Only dated game mechanics - after all, no NPCs did pod killing until the Incursion content came out. If those NPCs can pod kill, so should CONCORD and FacPo if the player has low enough sec status - it would certainly give more meaning to being a perma-criminal if your pod is at risk, too.
3 Likes
Probably because they are not capsuleers, and CONCORD deals only with relations between casuleers. It must be bigger issue to permakill a human than to podkill a casuleer? Capsuleers have clones.
But when that would be the case, why are they not permakilling casuleers when they permakill some humans?
No logic there. No justice. No law.
In Poland we say: chlew obsrany gównem (sh!t strewn pigsty).
1 Like
Ah good one, yes I see.
Well Im not sure there could be many capsuleers who havent killed any normies.
RP people have told me in the past that the Empires are far more powerful than the Alliances. So why do they tolerate capsuleers at all? We do seem to be not much good for them.
The lore doesnt seem to acknowledge some stuff really happening in the game. Both things slide apart and explaiining some things to someone who is actually doing what game allows is impossible from the lore point of view here. CCP is pretending this game have any actual sensible lore pertaining to gameplay. Like with the Yulai convention.
There is no convention. Its a made up name for a sorry excuse. Things just are.
ERP is the best RP in EVE. Most sensible thing.
1 Like
I agree completely
1 Like
Clicked the wrong reply button …
No, it wouldn’t. Not one bit. It would actually remove content,
because now players won’t try hunting me anymore when I sit around in space, blinking.
I pay 10 million ISK every time someone successfully manages to pod me.
In 99% of all cases it was my fault, as I tend to forget I’m still sitting in space. 
It makes people happy, even if I get away …
… and it makes them even more happy when they catch me.
Anyhow, it’s not rocket science saving your pod in highsec and as suicide gankers know when they’ll explode …
… all they’d need to do is spamming warp, just like everyone should be doing when his ship’s exploding.
So, with that in mind, this would have to escalate to: CONCORD always pods and the pod can’t warp away …
… which would end up with people just having clones in the nearby stations without using implants …
… which, surprise surprise, is already the case.
You’d have to keep escalating the mechanics to the point where suicide ganking simply doesn’t happen anymore.
No offense, but you’re not qualified.
Yes I can see how that would need dealing with but wouldn’t it be easier just to have shooting the gate as not a thing based on the fact that shooting the gate is not a thing ?
Having the option with harsher consequences is better than not having the option at all.
Why would anyone choose to shoot a gate ? Oh you mean it hasn’t actually stopped people from doing it they just need to do it in a reaper ?
K yeah I see what you mean. One ship tanks the guns while the others do the gank.
Surely that means that the flag for aggressing a gate serves no purpose other than to help ganks to happen
I suppose the other option would be that one of them jettison’s a bullet in a can and the other one shoots it to get the same effect
Shoots the can, shoots the bullet, I’m sure there is some way the meaning of that is unintentionally ambiguous.
Your post is kind of confusing?
Anyhow.
Dropping a can takes too much time. As soon as gankers are out of warp …
… the countdown of the faction police starts.
But, yeah, in general it would be the same thing. Alternatively the guy at the gate could just shoot the target itself, of course.
It’s all the same now, as long as the tanker shoots first and the others afterwards.
Thing is though if you are actually at war and trying to shoot someone there is this indestructible object that is a common focus for battles being of tactical significance and will summon concord it you shoot it.
It’s kind of an accident waiting to happen.
You could have an overview column that removes gates but you sort of need to know where it is most of the time.
I guess you could use the safety to solve most of that.
That is the general expectation - unless one is intending to go criminal on purpose, safety should be yellow (or green, depending on your intended activities) anywhere CONCORD can be summoned. It is the game’s built in ‘I didn’t mean to shoot that!’ defense.
Set the protection button to yellow if you require it …
… but anyone who manages to ■■■■ up this badly deserves to get CONCORDed.
The player is not being defended …
… he is being protected from making mistakes.
It’s not semantics. The difference is significant.
But area effect weapons ?
As far as I know, you have to go red safety to use smart bombs in high sec - and regular bombs are not usable in Empire space. EDENCOM projection weapons probably are a bad idea to use near anyone that isn’t a legal target in high sec, because of the bounce effect.
ECM Burst Jammers too, can’t think of anything else off hand
You need to be able to hide a corpse in your stuff that gets left, so whoever takes it gets a surprise visit from the lancers 
2 Likes
There have been some odd “Instant Concord” attacks. I once was team mining an Anomaly before Scarcity, and my fleet member was defending himself from an Angel NPC, and was immediately Concorded. [There are some weird issues with NPC activity (Concord included)] And he lost everything in one go, because Concord thought his defending himself from an NPC was an offense.
Also there has not been a specific explaination of what Red, Yellow, Green settings does allow.
I found out that using Integrated and Augmented Drones on Rogue Drones requires Red Settings. Not sure why, but that does happen. Its a headache for sure.
1 Like
You would think, CONCORD would have some sort of “memory jail” tech. If you are this advanced to allow near instantons consciousness transfer, you would have tech to capture/detain/restrain said consciousness. Or even deny it the possibility of being transferred within an area.
Plus maybe even forcing a capsuler to “save consciousness” backups. Just for such an issue. Which also the fact that such “saved consciousnesses” might have been done at a time that your research que was a bit different. [Kind of like the random loss of skills for T3C.]
It would be a mechanic that would force players to really think out their actions a bit more carefully. Now once you go somewhere like lets say Null Space your pretty much in the clear because you are using seperate corp consciousness data transfer networks. [Although that might make for an interesting mechanic as well in corp vs corp battles.] Lately alot of players who have “awakened” after a few years, are finding themselves completely locked out of old materials or even unable to use jump clones etc.
I mean it would seem more reasonable to give some sort of heavy hitting punishment to ganking, and to make it “risky” within Empire High-Low Sec Space, because if you start smacking the gankers hard they will camp border systems on routes. But also it would leave Ganking as a “Strategic Option” for Null-Sec players trying to intercept major shipments moving out from High-Sec to Null Sec.
The current system really doesn’t work very well at all. And then you have all the weird glitches where Concord will attack people under odd circumstances. My big beef is . Webbing is a Concord Offense, but Warp Disrupting is not? Both need to be added as Concordable Offenses in High Sec.
2 Likes