
1 Like
Why not simply address the point he makes?
Not really. I have seen BlackOps drops faster than 25 seconds.
Also CONCORD has access to Technology by far more advanced than player ships. I wouldn’t make them “invincible” at all by game design, just so tough that players can’t beat them anyway (incredibly superior tech, u know?)
Thats why CONCORD was invented, to make sure the Empires can enforce their law even on Capsuleers. FacPol is going after NPC Pirate factions, blame them for not doing their Job properly (or being funded too badly :O)
Fair point, but then why having laws about Capsuleer Combat at all? Seems to me like a game design decision to have something like that in HighSec. And under these condions the Empires absolutely care what Capsuleers do and should enforce their laws with absolute power.
What point? It really does not matter if they use 15, 25, 35 or 45 Catalysts, they are 90% just multiboxed alts and they use so much as they think they need to bring down the target plus some reserve. And if you come with a DPS ship, an ECM ship or an RR ship they usually don’t need to care because you make nearly no impact at all. Either they simply use some more, because, well they are all just alts and the Catalysts are cheap. Or they gank the target at another gate, since you never can cover all of them, you will mostly come too late since you cannot know which target they will chose and where they will gank it. Besides that, there are ganks even in the last few days where they used up to 40 ships, so what really is his point? The Ganks in random belts somewhere in the region you cannot really stop anyway since you don’t know where they will gank and it’s impossible to camp them in in any even remotely efficient way.
They do.
I disagree. Else they would blow up anyone harbouring criminals that try to hide from their forces.
Clearly that isn’t true, because they don’t.
Gankers can even set CONCORD stations are their home station and reanimate there if podded while on a criminal timer.
Yet, the Empires do enforce their laws with absolute power.
What you are talking about isn’t one of their laws.
2 Likes
Yeah you are right, its not true that they enforce their laws with absolute power on criminals. Because they don’t blow up stations that are harbouring them.
So you think the galactic police force would blow up a station with countless innocent bystanders etc just because a single ganker was docked?
Show me where it’s a law that stations harbouring criminals is illegal?
The Empires enforce their laws with absolute power. What you are talking about isn’t a law.
1 Like
Yeah, defnitely on the list of things I would like to see fixed. You are free to disagree as you see fit.
Of course not, they would simply reinforce it and then confiscate it. Making the owner throw out the criminals and deny them docking in the future. They are not monsters!
Yeah Captain Obvious, thats why the current situation is so ridiculous. 
So they would confiscate an entire station rendering all its inhabitants homeless just because a single ganker docked there?
Nobody is going to be homeless if the station changes ownership. They are not monsters! It wouldnt even come this far, the owning Corp would gladly throw out any criminal, if they would risk losing their property otherwise.
Lol…you’re the guy that said killboard was ‘irrelevant’. Typical Lucas. Everything’s ‘irrelevant’ until you slip it in somewhere…then it goes back to being ‘irrelevant’ again.
You should proably read one of my earlier posts.
This one specifically:
However, can you show where it’s a law that stations (which are only NPC owned by the way) harbouring criminals is illegal?
Obviously there is currently not such a law, thats why I argue that they don’t go after criminals with full force. They should declare such harbouring illegal and just punish the one who protects the criminals.
I have read your post earlier and like your approach. Another reason I don’t get why we are splitting hairs over semantics here.
So it’s complete ■■■■■■■■ to claim the Empires don’t enforce their laws with absolute power. They do.
Because words are for the most part, the most important communication too we have in the forum. They are important.
That’s not what you argued. You said they don’t enforce their laws with absolute power, when they do.
1 Like
Did I claim thy do not enforce existing laws? My apologies if I did, I might have been a bit unclear then. Let me clarify: I want the empires to treat criminals like criminals. Means no protection of any kind in HighSec, if anyone helps them, by remote assisting or offering them shelter, he goes criminal as well. Which means criminals shouldnt be able to dock anywhere in HighSec, simple as that.
Of course they are. Why pay more than you need to pay?
Each Catalyst represents one EVE Online account. If paying monthly, your ‘40 ships’ (assuming they were Catalysts) cost a total of $800. Hardly ‘cheap’, especially if multi-boxing.
Thank you for your rebuttal. I’m not here to respond on behalf of Raylan, merely to point out that he appeared to be challenging something you said, and that you, instead of responding in a focused way, brushed him off.
1 Like