These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[proposal] Bringing CONCORD to lowsec (it's not what you think!)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#61 - 2011-09-26 20:30:08 UTC
This idea would generally make lowsec default to being more pirate-friendly with things like kickout stations and slower sentry guns, making it easier for pirates and outlaws to escape or tank. Only when there is a CONCORD presence occupying the system does it become similar to what it is today.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Andrea Griffin
#62 - 2011-09-27 18:02:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Griffin
As someone who engages in lowsec piracy, I support this idea. Anything that would make lowsec a bit safer and allow anti-pirate types to have some real effect means more targets for me to play with and more pew pew.

FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Rixx Javix wrote:
While interesting this idea is a little one sided isn't it?
It's not destroying anything. if you feel that this is one-sided against the pirates, then how about some ideas on how to balance it?
If only deputies can see someone's GCC then there is already a bit of a balancing factor to this, as anyone in system who is NOT a deputy would not have any notice of a GCC event. Not really a big boon for the pirates, but it's something.

Besides, being a warpable beacon won't help the locals catch you. Just keep warping around the system until your GCC wears off. I imagine that activating a cloaking device would cause the beacon to disappear? What about wormholes? If I can't dock or jump I should still be able to pop through a wormhole.

What about allowing a pirate corporation to take control of these beacons? Then what? OvO

CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#63 - 2011-09-27 18:44:01 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
This idea would generally make lowsec default to being more pirate-friendly with things like kickout stations and slower sentry guns, making it easier for pirates and outlaws to escape or tank. Only when there is a CONCORD presence occupying the system does it become similar to what it is today.



I didn't see the part with slower sentry guns in the op.

If they slow sentry guns are we going to see insta-locking thrashers/stilletoes on every gate catching frigates long enough for a second point then warping off?

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Otto Weston
Pod Goo Extraction Agency
#64 - 2011-09-27 20:05:30 UTC
+1
Everything's Air Droppable at least once.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#65 - 2011-09-27 21:48:58 UTC
Cearain wrote:
I didn't see the part with slower sentry guns in the op.


Don't think it was. It would probably take 3 posts to put all the information together at this point. As people bring up balance concerns I've taken that into account and suggested changes or additions.

Cearain wrote:
If they slow sentry guns are we going to see insta-locking thrashers/stilletoes on every gate catching frigates long enough for a second point then warping off?

That's one of those balance things to consider during development.

I'd see that as being a valid strat...if the pirates can prevent a fleet from taking over the concord outpost and beefing up the gate guns, they SHOULD get the benefit of being able to catch and kill most targets they find.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Spl0itz
#66 - 2011-09-28 12:08:24 UTC
I like this proposal.
Every reason to bring people to populate lowsec is good.

However, like others here, I do believe that this is a one-sided proposal.
Strengthening the 'good side' is a valid idea, filling a missing piece of gameplay in low-sec, but it might as well discourage pirates to actually go fight in those player-secured systems.

My point being: could we imagine a system that gives a bit of reward to pirates in those player-secured systems? Deputies would gain Concord LPs for bringing pirates down, so why not give a similar reward to the latter?

The system could work as follow:
- In unclaimed low-sec systems, pirates could gain tiny LP reward (based on ships, SS difference, etc) with the Cartel counterpart of the official empire for kills.
- In player-secured low-secs, pirates would get an overall better LP reward, and a special bonus for taking down deputies themselves.

From a RP point of view, it would reinforce the idea of low-sec being a buffer area with the Null-Sec Cartel-controlled areas, and also give motives to Pirates to fight in those deputies-secured systems...

Just my 2 isks.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#67 - 2011-09-28 20:45:45 UTC
Spl0itz wrote:
I like this proposal.
Every reason to bring people to populate lowsec is good.

However, like others here, I do believe that this is a one-sided proposal.
Strengthening the 'good side' is a valid idea, filling a missing piece of gameplay in low-sec, but it might as well discourage pirates to actually go fight in those player-secured systems.

My point being: could we imagine a system that gives a bit of reward to pirates in those player-secured systems? Deputies would gain Concord LPs for bringing pirates down, so why not give a similar reward to the latter?

The system could work as follow:
- In unclaimed low-sec systems, pirates could gain tiny LP reward (based on ships, SS difference, etc) with the Cartel counterpart of the official empire for kills.
- In player-secured low-secs, pirates would get an overall better LP reward, and a special bonus for taking down deputies themselves.

From a RP point of view, it would reinforce the idea of low-sec being a buffer area with the Null-Sec Cartel-controlled areas, and also give motives to Pirates to fight in those deputies-secured systems...

Just my 2 isks.


I like the idea of pirate LPs for killing deputies.

If you want to take it a step further and create lowsec-specific PvE content, you could have pirate and concord missions where the job requires venturing into enemy-occupied space. Again, probably better for CCP to put that sort of detail into it, I'm more interested in creating a new system for small groups to get more action.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Dick Jones
Omega Celestial Procurement
#68 - 2011-09-29 00:19:52 UTC
I like the idea, but instead of holding a control bunker or at least in augmentation of it, it should require a POS presence as well.
This would ensure that the industry element of a corp is in tact and make eve itself more balanced.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#69 - 2011-09-29 00:51:28 UTC
**** Jones wrote:
I like the idea, but instead of holding a control bunker or at least in augmentation of it, it should require a POS presence as well.
This would ensure that the industry element of a corp is in tact and make eve itself more balanced.


This is a good idea... but I would push it farther and make the control bunker a type of POS (or maybe a type of TCU). Perhaps require a concord charter as a fuel requirement, and a certain level of corp standings to anchor, and maybe a certain corp sec status to keep it online.
Zirse
Risktech Analytics
#70 - 2011-09-29 19:29:25 UTC
The only thing a mandatory POS would ensure is a headache. You're delusional if you think a POS brings about industry. Industry may require a few POSes, but it doesn't work vice versa.

Anyways OP, I have to say this is a great idea BUT I have to strongly disagree with the GCC beacons following players. That would just swing the pendulum too far against pirates.

You're going to get systems where there are always deputies online and moving beacons would basically make any non-frigate piracy an act of suicide. While confining piracy to frigates seems to make sense, in practice it would be bad gameplay.

A general one time beacon at the GCC site would allow pirates to make short work of soft targets, but for anything serious they'd be taking a big risk.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#71 - 2011-09-29 19:34:55 UTC
Zirse wrote:
The only thing a mandatory POS would ensure is a headache. You're delusional if you think a POS brings about industry. Industry may require a few POSes, but it doesn't work vice versa.

Anyways OP, I have to say this is a great idea BUT I have to strongly disagree with the GCC beacons following players. That would just swing the pendulum too far against pirates.

You're going to get systems where there are always deputies online and moving beacons would basically make any non-frigate piracy an act of suicide. While confining piracy to frigates seems to make sense, in practice it would be bad gameplay.

A general one time beacon at the GCC site would allow pirates to make short work of soft targets, but for anything serious they'd be taking a big risk.


Fleet up with someone and try to catch them using warp to member. It's not as easy as you think. Remember than when you warp to a moving target, you warp to where it is WHEN YOU CLICK WARP, not to where it's going. This will just mean that pirates in concord-controlled systems would have to be willing to run like hell for 15 minutes.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Sor'Ral
Ascendance Of New Eden
Workers Trade Federation
#72 - 2011-09-30 15:06:34 UTC
Spl0itz wrote:
I like this proposal.
Every reason to bring people to populate lowsec is good.

However, like others here, I do believe that this is a one-sided proposal.
Strengthening the 'good side' is a valid idea, filling a missing piece of gameplay in low-sec, but it might as well discourage pirates to actually go fight in those player-secured systems.

My point being: could we imagine a system that gives a bit of reward to pirates in those player-secured systems? Deputies would gain Concord LPs for bringing pirates down, so why not give a similar reward to the latter?

The system could work as follow:
- In unclaimed low-sec systems, pirates could gain tiny LP reward (based on ships, SS difference, etc) with the Cartel counterpart of the official empire for kills.
- In player-secured low-secs, pirates would get an overall better LP reward, and a special bonus for taking down deputies themselves.

From a RP point of view, it would reinforce the idea of low-sec being a buffer area with the Null-Sec Cartel-controlled areas, and also give motives to Pirates to fight in those deputies-secured systems...

Just my 2 isks.




Great idea to help flesh out the Pirate side!
Aineko Macx
#73 - 2011-10-04 14:01:36 UTC
I like the direction this idea is headed. Like posted above, if you incentivize anti-piracy, you should also improve piracy itself. I still think the "Corruption" concept presented at eve vegas was great, with sort of safe havens for pirates. Combined with the OP proposal and maybe a reworked bounty system this could be awesome.

iveeCore 3.0: The PHP engine for industrial activities and CREST library
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#74 - 2011-10-04 14:30:20 UTC



On the EVE main page at the very bottom there used to be a tiny little selection you could find that listed the "plans" for the future.


It listed a variety of things the devs wished for coming in the future. It's been removed now, because most of them have actually come to fruition, such as Planetary Interaction, Walking, Faction Warfare and a few others.


One of them listed was called "Low Sec Viceroys" - I don't agree with the system you are proposing. If you've tried FW, you'll understand why the FW system really isn't a good system.


However, the Viceroy-ship of Low Sec would still be a fun way of having "Sovereignty-Lite". I don't know what you could specifically do with it, and that's probably the major reason there is no big push for Sov-Lite in low sec, however, I'd say there's a lot of reasons that it could be a viable tool for low sec.


Where I am.
Metallius
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#75 - 2011-10-04 19:51:33 UTC
Well they said they wanted to do something of people working as concord in a fanfest but that they were triying to find ways of people not being to exploit this. Maybe someone can have concord status and pass intel to their frineds of were is soemone going and traps etc...

But is a good raw idea
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#76 - 2011-10-05 18:01:36 UTC
+1
(did they remove the vote for check box? cause i don't see it and the sticky still says to check it)
Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
#77 - 2011-10-06 15:12:49 UTC
eve was going to have something like this except they were cosmos agents. you needed very high security to use them and they would hand out pirate kill missions/bounty missions so you could kill them in high/low sec with no threat to gate guns. this including podding to collect a higher reward & bounty.

expand this to corp missions to hunt/kill other corps.
Solo Player
#78 - 2011-10-24 22:48:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Solo Player
+1

Hate to resurrect, but this deserves another day in the sun and needs be picked up by CSM.
Not so hot about the bounty system here - Ogopogo's idea (yonder) seems better and so much more elegant and easy to implement.

Edit: sorry, link added.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#79 - 2011-10-24 22:53:48 UTC
Solo Player wrote:
+1

Hate to resurrect, but this deserves another day in the sun and needs be picked up by CSM.
Not so hot about the bounty system here - Ogopogo's idea seems better and so much more elegant and easy to implement.


I haven't seen his, but I'm sure there are better-planned bounty ideas out there. I just think that an expansion that features such an emphasis on concord and piracy should also include the new bounty system so many people want.

I'm curious to see what new content is coming in the winter expansion.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
coden1ke
The Regency
The Monarchy
#80 - 2011-10-25 00:40:07 UTC
+1