Prevention isnt a counter to a disease?
I would have thought not letting something happen was a better counter than letting it happen then dealing with it.
If the choice is act before it happens or act after it happens, where does countering it actually fit in?
During?
THEN BUFF ALL HP BY x10-100
Its not hard ffs.
/thread
Small pox would like a word. A disease that we irradicated through prevention.
You combat the spread of most diseases through education. Just like educating players on how to avoid ganks is the most practical and effective way to have an impact on ganking.
They don’t want to really counter ganking, counter play would require active play. The people that want ganking removed want to play while paying as little attention to the game as possible.
ROFL wut. You’re just being silly now 
It isn’t. Tons of peeps listed tatics in this thread and others. You’re just terribad at EVE my guy
You mean lied about it multiple times? Yea LOL.
Hey @Githany_Red , Lucas says ya’ll are useless
Yes sir. All I’ve tried to do since coming back is bring people to the light that is the gamall vargur.
Its nice to see others follow it as well.
I think you mean eradicated.
I dont understand, are you disagreeing that eradication is not effectively countering an existing disease?
A person watching d-scan etc and not being present when a gank fleet arrives is countering the gank. The gank cant happen if they arent there.
I really dont know what you are trying to say, because Im pointing out that Lucas
Do you disagree with these points, and if so why.
No I’m agreeing that the statement about preventing not being countering is absurd. It was a supportive statement.
I did, my spelling is not always so great.
Ah ok cool, 
no worries.
Here’s a question
If there’s a demand for “effective counterplay” against ganking thats active (i.e not just using safe practices and opsec and all that), then surely CONCORD cannot exist in that paradigm?
It’s better for the person being ganked to avoid being ganked, sure. But from a gameplay perspective that’s not counterplay and the game would be far healthier if both ganking and antiganking were viable and balanced. That’d create opportunities for actual PvP.
Of course gankers don’t actually want PvP where they actually have to compete with other skilled PvP pilots, that’s why they don’t want ganking and antiganking to be balanced.
I think that ganking arose from a desire to have player impact on every part of space. My recollection of it being that it was originally goons proving that they could afffect mineral prices etc just as well in high sec and that nothing was out of their reach.
Since the. It has expanded and there will be people that gank for lots of reasons.
Some of them will be people who like to pvp with spreadsheets. They will lament the loss of concord and high sec as we know it. Also lamenting it will be the pvp’ers that like to come to high sec after a frustrating day of being blobbed or having everyone run away from them in low and null.
The ones that will be happy to see concorde go will be the ones that purely gank because they want high sec to be dangerous space too. They will just change the way they do pvp in high sec.
I think it would be better if ganking and concorde remain in high sec really, because there are players that are happy to do all the things necessary to avoid ganking but don’t want to be part of an intel channel or on a billion discords and a mumble server.
OK, so then multiply all HP by x10-100 somewhere so that there is time to mount a defense and modifiy CONCORD to be the add-on NPC support mentioned earlier.
Seems easy enough.
Not the question I asked but thanks for mansplaining ganking to me.
There certainly are many ideas with merit for sure. In my view though ganking is a very niche interest and antiganking is pretty much already dead, so rebuilding entirely new mechanics seems like a waste of time, which is why my preference is just to remove ganking and work on the individual mechanics like hauling, like mining, like mission running and make them more active with more PvE risks.
Whether people like to accept it or not, highsec is predominantly a PvE area when it comes to combat and I think leaning into that rather than resisting it is the way to keep the areas of the game diverse. Otherwise they may as well just scrap lowsec and highsec and just make the whole game variants of nullsec.
Is that sarcasm?
It certainly wasn’t an attempt to mansplain. That is why I started with an “I think” statement. Rather to answer your question which I didn’t feel there was a simple answer to.
Concorde is necessary for so many different people.
Yes there is a demand for “counterplay” but not everyone wants that or needs that as defined by the minority on here.
It seems the majority atleast in this forum consider counter play to include prevention and not just narrow it down to blowing them up before they can blow us up.
Ok, let me put it this way;
Do you think that CONCORD is a good alternative to giving players the agency to do something about the situation themselves?
In a game with 7800+ star systems (dixit ccp) it is real counterplay. If more people discovered this type of gameplay, instead of flocking together like wildebeest in Caldari hisec, gankers would spend more time mining.
Seems like removing a piece of a thing to replace it with an artificial thing to me.
You never did sell me on the idea that NPCs are a better alternative to players.
Sure its anecdotal, but players never made me quit. Stupid unkillable NPCs that cheat sure have come close to it several times.
Whats the point in it being online if its just NPCs anyway.
Players already have agency.
If we discard all the things they can do to counter the ganking playstyle and pretend they don’t exist.
Then Concorde is still just a necessary balancing tool but not an alternative to player agency. It’s about removing the gankers ships not protecting the gankee.
I suppose there is a world in which we could claim that Concorde let’s people get kill mails they wouldn’t otherwise by whoring on Concorde killmails. I don’t feel that gives players agency. That just lets a group of players who are happy with a little deus ex machina get some kills on their board.
No I dont really think you are following me.
No matter how much Opsec you do, there’s still a chance youll get ganked. Or you just fall asleep, or become bored with the PvE tasks designed to make you bored and get ganked.
So once you are ganked, why is your agency removed, and NPCs turn up?
You have no agency once the gank starts, as its over in seconds and either you die and they die or they die.
EDIT: Think of it this way: If we dont want NPC gankers, why do we stand for NPC AGers?
Yes I agree. Concorde doesn’t give anyone agency.
It’s just a balancing tool.
All of the player agency happens before you get ganked and that is no different than being caught by any overwhelming force in pvp.
Right, but wouldnt it be better if you DID have some agency?
Ach tbh Im just brainstorming.
Id prefer if ships werent disposable, didnt explode in seconds, combat was tactical, and you have lots of options for what to do.
But eh, it is what it is
If everything had more HP then logi would be king and combat would be pure attrition.
Combat can still be tactical. I know you don’t think much of null sec. However I’ve seen a much smaller force have a great time controlling an engagement in null through the judicious use of pings and utilising fast high damage ships to divide a larger force and catch stragglers unawares and then get away.
A surprising number of gankees could take a ship or two with them if they didn’t panic also. If they were fit for travel and not dps they could probably take even more. You don’t need your full 3k dps to kill a catalyst in a marauder and your prop mods likely won’t help you. If you travelled with a couple of webs and low slots full of extra tank you might even be able to kill enough to survive the gank.