Imagine being this bad at EVE.
That is a sentiment common among those who simply do not understand what they just read, or the details its based on.
Its sort of like the fact that no one accuses others of being idiots more than idiots. You donāt get it, so you declare it must be stupid.
1 Like
Hey, Ridley, Iām in agreement.
CCP should delete CONCORD so, uh, antigankers can fight the gankers.
2 Likes
Thatās not a fact at all.
Cicero, Mark Twain, George Carlin and Douglas Adams all have well known quotes calling others idiots, yet they arenāt idiots themselves.
1 Like
Scipio has favorably compared me to Cicero & Twain.
Not at all, he just detailed a couple of people who are not idiots that called people an idiot. Exceptions do not, a rule makeā¦
PS I liked your reply because it made me laugh.
I think it was more to do with the remote repping changes then anything else, it is seriously painful at times. That ended up being one hell of a nerf to AG.
3 Likes
I dunno, Iām sure Scipio will confirm that I am one of the greatest intellectual minds of all time. This is simply a well established fact.
1 Like
Thanks for that. Its a real case in point. I say āIdiots call others idiots MORE than anyone elseā, you hear āOnly idiots call others idiot.ā Classic. Sums up this forum pretty well too.
2 Likes
Calm down alpha. You are a second class citizen 
Sure. But to be clear I did not mean that Concord was the biggest AG challenge, merely that Concord could be giving AG more problems than Concord is giving gankers problems. Waiting until a ganker or looter acquires a flashy too often means its too late to do anything about it.
It can be hard enough having a commander insist you hold your fire until you can see the whites of their eyes, but Concord is like a commander that makes you wait until you can count their pores.
I sat down once and tried to brain storm with my limited grey matter whether there could be a better system than CONCORD. And no matter what I did not think there was. Still it is improvements around the edges that count.
To be honest remote repping being a suspect or criminal offense depending on the situation has made it impossible for us to hold a gate as AG. As soon as we do any offensive action against a FR ganker that character can no longer be repped due to the limited engagement flag and safety settings. This makes repping people who decide to fire back at the gankers a major issue too.
CCP could quite easily decide to remove that limited engagement flag that gets applied to gankers who go criminal, but they donāt.
But more importantly they should never have done this to remote repping, it is a catastropheā¦
2 Likes
Actually, you forgot part of what you wrote. This part for example:
There are plenty of examples that show your āfactā is not a fact at all.
Scipio wrote me privately, and said some very kind and flattering things, which I do not wish to repeat here as it would be rude to draw further attention to my own virtue.
Donāt forget if they used web alt 
concord learned me that lesson, and ohh not have safety on red when in icky high sec.
1 Like
I knew youād take this tack. So without CONCORD, you think the AGers will gank the gankers cause no consequence?
They could gank the gankers now Its all PvP friend. You take out CONCORD, expect EVE pop to drop a ton more
What I think is that down-grading a high sec system to a low sec system will make it operate like a low sec system. Yes there are ganker gate camps in low sec bottlenecks between two high sec islands. However, given Uedamaās proximity to Jita I think more people will be willing to use their expensive ships knowing Concord wonāt blow them up for freely engaging.
Also, everyone would have to change their tactics, but the gankers would have to change the most. Low sec gate camping is completely different from High sec multibox ganking.
What are they going to gank?
Highsec players will still stick to highsec and the net impact will be more whining about how many more jumps it takes to get from A to B (eg. Jita - Amarr - 46 jumps as fastest highsec route).
The idea that ganking will still happen in Uedama if Uedama isnāt highsec is pretty dumb.
There you go again, declaring things dumb off the bat, even before hearing a single argument. Now THAT is dumb.
Frulegur is off the beaten path. But there are ganks a plenty in that bottleneck. The real question is what would the freighter pilots do when their route gets a low sec system. I think they would do the same dumb stuff they do now. They still go through Uedama with no precaution after all this time.
Heck. What might happen is that Coastal Brotherhood would run Kusion out of Uedama. Might. Maybe. There are no guarantees and those final caveats have meaning.
Nah, itās dumb because itās dumb, irrespective of what speculation you make to try to support the idea.
Hint: Frulegar isnāt highsec. Suicide ganks canāt happen in Frulegar (the same as they can no longer happen in Niarja). Kind of makes the topic of the post difficult:
The only thing suicide gankers would do, is move to a different system to gank in. Meanwhile, highsec players would complain about longer routes of boring gate jumps and no all highsec route between the 2 largest trade hubs. Hence, dumb idea is dumb.
I donāt know what is wrong with you but its serious. The idea I raised was to change Uedama to low sec. I cannot believe you have lost that plot already. Its what the entire thing rests on. Change Uedama to low sec and it will likely be like Frulegar. In other news 1 + 1 = 2