open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Concord Policy Change Idea - Distress Beacon, High-Low sec responses
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Altemi Calabre
Posted - 2007.07.09 14:24:00 - [1]
 

Let me preface this with the expectation that this may be wildly unpopular but I hope that it can perhaps trigger meaningful discussion even if that is the case. Having said that, I've got my flame proof suit at the ready.

Let me begin with the key problems, as I see them, I believe need address:

1. Accidental Concord Deaths are universally viewed as senseless and frustrating. By accidental I mean those caused by repairing a friend who accidentally shoots you in a reverse autolock, concording you both, tripping a smart bomb by accident, or any other 'whaddya mean i turned on that hostile widget, aw man....' style fatality. Having never suffered one of these myself, I think pilot error has to take a lot of the blame, but I can appreciate the sense of frustration they generate.

2. Poor gradiation of Concord Response and autokill factor. Concord's responses gradiate not at all. Either they show up, sometimes a bit later than others (0.5 sec versus 1.0) and utterly wtfbbqpwn everything in sight, or they don't pay any attention at all ("Sorry son, that there is the wrong side of the tracks, we'll send yer ma a letter though.") This not only feels wrong but has made artificial bottleneck points that have no value save to support gate camping tactics that are neither fun for the camper (no one i know likes sitting still at a gate for 4-5 hours with their thumb up their patooskie) and campee (self explanatory really).

3. Low sec is not getting the traffic desired. This is especially pernicious as it is the training and stepping off point to get to the 0.0 game CCP feels is the 'bread and butter' of EVE. Common response dictates that more reward solely is not sufficient to improve low sec traffic, greater security is (rewards just don't match risk). However, hostile groups have a legitimate right to want to be able to operate in low security without fear of unanswerable/inescapable reprisal from Concord 'game mechanic' forces.

This led me to the following construct modeled around a distress call system.

As it stands currently, Concord autoresponds. Why? If i'm not in distress, why are they rushing to my aid?

I would propose that (preferably in some really obvious 'giant red button' style way) we have to actually 'call' Concord for intervention. Yes, this would mean that people in high sec on autopilot would be more vulnerable and not see immediate reprisal for being shot while afk... in space... travelling... with tasty tasty cargo... As my comments may indicate, this does not especially trouble me conceptually, but I recognize that this is probably a little undersirable for the rookie pilots who don't know any better. As such, I would think that an 'auto-distress' feature that can be turned on or off would be appropriate to sustain protection for new pilots especially. I also concede that the rules and notifications for distress calls would need to be clearly thought out to prevent from suddenly signalling distress AFTER you engaged a target. I should think a simple heuristic similar to the criminal flagging we have now would suffice, but this can be detailed if such a system is desirable.

Altemi Calabre
Posted - 2007.07.09 14:25:00 - [2]
 


The goal of having such a controlled distress system would be as follows:

a. By giving players the control over calling for concord help it lets the pilots determine if they want to summon Concord or not. If you cannot use a distress beacon if you have already aggressed against a player target within 'X' period, this ALSO means people can actually defend their corpmates in high security space as the pirate cannot make a distress call after attemping to attack in High Sec.

b. You could then actually allow Concord Responses in Low sec (as outlined below) following the same rules. However, it must be made clear, that such a change _mandates_ Concord be escapable (if not defeatable). This could mean that High sec attacks are NOT an autokill, but instead, are just highly probable deaths to the aggressors. This feels right on a lot of levels, especially if the victim ship can suddenly receive aid from nearby ships from a hostile aggressor who cannot transmit a distress call. (Personally, I also feel this system mandates no insurance payouts for any ship loss where concord participated against you... but that's a different debate perhaps)

c. Concord responses are not 'automatic'. This means the time to their arrival is not a certainty. To further this concept, I'd recommend a 'cycle time' on the distress call.

For the purpose of illustration, assume 30 second intervals, such that upon activating the distress beacon, Concord does a 'check' at 20 second intervals with the likelihood of a team being dispatched directly tied to the security status of the system.

1.0 -> 100%/cycle. This IS the most controlled space around.
.9 -> 90%/cycle
.8 -> 80%/cycle
.7 -> 70%/cycle
.6 -> 60%/cycle
.5 -> 50%/cycle
.4 -> 40%/cycle
.3 -> 30%/cycle
.2 -> 20%/cycle
.1 -> 10%/cycle

The percentages above could be tweaked accordingly to ensure weighting to aggressors chance to survive or victims chance to survive as appropriate. Much as it pains me to say it, if nearby vessels can assist ships in distress without Concord consequences, I'd suggest weighting it towards pirate surivival (yes, including in High Sec).

Also, as the likelihood of response diminishes, so should the scale of the fleet responding. There is no reason to assume Concord would send an entire battle wing to a distress call in .1 space as that is simply not likely to be available, nor wise to risk. It may even be worth making Concord ships 'killable' in such a scenario (though no doubt, DAMN dangerous).

To my mind, this address all the key problems above.

It let's pirates actually PIRATE and not just sit a flotilla at one place waiting for a turkey shoot.

It let's missioners/miners/explorers do so without needing their own personal fleet to have ANY hope of defense (keep in mind, they are still quite vulnerable in low sec unless EXTREMELY lucky, but there is hope for survival and assistance where currently, there is none whatsoever, the very thing keeping them out of low sec)

It makes Concord operate in a fashion that is decidedly less broken, irritating and intuitively flawed than it does now (personal belief, your opinion may differ).

It EVEN makes high sec fighting viable if very very risky. I recognize that any change that would impinge upon the pvp crowd in low sec as this model would MUST make some kind of concession as well, and i think the fact that concord could be escapable if you get out before they get in and not having it be an 'exploit' by default may fit the bill.

This was intended to be a rough overview of the concept, and I concede it has flaws that need refining to prevent exploitive uses, but I think we all want to see a return to some honest to god small gang activity, non Cap-Ship fighting fun and a reason to get everyone in more space than Empire. I think this proposal, or a variant, might be just the way to go.

Thanks for your attention, be merciful in your responses and I look forward to feedback.

Altemi

Radix Salvilines
legion industries ltd
AAA Citizens
Posted - 2007.07.09 20:30:00 - [3]
 

I like this idea much.

However this one is about NPC's... designing their behaviour is hard - like u said when victim hits distress button and yet his friends arrive and start shooting at agressor - hwo will game recognize who is the good one who is a bad one.
But thats doable imho.

The biggest barrier is that EVE is about PVP, what ure proposing is making in more realistic and a more suitable place for roleplaying. Unfortunately in majority its all about just killing each others in ships - no-one wants some damm npcs to interfere (maby just victims :P).
U messing up with the BIG RULE of EVE that we have high sec where we cant fight and the whole the rest when we can freely kill.

First off we should make a big refferendum in EVE who wants a pure-pvp game and who wants more realism and roleplaying. Im after that second one Very Happy

Well i support this idea and... /signed
Thou i really doubt those bloody narrow-minded (YARRRR!!) pvpers would like any changes in here :P

Altemi Calabre
Posted - 2007.07.09 20:34:00 - [4]
 

Actually, if done right, it should open up PvP in a more controlled fashion throughout the entirety of high sec as well (only 1.0 being guaranteed immediate response).

Please note the percentages were just suggestive.. you could easily scale them to not be so linear as well, but I do think some form of gradient is useful and if done right should mean Concord is a useful mitigator, not an all or nothing cosmic whammy. The current state of affairs is bad for 'carebear' and pirate alike IMHO.

Thanks for the feedback!

Altemi

Seiji Hannah
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2007.07.09 21:22:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Seiji Hannah on 09/07/2007 21:37:32
Edited by: Seiji Hannah on 09/07/2007 21:33:25
I definetly like this idea - would make Empire game enviroment not-so-static as it is now - this would be possible to evolve adding hirable NPC escorts for pilots that need it, perhaps even setup a system that would capture criminals when they are in a pod and hold them for a hefty fine or short term imprisonment, alerts in local channel with coordinates of the distress beacon so that players can assist the victim.


/signed

Sirius Problem
Darkness Inc.
Posted - 2007.07.09 21:40:00 - [6]
 

I really like this idea, but since the majority of the players are hi-sec, carebear, fluffy bunnies, it will never happen.

As it is now, unless you are stupid or the victim of a rare suicide gank, you are almost 100% safe in 0.5 and above. Carebears will never want to give that up.

Not only does the reduced response time go against the victim, the fact that they have to actively request assistance goes against them too.

Again, I really like the idea. It would make the game much more PvP oriented, would make the concept of the NPC cops more realistic, and would force players to actively play, instead of watching TV as they mine their Veld.

Seiji Hannah
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2007.07.09 22:11:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Seiji Hannah on 09/07/2007 22:18:39
If the distress signal is on by default - there will not be a need for a big red button - also this will change lowsec pirating making it alot more interesting as pirates will have to choose their prey carefully before engaging - no more shuttle and nubship kills - the bears will have a better chance of surviving a lowsec high-reward mission run with the ability to hire NPC escorts (perhaps with earned LPs).
The higher level mission agents should be availible exclusivly in lowsec - an system where people can farm missions afk and never worry about the risks is wrong for a PVP oriented game.

Sunborne
Posted - 2007.07.10 07:28:00 - [8]
 

I think the respond time percents in hi-sec should not go below 70% and the cycle time should be reduced to 10 sec. 20 seconds is be too much for a inndy waiting for help.

Also the lo-sec percents should be below 20% with the cycle 20 seconds.

The concord spawns should be painfully damaging, in a way that the campers would have to flee the site or risk being destroyed. Otherwise this could be exploitable by triggering concord spawns that could be also killed and looted. This could, of course, be fixed by spawning yet another wave of more powerful concord ships.

Del Narveux
Dukes of Hazard
Posted - 2007.07.10 08:52:00 - [9]
 

I kinda like this idea, except that concord in highsec (.7 and up at least) still needs to be a total bbqpwn, and concord response in lowsec needs to be really weak, like just a few frigs to help even the odds between a npc fitting and a pvp fitting. Otherwise highsec ganking would become even more problematic than it is now. Why pick semi-fair fights in lowsec when you and 10 friends can instagank indies outside jita 4-4 then run away with impunity?

Altemi Calabre
Posted - 2007.07.10 19:14:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Del Narveux
I kinda like this idea, except that concord in highsec (.7 and up at least) still needs to be a total bbqpwn, and concord response in lowsec needs to be really weak, like just a few frigs to help even the odds between a npc fitting and a pvp fitting. Otherwise highsec ganking would become even more problematic than it is now. Why pick semi-fair fights in lowsec when you and 10 friends can instagank indies outside jita 4-4 then run away with impunity?


Noted and I agree, that's something that has to be addressed.

Also, as mentioned previously, there needs to be careful thinking about the scale of concord response in general.

The point is that if we are going to expand Concord into lowse there must be some concession of risk distribution to better handle the idiotic disparity that exists currently. At present there should really only be High Sec and No Sec, and your comment about high sec ganking currently illustrates hands down how poorly this works in its laughable state.

The cycle times and percentages are indeed maleable but the 100% in >.5 and the 0% <.5 is just arbitrary and foolish in the current model.

There is a splinter problem i do see here in that by having ot potentially contend with concord responses, even small ones, might encourage pirates to still 'super gang' to ensure quick victories. However, the mitigation to that should be that even in low sec the responding force is dangerous _enough_ that said super group may be at a potential total loss scenario. In such a fashion, the better investment is not to risk a fleet of 10 ships when 1 or 2 is probably enough and less likely to cost you. This, again, is especially critical in the fact that deaths to concord should NOT yield insurance payouts. The fact that they ever did is stupefying.

Altemi

Raiiden
Gallente
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2007.07.10 19:46:00 - [11]
 

i think that a disstress call to concord is an excellent idea.

+ support

CrestoftheStars
Caldari
Recreation Of The World
Posted - 2007.07.10 21:32:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: CrestoftheStars on 10/07/2007 21:33:59
Edited by: CrestoftheStars on 10/07/2007 21:33:25
just a popup saying concord are asking if you need assistence? if yes they as good as spawn around you, shield and armour repair you and kill whoever attacked.
if no, they will not left a finger and the attacker will not get a sec hit

edit.
for autopilot.. make it jump to 0, i really don't see any reason, or realism why not.
and shooting on a person set to autopilot would result in concorded immidiately.

Del Narveux
Dukes of Hazard
Posted - 2007.07.10 22:42:00 - [13]
 

The other problem is that if were going to make concord response variable in 'highsec' there needs to be a total revamp of how almost everything else works in terms of isk making. Basically, whether you can get killed or not (not counting suicide ganks) is a binary situation, either you die or you dont. Theres no miracle max to ride in and say youre only mostly dead so you only lose some of your stuff. So no matter where we draw the line theres always going to be a 'safe zone' that lots of people live in because they dont have the desire or ability to continually be replacing stuff they lose from getting ganked by 20 people. Taking a 100mil hit from a decently fitted mission BS loss may mean nothing to someone who plays the game 8 hours a day, but theres a lot of people who play 1-2 hours a day and thats a pretty serious loss if its going to be happening on a regular basis.

Perhaps we could have like 1.0-0.6 be highsec like it is now, 0.5-0.3 be 'midsec' as you describe and with much better isk making potential (almost as good as 0.0 is now maybe, perhaps also move L4 agents out here since a mission BS should have a fair chance of tanking long enough for concord to show up), and 0.1 and 0.2 be oldschool lowsec for people who want no concord but for whatever reason dont wanna chill in .0.

Bobo Biggles
Gallente
Legio Decimus Inc
Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage
Posted - 2007.07.11 02:23:00 - [14]
 

I like the idea of the "Big Red Button". In high sec this could summon CONCORD to your aid, in low sec it would summon aid from the faction/corp that controls the system, the response could be based on your standing with that faction/corp. For example:

a) Your peacefully jumping from system to system when your attacked in a 0.9 system, you hit the "BRB" CONCORD shows up and the fireworks begin.

b) Your doing your thing in 0.4 Space, a nice little system controlled by "ABC Corp", you have never had dealings with "ABC" but you've been a good little pod pilot and trained your social skills and have a neutral standing with them. You get attacked by "Some Random Bad Dude". "SRBD" also has had no dealings with "ABC". You hit your "BRB" a police response from "ABC" shows up and helps you out with a nice show of firepower, nothing huge, since you don't have much of a standing with them.

c) Your mining away in 0.2 space, the system is controlled by "XYZ Corp", and you have a standing of 1.5 with said corp, you get attacked, you hit the "BRB" a response team from the "XYZ Police" respond to your cry for help. You have a good standing with them so they send a fair sized force. When they jump in you discover that the dude that attacked you has a standing of 2.0 with "XYZ" instead of attacking the bad guy, they might join in and your the target of the fireworks show.

Also, who said Concord HAS to stay in high sec, random patrols could wander the lower sec systems. (A random chance that you get a CONCORD response rather than a Faction/Corp response.)

I may not be explaining this all very well, but several friends and I have talked about this several times. Adding something like the "Big Red Button" would allow further interaction with the game, you'd keep a closer eye on who controls which systems, perhaps you'd plan your routes based on what places you had a good standing with. Perhaps you could purchase "flight insurance" a contract that would assure a response from the local "police force" if needed.

I'm sure that ideas like this give CCP nightmares, but they have given us a very cool sandbox and, I for one, want more cool tools to build my little sand castles. And by the way CCP, don't worry about the nightmares, sometimes that monster in the closet turns out to be a big fuzzy blue dude with the voice of a famous actor.

DoJaan Farique
Gallente
Punishers Of Evil
Posted - 2007.07.11 04:17:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: DoJaan Farique on 11/07/2007 04:17:22
edited for readability
/signed in any form really

But a couple of ideas(additionally, I didn't read much of anything I didn't like):

1. Put warp jammer towers at gates and stations. This all but ensures that the target of the concordonkken won't make it. Obviously, put in more/stronger ones in higher sec areas, few/weak in low sec.

2. Adjust the response chance in relation to negative security standing of the aggressor.

That is to say that someone with a .01 sec standing will get the same chance of response as a 10.0 sec standing, but someone with a -.01 has a SLIGHTLY greater chance of seeing the working end of a CONCORD turret. Someone with a -4.9 is almost guaranteed that view.

At the very least, this would require high-sec pirates to run mission after mission to keep they're standings in the no-kill range.

Altemi Calabre
Posted - 2007.07.11 14:08:00 - [16]
 

Some excellent ideas on leveraging security status and standings into this I hadn't considered giving them considerably more value.

On the thought of local control dispatching standing related forces to assist in low sec? Flavour wise I love it. Hands down just sounds right.

Unfortunately, much as I personally like the idea I think it's probably a boat load of work jsut to intelligently standardize and handle concord responses. If we're just talking about a 'redress' to local ship types with identical abilities? Probably just as well to stick to pure Concord responses, at least initially. Don't mistake this as disrespect for the idea, I thought it has real merit.

Perhaps good areas to focus attention on presently would be:

1. Scales of response / sec level (and escapable/not escapable... the 'no escape means less grief monkeys' argument probably has merti as someone has pointed out already)

2. Rate/rapidity of response cycle and % chance per sec level. I assumed a steady sliding scale in the example but that is admittedly a bit constricting. Both the chance of response and cycle time are modulated variables potentially, meaning as you go lower and lower sec you can have a longer cycle response time as well as reduced chance of response. This could make lowest sec's (.1/.2) truly risky but still have some actual hope of intervention if you can stay the course.

Are these the areas that we'd need properly itemized to ensure this idea has been thought through? Or another area?

Altemi

Nicoli Malthus
Caldari
Tangential Endeavors
Posted - 2007.07.11 16:41:00 - [17]
 

Signed and signed again!

There are a bunch of awesome ideas here, that would really make the game more fun. Personally i like high sec better, because it's no fun at all trying to go to lowsec, even if it is to learn and look around, and having a gate guarded by 15 ships, and then get ransomed to stay alive.

I personally despise gate tanking, because it just shows you have to much time on your hands and no real skill. If pirates are going to gate tank, then the gates should have better defenses, and the pirate should have to sit at least 50km away, that way you can warp to it, and fly thru.

The reason i stay in high sec is because 95% of the lowsec people are jerks and just want to destroy you, instead of teach you and ask you to join them. I don't like to pvp, i like to play the game, look around for hiddent things, make discoveries, thats what makes the game fun to me, not getting my ass handed to my by 15 jackass's with to much time on their hands.

I work all day, i come home, and play eve to relax, not get worked up even more from a long day.

So all these items that everyone has discussed here, really peak my interest, and it would be nice if CCP fixed what is currently here, instead of spending time on putting new stuff in the game, we have plenty, now fix what we have!

Altemi Calabre
Posted - 2007.07.11 17:50:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Nicoli Malthus
Signed and signed again!

There are a bunch of awesome ideas here, that would really make the game more fun. Personally i like high sec better, because it's no fun at all trying to go to lowsec, even if it is to learn and look around, and having a gate guarded by 15 ships, and then get ransomed to stay alive.

I personally despise gate tanking, because it just shows you have to much time on your hands and no real skill. If pirates are going to gate tank, then the gates should have better defenses, and the pirate should have to sit at least 50km away, that way you can warp to it, and fly thru.

The reason i stay in high sec is because 95% of the lowsec people are jerks and just want to destroy you, instead of teach you and ask you to join them. I don't like to pvp, i like to play the game, look around for hiddent things, make discoveries, thats what makes the game fun to me, not getting my ass handed to my by 15 jackass's with to much time on their hands.

I work all day, i come home, and play eve to relax, not get worked up even more from a long day.

So all these items that everyone has discussed here, really peak my interest, and it would be nice if CCP fixed what is currently here, instead of spending time on putting new stuff in the game, we have plenty, now fix what we have!


I do think it's worth stressing that the goal here is not to make low sec 'safe'. Not by any means. Safer? Less perceived as utterly suicidal? Yes. But these do need to be dangerous places and the pirates do have cause in wanting to be able to attack and practice their trade. The key here is that a balance between outright chaos and 'just not worth it' and 'well, it's risky, but I think I can manage some risk' through a smarter application of Concord should let pirates still pirate in lowsec without it being essentially 0.0 'lite-brew'. Additionally, some of the changes i'm proposing make high sec more, not less, vulnerable if the pilot isn't paying attention or just in general as Concord may actually have delayed and escapable responses.

I think that a gradiation is better to help all pilots get a better sense of risk managmement to value proposition and this kind of approach should give an dtake from predators and prey to a better spread of activity for all. I mean, it would be nice if the sec of a system MEANT something past 'shooty/no shooty'.

I hear what you are saying about the frustrations of low sec, but I don't want the idea I proposed to be mis-construed as a 'those doity pirates need concordin!' concept, for that is not it's intent. :) Not saying that you were suggesting that, merely that reading your post made me realize some clarification may be in order. :)

Altemi

SithSnak3
Amarr
Silent Guard
FREGE Alliance
Posted - 2007.07.11 18:32:00 - [19]
 

I mention this over a year ago, and was told to Take it on the chin.its part of eve.
yes,It is a major glinch, the player should have the option to decide to Kill the said party by way of concord, or to refuss any action from concord. why else have a gang mate,Why have Shield and Armour Drones?. to Help, Not to Be accidently fired upon.
This is a Issue I have brought up Many times with CCP
Sith

Kristov Keen
Reverentia
Illuminati.
Posted - 2007.07.11 20:58:00 - [20]
 

Really nice idea. It could be a solution to macroers. if you suspect someone is macroing you could shoot them (in a frig at first) and see if they react by calling for concord. if they don't just keep on shooting Very Happy

Though i can also see haulers and anyone on autopilot being angry with this idea. as i'm sure like me when most people go on AP they pay attention to something else (in game or out of game) so presumably the moment the autopilot detects aggression it'll press the distress button and alert the pilot somehow. - Just an Idea, dunno.



TimMc
Brutal Deliverance
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2007.07.11 22:01:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Altemi Calabre
a. By giving players the control over calling for concord help it lets the pilots determine if they want to summon Concord or not. If you cannot use a distress beacon if you have already aggressed against a player target within 'X' period, this ALSO means people can actually defend their corpmates in high security space as the pirate cannot make a distress call after attemping to attack in High Sec.


While I like the concept, I imagine that this would lead to newbie players not knowing they have to press this button, and would die. It would have to be pretty obvious of a button, maybe a bit red one that flashes when your attacked.

Originally by: Altemi Calabre
b. You could then actually allow Concord Responses in Low sec (as outlined below) following the same rules. However, it must be made clear, that such a change _mandates_ Concord be escapable (if not defeatable). This could mean that High sec attacks are NOT an autokill, but instead, are just highly probable deaths to the aggressors. This feels right on a lot of levels, especially if the victim ship can suddenly receive aid from nearby ships from a hostile aggressor who cannot transmit a distress call. (Personally, I also feel this system mandates no insurance payouts for any ship loss where concord participated against you... but that's a different debate perhaps)


Would agree with being several levels of Concord response, but I do think that 1.0-0.9 concord should at least be instagib to protect new players in their ibis that I am killing for laughs. RazzYARRRR!! Ok, I probably wouldn't, but someone would I am certain.

Originally by: Altemi Calabre
c. Concord responses are not 'automatic'. This means the time to their arrival is not a certainty. To further this concept, I'd recommend a 'cycle time' on the distress call.

For the purpose of illustration, assume 30 second intervals, such that upon activating the distress beacon, Concord does a 'check' at 20 second intervals with the likelihood of a team being dispatched directly tied to the security status of the system.

1.0 -> 100%/cycle. This IS the most controlled space around.
.9 -> 90%/cycle
.8 -> 80%/cycle
.7 -> 70%/cycle
.6 -> 60%/cycle
.5 -> 50%/cycle
.4 -> 40%/cycle
.3 -> 30%/cycle
.2 -> 20%/cycle
.1 -> 10%/cycle


How about a 10 second cycle time, and after 5 failed cycles concord would not appear at all (like salvagers destroying their wrecks after a while). Also new percentages that aren't linear and descriptions on the sizes and armaments of Concord.

1.0 & 0.9 -> 100%/cycle --- Concord fleet insta-pop
0.8 & 0.7 -> 80%/cycle --- Concord fleet with Ewar and good firepower, allowing the person being attacked to escape and (if smart) the attacker to escape aswell
0.6 & 0.5 -> 55%/cycle --- Concord squad with some Ewar and good firepower
0.4 & 0.3 -> 25%/cycle --- Concord squad with good firepower and tanks
0.2 & 0.1 -> 5%/cycle --- Concord squad with good firepower but can be defeated if tanked

If it was like this, it would still protect the new carebears, let pirates have change of going into highsec, and allow carebears into lowsec with less risk than before.

/signed

Altemi Calabre
Posted - 2007.07.11 22:32:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: SithSnak3
I mention this over a year ago, and was told to Take it on the chin.its part of eve.
yes,It is a major glinch, the player should have the option to decide to Kill the said party by way of concord, or to refuss any action from concord. why else have a gang mate,Why have Shield and Armour Drones?. to Help, Not to Be accidently fired upon.
This is a Issue I have brought up Many times with CCP
Sith



If CCP has said take it on the chin then hopefully they will say so again and spare us the efforts of revisiting an idea in hopes of genuine improvement that they have no intention of changing.

I don't doubt you mate, and I truly believed someone would have thought of something similar before now. But perhaps with the changes to sovereignty recently and the inescapable realization that their current model of low sec is simply untenable and not having the desired effects of spreading people throughout various levels of risk, they would be willing to pay some attention to your originally good concept and my current resurrection of the idea (credit where credit is due to you!).

We can but hope?

Altemi

Altemi Calabre
Posted - 2007.07.11 22:39:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Kristov Keen
Really nice idea. It could be a solution to macroers. if you suspect someone is macroing you could shoot them (in a frig at first) and see if they react by calling for concord. if they don't just keep on shooting Very Happy

Though i can also see haulers and anyone on autopilot being angry with this idea. as i'm sure like me when most people go on AP they pay attention to something else (in game or out of game) so presumably the moment the autopilot detects aggression it'll press the distress button and alert the pilot somehow. - Just an Idea, dunno.




Just a reminder that the default would be 'always on'. This means that even for rookies (or especially for?) the automatic expectation is Concord response to hostile actions. Yes, some poor rookie could be tricked into turning the auto-distress off (like any veteran pilot not autopiloting around would no doubt prefer, but even they could reactivate auto-distress if auto-piloting) but the moment they are attacked the 'pop-up' someone previously suggested (a better idea than an ACTUAL big red button :) ) should say 'You are under criminal attack! Do you require CONCORD assistance?' and the noob killer is about to have a very bad day.

I do hope the logic in some better control and gradiation of Concord responses as a means to shape traffic does give this idea the purchase we all seem to feel it merits.

Altemi


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only